Loading...
07/18/1989 - Minutes PROCAPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, July 18, 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. Ms. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive ing time and that the hearing time Director, reviewed the schedule of should be 6: 50 p.m. and not 6:40. public hearings on the agenda. She said Bill Wright would be She said the Deja Vu petition giving the presentation for Plan- (item D1 ) could be referred to the ning and Zoning at the hearing. City Attorney to make possible She added that Janice Jardine changes differentiating between would be giving the presentation Class "C" taverns and private for the DeNiro petition, #400-669, clubs. She said Janice Jardine of and that Bob Buchanan from Capital Planning and Zoning would be Planning would give the presenta- making the presentation at the tion on the Jazz Arena Urban hearing. Development Action Grant (UDAG) application. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Iker petition (item D2 ) had been put on Ms. Gust-Jenson said Jane Strom- hold at the request of the peti- quist, a resident from the Ave- tioners but the Council should go nues, would be speaking to the ahead with the hearing and allow Council concerning a Board of people to comment if they were Adjustment decision to allow a new prepared to do so. parking lot to be built in the Avenues near the LDS business Bill Wright, Planning and Zoning, college. said the Ikers wanted to expand their business by 45 feet along Council Member Fonnesbeck said the one side and Planning and Zoning main problem was that the Board of wanted to rezone the entire sec- Adjustment allowed the building of tion of the block. Mr. Wright the new lot with no conditions and said the abutting property owners that the neighborhood was upset objected to the expansion at because it set a precedent which first, until the Ikers purchased could lead to many new parking the property. He said the Iker lots in the area. She said one of zoning change was tied to a down- the existing lots at the college zoning of the nearby property and was used as a thoroughfare between that the rezoning process was homes and that the neighborhood starting all over for the entire wanted the traffic rerouted in area. Council Member Horrocks exchange for the new lot. said that the area being zoned B-3 Council Member Kirk asked what the was full of very old houses. Council could say in response to Ms. Gust-Jenson said item G4, Ms. Stromquist' s concerns. Ms. Petition #400-732, Clark Develop- Fonnesbeck said that Planning and ment, had a misprint in the hear- Zoning had refused the request for 89-203 PROCIRINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 the new lot but the Board of since the Mayor had the responsi- Adjustment had the final say and bility to negotiate those matters. they allowed the lot and refused Council Member Stoler said the to reconsider the issue. Council was brought into the discussion because of the high Bill Wright said that the planning profile the issue had taken. staff asked for reconsideration but the Executive Committee would Mayor DePaulis said the conflict not reopen the issue. Ms. in appraisals came from different Fonnesbeck said she was writing a appraisers hired by Clark Develop- letter to the Mayor_ and the City - ment, - not -from -the City:- -Craig - - -- Attorney discussing the possibili- Peterson said the City was com- ty of drafting an ordinance desig- fortable with negotiating street nating the City Council the final value for public benefits. appeal board for zoning questions. Council Member Godfrey asked for a Craig Peterson, Director of Commu- clarification on Simpson Avenue's nity and Economic Development, involvement. Mr. Peterson said reviewed the issues involved with the City wanted to keep Simpson the proposed Clark Development Avenue open in exchange for not project in the Sugarhouse area. requiring Clark to go through the He passed out a list of the Admin- Planned Unit Development process. istration's recommendations and He said that this would improve reviewed each one. (Attachment 1 ) . traffic flows for the City and speed up the permit process for Council Member Fonnesbeck said Clark Development. that people were concerned about the time frame for moving the Mr. Peterson said that in case houses from Simpson Avenue. Ed negotiations for public benefit Snow, Community Relations Coordi- didn' t come to terms, the differ- nator for the Council, said that ence in value could be added to with the number of house movers in the UDAG loan. the Salt Lake valley it may be physically impossible to move the number of houses on Simpson in the available time. Mayor Palmer DePaulis said that Pete Suazo of his staff was leading a team formed to look at the area and decide which houses could be moved, salvaged or demolished, and how to best go about it. Mr. Peterson said that Clark Development wanted the streets deeded to them in exchange for the value of public benefits put in around the development. Council Member Hardman asked if the dis- cussion focused on the cash value of the streets and alleys. Mr. Peterson said that it did. Ms. Fonnesbeck asked why the land values were being discussed at all 89-204 _ CITY or. MINUTES JULY 1989 ATTACHMENT 1 Pegarding Petition #400-732, the administration supports the planning commission's recommendation that the city close and sell the public streets and alleys in the area located between Simpson Avenue and Interstate 80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East. However, we would modify the recommendation as follows: 1. We would recommend the streets and alleys be closed and sold to adjoining property owners, with the exception of Simpson Avenue, and that the closure be effective once all residential occupancy has ended. 2. We would recommend that the City Council table the closure of Simpson Avenue for reconsideration after the Shopko building permit is issued. - (This action could permit the issuance of-the building permit for Shopko without the planned unit development process and without the Board of Adjustment action. ) 3. We would recommend that the City Council consider a legislative intent that the Mayor, in negotiating the transfer of the city property due to the closure of the public ways, should consider an exchange of public benefits, in lieu of cash. The Mayor could consider the following public amenities as compensation for the public streets and alleys, in negotiating With Clark Financial: • a. Public access for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles through the Ashton Avenue area. • • b. Pedestrian access to the core of Sugarhouse through a promenade from the existing and proposed centers, with lighting/ benches, and drinking fountains. c. Landscaping and tree requirements greatly in excess of that required by C3A zoning, providing protection for the urban forest of Salt Lake City. d. Possible equity position in the project through the Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency. e. Off site storm drainage detention capacity. f. Architectural compatibility with the thematic features in the public way improvements in the Sugarhouse district. . g. Installation of acceptable terminus on Stringham Avenue for existing businesses. 89-204A PROCEOINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 18, 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, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn - -- Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Kirk conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES trees. Ms. Stromquist said the Board of Adjustment turned away #1. There was no invocation. nine people who opposed the lot and were prepared to address the #2. The Council led the issue at a public hearing. She Pledge of Allegiance. said they ignored complaints about the college' s existing lot, ig- nored the decision of the Land- COMMENTS marks Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and ignored Jane Stromquist, Avenues the nature of this historical resident, complained about a neighborhood. parking lot being constructed by LDS Business College in a residen- She referred to a letter tial area located between 72 and written by William Littig, presi- 82 C Street. She said she thought dent of the neighborhood council, the decision by the Board of on behalf of the neighborhood Adjustment to allow this parking which indicated that they did not lot was capricious and should be oppose the lot and she said in her cancelled since she said it showed opinion Mr. Littig should not have contempt for the will of the written this letter since he had people. She said she had talked recently done glass work for the to an attorney who told her that college. She also said members of this decision would set a prece- the Board of Adjustment acted in dent thereby making it difficult an insulting and arrogant way. to deny other requests. She said this decision was in Ms. Stromquist said the Board opposition to the R/UDAT recom- of Adjustment ignored the names of mendations and the Mayor' s program 338 people who signed a petition to preserve the integrity of opposing this parking lot. She residential and historical neigh- said area residents were upset borhoods. She said this decision about too many cars, noise, pollu- showed no regard for the impact on tion, and the ugliness of more property values or aesthetic asphalt. She said the neighbor- values. hood cared about green space and 89-205 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITF, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Councilmember Fonnesbeck said maintenance of a storm drain under she wrote a letter to the Board of State Highway 89. Adjustment asking them to re- (C 89-369) consider their decision and con- sider applying conditions, but #3. RE: Setting a date for a they flatly refused to do so. She public hearing for Tuesday, August said the Council couldn't reverse 8, 1989, at 6:50 p.m. to obtain the Board' s decision since it public comment concerning a pro- wasn't within their power; only a posed ordinance on establishing a court could reverse their deci- non-refundable business license sion. - - -application fee. (0 89-29) Councilmember Hardman said he was unclear about the position of #4. RE: Setting a date for the Avenue' s Community Council. a public hearing for Tuesday, Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the August 8, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to community council voted not to obtain public comment concerning a oppose the lot but didn't think it proposed ordinance regarding would be approved without condi- certificates of convenience and tions. necessity for horse-drawn carri- ages. Craig Nelson, Avenue' s resi- (0 89-32) dent, said that the Board of Adjustment had refused to consider #5. RE: Setting a date for imposing conditions on the devel- a public hearing for Tuesday, opment and agreed that the resi- August 8, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to dents had been treated unfairly. obtain public comment concerning a He said he thought the Board proposed ordinance regulating needed to be given some direction, horse-drawn-carriage businesses within Salt Lake City. (0 89-31) CONSENT AGENDA #6. RE: Setting a date for Councilmember Godfrey moved a public hearing to be held Tues- and Councilmember Hardman sec- day, August 1, 1989, at 6:40 p.m. onded to approve the consent to obtain public comment concern- agenda, which motion carried, all ing a proposed amendment to the members voted aye. 1989-90 Fiscal Year budget. (B 89-5) #1. RE: Setting a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, #7. RE: Setting a date for August 8, 1989, at 6:40 p.m. to a public hearing to be held Tues- obtain public comment concerning a day, August 8, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. proposed ordinance regarding to obtain public comment concern- bicycle dealer fees. ing Petition No. 400-596 submitted (0 89-30) by Banj Investment requesting that Salt Lake City close the alley #2. RE: Adopting Resolution located at approximately 750 South 94 of 1989 authorizing the execu- 25 West. tion of an interlocal cooperation (P 88-260) agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Depart- #8. RE: Adopting Ordinance ment of Transportation for a 42 of 1989 amending Title 12, license for construction and 89-206 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITTc, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Chapter 44, Section 210, Subpara- licensed with either a Class C graph A, of the Salt Lake City beer license, which allowed the Code, 1988, relating to stop sale of draft beer, or a Class B intersections and re-lettering private club license which allowed subsequent subparagraphs. the sale of liquor and wine by the (0 89-27) drink in a public setting. She said there were three districts, A,B,C, which identified geographi- UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS cal locations for establishments with Class B or Class C licenses. #1. RE: An- ordinance ap- proving a memorandum of under- She said that Deja Vu was standing between Salt Lake City located in District A which al- Corporation and the International lowed no more than two establish- Association of Firefighters, Local ments located in a lineal block. 1645. She said a lineal block was de- fined as both sides of a major ACTION: Councilmember God- street between two intersecting frey moved and Councilmember Hor- major streets. She said in the rocks seconded to adopt Ordinance "exceptions section", up to three 43 of 1989, which motion carried, establishments could be located on all members voted aye. streets within the interior of a (C 89-309) block but the total number of Class B and C establishments could not exceed nine. PUBLIC HEARINGS She said Deja Vu was located #1. RE: A public hearing at in the block between 400-500 South 6: 20 p.m. to obtain comment con- and between State and Main and was cerning Petition 400-668 submitted zoned Commercial C-4 which allowed by Club Deja Vu requesting that general businesses and commercial Salt Lake City change the license activities. She said the sur- ordinance concerning location rounding land uses were commercial restrictions for Class B Private with related parking areas. She Clubs. said the Cabana and Manhattan were located on the north side of 400 ACTION: Councilmember South between State and Main thus Godfrey moved and Councilmember eliminating the possibility of Hardman seconded to close the locating any additional private public hearing, which motion clubs on either side of 400 South carried, all members voted aye. without a change to the location criteria. Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded She said Deja Vu had been to deny the petition, which motion operating as a public restaurant carried, all members voted aye with a state mini bottle license except Councilmembers Fonnesbeck and Class B beer license. She and Godfrey who voted nay. said their address was issued on Church Street which was vacated in DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, 1954 and was now considered a planning and zoning, said Salt private right of way. She said Lake City Code Section 6.08. 120 the owners of the Cabana and outlined criteria and location Manhattan expressed opposition but restrictions for establishments the city had not received any 89-207 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 acknowledgment of support or alternative would not change the objections from other surrounding maximum number of establishments property owners. per block presently allowed by ordinance. She said the Planning She said the downtown master Commission recommended Alternative plan and the R/UDAT study encour- C. aged more evening activity down- town and from a land use stand- Councilmember Godfrey said in point, an ordinance change was general the Council was concerned worth consideration, however, about the proposed change because consideration- also needed - to - be - it would - allow- additional Class C given to the issues identified by taverns and these establishments the police department and city seemed to cause the most difficul- attorney to assure that a change ty. He asked if the Council could to the location criteria did not amend the ordinance for only undermine the intent of the exist- private clubs and not Class C ing ordinance. She said city taverns. departments reviewed this petition and the police department did not Roger Cutler, city attorney, want to create an enforcement said it was a faulty premise that problem through a concentration of Class C clubs and Class B private clubs in one location and request- clubs weren't equivalent. He said ed that land use not be the only the police would view these estab- consideration in changing this lishments as basically the same ordinance. and said private clubs were a result of dealing with the issue She said the planning staff of liquor by the drink. He said identified the following possible they had the same powers as a changes to the location criteria: Class C establishment plus could Alternative A: Do not change the serve members liquor by the drink. existing ordinance; Alternative B: He said because of the ease of Section A. 1.a District A. - amend membership these club were often a the definition of a lineal block pretext and indicated that from an to one side of a major street. enforcement standpoint there was Potential implications of this very little difference between the alternative would be the doubling two types of establishments. of Class B private clubs and Class C taverns on major streets; Alter- Mayor DePaulis said there native C: Section C. Exceptions seemed to be more problems with 3. - on those blocks which do not Class C taverns than with private have interior streets, allow one clubs. Mr. Cutler said histori- of the permitted three establish- cally when he was doing license ments within the interior of the revocations, they had more prob- block to be located on the exteri- lems with gambling and live per- or of the block with a maximum of formances in private clubs. Ms. three establishments per lineal Jardine said the police concerns block and the total number allowed were based on the concentration on the interior and exterior of aspect and related activities and the block not to exceed nine suggested that Class B and C establishments. Potential impli- establishments should be consid- cations of this alternative would ered together. be a slight increase in concentra- tion of Class B private clubs and Class C taverns, however, this 89-208 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Bill Wright, planning and Councilmember Horrocks said zoning, said the Planning Commis- he didn't want a proliferation of sion had been looking at Class C any kind of club and wanted to taverns as part of the downtown maintain the status quo. Allen master plan and they would proba- Johnson, planning director, said bly submit a recommendation to the that after a quick analysis of Council suggesting that Class C blocks without mid-block streets, taverns be handled differently there were about 15 locations in from private clubs. He said the the greater downtown area that had perception was that there seemed the potential for private clubs to bedifferences in the benefits and taverns, although locations- and detriments between the two and would be eliminated based on the Council would probably see a their proximity to churches, recommendation about separating schools and parks. the land uses. Joe Bottim, attorney repre- Councilmember Godfrey asked senting the petitioner, said that if the Council should act on this in order to allow additional clubs petition before they got a recom- on lineal blocks, a Mayor' s desig- mendation from the Planning nee would hold a public hearing. Commission. Mr. Wright said the After the hearing, this designee Planning Commission recommendation would have to determine that an would probably be specifically for additional club on a lineal block the downtown area and the proposed (without an interior street) would change being considered at this not create an undo concentration meeting would affect areas in in the number of Class C or Class addition to downtown. He also B establishments, would not mate- said the staff would have to go rially interfere with the free through a thorough analysis re- flow of pedestrian or vehicular garding the impact of Class C traffic, would not create an undo taverns on other areas of the city burden in controlling or policing before the Planning Commission illegal activities in the vicini- made a recommendation about sepa- ty, would not create a nuisance to rating Class B and C establish- the community, nor in any way ments. adversely affect the health, safety, and morals of the resi- Councilmember Fonnesbeck said dents of Salt Lake City. that Alternative C wouldn't allow for any additional establishments He said that the revitaliza- beyond what was currently permit- tion of the downtown areas had ted. Mr. Wright also said the been shown nationwide to be based State issued a limited number of in part on the ability to keep permits for private clubs. people in the area and bring Councilmember Godfrey asked if the people into the area for enter- Council could legally deal with tainment purposes. He explained the Class C and B establishments that the owners of the Deja Vu separately. Mr. Cutler said he spent $1. 5 million on the club and believed there were probably said the building consisted of two reasonable distinctions between stories which were completely the two types of establishments remodeled. He said the VFW club but he would have to analyze the (a private club) had been in this issue further. location for many years and the owners of the Deja Vu proceeded under the assumption that because 89-209 PROCAINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 the VFW had a private club license said these two businesses could be they too could get one. He said negatively impacted by this change he believed the proposed amendment and said both clubs had been in had sufficient protection so that their locations for 40 years so problems wouldn't be created. the Council should consider their opinion. He said their main He agreed that there was a concern was that right now there difference between Class C taverns was an undo concentration of clubs and Class B private clubs since in this area and within a two to Class C taverns attracted a dif- three block radius there were a ferent type- of clientele than minimum of seven private clubs. Class B establishments. He said the Deja Vu facility had parking Mr. Katz said that presently on the east and west sides of the the Deja Vu was closed and up for building and south of First Secu- sale and he thought that based on rity Bank, plus they had also made this situation it would be inap- arrangements to use daytime park- propriate to consider a change in ing for evening use so parking was the ordinance. He also said that more than adequate. He pointed he didn't see how this change out that the police had indicated would positively affect the down- they could control this situation town area since there were already and he said in terms of this many private clubs that were amendment allowing clubs in 15 barely succeeding. He said the additional areas, he said that existing clubs could adequately because of other restrictions support the downtown traffic and there would only actually be 4 thought the Council should protect areas that would qualify. existing business owners and police concerns. He said he He said the only opposition understood that the police voiced was coming from the other estab- some law enforcement concerns and lishments and the fact that people said there were potential law didn't like competition was not a enforcement problems when alcohol legitimate consideration in deter- was served. mining this change. He asked the Council to Councilmember Godfrey said reject the change and await the the Council was reluctant to Planning Commission' s recommenda- change ordinances for one specific tions regarding the separation of situation. Mr. Bottim said the Class B and C establishments. owner purchased the location from the VFW which was operating as a Councilmember Stoler said the private club and they thought they Council should deny the petition could also operate as a private and vote as to whether or not club. He said this amendment there should be an opportunity for would benefit the Deja Vu but it more private clubs and taverns. would also give the Planning Commission and the Mayor the tools Councilmember Godfrey said to properly develop the downtown the Council could table the ordi- area and help in the revitaliza- nance until planning and zoning tion of this area. made a recommendation on the Class C taverns and then the Council Michael Katz, 139 East South could deal with both issues at the Temple, #2001, attorney represent- same time. Councilmember Stoler ing the Cabana and Manhattan clubs said he didn't see why there 89-210 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 needed to be a change in the major streets and 2 ) an exception ordinance and reiterated that that if a block had an internal enforcement of private clubs was public street, then the Mayor had more difficult than taverns. the authority to authorize an additional three establishments Councilmember Hardman said he interior to the block. represented 700 residents of American Towers and their communi- Councilmember Fonnesbeck ty council said two issues con- asked if there was a greater tinued to plague them: 1) problems impact to having these establish- with transients and -panhandling ments on the interior of the block and 2) problems associated with versus the exterior of the block. drinking establishments. He said Mr. Johnson said from a planning if the ordinance was changed, this standpoint the interior was more block would have three establish- desirable because of the smaller ments. human scale and the establishment was more user friendly. He said Councilmember Fonnesbeck said there were some blocks that didn't that the Council shouldn't have interior streets and the determine whether or not they proposed change could increase the wanted more of this type of number of establishments allowed business when they didn't deter- anywhere from 1 to 15 depending on mine if they wanted more of any the proximity to churches, other type of business. She said schools, and parks. the market place should determine the need. Councilmember Stoler Councilmember Stoler referred said this needed to be regulated to hotels and asked if they only because of the inherent problems counted as one even though the associated with liquor and he said hotel had several establishments Salt Lake City had always inside. Mr. Johnson said a hotel historically regulated liquor or could have both a tavern and the licensing of establishments. private club provided that there were no other establishments on Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the block. she did not suggest giving up regulation but didn't think it was Mr. Cutler said the Council reasonable for the Council to vote could only adopt regulations which as to whether or not they wanted served the objectives of the more of these types of businesses. police power and were reasonably She said part of the R/UDAT recom- related to the objective. He said mendation pointed out that Salt this issue dealt with protecting Lake was a "dead town" and if land use values and planning people wanted to come to Salt Lake values by limiting the concentra- at night why should the Council tion of taverns. He said there decide not to provide a service was no limit to the number of that people wanted. She also said Class C or B establishments but that the ordinance change would the city separated these estab- not change the number of clubs lishments by determining the allowed. number allowed on a lineal block. He said when this was done, plan- Mr. Johnson said the proposed ning thought it would be for the ordinance had two parts: 1 ) the social good since it would elimi- establishments would have to be on nate the potential for a row of taverns which would deteriorate 89-211 PROCEONINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITF, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 the land values; separating these by Gilbert and Thelma Iker re- establishments allowed sufficient questing that Salt Lake City "breathing space" for other busi- rezone a portion of their property nesses to operate in these areas. at 1307 South 900 West from Resi- dential "R-2" to a Business "B-3" He said the Council should classification. not confuse the objectives of the separation ordinance by deciding ACTION: Councilmember that businesses couldn't survive Godfrey moved and Councilmember and said the objectives of the Horrocks seconded to close the separation ordinance would be public hearing, which motion served if the city allowed three carried, all members voted aye. establishments on an exterior block where there were no interior Councilmember Godfrey moved streets. He said he thought the and Councilmember Horrocks second- Council should focus their discus- ed to refer this petition to the sion on the impact to police Planning Commission, which motion enforcement, land values, blight, carried, all members voted aye. and other land use issues in considering whether this change DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, was an appropriate mechanism to planning and zoning, said the protect city interests. Ikers requested that the city expand the existing B-3 zone on Councilmember Horrocks point- the south east corner of 1300 ed out that the University Park South 900 West. He said the hotel had indicated that they Planning Commission reviewed this wouldn't be able to survive with- and the staff recommended that the out a liquor license so the Coun- petition be expanded to include cil changed the ordinance to allow additional properties on the them to get a license but then corner of 900 West and California they didn't get one. He said not Avenue. He said that during the only was this hotel surviving but Planning Commission hearing pro- it was making money. He asked why cess one of the property owners the Deja Vu needed to be a private expressed opposition and after club if it was a fine establish- discussion the Planning Commission ment. Mr. Bottim said that unlike decided not to forward the staff a hotel they didn't have other recommendation but recommend that facilities to attract patrons and the Council approve the rezoning he said traditionally downtown as originally submitted by the restaurants were unable to survive Ikers. He said the Ikers wanted without a liquor license. to expand the B-3 zone 40 feet to the east of their property. Councilmember Bittner said she didn' t see an overriding need He said the Ikers had since for this change and was reluctant submitted a letter to the Council to make the change for a single requesting that the Council hold use. She also said she didn't see action because the Ikers acquired any particular benefit to the additional property, specifically city. the property to the south whose (P 89-173) owner opposed the rezoning. He said the Ikers were redesigning #2. RE: A public hearing at their plans to expand the facility 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment con- and the staff supported having cerning Petition 400-710 submitted this petition referred back to the 89-212 PROCAINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITx, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Planning Commission. He said they corner, and all four corners were would review the Ikers new devel- zoned B-3. She said the petition- opment plans in a more comprehen- er wanted the entire site, approx- sive nature and resubmit another imately 25,000 square feet, zoned recommendation to the Council. entirely to a B-3 zone with a modification to the zoning ordi- Mel Ingersoll, local contrac- nance regulating gas stations or tor and neighborhood resident, the petitioner wanted the site said he was involved in the Iker' s rezoned to a C-1 zone in order to acquisition of additional proper- accommodate a gas convenience ty. He reiterated that Mark Hafey store with a car wash.of the planning department had suggested that the entire triangle She said the present zoning of property from 800 to 900 West was B-3 from 400 South north 100 and from 1300 South to California feet and then changed to R-6. She Avenue be rezoned. He supported said the B-3 zone allowed a gaso- the Iker' s plan and said it was in line service station which allowed keeping with improvement of the ordinary repairs and servicing of area and would greatly enhance the vehicles and as an accessory use, face of 900 West between 1300 one bay of the building could be South and California Avenue. used as an automatic car wash with (P 89-174) all services conducted inside the building. She said the C-1 zone #3. RE: A public hearing at allowed as a conditional use a 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment con- detached automatic car wash as an cerning Petition 400-669 submitted accessory to a self service or by William and Mary Ann DeNiro full service gas station, with requesting that Salt Lake City specific conditions. She said the rezone property located at 360-366 C-1 zone also allowed high inten- South 900 West from a Residential sity uses which were incompatible "R-6" to a Business "B-3" classi- with the master plan. fication. She said the Westside Neigh- ACTION: Councilmember borhood Land Use Plan identified Godfrey moved and Councilmember this area to remain zoned for Bittner seconded to close the neighborhood businesses which public hearing, which motion provided services and commercial carried, all members voted aye. activity at a neighborhood scale. She said the plan outlined compat- Councilmember Horrocks moved ibility guidelines which pro- and Councilmember Fonnesbeck tected the neighborhood envi- seconded to adopt Ordinance 44 of ronment and would allow flexibili- 1989, which motion carried, all ty in site plan design. She said members voted aye. with the expansion of this zoning the site would have adequate DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, square footage to accommodate a planning and zoning, outlined the design sensitive to the standards. area on a map and said the sur- She also said new development rounding land uses to the west, would upgrade the existing street- north and east were residential, scape to the city's current stan- there was a church on the north- dards by replacing deteriorated east corner of 900 West, a closed curb, gutter and sidewalk and 7-11 on the southeast corner, a adding landscaped park strips and Neff floral on the southwest set backs. 89-213 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 She said the Planning Commis- He said they only expanded the sion reviewed this petition at an zoning on a limited basis when informal hearing and voted to there was indication of need for table the petition; they requested the service and said the city that the petitioner secure a needed to adequately zone enough tenant and submit a site plan. property in order for developments She said Mr. DeNiro was unsuccess- to meet the standards of the zone. ful in securing the tenant and requested that the city rezone the Mayor DePaulis said he had property to B-3 without a specific two similar situations in his use. She said at their regular neighborhood that worked out very meeting on April 27, the Planning well. He said he didn't know if Commission voted to recommend the the Council wanted to rule out the expansion of the zoning from R-6 possibility of keeping the B-3 use to B-3. if a neighborhood needed the services and he said some B-3 Councilmember Horrocks asked zones were too small to be ade- what could be constructed in a B-3 quately developed. zone. Ms. Jardine said neighbor- hood oriented businesses such as a Councilmember Bittner said convenience store and gas station the proposed development was on but a car wash or auto repair shop the corner of two busy streets and would not be allowed, she said she couldn't see addi- tional residential development in Councilmember Fonnesbeck this area. asked if there was any concern about expanding commercial zoning Mr. Wright said the site along a residential street. Ms. presently had a building on it Jardine indicated that there which was used as a grocery store shouldn't be a problem because of but after a fire about a year ago, the required landscaping and the building had not reopened. He setbacks next to the residential said the building was nonconform- zoning. She also said she didn't ing with no setbacks or landscap- recall any discussion about ing and it didn't meet city stan- Councilmember Fonnesbeck' s ques- dards. He said by rezoning the tion. Bill Wright, planning and property the owners could market zoning, said the existing corner the property to a new neighborhood did not offer the square footage oriented user who could design the in order to meet the standards of site to meet the landscape set- the zone. backs. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said William DeNiro, petitioner, that the current B-3 site was not 415 E. 4800 South, said this big enough to accommodate develop- request did not involve removing ment so rather than change the B-3 any homes. He said he contacted zone to residential they wanted to all adjoining and abutting proper- expand into the residential zone ty owners and they supported the to accommodate the B-3. She said change to B-3. He said he had a she was concerned that this type prospective tenant and did submit of rezoning would occur in other site proposals but because of the areas all over the city. Mr. delay the tenant backed out. He Wright said many of the small 90 said in order to market or develop feet by 90 feet B-3 corners had the property it would be essential been rezoned to a residential use. to get the additional B-3 zoning 89-214 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 in order to make the site ade- ed to close and sell the public quate. He added that other devel- streets and alleys in the area opers expressed interest but located between Simpson Avenue and wanted to make sure the property I-80 and between Highland Drive was zoned. and 1300 East Street subject to the following: ( 1 ) Ashton Avenue Councilmember Godfrey asked and Stringham Avenue shall be if there would be enough parking closed and sold to Clark Develop- or if they would require addition- ment. The closure of those al property to accommodate the streets and alleys shall be effec- parking. Mr. DeNiro said - the tive-once all residential- occupan- parking would be adequate and they cy has ended. (2) Simpson Avenue would comply with the require- shall be closed only after the ments. Mr. Wright said the plan Shopko building permit is issued would have to meet all the stan- and the commercial PUD receives dards including landscape set- approval. (3) The areas closed backs, building square footage and shall be as follows: (A) Ashton off-street parking so any proposal Avenue from the east boundary of would have to be met on site. Highland Drive to the west bound- ary of 1300 East Street, excluding Kim Anderson, 768 North the UDOT easement for the I-80 on Redwood Road, said his only con- ramp. (B) The north one-half of cern was that originally the Stringham Avenue from a point petitioner wanted a change in the opposite the east boundary of Lot verbiage of the B-3 zone which 91, Block 5, Union Heights Subdi- would affect the entire city. vision (the east boundary of the Bond Floral property) , to the west B.T. Price, city resident, boundary of 1300 East Street and said this area needed a positive the south one-half of Stringham development. Avenue from a point opposite the (P 89-175) west boundary line of Lot 12, Block 4, Union Heights Subdivision #4. RE: A public hearing at (the east boundary of the Key Bank 6: 50 p.m. to obtain comment con- property) to the west boundary of cerning Petition 400-732 submitted 1300 East Street. (C) Simpson by Clark Development requesting Avenue from the east boundary of that Salt Lake City vacate public Highland Drive to the west bound- streets and alleys in the area ary of 1300 East Street. Which located between Simpson Avenue and motion carried, all members voted Interstate 80 and between Highland aye. Drive and 1300 East Street, and consider the Planning Commission' s Councilmember Stoler moved recommendation that the city close and Councilmember Hardman seconded and sell the property for fair to adopt an intent of the City market value. Council to close Simpson Avenue at the time that the Shopko building ACTION: Councilmember permit is issued and sell that Godfrey moved and Councilmember property to Clark Development. Hardman seconded to close the Consideration from the developer public hearing, which motion for the property could be to carried, all members voted aye. provide the following at devel- oper's cost: (A) a 24 foot wide Councilmember Stoler moved connection between Highland Drive and Councilmember Horrocks second- and 1300 East as shown on the 89-215 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT3t", UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 developer' s site plan. (B) Decel- DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, eration lane on 1300 East at the planning and zoning, said the connector. (C) Improvements to petitioner requested that Salt the I-80 off ramp as required by Lake City vacate the following UDOT. The Mayor in negotiating streets: Simpson Avenue, about the transfer of the city property 87, 500 square feet; Stringham due to closure of the public ways, Avenue east of Highland Drive to could consider an exchange of 1300 East, 64, 700 square feet; public benefits in lieu of cash. Ashton Avenue between Highland The Mayor could consider, but not Drive and 1300 East, 55, 200 square be limited to, the - following feet; for a total of - 207,400 public amenities as compensation square feet. The alleys in this for the public streets and alleys area to be vacated would total in negotiating with Clark Develop- 37, 500 square feet. ment: (A) Public access for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles He said the Planning Commis- through what is now the Ashton sion determined the following: Avenue area. This shall include a pedestrian bicycle pathway with 1) Various plans adopted for landscaping, lighting and benches. the Sugar House area by the Plan- (B) Pedestrian access to the core ning Commission and the Council of Sugarhouse through a promenade acknowledged that the existing from the existing and proposed street pattern in the area between centers with lighting, benches, 2100 South and I-80 and Highland and drinking fountain. (C) Drive and 1300 East would not Landscaping and tree requirements adequately serve new development. greatly in excess of that required by C-3A zoning, providing protec- 2) The new development as tion for the urban forest of Salt proposed in Phases I and II re- Lake City. (D) Off-site storm quired the closure of Simpson, drainage retention capacity, if Stringham and Ashton Avenues. needed. (E) Reasonable architec- tural compatibility with the 3) A new circulation system thematic features of the public was necessary to adequately serve way improvements in the Sugarhouse the new development. district. (F) Installation of a mutually acceptable terminus on 4) The Sugar House master Stringham Avenue to provide rea- plan provided the policy for sonable access for existing busi- street planning in the business nesses. Which motion carried, all district and identified the ac- members voted aye. tions necessary to guide decisions like this and Salt Lake City was Councilmember Stoler moved in the process of preparing an and Councilmember Godfrey seconded official street map which would to adopt a legislative intent design the rights of way of the asking that the administration and future streets. Clark Development negotiate to establish a program by which net 5) As to the disposition of savings which result from not city property, the Sugar House having to demolish homes be con- master plan identified the follow- tributed to relocation costs, ing policy: Salt Lake City should which motion carried, all members retain ownership of all property voted aye. which they currently owned in the Sugar House business district 89-216 1/1, PROCEIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 including streets, alleys and was consistent with existing city parcels until such time as compre- policy in that the alleys in hensive development plans were to residential areas be vacated and be implemented. Future rights of he said they should be vacated at way could then be acquired through a point in time when the Council land trade arrangements rather was sure development was going to than expenditure of capital funds. proceed. He said Clark Develop- ment would live with this restric- 6 ) The Planning Commission tion. found that a new 1200 East street and Wilmington Avenue improvements He said their original pro- were necessary due to the in- posal was that Salt Lake City creased traffic generated by this vacate the streets but after development proposal. discussions with the Planning Commission and the administration, He said based on the above they identified numerous areas findings, the Planning Commission where they were prepared to make recommended that Salt Lake City expensive improvements for the close the public streets and public good. He said their alleys as requested and sell or proposal would be that in lieu of trade the property at fair market vacating the streets, the city value. He said the Planning close the streets and exchange Commission believed that first them on the basis of the improve- rights to purchase should be ments which Clark would construct granted to Clark Development for for the public good. land assembly reasons and said this action was consistent with Mr. McGuire then outlined the existing city policy established following improvements: by the Council in 1979. He said the Planning Commission also 1 ) A 24 foot wide connection recommended that any revenue between Highland Drive and 13th generated by the closure and sale East connecting Simpson Avenue or trade of the property should be with the I-80 off ramp. used in the Sugar House business district to construct necessary 2) Numerous pedestrian infrastructure improvements. pathways through the project connecting to Sugar House Park, Councilmember Fonnesbeck Fairmont Park, Elizabeth Sherman referred to the last recommenda- Parkway and the core of the exist- tion about proceeds being returned ing Sugar House business district to the Sugar House business dis- on 2100 South 1100 East. trict and asked if the Planning Commission meant to return funds 3) A deceleration lane on to the Clark project or return 13th East to allow traffic to slow them within the Sugar House area. down on 13th East and make the Mr. Wright said funds would be turn on the 24 foot connecting used in the Sugar House business road. district to effectuate the neces- sary public improvements. 4) Improvements at the I-80 off ramp including relocation of Jim McGuire, petitioner, the signal from Wilmington Avenue showed a site plan indicating the down to the I-80 off ramp, re- proposed vacation of streets and aligning an existing island and alleys. He said their proposal widening the existing off ramp. 89-217 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Mr. McGuire then showed a Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she landscaping site plan and said the thought a beautiful shaded area landscaping on the site was sub- would attract people. stantially in excess of the re- quirements of a C-3A zone. By Mr. McGuire suggested that "substantially in excess" , he said rather than be concerned about a he meant an acre more of landscap- dollar for dollar value, the ing than was required. Council leave some leeway to allow themselves to determine that in He said at the bikeway con- their reasonable judgment the nection between Elizabeth Sherman improvements represented -a fair parkway and 1300 East they would trade for the streets. install a meandering pathway with Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she benches, lighting and drinking appreciated Mr. McGuire' s explana- fountains. He said the connection tion about the amenities but said between buildings K and L was a the Council had never determined major pedestrian connection be- value. She said all they could do tween the Clark site, the McIntyre was close and sell the streets and Center and the core of Sugar recommend that the Mayor consider House. He said they would improve an exchange. She said she thought this consistent with the same it would be inappropriate for the theme in the Sugar House area and Council to decide the value since would install benches and drinking that had always been done by the fountains. administration. He said their analysis showed Councilmember Hardman said that the value of the improvements they received statistics showing was in excess of the value of the the value of the streets and streets so they thought this alleys to be roughly $2. 5 million represented a reasonable exchange and he asked Mr. McGuire to elabo- for the value of the streets. rate on his comment about the public amenities and improvements Councilmember Godfrey asked exceeding the value of the Mr. McGuire to explain more spe- streets. Mr. McGuire said Clark cifically about the increased Development had agreed to a number landscaping that Clark would of items not strictly required install. Mr. McGuire said they within a C-3A zone. He said they would create a boulevard into the thought these items provided site off 1300 East with 50,000 public benefit as well as a bene- square feet of planters (which fit to their project and said the equated into 183 additional park- improvements they were proposing ing stalls) inside the required would be about $80,000 in excess set back areas and they would of what they established to be the install 230 trees which was one value of the streets. tree per 7.3 parking stalls. Councilmember Hardman said Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the public' s perception was that that she hoped they would plant Clark was asking for a $2. 5 mil- the trees with the idea that as lion subsidy when in fact they the trees grew they would create were contributing $80,000 to the shade. Mr. McGuire said he agreed project. Mr. McGuire said this to the idea of having shade but was their view of the situation. they had to be sensitive to win- dows for signage and snow removal. 89-218 PROCANGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 The following citizens spoke tures of over 100 businesses in in favor of the project: this area supporting the project. Mr. Thorup commented that he Al Hollingshaus, 2479 High- thought the subsidy was a small land Drive price to pay in comparison to what Diana Smoot, 2592 Elizabeth the project would bring into the Marilyn Buehner, 2568 Eliza- area. Mr. Rockwood said he beth thought the project would help Jacques Chappuis, 1030 East increase the business traffic 2100 South coming into the area. Ruby Peterson, 2566 Elizabeth - - - Street Councilmember Hardman asked A.E. Andersen, 2582 Elizabeth about the petition that the people Street signed. Ms. Smoot said the peti- Wesley Peterson, 2566 Eliza- tion talked about the project and beth Street closing the streets. John Thorup, 1679 East 2700 Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if South the subsidies were discussed. Ms. Paul Raker, 1208 Driggs Smoot said the subsidies were Avenue addressed, including the tax Ben Robinson, 2510 Elizabeth increment, and people were told Dwight Wakefield, Sugarhouse the pros and cons. area resident Tom Rockwood, 1723 South 1400 The following citizens spoke East in opposition to the project: These citizens commented that Kim Anderson, 768 North Sugarhouse needed a major improve- Redwood Road ment since the area had started to Ruth Robbins, 819 Hudson decline and deteriorate over the years and said they would appreci- These citizens were concerned ate revitalization in the area. about the subsidies which they thought Clark Development was Ms. Smoot said she had over asking for. 3,000 names of people from the Foothill, Beacon Heights and Mr. Anderson said he agreed Country Club areas who supported with the master plan and suggested the development. She said it was that the project follow a phasing wonderful to have a master plan system. He also said he thought but there also came a time to use the traffic plan was not being logic to decide what was best and adequately followed and his major what the community wanted. She concern was loss of housing in the thought the city should assist residential area. He thought the this project. She said all the city had given Clark Development houses in the area but two could too much money in staff time and be moved and Utah Power and Light he didn't think the developer had would store them. been sensitive to the neighbor- hood' s needs. Ms. Buehner said she wanted to have close shopping and because Ms. Robbins expressed concern younger families were moving into that the project had been forced the area, she wanted it to be a on the city by a threat from the vital area in which to live. Mr. developer that they would to go to Anderson said he got the signa- South Salt Lake. She thought 89-219 PROCAIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Clark Development had allowed the Mark Fetzer, 2473 Hartford area to deteriorate and said she Street, supported the project. was upset because Clark Development had not worked with Allen Johnson, planning the neighborhood. director, said he was representing Craig Peterson, director of Commu- The following citizens com- nity and Economic Development, and mented about the project: Mayor DePaulis. He said the administration and planning staff Rawlins Young, 2135 South had been working with the develop- 19th East - er and the administration -proposed- B.T. Price, 1028 Euclid the following recommendation: Avenue Wyllis Dorman, 634 East 700 Regarding Petition 400-732, South the administration supports the Planning Commission' s recommenda- Mr. Young said there was a tion that the city close and sell transportation circulation problem the public streets and alleys in within the area and he thought the the area located between Simpson streets should be sold so the Avenue and Interstate 80 and money could be used to alleviate between Highland Drive and 1300 the difficulty. He said that "T" East, modifying the recommendation intersections in Sugarhouse caused as follows: a public hazard and he recommended that the Council take into consid- 1. We would recommend the eration having connecting roads streets and alleys be closed and constructed in order to avoid sold to adjoining property owners, future problems. with the exception of Simpson Avenue, and that the closure be Mr. Price suggested that the effective once all residential Council assure that the developer occupancy has ended. keeps his promises. Ms. Dorman suggested that the Council needed 2. We would recommend that to consider a way that Clark the City Council close Simpson Development could reimburse the Avenue only after the Shopko city for the cost of demolishing building permit is issued and the the houses and she said the money commercial, planned unit develop- should be used towards the cost of ment receives approval. We would moving the homes. She also men- recommend that it be the intent of tioned that the Redevelopment the Council to close Simpson Agency had property in the area of Avenue at that time and that the 600 South and 700 East where the Mayor sell the property to the homes could be moved. developer in exchange for public benefits such as: The following two citizens submitted registration cards but a. A 24 foot wide connection did not speak: between Highland Drive and 13th East. Ray Neilson, 1884 South 900 East, wanted Clark Development to b. A deceleration lane on pay full market value for the 13th East. streets. 89-220 PROCEPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT' , UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 c. Improvements to I-80 as cost of demolition of the dwell- recommended by Utah State Depart- ings was higher than the cost of ment of Transportation. relocation, then savings to Clark Financial generated by the removal 3. We would recommend that rather than the demolition would the City Council consider a legis- be returned to the city and used lative intent that the Mayor, in to remove the dwellings. He said negotiating the transfer of the this would provide an incentive to city property due to the closure relocate the buildings and should of the public ways, should consid- be considered on a house by house er an exchange of public benefits, case. - - - - -in lieu of cash. The Mayor could consider the following public Mr. Johnson said that Clark amenities as compensation for the Financial wanted the alleys vacat- public streets and alleys, in ed under the premise that the negotiating with Clark Financial: property was residentially zoned and past practice was to vacate a. Public access for vehi- and return alleys to residential Iles, pedestrians and bicycles areas. He said the Mayor felt through the Ashton Avenue area. strongly that the policy only applied if properties were to b. Pedestrian access to the remain in a residential context so core of Sugarhouse through a he said the Mayor recommended that promenade from the existing and the alleys be closed and become proposed centers, with lighting, part of the negotiation of ex- benches, and drinking fountains. changing amenities in lieu of cash. c. Landscaping and tree requirements greatly in excess of Councilmember Fonnesbeck that required by C-3A zoning, asked what would happen if after providing protection for the urban the city deeded the property over forest of Salt Lake City. to Clark they decided not to do the project. She wondered if d. Off site storm drainage Clark could then sell the streets detention capacity, if needed. and alleys and the city wouldn't get the amenities. Mr. Johnson e. Architectural compatibil- said that issue would be part of ity with the thematic features in the negotiations and Roger Cut- the public way improvements in the ler, city attorney, said Clark Sugarhouse district. would either have to provide a guaranty bond or there would be a f. Installation of accept- reversionary clause. able terminus on Stringham Avenue for existing businesses. Councilmember Kirk asked if the Mayor was prepared to veto g. Return of any savings this action if the city and Clark received by Clark Financial from Development couldn't agree. The the removal of the dwellings Mayor said his position was to versus the demolition of the work towards getting everything dwellings to be used to assist in resolved. He added that he recom- the relocation of the dwellings. mended the entire closure of the streets and alleys because the In reference to item g above, property would not remain residen- Mr. Johnson explained that if the tial -and he didn' t want to change 89-221 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 the policy for one project. He value, paid for the street, im- said they had basically arrived at proved and landscaped the connect- a good menu of exchanges. ing street, built a wall, land- scaped to excess, donated a home a Mr. McGuire said their re- paid for the moving expense and quest remained intact but they gave the neighborhood $25,000. were not opposed to closing the She asked how the Council could alleys and including them in the explain a 30% subsidy to these trade in lieu of cash. He said other developers and she said the their analysis indicated that the City Council had never given away value of - the alleys was _ approxi- property- to a commercial deve-lop- mately $99,000 and they were er. already over by $84, 000 in pro- posed amenities so they would not She said as much as they oppose the Mayor. Mayor DePaulis wanted development to happen, she said he thought the city and Clark asked the neighborhood not to could work out this issue. expect the Council to do things they couldn't live with in the In reference to this project, future. She said the city Councilmember Stoler said he had couldn't afford to give subsidies heard the word "subsidies" being to all the developers who wanted used a lot and said it was obvious to develop in Salt Lake City. that the city was getting into a She also pointed out that if the realm of policy decisions which city had given in to Clark Devel- would affect any developable land opment in at beginning, they would in the city. He said tax incre- have been paying a big subsidy ment financing only worked in high plus they wouldn' t have had all density areas and since Sugarhouse the amenities that had been out- and other areas in the city were lined. low density they wouldn't generate much tax increment money. He She said she thought the suggested that the Council needed current proposal would be a good to consider a policy issue about deal for the city and for Clark other options besides tax incre- Development. She said bad devel- ment funding in order to attract opment was worse than no develop- future development. ment and neighborhoods should be tough for good development. She Councilmember Fonnesbeck said said all the things that the city the Council agreed that Sugarhouse held out for would end up making needed development but the problem this project more successful and was that the Council had been she said the Council ' s first job asked to do things that in her was to take care of the city. opinion would have compromised them as a City Council. She said Councilmember Kirk congratu- initially Shopko was asking for a lated Clark Development for their subsidy of almost 30% which was ability to negotiate with the city tremendous in reference to other and commended the City Council and projects such as the Boyer project administration for working through that received a 4% subsidy. the dilemmas. She referred to the Smith' s Councilmember Hardman asked grocery store parking lot expan- Mr. Cutler how the city acquired sion and said that the company the public streets and alleys in bought the houses for fair market Sugarhouse. Mr. Cutler said he 89-222 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 had not researched the issue but discontinued. He said the pro- assumed it was when the subdivi- posed project was structured sion was dedicated. around a district heating and cooling and electrical energy Councilmember Stoler said supply system which involved the that with the finality of the new Jazz arena. negotiations, Clark Development would get less than a 1% subsidy. He said five elements would He also said that maintenance of be contained in the application: the landscaping would be an ongo- ing expense and he suggested that ( 1) Construct a- -chilled this cost could be taken into water plant which would be used consideration during negotiations for the cooling process to air between Salt Lake City and Clark condition the new arena for a cost Development. of $1. 7 million. (P 89-177) (2) Extend the availability #5. RE: A public hearing at of cooling water to the Salt 7:00 p.m. to obtain comment con- Palace and Union Pacific building cerning the submission of an for a cost of $1.8 million. application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (3) Run lines from the for an Urban Development Action existing Utah Power and Light Grant to support the establishment steam plant to the new arena for a of a district energy facility that cost of $. 5 million. may supply heating, cooling, and electrical energy to the new Jazz (4) Link Block 57 projects to arena and other buildings in the the Utah Power and Light steam downtown area. system for $150, 000. ACTION: Councilmember ( 5) Build an electrical Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember substation for the arena for Godfrey seconded to close the $300,000. public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye He said the total package except Councilmember Bittner who would consist of a $4 million was absent for the vote. energy supply system and they wanted $2. 5 to $3. 5 million in Councilmember Godfrey moved assistance from the federal gov- and Councilmember Hardman seconded ernment. He said the amount was to adopt Resolution 95 of 1989, not finalized since they didn't authorizing the Mayor to sign and know if they could put all the transmit the necessary UDAG appli- elements into the same applica- cation, which motion carried, all tion. He said they were asking members voted aye except for Council permission to pursue Councilmember Bittner who was the application in order to pro- absent for the vote. vide an incentive for district heating for the benefit of the DISCUSSION: Bob Buchanan, general downtown area and specifi- capital planning, said for a cally the arena. period of time they had been investigating an appropriate Kim Anderson, 768 North project for the final phase of Redwood Road, said there had been UDAG money before the program was a proposal earlier before the 89-223 PROCEIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY', UTAH TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 Community Development Advisory Committee regarding the study of a heating facility in the downtown area, similar to the proposed system. He asked if this proposed project was part of the previous submission. He said the CDAC committee supported the previous submission and said he was in favor of this proposed project. Mr. Buchanan said the propos- al before CDAC was to further studies of a district heating and cooling concept which took place before they decided to put a specific project together. He said it was related since they were trying to accomplish the same purpose but the proposal tonight was a specific project rather than a feasibility study. (T 89-15) The meeting adj • • ed at 10:05 p.m. COUN iMp' CI Y RE DE 89-224 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENuM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, July 18, 1989 6:00 P.M. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5: 55 P.M. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. �T 1. Report of the Executive Director. 2. Representatives of the Administration will brief the Council on their position regarding Clark Financial's request for Alley and Street vacations and for a UDAG loan. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1. Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of the Minutes. C. e COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. -j-006 5f tm 0151- A- ' D. CONSENT: 1. Bicycle Dealer Fees Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, August 8, 1989 at 6:40 P.M. to obtain public comment concerning a pr9posed ordi ance concerning bicycle dealer fees. Lieei 1 Teuirb relA qce lam * I -4 - 2, (089-30) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 2. 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 a license for construction and maintenance of a storm drain under State Highway 89. np (p- *D Ctf"J fa) , (C89-369) Od�� a w fU ""'0`� STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. 3. Non-Refundable Business License Application Fee Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, August 8, 1989 at 6:50 P.M. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance on establishing a non-refundable business licenseapplication fee (089-29) c35 'p a 11e A C:�/ 6-4. (ovp,J7 64/6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 4. Certificates of Convenience and Necessity Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, August 8, 1989 at 6: 20 P.M. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance regarding Certificates of Convenience and Necessity for horsedrawn carriages. (089-32) Com bffesit one cnapw 7 all mtxl br franspeativ . Sft lGrclrt� 0. � t 3s nor ei6.6(4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 5. Horse Drawn Carriage Business Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, August 8, 1989 at 6:30 P.M. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance regulating horse drawn carriage businesse within Salt Lake City. (089-31 ) P/u5-4hn6.1 6graft, 4)1ume * olob 0aru ww o- vr,�a-ram STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. OA • ClOi n nigotiatzoi, 6. Urban Development Action Grant Repayment Revolving Loan Fund - Budget Opening Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, August 1, 1989 at 6:40 P.M. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed amendment to the 1989-90 Fiscal Year budget. (T89-16) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 7. Petition No. 400-596 - Rani Investment. Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, August 8, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. to obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj Investment requesting Salt Lake City close the alley located at approximately 750 South 25 West. .!_ 2000u STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 41:0 Stop Intersections Ordinance. Consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 12, Chapter 44, Section 210, Subparagraph A, of the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, relating to stop ?� intersections, and re-lettering subsequent subparagraphs. (0 89-27) (0A6rin W/ St&L iGUAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt "Re�Jm C1��'` 1 fan5pofili-tlbn • F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: Clftl (,JCL V \ COX. l i d 1. Memorandum of Understanding, International Firefighters Association - 1645. Consider adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1645. (C 89-309) V144AA0A0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Petition No. 400-668 - Club Dela Vu. 6:20 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-668 submitted by Club Deja Vu requesting the City change the license ordinance concerning location restrictions for Class B Private Clubs. , `, Cf Ub5 (P 89-173) /LQ , (1151"1( /Cn 1/-�llXQh TuUE'/li7S STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to City Attorney. 2. Petition No. 400-710 - Thelma and Gilbert Iker. 6: 30 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-710 submitted by Gilbert and Thelma Iker requesting the City rezone a portion of their property at 1307 South 900 West from Residential "R-2" to a Business "B-3" classification. rr.n, )� u_ 'n n �f I I l (P 89-174) V� r "`'�(.+ et--)/�L��W W• a 6 as cO - 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing. Crn m ewf 3. Petition No. 400-669 - William and Mary Ann DeNiro. aC7r9r�,l 6:40 P.M. plant)62- Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-669 submitted by William and Mary Ann DeNiro requesting the City rezone property located at 360-366 South 900 West from a Residential "R-6" to a Business "B-3" classification. (P 89-175) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. 5 4,. Petition No. 400-732 Clark Development. (,a)- ' / "�Jn`� 6.4e P.M. �"`� n t on Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-732 submitted by Clark BM 11 nitil Development requesting the City vacate public streets and alleys in the area located between Simpson Avenue and Interstate 80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East Street, and consider the Planning commissions's recommendation that the City close and sell the property for fair market value. (P 89-177) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing. 5. Jazz Arena UDAG Application. 7:00 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning the submission of an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for an Urban Development Action Grant to support the establishment of a district energy facility that may supply heating, cooling, and electrical energy to the new Jazz Arena and other buildings in the downtown area. (T89-15) Mopf 'Re,( a}') 1O(iZl n6i. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt S�h H. ADJOURNMENT. App r afic� ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: July 14, 1989 BY: C TY REC R STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 14th day of July, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within 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. CITY CC Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th clay of July, 89. 4iicre ' he State of Utah My Commission Expires: APPROVAL: EXECUTIVr DIREC 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 fees. 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: ICRAIG E. E'IERSON Director lf/ liO A i. 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 Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. OF 1989 . Published: LVS:rc -2- ba SALT;LAKE_,.‘C TYI MORMION1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH R. ANDERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 MAYOR 535-7775 TO : SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE: JUNE 23 , 1989 REFERENCE : Utility Line Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for a storm drain on State Street - 400 South to South Temple , Project No . 47-N-310 . RECOMMENDATION; That the City Council authorize Mayor Palmer DePaulis to sign the attached Utility Line Agreement in behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ; The approval of this agreement does not require Salt Lake City Corporation to commit monies to UDOT . The Contractor selected by the City will be required to pay UDOT the required permit fee . DISCUSSION ; Salt Lake City Corporation has prepared plans and specifications for a Storm Drain on State Street - 400 South to South Temple . Since State Street is a State Highway it is necessary to enter into a utility line agreement for the construction and maintenance of the line . t Ol SUBMITTED BY : JOSEPH R. ANDERSON , PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR / I JRA : JH : po .J 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 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: A license for construction and maintenance of a storm drain in State Highway 89 . 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 7 • Political Subdivision UTILITY LINE AGREEMENT Salt Lake City Cow, . Engineering Division Applicant 444 South State Street _ Address Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 LICENSE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 89 between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, called UDOT, and Salt Lake_ Cites Corporation _____hereinafter called the Licensee, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Licensee is desirous of obtaining the right to construct and thereafter maintain and operate an utility line within the right-of-way lines of State Highway 89 _, in Salt Lake _County, Utah, for the purpose of Storm Drain Construction in the location exactly described • in Paragraph 1 of this agreement, and WHEREAS, the UDOT is desirous to grant the utility a license to so construct and maintain an utility line, according to the conditions and terms of this agreement. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF UTILITY LINE: a. Type of Line:_Storm Drain b. Construction Materials: Reinforced Concrete Pipe c. Method of Installation: Open Trench d. Legal Description of Utility Encroachment: See attached plans (Exhibit A) Project No. 47-N-310 e. Exhibit A attached to this agreement is a diagram of the proposed site. Page 2 o 7 Pages f. The above description of line location is subject to such minor changes or variations therefrom as may be required or approved by UDOT's District Director at 2060 S. 2400 W. , Salt Lake City Utah, who is responsible for the proper inspection of the Licensee's work in compliance with this agreement. 2. INSPECTION: The UDOT shall regularly inspect the work of the Licensee or his contractor, to enforce compliance with this agreement and to insure proper compliance with State regulations. These inspections shall be made by the District Director or his authorized representive. All costs of inspection shall be reimbursed by the Licensee to the UDOT within thirty days of billing by the UDOT. The amount of $ none is deposited with UDOT's District Director's office to be applied toward said inspection costs. 3. DATE OF COMPLETION: The work covered by this agreement shall be completed within 60 calendar days of the date of this agreement. Failure to complete the work within this time will give the UDOT the option of extending the time or revoking the permission to continue the work. Any time extension shall be in writing. 4. COSTS: The entire cost of the utility installation shall be paid for by the Licensee. 5. RELOCATION: Whenever the UDOT shall determine that it is necessary to relocate the facilities described herein, the Licensee shall relocate same in accordance with the order of the UDOT, provided that reimbursement for the reasonable cost thereof shall be made by the UDOT if and as provided by the statutes of the State of Utah. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION: Excavations or other operations on property or right-of-way under the jurisdiction of the UDOT shall not be commenced by the Licensee until and after notice has been given by the Licensee to said District Director of the UDOT and requisite Highway Construction Permit obtained. Construction shall be carried forward to completion in the manner required by the said District Director. A certificate of compliance with the provisions of this paragraph shall be furnished to the contractor or the applicant, and must, at all times be prominently displayed at the excavation site. 7. PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION: The Licensee shall so conduct his construction operation that there shall be no interference with or interruption of highway traffic. The Licensee shall conform to such instructions of the District Director as may be given with respect to handling of traffic, and shall at all times maintain such watchmen, barricades, lights or such other measures for the protection of traffic as may be required to warn and safeguard the public against injury or damage during the operation of the Licensee in constructing said line. Page 3 of 7 Pages R. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL: The backfilling of ony trench within the paved portion of the highway, the shoulders thereof, or the portion under any intersecting street or highway shall be compacted by tamping with hand tamper, or preferably with mechanical tampers, in six-inch layers to a density of at least 95 percent, and as otherwise required by the State of Utah Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and test designation T-99 or T-180, American Association of State Highway Officials specifications. The Licensee shall be liable for any damage which may result to the pavement due to failure to properly compact the backfill. The material used for backfill must be of a suitable granular nature. Non-granular material which does not comply with UDOT specifications shall not be used. 9. RESTORATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT: The Licensee shall at his own expense replace any pavement removed or damaged with the same type and depth of pavement as that which is adjoining, including gravel base material. This restoration shall be accomplised within 48 hours from the time of excavation, unless additional time is granted in writing by the District Director of the UDOT. Restoration shall be substantially to the same condition as prior to the Licensee's undertaking of the work. In the case of excavations, pavement shall be constructed in conformity with the State Standard Specifications and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the District Director of the UDOT. 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 materials which is unsuitable, such entire surfacing shall be removed and replaced with new gravel surfacing material. The repairs to pavement or surface shall include pavements which have been damaged with construction equipment. The UDOT shall have the option of restoration of said roadbed to its original condition at the expense of the Licensee. 10. 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 with a reasonable time. 11. MAINTENANCE OF UTILITY LINE BY LICENSEE: The utility shall at all times be maintained, repaired, renewed, and operated by and at the expense of the Licensee. The UDOT reserves the right, without relieving the Licensee of its obligation hereunder, to reconstruct or make such repair to said line as it may consider necessary in the event the Licensee hereby agrees to reimburse the UDOT for the cost of such reconstruction or repairs. It is understood that access for maintenance and servicing of the utility line by the Licensee will not be permitted from the through-traffic roadways or ramps of the Interstate highway. 0 Psge 4 of 7 Pages 12. CROSSING OF UTILITY LINE 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 UDOT shall have the right to cross said line at any point necessary in the future construction and expansion of the State Highway System. 13. LIABILITY: The Licensee agrees to post a bond with the UDOT's District Director's office in the amount of $bI contractor running for a term of three years after completion of the work, to guarantee satisfactory performance as provided in this agreement and license. The UDOT may proceed against said bond to recover for all expenses incurred by the UDOT, their employees, or representatives, in bringing the sections of the roadway interferred with by the Licensee to the standards required by the Licensee to the standards required by the UDOT. These expenses specifically refer to all expense incurred in repairing portions of the roadway determined by UDOT inspectors to be inadequately restored or maintained by the Licensee. In addition, the Licensee shall at all times protect and indemnify and save harmless the UDOT from any and all claims, demands, judgements, costs, expenses and all damage of every kind and nature made, rendered or incurred by or in behalf of any person or corporation whatsoever, in any manner due to or arising out of injury to or death of any person, or damage to property of any person or persons whomsoever, including the parties hereto and their employees, or in any manner arising from or growing out of the construction, maintenance, operation, repair, extension, existence, use or removal of said utility line, or the failure to properly construct, operate maintain, or remove the same including any insecurity of the surface caused by the construction or use of said line, and from all costs and expenses, including attorney 's fees connected in anywise with the matter and things contained herein. For this purpose the Licensee certifies that it will comply with the terms of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act of 1965. t'�* 't �'^ chaae '� ^a- *� t o ' • d f..-i--tvse2-a e e:e. 14. ANNULMENT OF LICENSE: If the Licensee shall fail to construct, repair, or remove said utility line in accordance with the terms of this agreement and to the entire satisfaction of the UDOT, or shall fail to pay to the UDOT any sum of money for the reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of said line, or shall in any respect fail to keep, do and perform any of conditions, stipulations, covenants, and provisions of this agreement to be kept, done and performed by said Licensee, this agreement and license, shall, at the option of the UDOT be cancelled; and this license shall cease and the UDOT shall have the right to remove said utility line and restore the highway at the sole expense of the Licensee. However, before the UDOT shall exercise the option to cancel this agreement, it shall notify the Licensee in writing, setting forth violations complained of and shall give the Licensee a reasonable time to fully correct the same. • 15. AGREEMENT NOT TO BE ASSIGNED: The Licensee shall not assign this License or any interest therein without the written consent of the UDOT. • Page 5 of 7 Pages 16. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: All covenants and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. 17. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: With respect to work performed by contract, the Salt Lake City Corporation nhall not discriminate in its choice of contractor or contractors and shall make the following provision a part of the contract or contracts for the installations to be placed on highway right-of- way. Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Riphts Act of 1964 During the performan,:e of thi.3 contract, the contractor, for self, its assign- -s and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the contract") , agrees follows: (1) pliance with Regulations: The contractor ill comply with the Regulations of he Department of Commerce relative t nondiscrimination in Federally-assiste rograms of the Department of Co erce (Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, art 8, hereinafter referred t as the Regulations) , which are herein incorporate• by reference and made a rt of this contract. (2) Nondiscriminati : The contractor with regard to the work performed by it after award and prio to completio of the contract work, will not discriminate on the ground of ce, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, cludi g procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor will n t articipate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by ction 8.4 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contr ct overs a program set forth in Appendix A-II of the Regulations. (3) Solicitations for bcontracts, I luding Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solici tions either by c petive bidding or negotiations made by the contractor for ork to be performed der a subcontract, including procurement of materials o equipment, each potenti 1 subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the contracto 's obligations under this contract and the Regula ons relative to nondiscriminat Al on the ground of race, color or national on in. (4) Inform ion and Reports: The contractor will prov' a all information and reports req red by the Regulations, or orders and ins uctions issued pursuant there , and will permit access to its books, records, a counts, other sources of i ormation, and its facilities as may be determined the Utah Department f. Transportation or the Federal Highway Administrat n to be pertinent o ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders and instr tions. Where information required of a contractor is in the exclusive poss sion of ano er who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the contractor s 11 so c rtify to the Utah Department of Transportation or the Federal Highwa A nistration as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to o tain the information. Page 6 of 7 Pages (5) Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the contractor' nonco'.•liance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this contract, the itah Departure of Transportation shall impose such contract sanctions as ' or the Federal Hi: . ay Administration may determine to be appropriate, in ding, but not limited t. (a) wit'••.lding of payments to the contractor . der the contract until 'e contractor complies, and/or (b) cancellation, termination or susp- - ion of the contract, in whole or in par (6) Incorporation of Provis' .ns• The contractor will include the provisions of paragraph (1) throug. • in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and 1==ses of -.uipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, order, or instruct' . s issued pursu..•t thereto. The contractor will take such action with resp. to any subcontract •r procurement as the Utah Department of Transport- on or the Federal Highway A..•'oinistration may direct as a means of enforci . . such provisions including sanctio for non-compliance: Provided, however hat in the event a contractor becomes ' .volved in, or is threatened wit. , litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as . esult of such direction, e contractor may request the State to enter intop suc itigation to prot- the interests of the State, and, in addition, the contra .•r may requ.- the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the inte t the United States. • Page 7 of 7 Pages IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Utah Department of Transportation and the Licensee have caused these presents to be signed by their proper officials thereunto duly authorized. Dated , 19 ON BEHALF OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: ARREST: Office Manager District Director ON BEHALF OF THE LICENSEE: WITNESS: Licensee If a Corporation, affix Corporate Seal By_ Title APPROVED: • ----Federal Federal Highway Adminstration 5-3 CRAIG E. PETERSON sm2�_\a=�Vj��T DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-777 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 City recoup some of the costs expended in reviewing business license that are denied. All 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 fcc would not be in addition to the business license fcc but would be rather be paid as a part of and credited towards the regular business license fcc. In the event of denial of the application by the City or withdrawal by the applicant, the $35.00 application fcc 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: (1\-a(-27;7--- CRAIG Phl'U SON Director ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: RALPH BECKER PLANNING DIRECTOR ♦ CINDY CROMER THO ND SANDRA MARLER SALT 1 r r` �_�Gc trur ooRP©RATION j A. ELLISON SECRETARY LAVONE LIDDLE•GAMONAL EX-O FFICIO 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. SCHUPANN F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY \PACKER MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Peterson, Director Community and Economic DevvFAm 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 3 y it 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 application 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- S' �° GIT�YT GO:R ern ,ION CRAIG E. PETERSON s �cvcr� as 3-A•.. =s a 3-,-.,_._ . DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 '1U: 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 carriages, 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 fcc 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 . PETERSON Director lf/ ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RALPH BECKER `` ( IywJ G1N DY CROMGR SANDRA MARLER S1�` ` r�.oa ( 1rr ��ORP 1 ` 1,,� THOMAS A. ELL.ISON SECRETARY �' ® LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL EX•D FFICIO 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 KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL F. 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Peterson, Director I`i Community and Economic Devel ;pment FROM: Allen C. Johnson, Directo7, 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 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 If irly ;h SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 5.05, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, AND AMENDING 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. 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- 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 transportation 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- 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 property 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 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- 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 charges 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 chapter; 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- 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. [ 5.10.050 Public hearing Netiec to applicant and public. tice to holders of certificates. 5.10.060 Additional authority by holder3 Application. 5. 6 5 pert:f,cate--Det ation- of—need• I ssuance conditions. -9- 5.10.070 Fees For certificate or certificate of 5.10.075] 5.10.045 Fees-Annual operation. [5.10.080 Insurance or bond required. 5.10.085 Certificate Transfer limitations. 5.10.090 Certificate Su3pension and revocation conditions. 5.10.095 List of vehicles to be furnished. 5.10.100 Examiner Appointment. 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 [ham] 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- 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. [An application for a certificate shall be filed with the fied under oath and shall furni3h the A. The name and address of the applicant and in the event d copy of the articles of incorporation. No application shall be made on behalf of another person without disclosing that fact; B. The number of vehicles actually owned and the number such application; C. The number of vehicles for which a certifi ate of proposed depots and terminals; D. The financial statu3 of the applicant, including any and the nature of the transaction or acts giving rise to said judgments; transportation of sick or inj-ured persons, and its training program in first aid and medical care; -11- F. Any facts which the applicant believes tend to prove certificate; 0--The insignia, color scheme and name to be used to , discretion, reasonably require. fix a time and place for a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing provided in the preceding section shall bC giverto-the applicant by United States mail, recorder. ded in this chapter shall be given to all persons to whom certificates of public conveniencena nec =e-been—thereto-for ea 5.10.0 thority by holders Application. Upon the filing of an application for a certificate, any authority under such certificate for the same or any other number of ambulances for which authority is asked in the -12- e heard in conjunction with the application initially filed. 5.10.065 Certificate Determination of need Issuance conditions. A. If the city council finds that additional ambulance nienee and ncecaaity and that an applicant , perform such transportation and to conform to the provi3ions of ereunder by the city the name and address of the applicant, the number of vehicles authorized under said , e denied. B. In making the above findings, the city council shall take into consideration the number of ambulances already in operation, whether existing ambulance transportation is adequate of the issuance on he probable effect of increased service on to al traffic conditions, the character, experience and responsibility of the applicant, the- number, kind and type of ability of the applicant to earn a fair return on the capital invested. n nnn `ee9 For _ •f `ficate a �d tional authority. -13- necessit authority hereunder shall be accompanied by a payment of a fee the costs of hearings and proceedings en same. If the costs to - If the cost is less than one hundred dollars, the city shall in addition to the fees required to be paid under Section [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 [ business, ] plus fifty dollars each year for each vehicle authorized under a certificate of convenience and necessity. L of any other fees or charges establi3hcd by proper authority. No operation shall recorder a certifi ate of in- . anee executed by an insurance company or association authorized to transeet business in this state, upon a form as -14- prescribed by the mayor that there is in full force and effect a against the holders of sueh certificate for bodily injury to or the death of any person resulting from the- negligent operation, maintenance, or use of ambu-lanees under such certificate, or for established by Section 63 30 34, Utah Code Annotated, or ita successor, as maximum amounts for which a governmental entity ambulancesed-e to be use 5.10.085 Certificate Transfer limitations. e sold, assigned, mortgaged, leased or otherwise transferred or eneumbe-rem-wi-theut-the—€orma-1 conacnt of the city c -a-fter a public hearing conducted is accordance with this chapter. 5.10.090 Certificate -Suspension and revocation conditions. holder thereof has: 1. Violated any of the provisions of this title: 2. Abandoned operations for more than sixty days; 3. Violated any ordinances of the city or the laws of the United-Sees-or the-st e-violation of which reflects- unfavorably on the fitness of the holder to offer public transportation; -15- reflects unfavorably upon the holder'3 ability to offer public transportation. B. Prior to suspension or revocation, the holder -3ha11 be an opportunity to be heard. 5.10 095 Li3t of vehicles to be furnished. department an up to date list of the vehicles operated under their certificates, which list shall contain the make, type, year of manufacture, serial or engine number and passenger capacity of each vehicle operatcd a3 an ambulance. 5.10.100 Examiner Appointment. council has power to undertake or to hold may be undertaken or hcld by or before any- commissioner er examiner appointed by the this chapter. All investigations, inquiries and hearings by a commissioner or an examiner appointed by the city council shall s and hearings of the city commissioner or an examiner appointed by the city council, when l and filed in the -16- office of the city recorder, shall have the same effect as if originally made by the city council. [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 Necessity 5.72.130 Required for operation. -17- [5.75.135 Application Information required. 5.72.140 Application Public hearing. 55.2.145 Hearing Notice to Applicant and public. 5.72.155 Insurance or bond required. 5.72.160] 5.72.135 Fees. [ . 5.72.170 Issuance Determination authority. 5.72.175] 5.72.140 Existing holders' certificates--Ski season increases. [5.72.180 P ana-€er restrictions. 5.72.185 Suspension and revocation Conditions. 5.72.190 Vehicle buainesa license sticker issuance. 5.T 0] 5.72.145 Licensing for all certificated vehicles. [5.72.205] 5.72.150 Minimum use of taxicabs required. 5.72.210 Vehicles Li3t filed with police department. 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 [ice] 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- B. *** [5.72.135 Application Information required. An application for a certifies shall be filed with the application -shall be verified under oath-aa—sha l -fu rftzsn—tke following information: A. The name and address of the applicant and, in the event the application is made by a corporation, a certified copy of the articles of incorporation. Ne applieatien shall be made on behalf of another person without disclosing that fact and is filed; B. The number of vehicles actually owned and the number ouch application; C. The number of vehicles for which a certifi ate of public convenience for which a certifi ate of public convenience and necessity is desired, and the location of the proposed D. The financial status of t- , unpaid or , the title of all actions and the amount of all such judgments, end the nature of the transaetien or acts giving rise to such E. The experience e-f applicant in the transportation of passengers; -19- that public convenience and necesaity require the granting of a certificate; uacd to designate the vehicle or vehicles of the applicant; , zs discrete 5.72.140 Application Public hearing. Upon the filing of an application, the city council shall 5.72.145 Hearing Notice to applicant and public. 5.72. 140, or its succeaaor, shall be given to the applicant by Unitcd States mail, and notice shall be given the general public 5.72.150 Hearing Notice to holders of certificates. apter shall convenience and necessity have been theretofore issued. -5 2 5 Ins ar�ce-e . No certifi atc of public -conveni-ence and necessity shall be in this state, upon a form as prescribed by the mayor, that -20- injury to or death of and persen resulting from negligent certificate, or fer lees er damage to the property of others, in the nt.. s......b, _ shed b.. Sect1 63 30 3 Utah Code Annotated, err its successor, as maximum amounts for which a governmental entity may be held liable. Such policy or policies shall cover all to • s—used ewe be use . ] [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 [for the right to engage in 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- Upon the filing for an a plleati-en for a- eertificate, any present holder of a certificate may apply for additional authority under such certificate for the same or any lesser application, and such request for additional authority shall be hearing is scheduled. 5.72.170 Issuance Determination authority. in the city is- required by the- -public convenience and necessity public tran chapter, then the city council shall issue a certificate stating umber of vehicles authorized under the certificate, the color scheme or insignia otherwise, the application shall be denied. B. In making the above findings, the city council shall take into consideration the number of taxicabs already in operation, whether existing transportation is adequate to meet the public need, the probable effect of the issuance on the present carriers, the probable effcct-of increased service on responsibility of- the appl ' ant, the number, kind and type of equipment, and the ability of the applicant to earn a fair return on t . ] -22- [5.72.175] 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 es 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 Transfer restrictions. sold, assigned, mortgagcd, leased or otherwise transferred or cncumbcrcd without the formal consent of the city council after o public hearing conducted in accordance with this chapter. • A. A certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter may be revoked or -suspended by the city council if the holder thereof has; 3ions of this chapter; 2. Abandoned operation of a taxicab service for more than sixty days; -23- United States or the state of Utah, the violations of which re -fleet the holder to offcr public transportation. B. Prior to suspension er revo atiox, the holder shall be given notice of the proposed-aectien-tebe-ken-and-sh l ha o e [5.72.190 Vehicle buaine3s eense-s zssuanee- 5.72. 160, or its successor, a vehicle business license sticker shall be issued by the license supervisor for each taxicab such taxicab. [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 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. C. *** [5.72.205] 5.72.150 Minimum use of taxicabs required. A. *** 1 . *** 2. *** 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 [board] 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. [5.72.210 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 , capacity of each -vchielc operated as a taxi cab. ] [5.72.215] 5.72.155 Compliance responsibility. *** Article III. through Article IX. *** 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- 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] [5.76.150] [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- 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 [f]information required. application shall be verified under oath and shall furnish the following information: A. The name and address of the applicant and, in the n, a certified copy tion shall be made on behalf of another person without disclosing that fact; B. The number of special transportation vehicles actually operated by such application the date of such appli ation; C. The number of special transportation vehicles for D. The financial status of the applicant, including any the title of all actions and the amount of all such judgments, and the nature of the transaction or acts giving rise to said judgments; handicapped persons-, and its training program in first aid; -28- F. Any facts which the applicant believes tend to prove certificate; H. Such other information as the city may, in its ] 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. Upon the filing of an appli ation, the city council shall fix a time and place for a public hearing. section shall be given to the applicant by United States mail, the office- of the- city recorder. be given to all persons to whom certificates of public -29- 5.76.150 In3urance or bond rcquircd. A. No operation shall be conducted pursuant to the authority of any issued eertifieete of public eenvenicnce and certificate of ins asseeiatien -authorized to transact business in this state, upon a form as preibcd by the mar, that there is- in full force and effect a policy of insurance conditioned to pay any final anee er use of special transporta to the property of others, in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars bodily injury to er death el one person in connection with one accident, and in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars for injuries to or death of mere than one person in one accident,-. Sueh—policy or p lie-ies shall cover all special B. In lieu of the insurance herein provided for, the mayor mar, in his or her discretion, accept a bond to be mayor may prcascribe, with a sufficient corporate surety or personal surety of not less than two personal sureties, who ' I 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 [for the right to engage in the business of transporting handicapped persons, plus fifty dollars each year for each special transportation vehicle authorized under a certificate of convenience and necessity. [Such fees shall be for the calendar year, and shall be in lieu of any other fees or charges established by proper authority. [5.76.170 Issuance Determination by city council. transporting handicapped persons in the city is required by willing and able to perform such transportation and to conform to the provisions of this chapter and the rules promulgated the date of issuance; otherwise, the appli ation shall be denied. 1. The number of special transportation vehicles already in operation; -31- 2. Whether existing transportation is adequate to meet the public need; 3. The probable effect of the issuance on existing holders; 4. The probable effect of increased service on local traffic conditions; 5. The character, experiencc and responsibility of the applicant; 6. The number and kind and type of equipment; 7. The color scheme and designation to be used; and 8. The ability of the appli ant to earn a fair return on the apital invested. [5.76.180] 5.76.130 Existing licenses allowed certificates. *** 5.76.190 Application for additional authority. present holder of a certificate may apply for additional of special transportation vehicles for which authority is asked shall be heard in conjunction with the application initially filed. 5.76.200 List of vehicles furnished to police department. Holders sha- t acmes--have on file with the police department an up-to-date list of the vehicles- operated under certificates, which list shall contain the make, type, year of -32- manufacture, serial or engine number and passenger capacity of 5.76.210 Tran3fer limitations. nvenience and necessity may be cold, a33igncd, mortgaged, leaped er othcrwi3e transferred or a public hearing conducted in accordance with this chapter. 5.76.220 Suspension and revocation Conditions. A. A certificate issued under the provisions of this thereof has; 1 . Violated any of the provisions of this chapter; 2. Abandoned operations for more than sixty days; ty or the laws of the United States er the state of Utah, the violations of which affect unfavorably the fitness of the holder to offer public transportation hereunder. B. Prior to suspension or revocation, the holder Shall be given notice of the proposed—actez e-be ke and—sil one e 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- 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- SALT' 10 -,�GHTYW GORP 1° 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: 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 same number of carriages as they presently operate under their revocable permit without hearing. Included in the ordinance are certain regulations pertaining to driver licensing, carriage equipment and maintenance, and the conduct of the drivers and operation of carriages. The Transportation Division will direct the number of carriages operating at certain areas in the city and the 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. 1P - Director lf/ ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RALPH BECKER ' D� CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SI-�I I' A\ a�'‘n TYi 0 R 0\ °rt,'I 11©N{ THOMAS C ONE: N SECRETARY weer✓ � '`�j��`�s��n��"� 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 OFFICIAL 535-7757 F. KEITH STEPAN PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Craig Peterson, Director Community and Economic Development FROM: Allen C. Johnson, Director, \ Planning and Zoning Div o ' \ DATE: June 14, 1989 _-� 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 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 JRAFT 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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- 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. 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 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: 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 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 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 1 -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 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 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 to catch horse manure falling to the pavement. 6. Each carriage shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. B. Failure to comply--Penalty. Failure to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be grounds for refusal to issue or for revocation of the carriage' s license. C. Inspection fee. The carriage owner shall be required to pay an inspection fee of five dollars each time the vehicle is inspected. D. 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 -11- 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 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 -12- 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. 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: -13- 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 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 staging areas before using such areas. Upon request by the city -14- transportation 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. 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" *** -15- 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" *** [144--] 12. "Dog" *** [fl-:] 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. [3 ] 15. "Enclosure" *** [13-:] 16. "Estray" or "stray" *** [1 ] 17. "Guard dog" *** [-- - ] 18. "Holding facility" *** [1-6-] 19 . "Impoundment" *** -16- [4.4] 20. "Kennel" *** [18- ] 21 . "Leash" or "lead" *** [I9 ] 22. "Person" *** [20. ] 23. "Pet" *** [21-] 24. "Pet shop" *** [22. ] 25. "Provoked" *** [23. ] 26. "Quarantine" *** [ :] 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: Chapter 8.16 Regulation of Horse Drawn Carriage Businesses Sections Article I. Suitability of Horses -17- 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 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. -18- 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 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 -19- 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 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 -20- 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. 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 -21- 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 examined by a veterinarian. The costs of such examination shall 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 -22- hitched, or to a carriage business owning or having possession of the 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; 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. -23- 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, locomotive, train, railway car or caboose, whether moving or standing. B. *** -24- 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- SALT' a ORP 'L I�z •. v...i —w:i Lib,0, '...cm :a �dv.`-z-va �f+utvl DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAV!S Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING `_ �`J"�� 451 SOUH STATE STREET, SUITE 404 Y\`vvv SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 0 535.7902 J July 14 , 1989 \• Y ; w t/ TO: W.M. "Willie" Stoler, Chair 4 Salt Lake City Council \. It �\ RE: AUGUST 1, 1989 BUDGET OPENING Recommendation: That you approve the following budget opening. Current Recommended Project Budget Budget Change Source Program Income Revolving Loan Fund -0- $423, 719 . 41 $423, 719 . 41 from UDAG Repayment UDAG Repayments $423 , 719 . 41* -0- ($423, 719 . 41 ) NA * This amount will increase before the opening as more repayments will be received by $423 , 719 . 41 . Discussion: It is requested that you establish a revolving loan fund using all the proceeds of loan repayments from the City' s existing Urban Development Action Grant' s (UDAGs ) . The current amount existing in the repayment fund is $423,719 . 41 . Creation of this fund will automatically allow repayments to revolve into it, bringing the amount to you each successive budget opening, for budget authority to expend accumulated repayments on new approved loans . As you know, Clark Financial is currently requesting a loan of $900, 000 to bring a Shopko development to the Sugarhouse area . Attached is a summary of UDAG repayments trough September of 1990 which will then total approximately $975 , 330, or close to the amount requested . We are not recommending the Shopko loan at this time for the following reasons : 1 . It is against federal regulations to obligate "future" receipts . 2 . A loan granted before all repaying UDAGs are closed out will trigger Davis/Bacon wages to be paid' on construction projects . City Center is currently closed and Rick Warner and Parkview are in the process of closing out . Parkview may be completed as early as September or as late as December 1989 . As soon as Parkview is closed out, and pending a mutually acceptable loan package, the Shopko loan should be reconsidered and approved in stages as funds are available. Also attached is a draft policy concerning the revolving loan fund for your consideration. Sincerely, 1 J '` fRosem ry Davis Director RD/JR/Sh cc: Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis Mike Zuhl Emilie Charles Craig E . Peterson Linda Hamilton Steve Fawcett Elwin Heilmann Joe Reno File 7/14/89 UDAG Payment Summary (From City Center, Rick Warner & Parkview) Date Amount Through 6/30/89 $400 , 330 , Quarter ending 9/30/89 115, 000 . Quarter ending 12/31/89 115, 000 . Quarter ending 3/31/89 115, 000 . Quarter ending 6/30/90 115 , 000 . Quarter ending 9/30/90 115, 000 . Cumulative Total $975 , 330 . • i.. j to!;: is ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY REVOLVING LOAN FUND • 90411 Purpose: The Economic Opportunity Revolving Loan Fund (EO Fund) is established to offer financial incentives to new and expanding businesses in Salt Lake City through a working partnership with a ' � a local financial institutions and/or other small business investment entities . The general intent is to provide supplemental funding to projects which: will demonstrate a measurable positive impact on the local economy through job creation and by stimulating private sector investment, . can show a justifiable need for public financial participation, . can meet minimum eligibility requirements , • have the capacity to repay the loan. Incentivves Available: Applications may be submitted EG Fund participation as follows: . Gap Financing -•. A short term secured loan supplement to medium and long term financing of fixed assets used in conjunction wi{:h, but in instances where other financing is nct sufficient . A repayment schedule and an interest rate near, but usually below prime will be negotiated on terms generally over 5 years or less . Maximum EO. Fund participation will be 40% of project costs (but no more than any other investment partner) and minimum owner equity must be 10% . Eligible projects include the purchase of real estate; buildings and improvements; the purchase of machinery, and equipment with a life of the term of the loan; and the cost of construction or renovation. The upper commitment limit to a single project in any funding period is $50, 000 . The loan must be fully collateralized, however, subordination may be considered. . Relocation or Expansion Enticement - A short term secured loan for fixed assets or working capital ordinarily used in tandem with financing from a private lending institution or other investment partner. The maximum short term participation by the EO Fund will usually be an amount no greater than any other investment partner. Interest and repayment terms will be negotiable but full repayment is • required within 5 years . Eligible activities include construction and expansion as well as working capital activities . The upper commitment limit to a single project in any funding period is $50, 000- The loan must be fully collateralized, however, subordination may be considered. Conventional Loan Interest Buy-down - A conventional loan subsidy provided through an interest rate buy-down for any project qualifying for institutional financing and meeting EG Fund requirements . The extent of the incentive for any r, 2e.-rticrkiar pro ect is- negotiable, however, no more than 20, 000 wiJ.l be expended for buy-down purposes during any dalerdar year. . Conventional Loan Guarantee - A conventional loan enhancement provided by a guarantee of up to 50% of the loan face value or an amount no greater than the participation of the conventional lender(s ) . Generally alrail; ble for any project qualifying for institutional ii4nanging and .meeting EO Fund requirements, needing short term financing up to 5 years . The maximum guarantee p ee di,n guarantee escrow during any funding period will 5e $50, 000 . Selection Process : Applications will be received for project funding only during the first 30 days ofo11- calendar quamter. Applications will be screened and those meeting threshold eligibility requirements will he presence to the EO Fund Loan Board fox f undi, g consideration. Awards will generally be announced during the last week of the quarter. Where more than gna qualificd application £a reeved during the application pori.pd, each project will be ranked T4 assigned a numerical score based on proj c: . pe fozmance across a range of factors Th7:'" c iteri a for assigning points to each project is: Where applications exceed available fund resources, projects will - 13e raiked and assigned a numerical score derived from their projected per.:ormance across a range of factors . The criteria fed_ determining the priority of each project is: . Location and type of project . Net impact on City tax structure . Total new jobs created . Percent low/moderate income jobs . EO Fund dollars per new job . Leverage ratio of EO Fund to other project dollars . Contribution to the physical and social welfare of the City In a funding round where projects are competing for priority, funds will be awarded first to the project with the highest score Total, then atf er projects in the ordef* of their ranking until 7-4 54 y fund allocation is deplAteU. Unsuccessful qualified projects may be submitted for subsequent funding rounds , but no preference wild, be given" to previous submittals . I1 t�J�� Q\ e EO Fund Board will have final and total discretion in making awards based on the anticipated benefit to the City compared to _i.n risk level of the loan. ��Xj1 . Fund Capitalization_ The EO Fund will be capitalized with Quarterly injections of $75, 000 from UDAG repayment monies . .wards will be made to the extent funds are available in any funding round . Funde not allocated WILL be_. carried into t } subsequent round . A p00, 000 reserve fund will be maintained for extraordinary economic development Opportunities that meet program criteria . • e-i • Administration: The program will be administered by the Salt Lake City Department of Development Services and applications for funding will be submitted to the Capital Planning and Programming Division. The Division will be responsible for program coordination, accepting and screening applications, and making - project score assign:aents . The Division will process ao:-licatio.ns through prescribed departmental reviews and submit projects to the EO Fund Loan Board,: The Board will consist of five members appointed from the business and finance community by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council . Program administrative costs will he derived from interest on the fund account and a 1 . 5% loan origination fee. Successful applicants will pay all direct costs related to securing the loan . w A\a ty T© ', 0 °' JJ f 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 6 FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON t����, ' 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. • uts\ wir grp,mo- DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ZRAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 - 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council April 5 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-596 submitted by Banj Investment RecorriTndation: 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, d' West be vacated. • Zn— 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 recomend 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: CRAIG E. IETERSCN 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 l > NORTH 38.5 FEET; THENCE EAST 1 ROD; THENCE SOUTH 38. 5 FEET; THENCE WEST 1 ROD TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. �l : > T 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- 44 • •. • SALT'rAl� �;WY CORPORATION FINANCE.,DEPARTMENT LANCE R. BATEMAN.CPA Purc asir g and Property Mandgement,Division PALMER OZPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 324:SOUTH:STATE STREET I MAYOR -SALT LAki-C?TY UTAH 84111 PURCHASING.(801) 535-7661 - PROPERTY 535-7133 April 11, 1988 TO: Doug Dansie Planning and Zoning _FROM: Eric H. Thorpe - Property Manage . RE: PET. 400-596, BANJ INVESTMENT • I have reviewed the subject petition and recommend that this alleyway be closed, and that the petitioner be required to purchase the property and • reimburse the City for the cost of a market value appraisal. Please contact me at ext. 6308 if you have any questions. - EHT/bf • cc: G. L. Failner • 3/ll 7% g7 by iNht•J • m\I oz,,,yr,vr‘t.,),41.1_,„) pt. )A/3 -Pie so FL6p5-� v- ,nn)JL' &2L"-t- TO I�GLL�D v�� l/A6, �;jf;8+1rst'J4- •Ae i, 00LS 645)7114 42-5 • v�— • • • • • (• 9A9 r ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS, PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 .� CINDY CRb cER- SANDRA MARLER SALT'LAKE YCORPORATION SECRETARY _ ..._.� ........... ..• v..,_ /... ...... .>z.. DEPARTMENT .OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD HOWA EX.OFFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission1. GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER - 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, 'ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN - CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 939.7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER March 3 , 1989 Craig F. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development • Salt Lake City, UT RE: Petition No . 400-596 Banj Investment • Dear Craig : Please find attached Petition No. 400-596 requesting SLC vacate an alley between parcels #15 -12-233-006- and 15-12-233-015 at approximately 750 South 250 West. • After reviewing the petition, it is recommended that the petition be approved and the alley be sold at market value. Respectfully, Allen C. ohnson AICP • - Planning Director • ACJ/jn cc: Engineering Fire Property Mgmt . Public Utilities Transportation 1.1,V z!.• . • ALLEN C- JCHNSCN MEMBERS: PLANNING OIRECTCR SALT1i+ u ;CITYrO Vi ID THOMAS A. ELL ISON • SANDRA MAW-ER LAVONE LIDDLE•GAMONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT 'SERVICES RICHARD HOWA �X-OFFICIO MEM3E=5: RALRH P. NEILSCN - 'AYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICCLATUS CITY ENGINELR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 2CO JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENG:NE=R SALT LAKE CITY..UTAH 84111 F. KEITH ST_PAN - _:TY BUILDING CFFIG:AL PETER VAHALSTYNE 535-7757 KATHY WACKER July 13, 1988 Mr, Craig Peterson, Director De^artent of Development Services 324 S State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • Re: Petition No. 400-596 - Banj Investment • Dear Craig: P le_se `ird attached Petition No. 400-596 by Banj Investment re .Testing Salt Lake City vacate an a _ey tween parcels 15-12-233-006 and 15-12-233-015 at accrc.c?Tately 750 Sou h 25 We t. ±rter reviewing the petition it was determined that the alley is a private r;cr.t L-ryay, not owned by the city. It is recommended that this petition be filed with no action taken and the petitioner be advised of the private status of the right-of-way. To resolve the issue, the petitioner should research the dew s at the County Recorders office to determine the owners and work with them individually. • • Rescect-VllY, Allen C. Johnson, AICP Acting Planning Director • • attachmer ACJ:DD cc: Engineering Fire Prccerty Management Public Utilities Trans ortation • EXPANDED CNE 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 CXN TS: Enginccring:No objection. Fire: No objection, would prefer entire alley closed. Planning: No objection. Property management: No objection. Public Utilities: No objection. Transportation: No objection, would prefer entire alley closed. cc: Engineering Fire Property Management Public Utilities Transportation Cfiatj ?meiWComani D. Eric Ensign General Manager 370 East South Temple, Suite 501 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 SALT' :L i11 'GITYr C, Telephone (801) 531-0364 Home (801) 943-2123 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 'iAIG E. PET ER SON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. SUITE 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7777 July 20, 1988 • Mr. D. Eric Ensign Banj Investment Ccmpany P.O. Box 20 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Dear Mr. Ensign: I have received your request to vacate -an alley located between parcels 415-12-233-006 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. • Yours truly, 1 �- • ik6 CRAIG E.!PEIERSCN 14- Director S S I� C (,psac_rik-i-tt) -Ft 7Z-E� lf/ cc: Petition No. 400-596yik i sI Cs E le vs& • ROGER F. CUTLER S L11111C•11l1 CT .G DRPr RIiI@Nj 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 BRUCE R. BAIRD 451 SOUTH STATE STREET. SUITE 505 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 MEMORANDUM RICHARD G. HAMP GLEN A. COOK TO: Mayor DePaulis FROM: Greg R. Hawkins, Assistant City Attorney RE: Stop Intersections Ordinance Change DATE: May 24, 1989 • We have had a request from the Police Department, concurred in by the Transportation Department, to change the City ordinance on stop intersections to comply with state law. The state law changed a few years ago making the city ordinance in conflict with it. Please contact Sgt. Folsom of the Salt Lake City Police Department or Tim Harpst, Transportation Engineer, for persons to testify in support of the change. GRH:pp Enclosures cc: St. Folsom Tim Harpst (with enclosure) D F SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 ( Stop Intersections ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 44, SECTION 210, - SUBPARAGRAPH A OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, RELATING TO STOP INTERSECTIONS, AND RE-LETTERING SUBSEQUENT SUBPARAGRAPHS AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Title 12, Chapter 44, Section 210, Subsection A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Stop intersections be, and the same hereby is, amended, with subsequent subparagraphs re-lettered as follows: 12.44.210 [Entering through streets or s]Stop intersections. A. [The driver e-f a vehicle shall stop, a2 required by thin title, at the entrance to a through highway, and shall yield the right of may to ether vehicles whieh have entered the , --•d �-h- vers of all othcr vchiclea approaching the inter3ection on such through highway shall yield the right of highway. ] Except as specified in Subsection (B ) , when more than one vehicle enters or approaches an unregulated or an all-way stop intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the operator of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right, unless otherwise directed by a peace officer. B. When approaching an unregulated intersection the operator of a vehicle on a highway that does not continue beyond the intersection shall yield the right-of-way to the operator of any vehicle on the intersecting highway. [B ]C. Except when directed to proceed by a police officer or traffic-control signal, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop as required by Section 12 . 48 . 030, or its successor, and after having stopped shall yield the right-of-way to any • vehicle: 1 . * * * 2. * * * 3 . * * * [E-:-]D. In the event that a driver, after having driven past a stop sign, is involved in a collision with a pedestrian having right-of-way in a crosswalk or a vehicle having right-of- way in the intersection such collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such driver' s failure to yield the right-of- way as required by this section, but shall not be considered negligence per se. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . -2- • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the International Association of Firefighters Local 1645 representing the 400 Series Employees ) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1645 REPRESENTING THE 400 SERIES EMPLOYEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . PURPOSE. Section 9(c) of the Salt Lake City Third Amended Labor Bargaining Resolution dated April 10, 1984, provides that no collective bargaining Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective until the legislative body of Salt Lake City Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City" ) approves said Memorandum of Understanding, enacts implementing legislation and appropriates all required funds. A Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1645 representing the 400 Series employees, has been negotiated, a copy of which is attached hereto. The City Council has appropriated necessary funds required to implement the provisions of the attached Memorandum of Understanding for fiscal year 1989-90. The provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding relate solely to the current budget year and the availability of funds therefor. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby evidences its approval of the attached Memorandum of Understanding. SECTION 2. APPROVAL. The attached Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the International Association of Firefighter, Local 1645 is hereby approved. SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the attached Memorandum of Understanding. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be deemed effective on July 1, 1989 . 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 A PRC'iED AS TO FORM Salt La e City Attomey's Office Date ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc APPROVED J U L 141989 CITY RECORDER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A ME RAN OF UNDERSTANDING, entered into this f day of , 1989 , by SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, ( "CITY" and cal 1645 of the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FI TERS, "UNION" ) , WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the City has endorsed the practices and procedures of collective bargaining, as a fair and orderly way of conducting its relations with its employees, insofar as such practices and procedures are consistent with it performing the functions and obligations of the City and so long as it retains its right to effectively manage and conduct the affairs of the City; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that this Memorandum of Understanding ( "Memorandum" ) does not modify any of the discretionary authority vested in the City by the Constitution and statutes of the State of Utah, the body of the law developed thereunder, or under its Ordinances or Resolutions; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto declare their mutual understandings as follows: ARTICLE I AUTHORITY The City and Union have negotiated this Memorandum pursuant to and consistent with the City' s Labor Bargaining Resolution ( "Resolution" ) , as amended on April 10, 1984 to prevent work interruptions, promote efficient operations of the City, and to provide an orderly and prompt method of handling grievances. ARTICLE II RECOGNITION The City recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for full-time employees in the Fire Department Unit ( the "UNIT" ) , as determined by the Resolution and within the policies adopted by the Mayor, for the purpose of negotiating salaries, wages, hours and other conditions of employment for said employees. ARTICLE III RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS A. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The CITY retains the exclusive right to manage all phases of its operations and to direct the working forces except as specifically modified, curtailed, delegated, or relinquished under the terms of this MEMORANDUM. B. NO-STRIKE CLAUSE Neither the UNION, nor any employee of the UNIT, shall promote, sponsor, or engage in, or encourage, directly or indirectly, any strike, slowdown, interruption of operations, stoppage of work, absence from work upon any pretext or excuse, sympathy strike, sick-out, withholding of services, interferences with services provided by the CITY, or any other interruption of the CITY' s operations, and the Union will use efforts to induce all employees covered by this MEMORANDUM to comply with this paragraph II .B. The CITY will not lock out any employees during the term of this MEMORANDUM as a result of a labor dispute with the UNION. ARTICLE IV DUES DEDUCTION The CITY agrees to deduct once each month UNION membership dues from the pay of those employees who individually request in writing that such deductions be made and to forward all collected monies to the UNION on a monthly basis. The CITY further agrees to cease deduction of such fees upon written request by the employee. The UNION shall certify to the CITY in writing the current rate of membership dues. The CITY will be notified of any change in the rate of membership dues thirty ( 30) days prior to the effective date of such change. -2- ARTICLE V WAGE SCHEDULE UNIT employees shall be paid biweekly, under the wage schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "A" . ARTICLE VI HOURS OF SERVICE AND OVERTIME A. HOURS OF SERVICE. In case of emergency or whenever public interest demands, an employee may be required to perform overtime work by the Chief of the Fire Department. Whenever possible, volunteers will be solicited. Forty hours a week shall constitute a normal work week for all UNIT employees, except employees assigned to the combat division. Employees regularly assigned to duty in the combat division shall perform their work during duty shifts, each consisting of 24 consecutive hours on duty at assigned employment location; however, members off duty shall be subject to call at any time or in case of emergency. Therefore, the parties agree that for employees assigned to the combat division, a 56- hour work week shall constitute a normal work period. The work schedule established herein shall remain unchanged unless, as determined by the Chief, business necessity or scheduling requires a change. B. EXCHANGE OF TIME Firefighters may exchange shifts in accordance with provisions outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act and when the change does not interfere with the operations of the Fire Department, subject to permission from the firefighter' s supervisor or a district officer. C. OVERTIME COMPENSATION ( 1 ) Employees shall be paid overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. An employee must receive prior approval of his/her supervisor before the employee performs overtime work. An employee shall not be compensated for unauthorized overtime work. (2 ) An employee required to perform authorized overtime work shall be compensated by pay at one -3- and one-half the applicable rate. The employee may request compensatory time in lieu of cash subject to approval of the Fire Chief. Provided, however, employees in the UNIT, except employees regularly assigned to the combat division, may not accrue more than 240 hours of compensatory time for hours worked after April 15, 1986. Employees in the UNIT regularly assigned to the combat division may not accrue more than 480 hours of compensatory time for hours worked after April 15, 1986. Any such employee who, after April 15, 1986, has accrued 480 or 240 hours, as the case may be, of compensatory time off, shall, for additional overtime hours of work, be paid overtime compensation. When time off from employment is allowed as compensation for overtime, such time off shall be granted within twelve ( 12) months from the performance of overtime work. No employee shall be compensated for any period of overtime worked less than one-half hour in duration; however, compensation for the first one- half hour worked shall be paid employees working overtime in excess of one-half hour on a single work occasion. Compensation for overtime periods in excess of one-half hour shall be computed on the basis of the total number of consecutive 15- minute periods worked by the employee on a particular duty occasion. D. CALLBACK Combat firefighters and arson investigators who are directed to report to work during their scheduled off- duty time by an appropriate department officer without advance notice of scheduling shall be compensated, including overtime if applicable, with a minimum of four (4) hours for firefighters and two ( 2) hours for arson investigators, for such occasion as they actually report for duty. Firefighters and arson investigators will be paid at an hourly rate based upon a 40 hour work week for the time actually worked. E. EMERGENCY ASSIGNMENTS Firefighters may be temporarily assigned to perform the duties of the next higher rank, provided such assignment shall not be for a period longer than thirty (30) 24 hour shifts per fiscal year, and shall not -4- carry an increase in salary. Upon expiration of such temporary assignment, the firefighter shall be restored to the position occupied at the time such temporary assignment was made. If firefighters work out of classification for more than 30 shifts in a fiscal year, they will be paid a differential equal to 1% of their base monthly salary for each shift worked in excess of 30 shifts in the temporary assignment. ARTICLE VII HOLIDAYS A. HOLIDAYS SPECIFIED The following days shall be recognized and observed as holidays for all full-time, employees. Full time employees of the Combat Division of the Fire Department, in lieu of days off for the following enumerated holidays, shall be granted six ( 6 ) on-duty shifts ( 144) hours off per year to be taken at such time as approved by the Fire Chief. All employees who are not assigned to the combat division shall receive 8 hours of their regular rate of pay for each of the following unworked holidays: ( 1 ) The first day of January, called New Year' s Day; ( 2 ) The third Monday of January observed as the anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. also known as Human Rights Day; (3 ) The third Monday of February, observed as Presidents Day; (4 ) The last Monday of May, called Memorial Day; ( 5 ) The fourth day of July, called Independence Day; ( 6 ) The twenty-fourth day of July, called Pioneer Day; (7 ) The first Monday in September, known as Labor Day; • (8 ) The second Monday of October, known as Columbus Day; (9 ) The eleventh day of November, known as Veterans ' Day; -5- ( 10) The fourth Thursday in November, known as Thanksgiving Day; and ( 11 ) The twenty-fifth day of December, called Christmas. ( 12 ) One personal holiday can be taken upon request of the employee at the discretion of the department head. Employees are eligible for this holiday only after satisfactorily completing their initial probationary period. B. ALTERNATIVE AND ADDITIONAL HOLIDAYS When any holiday listed above falls on Sunday, the following business day shall be considered a holiday. When any holiday listed above falls on Saturday, the preceding business day shall be considered a holiday. In addition to the above, any day may be designated as a holiday by proclamation of the Mayor, or the City Council. C. HOLIDAY PAY LIMITATION All employees must work their last scheduled working day following the holiday to qualify for holiday pay or be on authorized leave. Employees terminating the day before or after a holiday shall not be compensated hereunder. ARTICLE VIII VACATIONS A. VACATIONS AUTHORIZED Full-time employees shall be entitled to receive their regular salaries during vacation periods earned and taken in accordance with the provisions of this Article. B. VACATION SCHEDULE Completed Years Days of Vacation Shifts of of Consecutive Per Year Vacation City Service Per Year 0 5 2. 5 1 to 3 10 5 4 to 6 12 6 7 to 9 15 7. 5 -6- 10 to 12 18 9 13 to 14 20 10 15 to 19 22 11 20 or more 25 12. 5 B. RULES FOR TAKING VACATION ( 1 ) Vacation periods may be divided into two or more separate periods as are deemed necessary by the Fire Chief or as requested by the employee and approved by the Fire Chief. ( 2 ) Upon permission of the Fire Chief, employees may accumulate vacation (including both earned vacation and sick leave conversion time) , according to the length of their full-time consecutive years of employment with the CITY up to the following maximum limits: (a) After 6 months - up to 20 days ( 10 shifts ) ; (b) After 9 years - up to 25 days ( 12-1/2 shifts ) ; (c ) After 14 years - up to 30 days ( 15 shifts) . Any vacation earned or accrued beyond said maximum shall be deemed forfeited; provided, however, that the foregoing notwithstanding, for good cause shown, the Fire Chief, in writing and prior to a forfeiture date, may allow an employee to accumulate vacation time up to an additional maximum five ( 5) day ( 2-1/2 shift) period to be used within one year from the date permission for such extension was granted. ( 3 ) Accumulated vacation can only be used with permission of the Fire Chief or upon termination of employment with the CITY. ( 4) Except upon termination or purchase as provided in paragraph VII.D. , no employee shall be entitled to be paid for vacation earned but not taken. C. VACATION AND TERMINATION BENEFITS UPON TERMINATION ( 1 ) Every employee whose employment is terminated by resignation or otherwise shall be entitled to be paid for: -7- ( a) All earned vacation time accrued, unused, unforfeited and forwarded from previous years, plus; (b) A termination benefit consisting of all vacation accrued, unforfeited and unused for the year of employment during which the termination shall occur. For purposes of calculating this vacation benefit on termination, an employee' s accrued vacation shall be converted from a 56 hour work week to a 40 hour work week basis. ( 2 ) However, the foregoing notwithstanding, no employee shall be entitled to any termination benefit or payment for any vacation time which has not been vested, accrued, unforfeited and unused and shall not be entitled to any payment or termination benefit until an employee has completed at least six ( 6 ) months of full-time employment with the CITY. D. CASH PAYMENT OF EARNED VACATION TIME IN LIEU OF USE ( 1 ) The CITY may purchase up to, but not exceed , ten ( 10 ) days ( 5 shifts) of earned and accrued vacation time, to which an employee is entitled as authorized in this paragraph, with the consent of said employee and upon approval of both the Fire Chief and the Mayor. ARTICLE IX SICK LEAVE AND HOSPITALIZATION BENEFITS A. SICK LEAVE POLICY AND PROCEDURES ( 1 ) Sick leave shall be provided for all full-time employees only as insurance against loss of income when an employee is unable to perform assigned duties because of illness or injury. ( 2 ) Each full-time, employee shall be entitled to 15 days each calendar year, except members of the Combat Division who shall be entitled to 7. 5 on- duty shifts of sick leave each calendar year. Sick leave will be granted in a lump sum ( 15 days or 7. 5 on-duty shifts) during the first month of -8- each calendar year. Sick leave will be granted on this basis if, for the prior year, the UNIT ' s average sick leave does not exceed the CITY' s average sick leave. If the UNIT ' s average sick leave exceeds the CITY's average sick leave, then sick leave will be granted on a month-to-month basis. UNIT members who separate from the CITY for any reason prior to the end of the 12th month of the calendar year will have sick leave for the period prorated back to the CITY on a one-day or 1/2 on duty shift basis per month. January 15.00 days 7.5 shifts February 13.75 days 6.88 shifts March 12. 50 days 6.25 shifts April 11. 25 days 5. 63 shifts May 10.00 days 5.0 shifts June 8. 75 days 4.38 shifts July 7. 50 days 3.75 shifts August 6.25 days 3. 13 shifts September 5.00 days 2.50 shifts October 3. 75 days 1.88 shifts November 2. 50 days 1.25 shift December 1.25 days . 63 shift (4) No employee shall be entitled to the foregoing sick leave, until such person has completed at least six ( 6) months of continuous employment with the CITY. ( 5 ) Employees absent from work on account of illness or injury shall report intended absence to their department head or supervisor as soon as practical, but no later than 1 hour prior to the beginning of the employee's duty shift unless justified by emergency circumstances. Combat Division personnel shall notify their station officer of any such intended absence. All other UNIT employees shall notify their immediate supervisor or Battalion Chief. ( 6 ) Sick leave in excess of five days (or two on-duty shifts in the case of Combat Division personnel ) for any one illness shall be documented by a written certification from a health department nurse at no cost to the employee or a licensed practicing and attending physician, that during the period of leave the absent officer or employee was prevented by illness from discharging the -9- duties required by his or her office or position of employment. Such certification shall be on a form approved by the Fire Chief which may require a detailed and specific verification by the physician and the employee of the particular job duties which the employee is unable to perform. B. ACCUMULATION OF SICK LEAVE Authorized unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year . C. OVERTIME COMPENSATION Scheduled work days for which an employee is absent due to illness and on sick leave as provided for hereunder, shall not be construed as normal work days for the purposes of computing such employees' overtime compensation. D. SICK LEAVE CONVERSION TO VACATION TIME Any member of the Combat Division who has accumulated fifteen ( 15 ) shifts under the provisions of paragraph IX A, may choose to convert a portion of the yearly sick leave granted for any given year to vacation and any employee, other than a member of the Combat Division, who has accumulated to his or her credit thirty (30 ) sick leave days can convert according to the following provisions: Number of Sick Leave Days Number of Sick Leave Days or Shifts Used During or Shifts Available for Previous Calendar Year Conversion 0 hours (No shifts) 60 hours ( 2-1/2 shifts ) 24 hours ( 1 shift) 48 hours ( 2 shifts ) 48 hours ( 2 shifts) 36 hours ( 1-1/2 shifts ) 72 hours ( 3 shift ) 24 hours ( 1 shift) 96 hours ( 4 shifts) 12 hours ( 1/2 shift) 120 hours or more ( 5 or more shifts) 0 hours (No shifts ) No days 5 days 1 day 4 days 2 days 3 days 3 days 2 days 4 days 1 day 5 or more days No days Such converted sick leave shall be permitted as vacation in addition to any other vacation award to which said employee is entitled. -10- E. SICK LEAVE CREDIT FORWARD The balance of the sick leave not converted to vacation as permitted above, less the number used during that calendar year as sick leave shall be carried forward as accumulated sick leave. F. NOTIFICATION OF ELECTION The election of an employee to convert any sick leave to vacation time must be made in writing on the forms provided by the Fire Department. This shall be completed no later than the end of the annual vacation draw. If an employee' s eligibility for sick leave conversion changes due to the use of sick leave after they convert, but before the end of the year, the amount of conversion allowed for the coming year will be corrected. G. PRESUMPTION OF USE Any sick leave properly converted to vacation benefits as above described, shall be deemed to be taken prior to any other vacation time to which the employee is entitled; provided, however, that in no event shall an employee be paid for converted sick leave upon termination. Any sick leave converted to vacation remaining unused at the date of termination or retirement shall be forfeited by the employee. H. RETIREMENT BENEFITS In addition to the sick leave conversion privilege to vacation days above described, at retirement an employee (or his or her estate, where death follows retirement but precedes payment) shall be eligible to a retirement benefit as stipulated in Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 6 of 1989 and Special Orders approved by the Mayor. Employees who retire under the eligibility requirements of the Utah State Retirement System with from 10 to 19 cumulative years of service in the Fire Department and are not eligible under the above referenced ordinance shall be paid in cash, at their then current pay scale, a sum equal to their daily rate of pay for 25% of the accumulated sick leave days reserved for the benefit of said employee at the date of their retirement or 45 days ( 22. 5 shifts) of full pay (whichever is less) . In calculating this -11- retirement benefit, accrued sick leave shall be converted from a 56 hour work week to a 40 hour work week. I . HOSPITALIZATION In addition to the sick leave authorized hereunder, each full-time, employee in the UNIT shall be entitled to fifteen ( 15) on-duty shifts except for 40 hours work week employees who shall be entitled to thirty ( 30) days hospitalization leave each calendar year, provided that such leave may be taken only if, and during the period that, such employee is actually admitted to a hospital or using other free standing outpatient surgical facility. No accumulation of hospital leave shall be allowed. J. AUTHORIZED SICK LEAVE AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS An employee in the UNIT shall be entitled to receive sick leave or hospitalization leave benefits for illness, injuries, or disability resulting from accidents arising out of or in the course of employment for an employer other than the CITY; provided, however, that as a condition of granting such leave, the CITY may require that it be subrogated to the employee' s rights of recovery against any person or organization associated with such injury. The CITY shall have the exclusive right to decide whether to require subrogation and/or seek recovery; provided, however, that full recovery by and reimbursement to the CITY of all its expenses associated with the employee' s injury, including medical and leave costs, shall have the effect of revesting with the employee all sick leave and hospitalization leave entitlements exhausted as the result of such injury. K. REGULAR SALARY TO BE CONTINUED Each employee who takes authorized sick leave or authorized hospitalization leave shall continue to receive his or her regular salary during his or her absence from work for the periods set forth in this paragraph. L. ON-DUTY SHIFTS FOR COMBAT DIVISION PERSONNEL DEFINED For computation purpose of this Article, the term "on- duty shift" for employees of the combat division shall mean a 24 hour working day; benefits will be provided at the rate of 24 hours for each shift provided, i.e. -12- 15 days of sick leave equals 7. 5 scheduled working ( 24 hour) shifts. Unit employees who work a 40 hour work week, 15 days of sick leave equals fifteen, eight ( 8) hour scheduled work shifts. It is not the intent of this Memorandum to increase sick leave or vacation benefits as a result of the conversion to 24 hour work shifts. The conversion was made to reflect combat division work schedules. M. DISABILITY COMPENSATION ( 1 ) Any full-time salaried employee of the Unit who is permanently and totally disabled as defined by the City' s long term disability program ( income protection plan) shall be entitled to disability compensation pursuant to said program. ( 2 ) The CITY at its own expense shall have the right and opportunity to examine the person of any employee when and as often as it may reasonably require during employment with the CITY and during the pendency of a disability hereunder. No employee refusing such examination shall be eligible for the benefits provided by this paragraph. ( 3 ) Refusal to submit to treatment for disabilities shall be grounds for termination of compensation specified hereunder. ( 4 ) When any injury for which compensation is payable under this paragraph shall be caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another employee of the CITY or person not in such employment, the CITY may require an employee claiming compensation hereunder as a condition of receipt of such compensation, to assign to the CITY any action for damage against such third person such injured employee may have. ( 5 ) If an employee of the CITY becomes entitled to receive worker' s compensation as a result of suffering a CITY service-connected injury or illness of a type not compensated under the foregoing provisions of this section, such employees shall be paid worker' s compensation as provided by law; provided, however, that he/she may elect to use, during such disability, his/her -13- accumulated sick leave credit and vacation time, such part of his/her wage or salary as shall, when added to his/her worker' s compensation payments, equal his/her regular wage or salary; and provided further, that satisfactory evidence of such election shall be transmitted by said employee to the Department of Human Resource Management of the CITY prior to payment. N. INJURY LEAVE The CITY shall establish rules and procedures for administration of an injury leave program ( supplemental to regular sick leave benefits) for UNIT employees, under the following qualifications and restrictions: ( 1 ) The disability must have resulted from a documented incident and injury while actively involved in performing emergency services including firefighting, medical services and mandated departmental training and exercising some form of necessary firefighting authority or departmental authorized training. ( 2 ) The firefighter must be unable to return to work due to the injury as verified by a licensed physician acceptable to the CITY. A second opinion may be obtained by either party at a cost to be borne by the requesting party; ( 3 ) The leave benefit must not exceed the value of the firefighter' s net salary during the period of absence due to the injury, less all amounts paid or credited to the firefighter as worker' s compensation, social security, disability, or retirement benefits, or any form of governmental relief whatsoever; ( 4) The aggregate value of benefits provided to all claimants under this injury leave program shall not exceed the total of $5,000.00, unless approved in writing by the Mayor under extraordinary circumstances; and ( 5 ) The CITY' S Risk Manager shall be principally responsible for the review of injury leave claims, provided that appeals from the decision of the Risk Manager may be received by the Director of Human Resources Management who will make recommendations to the Mayor for final decision. -14- If an employee is eligible for worker' s compensation as provided by law; and is not receiving injury leave pursuant to Article VIII M, said employee may elect in writing to the CITY' S Human Resource Director to use accumulated sick leave and authorized vacation time to supplement the employee' s worker' s compensation not to exceed the employee' s regular salary. ARTICLE X LEAVES OF ABSENCE Full-time, employees shall be eligible for leaves of absence under the following circumstances: A. FUNERAL LEAVE ( 1 ) Time off with pay will be granted a full-time employee who suffers the loss of a wife, husband, child, stepchild, mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, grandchild, grandfather or grandmother. In the event of death in any of these instances, employees will be paid their regular base pay for scheduled work time from the time of death through the day of the funeral; however, no such leave shall be permitted to extend more than five ( 5 ) consecutive calendar days after the date of death. Employees will be permitted one additional day ( 1/2 shift ) of funeral leave, on the day following the funeral, if the funeral or burial is held more than 150 miles distance from Salt Lake City and if the day following the funeral or burial is a normal working day. Satisfactory proof of such death, together with the date thereof and the date and location of the funeral and burial, must be furnished by the employees to the Fire Chief. ( 2 ) In the event of death of relatives other than those enumerated in ( 1 ) above, an employee will be paid for time off from scheduled working hours while attending the funeral services for such person, not to exceed twelve ( 12 ) hours or one- half shift for combat employees. ( 3 ) In the event of death of friends, an employee may be granted time off without pay while attending the funeral services for such persons, not to exceed four (4 ) hours subject to the approval of his or her immediate supervisor. -15- ( 4) Time off hereunder shall not be included as time worked in the computation of overtime pay. ( 5 ) In the event the death of any member of the immediate family, as set forth herein occurs while an employee is on vacation, his or her vacation will be extended by the amount of time authorized as funeral leave. ( 6 ) The provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable to employees who are on leave of absence. B. LEAVE OF ABSENCE OF EMPLOYEES WHO ENTER MILITARY SERVICE Every employee who enlists in time of national emergency or is called or inducted into and enters active service in the state militia or any branch of the federal military, naval, air or marine service shall be entitled to be absent without pay from duties and service with the CITY while engaged in the performance of active military or naval duties and while going to and returning from such duties as required by state and federal law. C. LEAVE WHILE ON ANNUAL ENCAMPMENT All employees who are or shall become members of the organized reserves of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines or any unit of the Utah National Guard, shall be allowed full pay for all time not in excess of fifteen consecutive calendar days (7. 5 on duty shifts) per year spent on duty at annual encampment in connection with the reserve training and instruction requirements of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines of the United States. This leave shall be in addition to annual vacation leave. D. LEAVE FOR JURY DUTY All full-time employees shall be entitled to receive and retain statutory juror' s fees paid for jury service in the District and Federal Courts whose jurisdictions include Salt Lake County subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth. No reduction in an employee' s salary shall be made for absence from work resulting from such jury service. On those days that an employee -16- is required to report for jury service and is thereafter excused from such service during his or her regular working hours for the CITY, he or she shall forthwith return to and carry on his or her regular CITY employment. Failure to so return to work shall result in disciplinary action and forfeiture of that day' s pay for such employee. E. PARENTAL LEAVE A leave of absence may be requested by any employee for the following reasons: ( 1 ) Becoming a parent through birth or adoption of newly born children. ( 2 ) Due to the hospitalization of a dependent child. The following provisions apply to the use of parental leave: ( 1 ) Parental leave may be granted one time with pay during a calendar year, on a straight-time basis for a period not to exceed two and one-half shifts for combat employees or five consecutive days for 40 hour work week employees, from the date a child commences residence with an employee or becomes hospitalized. ( 2 ) The employee has available unused sick leave. Under no circumstances shall the employee be entitled to use as parental leave more than two and one-half shifts or five consecutive days for 40 hour work week employees. (3 ) The employee gives notice to his or her supervisor as soon as possible under the circumstances. ( 4 ) The employee provides, upon request by a supervisor, certification of birth or evidence of a child placement for adoption to his/her supervisor within five ( 5) calendar days following termination of such leave. A letter may be requested from the treating physician in the event of hospitalization of a dependent child within five ( 5 ) calendar days following termination of parental leave used for this purpose. ( 5 ) An employee' s sick leave shall be reduced by the number of days/shifts taken by an employee as parental leave. -17- F. ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE Employees shall be eligible for additional leaves of absence, without compensation for health problems or other reasonable purposes, at the approval of the Fire Chief in compliance with Civil Service Rules and Regulations, if applicable. Any employee who requests such leave shall be subject to the following limitations: ( 1 ) The leave request shall be for not less than 90 calendar days. ( 2 ) The employee' s seniority shall be reduced the same number of days that such leave was in effect. (3 ) Upon return from such leave the employee shall be reinstated after successful completion of a physical and performance review as stipulated by the Chief. ARTICLE XI ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES. A. EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE PAY Full-time, salaried employees who have completed all required basic training courses and probationary periods, shall be entitled to the following monthly allowances according to the educational degree held by such employees: Doctorate $100.00 per month Masters 75.00 per month Bachelors 50.00 per month Associate 25.00 per month An employee shall be eligible for incentive pay here- under following submission of his or her diploma evidencing completion of degree requirements at a fully accredited college or university to the Fire Chief. The foregoing notwithstanding, no employee shall be entitled to compensation for an educational degree which qualifies the employee for his or her position of employment; or for any degree which is not specifically related to the employee' s actual employment duties as determined by the Mayor upon recommendation of the Fire Chief. -18- B. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE The City shall provide all employees uniforms pursuant to departmental policy 122. By providing uniforms, the City and employees agree that any uniform allowance requirements under the FLSA, including past obligations, if any, are satisfied. C. AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCES Employees who are authorized to use and who do use privately owned automobiles for official CITY business shall be reimbursed for their operation expenses of said automobiles at the rate set by City policy, but no less than 21Q/mile. Before payment is made to any employee pursuant to the terms of this paragraph, the use of the automobile must be authorized by the employee' s supervisor and the mileage traveled must be verified by the head of the department involved. Verification and reimbursement shall be on forms and in the manner provided in administrative procedures, as prescribed by the City Finance Director. ARTICLE XII INSURANCE. A. The CITY will make available life, accidental death and dismemberment, health, dental insurance and long term disability ( income protection plan) to all employees, upon the terms and conditions as may be from time to time determined by the CITY. B. The amount which the CITY will contribute to the employees' insurance is as set forth in Appendix "B" , attached hereto. Employee' s contribution will be deducted and apportioned per pay period. C. The CITY will make available a consulting service which will provide counseling for drug abuse, alcoholism, and marriage counseling, comparable to what is currently provided. -19- ARTICLE XIII PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTION. The CITY and the employees shall each pay the following respective shares of monthly retirement contributions required to be paid to the Utah State Retirement Fund. City Contribution 23.96% Employee Contribution 2.0% SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMS The CITY will make available a Section 457 ( IRS Code) Deferred Compensation Plan and where possible other Deferred Compensation plans consistent with State and Federal laws. ARTICLE XIV STANDING COMMITTEES A. LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE There shall be a Labor Management Committee consisting of six members; 3 employees appointed by the UNION and 3 employees appointed by the Fire Chief. The committee shall meet monthly or upon call of either party in the event of an emergency in a timely manner. Meetings shall be held on CITY time. It shall be the general function of the Labor Management Committee to discuss matters of mutual interest except those which are specifically covered under the grievance procedure, in accordance with Article XV, Grievance Procedure. Items brought to this committee must have first been brought before the appropriate department management personnel in an attempt to resolve the issue. An agenda shall be prepared and delivered to each of the committee members ahead of time. The Labor Management Committee shall make appropriate recommendations to the Fire Chief for his decision which shall be final and binding. It is the intent that this forum shall be used to discuss and propose solutions to problems relating to employment concerns and should not be used as a means of negotiating changes to existing contracts. -20- B. SAFETY COMMITTEE It is the desire of the CITY and the UNION to maintain high standards of safety and health in the Fire Department in order to eliminate, as far as possible, accidents, death, injuries and illness in the Fire service. There shall be a health and safety committee consisting of six ( 6 ) members; three (3 ) appointed by the UNION and three ( 3 ) appointed by the CITY. The committee shall meet monthly as required to conduct its business. It shall be the responsibility of the health and safety committee to report on accidents, and make recommendations to the Chief or designee on methods and means of reducing illnesses, injuries and accidents through prevention, education, and improved safety practices. C. APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE There shall be established an apprenticeship committee with composition and functions as specified under the terms of the apprenticeship program as has been approved by the CITY and the Civil Service Commission, and may from time to time be amended thereby. D. BID COMMITTEE There shall be established a bid committee with composition and functions as specified by the Fire Chief. The Chief of the Fire Department or his delegated subordinate officer may assign apparatus, resources, or personnel as they deem appropriate for the performance of the department' s mission. In an effort to provide a fair and equitable way of assigning personnel to positions within the department, a bid procedure allowing members of the department to express a preference for work assignments is instituted. The Union will by July 1st of each year submit in writing proposed rules for a bid procedure to the Chief for review and/or approval keeping in mind the above needs and mission of the department. The Union will be notified at least 30 days prior to changes in bid procedure rules. -21- E. STANDING COMMITTEE Members of standing committees, who report to committee meetings on their regularly scheduled shift off, will receive compensatory time for the time served in committee. ARTICLE XV GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE It shall be the policy of the CITY to adjust grievances of employees properly and fairly. Within the framework of existing laws and regulations, every reasonable effort shall be made to adjust grievances in a manner mutually satisfactory to employees and management at the lowest possible level. A grievance is defined as an alleged violation of a specific provision of the MEMORANDUM, City or Department Policies and Procedures. Employee(s) who believe that they have received inequitable treatment because of an alleged violation of a specific provision as defined herein may, personally, or through a representative, utilize the grievance procedure outlined herein. An employee has a right to a UNION representative at all formal steps of the grievance procedure. No administrator shall discourage an employee from using the grievance procedure; however, the parties may discuss settlements of the grievance at any time. It is mutually understood that the prompt presentation, adjustment and/or answering of the grievances is desirable in the interest of sound relations between the employees and the CITY. Prompt and fair disposition of grievances involves important and equal obligations and responsibilities, both joint and independent, on the part of the representatives of each party to protect and preserve the grievance procedure as an orderly means of resolving grievances. In the event employees have alleged complaints, they may submit such to the UNION grievance committee who, upon receiving such written and signed complaint, shall determine if a grievance exists. If, in their opinion, no grievance exists, no further action will be necessary. This shall not, however, preclude individual employees from the timely exercise of grievance rights provided herein. -22- Any grievance determined to have merit by the UNION grievance committee, and not subject to Civil Service jurisdiction, shall be subject to the following formal procedure: Step 1: The grievance shall be submitted in writing by the employee or the UNION to the immediate supervisor and the employee may have a representative present at time of filing. The grievance shall be presented within seven (7 ) calendar days from the time the grievance occurs or from the time the employee could reasonably be expected to have become aware of such occurrence. Failure to provide such notice within the time specified shall void any employee' s grievance rights provided hereunder. The supervisor shall render a decision on a grievance appropriately filed within seven ( 7 ) calendar days from the date the grievance was filed. Step 2: If no settlement is reached under Step 1, then the grievance shall be presented in writing to the District Battalion Chief in the Combat Division or to the immediate chief officer in all other divisions or sections, with a copy to the Deputy Fire Chief, within seven (7 ) calendar days after Step 1. The Battalion Chief shall notify the parties concerned of the decision within seven ( 7 ) calendar days after hearing the grievance. Meetings held under Steps 2 and 3 of this procedure will normally be held within ten ( 10 ) working days after receipt of the grievance at each step; however, such time limits may be extended as circumstances require or as may be agreed upon by the parties hereto. Step 3 : If no agreement is reached under Step 2, the matter shall be referred to the Deputy Fire Chief or Chief Deputy over that division within seven ( 7 ) calendar days. The Deputy Fire Chief or Chief Deputy shall notify the parties concerned of the decision within seven (7 ) calendar days after hearing the grievance, Step 4: If no agreement is reached under Step 3, the matter shall be referred to the next meeting of the labor management committee as established in Article XIV of this MEMORANDUM for their investigation, review and recommendation. -23- Step 5: If no settlement is reached under Step 4, the grievance shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for his decision. He shall render his decision within seven ( 7 ) calendar days following receipt of the grievance. Such decision shall be subject to appeal to the Mayor whose decision shall be final and binding. Grievances resulting from direct actions taken by the Chief may be taken to the Mayor or his designee for a hearing except that the procedure shall not apply to matters involving the appointment, examination and promotion of classified civil service employees or any other matters subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. This procedure described herein does not preclude any person classified civil service who is removed from office or employment by the head of the department for misconduct, incompetency or failure to perform his or her duties or for failure to observe properly the rules of the department to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. ARTICLE XVI PERSONNEL FILES An employee shall have the right, upon reasonable notice, to inspect such employee' s personnel employment file for content. ARTICLE XVII UNION BUSINESS It is agreed that internal UNION business such as soliciting membership, collecting dues, electing officers, membership meetings, observing grievance proceedings and posting and distributing literature will be conducted on an employee' s personal time and so as not to interfere with Fire Department operations, with the sole exception of the following: One UNION steward per shift shall be allowed a reasonable period during working hours to attend UNION meetings or participate in other UNION business as necessary up to a maximum of one ( 1 ) hour meeting per month for each such steward, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Chief. -24- Notice of such meeting shall be provided to the Chief by the union president as soon as possible, but not less than twenty-four (24) hours in advance of such meeting. Employees designated as official delegates to UNION conferences and conventions shall be allowed time off, with pay, for the purpose of attending such conferences and conventions, which time off shall not exceed more than two ( 2 ) employees per shift nor more than a total of ten ( 10 ) working shifts (or additional shifts as approved by the Fire Chief) per year of the aggregate of all such employees. Notice of such conferences shall be given to the Chief by the UNION president requesting leave hereunder as soon as possible, but no less than thirty (30) days prior to such conference. Time off under this clause will not be counted as work time for the purpose of computing overtime. In all such cases, the employees involved will obtain prior permission from the Fire Chief. ARTICLE XVIII MISCELLANEOUS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The CITY agrees to continue to furnish no-cost annual physical examinations and off-street parking at assigned work sites and to provide monthly sleeping linen exchange, and washing linens as necessary for all members of the UNIT. ARTICLE XIX TERM OF MEMORANDUM This MEMORANDUM shall remain in effect from July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990. A. It is understood by the parties hereto that certain provisions of this MEMORANDUM cannot be implemented by the CITY except upon public notice and hearing and compliance with various statutory and legal requirements. It is in this respect agreed that provisions subject to such legal contingencies shall take effect upon full compliance with such legal requirements. B. The parties hereto may, by mutual consent, agree to amend this MEMORANDUM. -25- ARTICLE XX LIMITATION OF PROVISIONS The provisions hereof shall be effective as provided herein, but subject to approval by the City Council and the City' s appropriation of funds. During the term of this Memorandum, it is the City' s intent to make a reasonable effort to maintain a funding level sufficient to satisfy this understanding; however, the parties to this agreement mutually understand that emergencies or revenue shortfalls may alter the ability of the City to satisfy this agreement. Thus, it is expressly understood that this Memorandum does not bind succeeding elected officials of the City and shall not be construed to compel the City to impose or maintain any tax or fee structure. ARTICLE XXI WAIVER CLAUSE The CITY and the UNION expressly waive and relinquish the right, and each agrees that the other shall not be obligated during the term of this MEMORANDUM, to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter whether referred to or covered in this MEMORANDUM, even though each subject or matter may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both the CITY and the UNION at the time they negotiated or executed this MEMORANDUM and even though such subjects or matter were proposed and later withdrawn. The parties further acknowledge that this MEMORANDUM contains wages and benefit provisions differing distinctly from provisions currently being offered to employees in other units of City employment, and the parties agree to accept such wages and benefits despite their lack of similarity to or parity with other memoranda, units, or employees. ARTICLE XXII SAVINGS CLAUSE The CITY and the UNION, hereto believing all the foregoing provisions to be lawful and mutually beneficial to them in establishing their relations as employer and employee, nevertheless hereby agree that if any part of this agreement shall be finally determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such part or parts shall thereby -26- be deemed eliminated from this MEMORANDUM, and the same in all other respects shall be and remain binding upon the CITY and the UNION. In the event laws are passed by the federal government, the state, or the CITY which conflict with the provisions of this MEMORANDUM relating to hours or wages,the provisions of this agreement which are in conflict therewith may be reopened for negotiations without affecting the remaining portions of this MEMORANDUM. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have fixed their hands and seals the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION APPROVED By .(4- G > JUL 141989 MAYOR CITY RECORDER ATTEST: I R D R 4 r „ 14 Ailot .•:-/P• � LOCAL 1645 OF THE t,�;'+y INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION •�� �'" • , a OF FIRE FIGHTERS lettitki% •- By APPROVED AS TO FORM S21t i_ak' City Atto - s Office D71Byte ,�j7 �►/1[rAfii -27- STATE OF UTAH ) County of Salt Lake) On the /9" day of , 1989, personally appeared before PAL DePAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who being by me ly sw , did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. /. J.i7/..f �,��/ ,t — !7g7.RY PUBLIC, � • in Salt Lake County, Ut My Commission Expires: 17-e9 -28- STATE OF UTAH ) ss. County of Salt� keLLake) On the /!�"' day of 1• ?9 pe onally appeared before a a trs ,C(f/ 4- who b g by m du sworn, did say that he is the of INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE IGHTERS LOCAL 1645, that the foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said association by authority of a resolution of its board of directors; and said person acknowledged to me that said association executed the same. /./071m1 . sue Nd _ *UBLIC, re 'i•• i ng in Salt Lake County, Uta My Commission Expires: FMN:cc -29- APPENDIX A The PAY SCALE set forth herein shall be effective on July 1, 1989 . Pay Class Completed Years Salary of Service 415-A 0 $1452 415-B 1 $1862 415-C 2 $1913 415-D 3 $1965 415-E 4 $2132 415-F 5 $2251 415-G 6 $2313 415-H 7 $2313 415-I 8 $2313 415-J 9 $2376 415-K 10 $2442 415-L 11 $2442 415-M 12 $2442 415-N 13 $2509 415-0 14 $2578 Effective 10/1/89 415-0 14 $2681 405-A $1416 405-B $1455 405-C $1495 405-D $1536 405-E $1578 405-F $1622 405-G $1666 405-H $1712 405-I $1759 405-J $1808 405-K $1857 405-L $1908 405-M $1961 405-N $2015 405-0 $2070 405-P $2127 PAY CLASS SALARY 410-A $1658 410-B $1704 410-C $1750 410-D $1799 410-E $1848 410-F $1899 410-G $1951 410-H $2005 410-I $2060 410-J $2117 410-K $2175 410-L $2235 410-M $2295 410-N $2359 410-0 $2414 410-P $2491 ANNIVERSARY MERIT INCREASES Each employee will advance to the next step on anniversary of hire date. JANUARY 1, 1990 STEP INCREASE: Regardless of anniversary date, all employees will be advanced one additional step from the step they hold on January 1, 1990. 0-STEP ADJUSTMENT: Effective October 1, 1989, the base salary rate of the 415- 0 step will be increased to $2681.00 No further adjustments will be made during fiscal year beginning July 1 , 1989 and ending June 30, 1990. Compensation shall be paid on a biweekly basis. PARAMEDIC: Effective July 1, 1989, a member of the Unit assigned and certified to perform as a Paramedic will be paid in addition to the regular salary of a Fire Fighter the following incentive pay: Initial Certification with Salt Lake City Fire Department $250.00 First Re-Certification with Salt Lake City Fire Department $300.00 Second Re-Certification with Salt Lake City Fire Department $350.00 A member of the Unit certified but not assigned as a Paramedic or the Paramedic Coordinator will receive one-third of the above incentive pay. HAZ MAT, ENGINEER, CFR: A member of the Unit assigned and certified to perform as a specialist in one of these categories will be paid in addition to the regular salary of a Fire Fighter, $125.00 per month, as incentive pay. APPENDIX B GRCUP INSURANCE PREMIUMS FCR FISCAL YEAR 1989 - 1990 Medical Dental City Employee City EMployee Share Share Share Share P.E.H.P Traditional Single 39.89 16.77 5.60 1.98 Couple 82.21 34.64 11.37 4.00 Family 109.76 46.24 14.87 5.23 P.E.H.P. Preferred Single 39.89 14.02 5.60 1.98 Couple 82.21 28.89 11.37 4.00 Family 109.76 38.57 14.87 5.23 Healthwise Single 39.27 13.81 4.89 1.73 Couple 80.01 28.12 9.83 3.46 Family 107.92 37.92 16.69 5.87 F.H.P. Single 36.37 12.78 6.33 2.23 Couple 80.86 28.41 13.07 4.60 Family 114.32 40.18 18.22 6.41 The following benefits are included with your Medical and Dental coverage regardless of your health insurance carrier . Fmployee City Share Share * Disability Income .47 1.36 * Basic Life for You .03 per $1000 .11 per $1000 * Basic Life for Your Family .11 .30 * Accidental Death & Dismemberment .07 .22 61---")) SAW aJCc,IVGc, O, I I,( 611 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, DOOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7777- To: Salt Lake City Council May 31, 1989 Re: Petition No. 400-668 submitted by Club Dejavu Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 18, 1989 at 6: 20 p.m. to discuss changing the license ordinance on location restrictions for a Class B Private Club. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: Club Dejavu has been operating as a public restaurant with a State mini-bottle license and a Class B beer license which allows beer to be sold in its original container. The address for the building was issued on Church Street, however, .Church Street was vacated by the City in 1954 and is considered a private right of way. The current ordinance identifies three geographical location criteria for the establishment of Class B private clubs or Class C beer license. Club Dejavu is located within a district that specifies that no more than two establishments may be located on any lineal block. A lineal block is defined as both sides of a major street between two intersecting major streets. Also, in the exception section up to three establishments may be located on streets within the interior of a block. However, the total number may not exceed 9. Two private clubs are currently located on the north side of 400 South between State and Main thus eliminate the possibility of locating any more private clubs on either side of 400 South without a change to the location criteria of the ordinance. Both club owners have expressed their opposition to this requested change. No responses have been received from any of the other surrounding property owners. The appropriate City Departments have reviewed this request and have recommended approval on a site specific basis. The Police Department does not want to create an enforcement problem through a concentration of clubs in one location and have requested that land use not be the only consideration in changing this ordinance. The Planning Commission has reviewed this petition and recommends that the ordinance be amended as outlined below: Section C. Exceptions 3. - On those blocks which do not have interior streets, allow one of the permitted three establishments within the interior of the block to be located on the exterior of the block with a maximum of three establishments per lineal block and the total number allowed on the interior and exterior of the block not to exceed nine establishments. Potential implications of this alternative would be a slight increase in concentration of Class B private clubs and Class C taverns, however, this alternative does not change the maximum number of establishments per block presently allowed by ordinance. Legislative Document: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance is ready for your action. Submitted by: . (1 CRAIG E. PEIERSON Director lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 6.08. 120 dealing with location restrictions for Class C beer licenses and Class B private clubs) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6.08 . 120 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE DEALING WITH LOCATION RESTRICTIONS FOR CLASS C BEER LICENSES AND CLASS B PRIVATE CLUB LICENSES. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission and has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to amend the location restrictions on Class C beer licenses and Class B private club licenses as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 6 .08. 120 is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.08. 120 Location restrictions. A. * * * B. * * * C. Exceptions. Class C beer establishments or Class B private clubs may be allowed on streets other than those outlined in subsection A of this section, and may be allowed within the interior of a block upon receiving approval from the mayor or his/her designee. Such approval shall be given only: 1 . After the mayor or his/her designee has received recommendations from the planning and zoning commission of the city and the city police department; and 2 . If the street shall be at least sixty feet in width, or, if within the interior of the block, the entrance to the establishment is from a courtyard or mall-like area with paved vehicular access and proper lighting; and 3 . If any addition of such requested establishment would not cause the number of Class C beer and Class B private club licensees to exceed nine such establishments located on the exterior and interior of any block, as defined in subsection Ala of this section The foregoing notwithstanding, no more than two such establishments may be located on any street located in- the interior of any such block, and no more than three such establishments may be located within the interior of any such block; 4. Subject to the provisions of this section, on those blocks within district A which do not have interior public streets, the interior block locations provided in subsection C( 3 ) above may be permitted on the exterior block face, provided that such relocation would not bring the total number of licensed establishments in excess of three per lineal block face, nor the total on the interior or exterior of the block in excess of nine licensed establishments. 5. After a public hearing has been held, with actual written notice having been given to the abutting property owners, and public notice having been given to the residents of the city thereof by at least one publication in a paper of general circulation in the county at least ten days before the hearing, stating the purpose, time, date and location of such hearing; and -2- 6. A finding by the mayor or the mayor' s designee, after the holding of such hearing, that the proposed location for said establishment will not: a. Create an undue concentration in the number of Class C beer establishments or Class 6 -private clubs, b. Materially interfere with the free flow of traffic, pedestrian or vehicular, c. Create an undue burden in controlling and policing illegal activities in the vicinity, and d. Create a 'nuisance to the community, .or e. Adversely affect the health, safety and morals of the residents of the city. D. * * * E. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER / 2'74- -3- ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR Y ,�,, +T ,�7 RALPH BECKER SANDRA MARLER ti,_ � AQ G T�Y�V�r O =�1.1 THOIMADS A R LLI ON SECRETARY "ter 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 OFFICIAL KEITH STEPAN 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER April 18, 1989 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 S. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-668 - Dejavu Dear Craig: • Attached please find Petition 400-668 by Mr. Joel D. Berrett on behalf of Club Dejavu at 407 South Church Street, requesting Salt Lake City to change the License Ordinance 6.08.120, Location Restrictions for a Class B private club. Salt Lake City Code Section 6.08.120 outlines criteria and location restrictions for establishments licensed with either a Class C beer license which allows the sale of draft beer or a Class B private club license which allows the sale of liquor and wine by the drink in a private setting. There are three districts; A, B and C, which identify geographical location criteria for establishments with Class B private club or Class C beer licenses. Dejavu is located within District A which specifies that no more than two establishments may be located on any lineal block. A lineal block is defined as both sides of a major street between two intersecting major streets. Also, in the exceptions section up to 3 establishments may be located on streets within the interior of a block. However, the total number of Class B and Class C licensed establishments on the entire block may not exceed 9. Dejavu has been operating as a public restaurant with a State mini-bottle license and a Class B beer license which allows beer to be sold in its original container. The address for the building was issued on Church Street, however, Church Street was vacated by the City in 1954 and is considered a private right of way. The Cabana and the Manhattan are located on the north side of 400 South between State and Main Streets thus eliminating the possibility of locating any more private clubs on either side of 400 South without a change to the location criteria of the ordinance. The owners of the Cabana and the Manhattan have expressed their opposition to this requested change. We have not received acknowledgment of support or objections from any of the other surrounding property owners. The Downtown Master Plan and the R/UDAT study encourage more evening activity downtown and from a land use standpoint an ordinance change is worth consideration. City Departments have reviewed this petition twice. Engineering, Fire, Public Utilities, Transportation, and the Board of Health deal with projects on a site specific basis. The Police do not want to create an enforcement problem through a concentration of clubs in one location and have requested that land use not be the only consideration in changing this ordinance. (see attached letters) The planning staff identified the following possible changes to the location criteria in our request for comment. Alternative A: - - Do not change existing ordinance. Alternative B: - Section A.1.a. District A. - Amend the definition of a lineal block to one side of a major street. Potential implication of this alternative would be the doubling of Class B private clubs and Class C taverns on major streets. Alternative C: - Section C. Exceptions 3. - On those blocks which do not have interior streets, allow one of the permitted three establishments within the interior of the block to be located on the exterior of the block with a maximum of three establishments per lineal block and the total number allowed on the interior and exterior of the block not to exceed nine establishments. Potential implications of this alternative would be a slight increase in concentration of Class B private clubs and Class C taverns, however, this alternative does not change the maximum number of establishments per block presently allowed by ordinance. At its regular meeting on April 13, 1989 the Planning Commission reviewed this petition and voted to recommend to the Mayor that Section 6.08.120 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended as outlined in Alternative C above. Since y, Allen C John-.n, AICP Planninn Dire'tor attachments cc:CP ACJ:jj The address for the building was issued on Church Street, however, Church Street was vacated by the City in 1954 and is considered as a private right of way providing access to parking areas within the interior of the block. The Club Cabana and Club Manhattan are located on the north side of 400 South between State and Main Streets thus eliminating the possibility of locating any more private clubs on either side of 400 South without a change to the location criteria of the ordinance. The City Attorney has provided the following comments relating to the history • behind the present ordinance. "The bar separation ordinance was adopted because of the City's experience that Class B private clubs and Class C beer licenses were substantially similar in operation, clientele and problem generation. The Class B private club designation was a legal -mechanism to permit an establishment, which would otherwise have been a liquor dispensing establishment in other states, to legally do so in Utah. Enforcement circumstances may have changed recently; however, from a historic perspective our experience has been that Class B private clubs were very liberal in the methods by which memberships were granted and they operated very similarly to Class C taverns. There have been a number of enforcement and other litigation problems regarding these establishments but previous experience suggested that undue concentration of taverns (including Class B private club operations) had a deleterious impact on property values. Historically, the City had a numerical limit on the number of taverns which were permitted. This limit was removed and the land use restrictions and separation requirements substituted. This land use approach prevented the trafficing in tavern licenses and allowed the marketplace to determine how many of these establishments would be in the City. However, police control was through a dispersal system to avoid the adverse impacts of bar concentrations." • ANALYSIS Salt Lake City Code Section 6.08.120 outlines criteria and location restrictions for establishments licensed with either a Class C beer license which allows the sale of draft beer or a Class B private club license which - allows the sale of liquor and wine by the drink in a private setting. There are three districts; A, B and C, which identify aenaraphical location criteria for establishments with Class B private club or Class C beer licenses. The Club Dejavu is located within District A which specifies that no more than two establishments may be located on any lineal block. A lineal block is defined as both sides of a major street between two intersecting major streets. SALT LAKE CITY PLAI3Nfl a 11SSICN STAFF REFCRT Pta1T1CN 400-668 CLUB DEJAW LICENSE CRDINAN E (BINGE ROXEST OVERVIEW Petition 400-668 is a request from �[ n O Mr. Joel D. Berrett on behalf of the EXCHANGE PL. Club Dejavu requesting to change the N zoning and development ordinances and regulations to permit Club Dejavu to I g operate as a private club at 407 South Church Street (400 South between State 400 souTH' and Main Streets) . This request requires an amendment to the Business LicenseTi I _� section of the Salt Lake City Code • Section 6.08.120 which specifies criteria 4. _ and location restrictions for establishments _ N licensed with either a Class B private club _ license or a Class C beer license. w I w Initially, this petition was routed through . tn the City Treasurer's office. However, after a ' I it)"_" review by the Treasurer's office and other z City departments, it was determined that due 2 _ [1 L to the potential land use impacts which would be created by a change to location restrictions 500 SOUTH for Class B private club and Class C tavern licenses this issue required a closer examination and review by the Planning Commission. BACKGRCU ) The Club Dejavu is located in the block between 400 and 500 South and State and Main Streets and is zoned Commercial C-4 which allows general businesses and commercial activities. The surrounding land uses are commercial with related parking areas. The Club Dejavu has been operating as a public restaurant with a State mini- bottle license and a Class B beer license which allows beer to be served in original containers at a restaurant (defined as a building within which there is served a variety of hot food for consumption on the premises and where more than sixty percent of the gross volume is derived from the sale of foods served) . When the building permit for renovation of the building was taken out approximately two years ago the owner was informed that the business would not qualify as a private club under the present City Ordinance. The Veterans of Foreign Wars Organization was located in the same location for many years. However, any nonconforming status was lost during the intervening years while the building was left vacant. 7 Due to the recent problems which have developed with the transient population in the Central Business District a side issue which the Planning Commission may wish to consider is removing Class C taverns from the Commercial C-4 zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Based on the goals and policies identified in the Downtown Master Plan and the R/UDAT study to encourage more evening activity downtown and from a land use standpoint an ordinance change is worth consideration. However, consideration must also be given to the issues identified by the Police Department and City Attorney to ensure that a change to the location criteria does not undermine the intent of the ordinance. Therefore, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor that Section 6.08.120 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended as outlined in Alternative C. Alternative C: - Section C. Exceptions 3. - On those blocks which do not have interior streets, allow one of the permitted three establishments within the interior of the block to be located on the exterior of the block with a maximum of three establishments per lineal block and the total number allowed on the interior and exterior of the block not to exceed nine establishments. Potential implications of this alternative would be a slight increase in concentration of Class B private clubs and Class C taverns, however, this alternative does not change the maximum number of establishments per block presently allowed by ordinance. March, 1989 Janice M. Jardine 6.03.120 Location Restrictions. A. The permissible locations of establishments licensed with either a Class C beer license, or a Class B private club license, or any combination thereof, shall be determined by geographical proximity, based upon the following criteria: 1. a. District A. There shall be no more than two establishments located on any lineal block. A "lineal block" means both _sides of a major street between two intersecting major streets. For the purposes of this section, a corner establishment having abutting front footage on two major streets shall be included in the lineal block in which the establishment has the greatest number of front footage abutting the major street, or, if such abutting footage is equal, then the address originally filed with the city shall determine in which lineal block the establishment shall be located. b. District B. There shall be no more than one licensed establishment within a six hundred. sixty foot radius of another licensed establishment. • c. District C. There shall be no more than one-licensed establishment within two thousand feet of any other licensed establishment. 2. All major streets and districts will be those designated on official City Map No. 19372, a copy of which shall be on file in the office of the city recorder. All such establishments holding a Class C beer or a Class B private club license must be located so as to front on a major street or be within a building with the main entrance to such building fronting on such major street. B. No Class C beer establishment an no Class B private club may be licensed or operate under the provisions of the Salt Lake City Code which is in close proximity to a public park, public elementary, junior high or high school, or a church, without having first received approval from the mayor or his/her designee. Such approval shall be given only after: 1. The mayor or his/her designee has received recommendations regarding such an establishment from the elanning and toning &mission of the city and the city police department; and 2. A public hearing has been held, with actual written notice having been given, where applicable, to the parks superintendent, school superintendent or to the church, and to the city and the residents thereof by at least one publication in a paper of aeneral circulation in the county at least ten days before the hearing stating the purpose, time, date and location of such hearing; and 3. A finding by the mayor or his/her designee that the proposed location will not materially interfere with the activities and functions of such parks or school, or interfere with church worship or church related activities. For the purposes of this section, a public park or public elementary, junior high or high school or church which is located six hundred or more feet from the proposed establishment shall not be considered to be in close proximity to such establishment and no notices or hearings need be given or held prior to the granting of a Class C beer license or Class B private club license. 4. The applicant shall pay an additional sum of sixty dollars to cover the cost of advertising the hearing. The fee shall be paid before which hearing shall be set or advertised. C. Exceptions. Class C beer establishments or Class B private clubs may be allowed on streets other than those outlined in subsection A of this section, and may be allowed within the interior of a block upon receiving approval from the mayor .4 his/her designee. Such approval shall be given only: �i 1. After the mayor or his/her designee has received recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City and the city police department; and 2. If the street shall be at least sixty feet -in width, or, if within the interior of the block, the entrance to the establishment is from a courtyard or mall-like area with paved vehicular access. and proper lighting; and 3. If any addition of such requested establishment would not cause the number of Class C beer and Class B private club licensees to exceed nine such establishments located on the exterior and interior of any block, as defined in subsection A.l.a. of this section. The foregoing notwithstanding, no more than two such establishments may be located on any street located in the interior of any such block, and no more than three such establishments may be located within the interior of any such block; - Sieet4e-_ _. - -p - 4-. - On those blocks which do not have interior streets, allow one of the permitted three establishments within the interior of the block to be located on the exterior of the block with a maximum of three establishments per lineal block and the total number allowed on the interior and exterior of the block not to exceed nine establishments. a 4. After a public hearing has been held, with actual written notice having been given to the abutting property owners, and public notice having been given to the residents of the city thereof by at least one publication in a paper of general circulation in the county at least ten days before the hearing, stating the purpose, time, date and location of such hearing; and 5. A finding by the mayor or the mayor's designee, after the holding of such hearing, that the proposed location for said establishment will not: • • a. Create an undue concentration in the number of Class C beer establishments of Class B private clubs, b. Materially interfere with the free flow of traffic pedestrian or vehicular, c. Create an undue burden in controlling and policing illegal activities in the vicinity, and d. Create a nuisance to the community, or e. Adversely affect the health, safety and morals of the residents of the city. D. Prior Location. The provisions of this section shall. in no way affect the rights of the present licensees to continue their operations so long as their licenses remain in good standing and continue to have their licenses reissued as provided by law until revoked or terminated for any reason. L. Zoning Restrictions. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of subsection A of this section, all such Class C beer or Class B private club establishments must be located within Coi:Qnercial C-3 Districts or less restrictive zoning districts or in an Research/Development R-D District as an attendant use in a conference center. (Ord. 2-88 & 1, 1988; Ord. 34-87 & 11, 1987: prior code & 19-2-19) . • 6.08.120 6.08.120 Location restrictions. 1. The mayor or his/her designee has received A. The permissible locations of establish- recommendations regarding such an establish- ments licensed with either a Class C beer license. ment from the planning and zoning commission or a Class B private club license.or any combina- of the city and the city police department; and tion thereof.shall be determined by geographical 2. A public hearing has been held. with actual written notice having been given, where applica- proximity, based upon the following criteria: ble. to the parks superintendent,school superin- I. a. District A.There shall be no more than tendent or to the church. and to the city and the two establishments located on any lineal block. residents thereof by at least one publication in a A "lineal block" means both sides of a major paper of general circulation in the county at least street between two intersecting major streets. For ten days before the hearing stating the purpose, the purposes of this section, a corner establish- time, date and location of such hearing; and ment having abutting front footage on two major 3. A finding by the mayor or his/her designee streets shall be included in the lineal block in that the proposed location will not materially which the establishment has the greatest number interfere with the activities and functions of such of front footage abutting the major street, or, if parks or school, or interfere with church worship such abutting footage is equal, then the address or church-related activities. For the purposes of originally filed with the city shall determine in this section, a public park or public elementary, which lineal block the establishment shall be junior high or high school or church which is located six hundred or more feet from the pro- located. b. District B.There shall be no more than one poed establishment shall not be considered to be licensed establishment within a six-hundred- in close proximity to such establishment and no notices or hearings need be given or held prior to sixty-foot radius of another licensed establish- the granting of a Class C beer license or Class B ment. private club license. c. District C.There shall be no more than one 4. The applicant shall pay an additional sum licensed establishment within two thousand feet ofsixty dollars to cover the cost of advertising the of any other licensed establishment. hearing.The fee shall be paid before such hearing 2. All major streets and districts will be those shall be set or advertised. designated on official City Map No. 19372, a C. Exceptions.Class C beer establishments or copy of which shall be on file in the office of the Class B private clubs may be allowed on streets city recorder. All such establishments holding a other than those outlined in subsection A of this Class C beer or a Class B private club license must section, and may be allowed within the interior be located so as to front on a major street or be of a block upon receiving approval from the within a building with the main entrance to such mayor or his/her designee. Such approval shall building fronting on such major street. be given only: B. No Class C beer establishment and no 1. After the mayor or his/her designee has received recommendations from the planning Class B nonprofit club may be licensed or oper- and zoning commission of the city and the city ate under the provisions of the Salt Lake City police department; and Code which is in close proximity to a public park. 2. If the street shall be at least sixty feet in public elementary.junior high or high school. or width. or. if within the interior of the block, the a church. without having first received approval entrance to the establishment is from a courtyard from the mayor or his/her designee. Such or mall-like area with paved vehicular access and approval shall be given only after: proper lighting; and (Sall Lake Cit I-S3) 292 6.08.120 3. If any addition of such requested establish- establishments must be located within Commer- ment would not cause the number of Class C beer cial C-3 districts or less-restrictive zoning dis- and Class B private club licensees to exceed nine tricts or in an R-D district as an attendant use in a such establishments located on the exterior and conference center. (Ord. 2-88 § 1. 1988; Ord. interior of any block, as defined in subsection 34-87 § 11, 1987: prior code § 19-2-19) Ala of this section. The foregoing notwithstand- ing, no more than two such establishments may 6.08.130 Applications—Review by chief of be located on any street located in the interior of police. any such block, and no more than three such All applications filed in accordance with the establishments may be located within the inte- provisions of this chapter shall be referred to the rior of any such block; chief of police for inspection and report. The sAfter a public hearing has been held, with chief of police shall, within ten days after receiv- actual written notice having been given to the ing such application, make report to the mayor abutting property owners.and public notice hay- or the mayor's designee of the general reputation ing been given to the residents of the city thereof and character of the persons who habitually Ire- by at least one publication in a paper of general quent such place;the nature and kind of business circulation in the county at least ten days before conducted at such place by the applicant or by the hearing, stating the purpose, time, date and any other person or by the applicant at any other location of such hearing; and place; whether such place is or has been con- X. A finding by the mayor or the mayor's ducted in a lawful,quiet and orderly manner;the designee;after the holding of such hearing, that nature and kind of entertainment, if any, at such the proposed location for said establishment will place;whether gambling is or has been permitted not: on the premises or by the applicant at any other a. Create an undue concentration in the place;and the proximity of such premises to any number of Class C beer establishments or Class B school or church. The chief of police shall also private clubs, add to such report his/her recommendation as to b. Materially interfere with the free flow of whether or not the application should be granted. traffic. pedestrian or vehicular, (Prior code § 19-2-12) c. Create an undue burden in controlling and policing illegal activities in the vicinity, and 6.08.140 Application—Review by health d. Create a nuisance to the community, or department. e. Adversely affect the health,safety and mor- All applications filed in accordance with this als of the residents of the city. chapter shall be referred to the health depart- D. Prior Location.The provisions of this sec- ment which shall inspect all premises to be tion shall in no way affect the rights of the present licensed to assure sanitary compliance with the licensees to continue their operations, so long as laws of the state, the ordinances of the city, and their licenses remain in good standing, and con- the rules and regulations of the health depart- tinue to have their licenses reissued as provided ment. If the premises and all equipment used in by law until revoked or terminated for any rea- the storage. distribution or sale of beer fulfill all son. such sanitary requirements, the health depart- E. Zoning Restrictions. Notwithstanding any ment shall issue a permit to the licensee,a copy of of the provisions of subsection A of this section, which shall be attached to the application for all such Class C beer or Class B private club license. (Prior code § 19-2-13) 293 (Salt Lake City I.331 - co MAR 7 1969 • - - 0 .• • • . • ._ j,. ROGER F. CUTLER S � ` ,WY %Eo�n jo�� ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS '-.aawCITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, FIFTH FLOOR LARRY V. SPENDLOVE BRUCE R. BAtRD CHERYL D. LUKE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP March 6, 1989 GLEN A. COOK • Allen C. Johnson, Director Planning & Zoning 324 South Street, Room 200 - Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition No. 400-668 - Club Dejavu Dear Allen: On March 6, 1989, Roger Cutler referred your letter of March 1, 1989, to Joel D. Berrett to me to clear up a small ambiguity. Our office wishes to make clear that Roger Cutler's letter to you of January 30, 1989, concerning this petition did not constitute a negative policy recommendation. As you know, we generally do not comment on the policy implications of petitions such as this. As Roger Cutler' s letter makes clear, we are not making any policy recommendation. Any such inference in the Planning Commission's Staff Report is therefore not correct. Roger' s letter made clear, in its concluding paragraph, the purpose for which it was written: "I merely write this letter to suggest that an appropriate evaluation be made of the historic context of this ordinance and to appropriately include police enforcement experience, as it relates to these planning and enforcement relationships. " • Allen C. Johnson March 6, 1989 Page -2- If you have any questions about this petition please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, C R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRB:rc cc: Mike Zuhl Craig Peterson Chief Chabries Buzz Hunt Joel Berrett ROGER F. CUTLERSAlin t'/1a1�V� Rj: ; ION ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY GREG R. HAWKINS CHERYL D. LUKE LAW DEPARTMENT LARRY V. SPENDLOVE CITY PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE, FIFTH FLOOR STEVEN W. ALLRED SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BRUCE R. BAIRD (801) 535-7788 FRANK M. NAKAMURA FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP January 30, 1989 GLEN A. COOK Allen Johnson Planning & Zoning 324 South State Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition 400-668 Separation of bar ordinance. Dear Allen: I am in receipt of your letter to .Chief Chabries dated January 25, 1989 and write briefly to provide you some institutional memory on this subject. The bar separation ordinance was adopted because of the City' s experience that Class B private clubs and Class C beer licenses were substantially similar in operation, . clientele and problem generation. As you may recall, the Class B private club designation was a legal mechanism to address the liquor by the drink issue. In reality, it was a legal mechanism to permit an establishment, which would otherwise have been a liquor dispensing establishment in other states, to legally do so in Utah. Enforcement circumstances may have changed recently; however, from a historic perspective our experience has been that Class B private clubs were very liberal in the methods by which memberships were granted and they operated very similarly to Class C taverns. There have been a number of enforcement and other litigation problems regarding these establishments but previous experience suggested that undue concentration of taverns (including Class B private club operations) had a deleterious impact on property values. They tended to turn an area into a bar zone, with all of its Allen Johnson January 30, 1989 Page -2- attendant problems . For example, such a zone increased alcohol related problems, prostitution, obscenity--nude or sexually oriented performances, gambling and other influences which deteriorated the perception of the neighborhood and induced other more -traditional businesses to vacate the area. Historically, the City had a numerical limit on the number of taverns which were permitted. This limit was removed and the land-use restrictions and separation requirements substituted. This land-use approach prevented the trafficing in tavern licenses and allowed the marketplace to determine how many of these establishments would be in the City. However, police control was through a dispersal system to avoid the adverse impacts of bar concentrations. Your letter does not appear to evaluate or consider the teachings of previous enforcement experience or the root rationale behind the existing system. By that comment, I do not mean to suggest that circumstances have not changed by virtue of modifications in the Utah liquor statutes or because of changes in the ` current operation of Class B establishments. In fact, I am aware of more stringent enforcement of membership card rules. I merely write this letter to suggest that an appropriate evaluation be made of the historic context of this ordinance and to appropriately include police enforcement experience, as it relates to these planning and enforcement relationships. Historically concentration of bars has been acknowledged to have land-use implications in the same sense that concentrations of pornographic outlets had done. Sincerely, '-ROGER V: CUTLER City Attorney RFC:cc • r.\ a ,�`GIT�Y�C ' RPM ;IOI� +.�m�► ®s►u..� v.►o d'v✓rta�O.a�v�.a�a+� nl f/\ f. _ is ,l.011tf I O I% DEPARTMENT MIKE CHABRIES CHIEF OF POLICE 315 EAST 200 SOUTH TELEPHONE 799-3000 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 February 1 , 1989 Allen C. Johnson Planning Director Department of Development Services 324 South State Room 200 Salt Lake City, Utah , 84111 ; __._ Re: Petition 400-668 - Club Dejavu - Ordinance change request Dear Mr . Johnson, The views Lt . Kinnersley and Detective G. Smith have given with regard to the petition by the Club Dejavu reflect the Police Departments views with respect to all law. We are charged with the enforcement of law, and will do our utmost to provide service in that regard to the citizens of Salt Lake City. If in the eyes of the law makers it would be beneficial to provide more taverns per block in the Central City area, then it will be our job to enforce those laws , as well as , the residual fallout from increasing the number of taverns/clubs by 50%. There are problems which immediately come to mind with respect to current problems with the number of taverns/clubs in the immediate vicinity. The first is the recent series of meetings by the businesses between 3rd and 4th South on Main and the business owners insistence on the revocation of the licenses for the Delmar and the Desert Lounges. An increase in the allowable number of taverns/clubs in the area is going to have results similar to throwing gasoline on an out of control fire. In your letter you address the land use issues , but there are impacts on the surrounding area which have nothing to do with the physical location, such as an increase in the number of DUI drivers , and the potential for an increase incidents similar to those on Main Street. Your letter indicates there is not a significant difference between a restaurant with a beer and mini bottle license and a private club. There is a requirement that a restaurant receive 60% of it ' s revenue from the sale of food and a maximum of 40% from the sales of alcoholic beverages . The clientele of a restaurant is at the establishment to eat and have a cocktail service pursuant to the meal . The clientele of a Club is at the establishment to consume alcoholic beverages and have a cocktail pursuant to drinking. We feel this is a very significant difference . Please keep in mind that as the numbers of club/tavern licenses increase, it becomes necessary for the Police Department to increase the size of our staff to handle the increased problems created by the addition of drinking establishments , and since we have not been allowed to increase budget for several years , the level of service we provide will of necessity decline. We , again , ask that land use not be the only consideration in the change of an ordinance or the granting of a variance , and we would not propose a change in the ordinance, but we will continue to do our best no matter what the outcome. Mike. Chabries Chief of Police. Sincerely, Capt . M. R. P'risbey Commander SID cc: Major A Nievaard Janice Jardine • SALT' I t e a;�GIrTYr C�RjPO�_ IONE , oi w-vervik wpm,.lose ,: MICE DEPARMENT MIKE CHABRIES CHIEF OF POLICE 315 EAST 200 SOUTH TELEPHONE 799-3000 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 December 6, 1988 • Ms. Janice Jardine Planning and Zoning 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • RE: Petition 400-668 - Club Dejavu - Ordinance change request 1 Dear Ms. Jardine: After discussing your request with my immediate supervisor, Lt. R. Kinnersley, it would be Special Investigations Division's - position to support and maintain the current ordinance as it is written. Any other comments would best be directed to the Chiefs Office for recommendation. Sincerely, t. g Smith Spec' Investigations Division - GS/sj • • i _ ALLEN C. JOHNSON : MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR 1!_�, -rt,i11��f�t1�T� 1n1- CINDY CROMER SANDRA SECRETARY SALT° GI`ll G,ORPORATIONj LAVONETHOML DDLE-GAMONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES R H - NEOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RAL P.PH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLA.TUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL PETER VANALSTYNE 535-7757 KATHY WACKER January 25, 1989 Mike Chabries Chief of "Police _ • Salt Lake City Police Department - 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-668 - Club Dejavu - Ordinance change request Dear Chief Chabries: Club Dejavu has petitioned the City to change an ordinance which restricts the location of private clubs. We have been in contact with Lt. R. Kinnerslcy and Det. Greg Smith from your Special Investigations Division for review of this petition. They have indicated that it is the Division's position to support and maintain the current ordinance as it is written. We would like to support your position concerning this petition but unfortunately are finding it difficult from a pure land use perspective. It would be very helpful if your staff could expand or further explain the Police Department's position. It would also assist my office in our analysis if you would provide comments on the rationale behind grouping Class C beer licenses and Class B private club licenses together, using a geographical location as the criteria for the issuance of such licenses, and the options outlined on page two of this letter. Once Planning has formulated a recommendation the petition will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Mayor. Club Dejavu is located on 4th South between State and Main where there are currently two established private clubs, Club Cabana and The Manhattan Club. The location restrictions are contained in the licensing ordinances, specifically Section 6.08.120 which limits the number of Class B private club licenses and Class C beer licenses to a total of two establishments on a "lineal block" which is defined as both sides of the street. • We have examined the request based on land use issues, ie. parking, traffic circulation and infrastructure needs and have determined that. from a planning standpoint there is not a significant difference between a private club and a restaurant with a mini bottle license. Dejavu is presently operating as a restaurant with a mini bottle and beer license. Page 2 Police Chief Mike Chabries January 25, 1989 Based on the support expressed by the City Council and the Mayor for the R/UDAT study which calls for a "lightening up" of ordinances regulating uses in the downtown and the creation of more of an evening life in the downtown my staff has explored some modifications to the existing ordinance. Some options identified are: - a change to the definition of a lineal block, - a change in the number of establishments located on .a lineal block, - allowing the flexibility of the location of the permitted three establishments within the interior of the block to be located on the exterior of the block as long as the total number of establishments allowed on the exterior and interior of the block does not exceed nine such establishments. This will not increase the number of establishments presently allowed in any one block, it would change the location or spacing criteria. I appreciate your consideration of this request and would request that we receive a response from your office by February 3, 1989. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Janice Jardine. Sincere , Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director attachments cc: Roger Cutler City Attorney Janice Jardine Long Range Planning ACJ:JJ LAW OFFICES B OTTUM 8C WELLS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 323 SOUTH 600 EAST SUITE 150 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84102 JOSEPH H. BOTTUM• 1801) 538-0700 FAX (801) 538.0705 EDWARD T.WELLS JOEL C. BERRETT" 'ALSO ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA �+ •'ALSO ADMITTED IN IDAHO August 19, 1988 Honorable Palmer DePaulis Mayor, Salt Lake City c/o Department of Development Services 324 South State, Second Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ATTN: LuAnn Fawcett The undersigned, on behalf of Club Dejavu, hereby petitions the Honorable Mayor Palmer DePaulis and the City Council of Salt Lake City to change the zoning and development ordinances and regulations to permit Club Dejavu to operate a private club at 407 South Church Street (44 East 400 South) located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The interior and exterior of the premises has been completely renovated and it is felt that a private club would upgrade the area. DATED August 19, 1988 . ii. /24,tz/7517L- - Joel./ D. Berrett (/ E7Z 2._ spar A) 04%or r° _RAN OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 1 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 July 14, 1989 MEMORANDUM • TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST—JEbSON RE: IKER PETITION You have a public hearing scheduled on the Iker petition for Tuesday, July 18, but the petitioner is requesting that the petition be put on hold. Since the hearing has been advertised for quite some time, it would probably be best to announce that the petitioner has asked that it be placed on hold, but that the Council is glad to accept comment from interested members of the public, since it has been advertised. The hearing will be rescheduled at a later date, but we don't know when yet. SIP GIL IKER 8 July 1989 GI O ASSOCIATES Mr. Bill Wright Deputy Director Planning Division Room 406, City & County Building 451 South State Street • Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mr. Wright The public hearing on our Petition 400-710 for rezoning of our property at 1307 South 900 West is scheduled in City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 18. Since the filing, we have purchased the property at 1309 South 900 West, belonging to the only objector to the petition, Ruby Mitchell. We are also negotiating for the property at 1313 South 900 West, owned by the Wesemann famiiy. At the same time as our petition, your department proposed to rezone B-3 all the properties lying in the area bounded by 13th South, California Avenue, 900 West, and a line 231 feet east of 900 West (a proposal supported by every property owner except Ms. Mitchell). We would appreciate your holding our petition in abeyance until your proposal has been acted upon. Thanks for your help. Street Address: 1307 South 900 West, Very truly yours, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 (801) 972-8580 Mailing Addresses: bent . and Thelma P. Iker Main Office: P.O. Box 898, Salt Lake City. Utah 84110 TWX 910-925-4016 Branch Offices: P.O. Box 9307. Boise, Idaho 83707 (208) 322-1828 P.O. Box 2068, Pocatello, Idaho 83201 P.O. Box 2257 St.George. Utah 84770 MEMBER Of .OB 90 .41; lETA CT. - --- ACTION BROKERS INTERNATIONA 111111111 • LM Arr MORAlitgi DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E, PETEPSOy 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 - - 535-7777 • '10: Salt Lake City Council May 31, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-710 submitted by Thelma and Gilbert Iker. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on_ July 18, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-710'submited by Gilbert and Thelma Iker. The petitioners are requesting Salt Lake City to rezone a portion of their property at 1307 South 900 West from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3". The rezoning will accommodate the expansion of their office facilities on the site. • Availability of Funds: Not applicable • Discussion and Background: The rezoning request is consistent with the Westside Community Master Plan goals. The petition has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance is ready for your action. Submitted by: (7149 CRAIG El PEE'IERSON • Director lf/ . SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located at 1307 South 900 West from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3" pursuant to Petition No. 400-710-89 ) 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 Gilbert and Thelma Iker, No. 400-710-89, 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 at 1307 South 900 West from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3" 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" is hereby rezoned Business "B-3" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Block 5, 5 Acre 5. -- $` Plat B, Big Field Survey thence East 221 . 69 feet, thence South 188 . 1 feet, thence West 66 feet, thence /y1' / t North 89 . 1 feet, thence West 160.26, thence North 99 feet along the east right of way line of 900 West to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective 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 BRB:pp • -2- • • ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR ��f(�j� r II ON CRALPH BECKER SANORA MARLER SAT 1=i aw;�IT�Y�G,�RPO �e IlO� 1 THOMAS A.RELLSON SECRETARY •••+�i DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LAVIC LIDDLE-GAMONAL R EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: IC HARD J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission - RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 F. KEITH STEPAN PETER VANALSTYNE April 25, 1989 KATHY WACKER Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Craig: Attached you will find Petition 400-710 by Gilbert and Thelma Iker requesting the city to rezone a portion of their property at 1307 South 900 West from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3". The rezoning will accommodate the expansion of their office facilities on the site. The Planning Staff evaluated the request and found it consistent with the Westside ConQnunity Master Plan goals. Upon additional research, the staff believed there is merit to expand the request to include additional properties . to the south to California Avenue. The details are explained in the attached staff report. On Thursday, April 13, 1989 the Planning Commission held an informal hearing at 6:00 pm to receive comment from the public concerning this rezoning. Minutes of that hearing are attached. The Planning Commission generally concurred with the staff recommendation to expand the rezoning, however, they desire some additional study of the northwest corner of 1300 South and 900 West to rezone that corner to a residential zone as it is presently used. Therefore, the Planning Commission held action on the expanded rezoning. At the conclusion of the informal hearing, the Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of Petition 400-710 to rezone a portion of property from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3" at 1307 South 900 West Street. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the rezoning request. • Respectf 11y submitted, -Allen C 'John on AICP Planni Dir for attachments • • ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RALPH BECKER �' 'll` ��'CIi1 Y���RP�RATLOI�j CINDY CROMER SAND CR MARLER 1_�� __` v_�_ �Y _ ,r THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LAVONE LIDDLE•GAMONALRICHARD J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 F. KEITH STEPAN PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER NOTICE OF INFORMAL HEARING z Z SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Z * * * : The Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission is currently reviewing Petition number 400-710 by Gilbert and Thelma Iker requesting to rezone property located 1307 South 900 West. The rezoning request is for approximately . 09 acres to be. rezoned from the existing Residential R-2 to a Business B-3 classification. The Planning Staffs recommendation is to include additional property ( total of approximately 1. 27 acres ) to be within the B-3 zoning Classification as indicated on the attached map. The zoning change would allow the expansion of office facilities on the petition site. As part of their consideration the Planning and Zoning Commission is holding an informal public hearing. During this hearing the Planning staff will present information on the petitioners request. Anyone desiring to address the Planning and Zoning Commission relating to this request will be given the opportunity to speak. The informal hearing will be held: DATE: Thursday April 13, 1989 TIME: 6: 00 P. M. 1300 SOUTH LOCATION: Room 203, Salt Lake City Hall • 324 South State Street 'b,att•na,u. I Salt Lake City, Utah -- — • 'L. I ....: I :--� NCRTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE Please share this information with your neighbors. If you have question relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Bill Wright during the 8: 00 A. M. to 5: 00 P. M. office hours. Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission Petition 400-710 by Gilbert and Thelma Iker OVERVIEW The petitioner is requesting that the city rezone a portion of the property at 1307 South 900 West from Residential R-2 to a Business B-3 classification. The petition site is 165 ' in depth and the existing B-3 zoning only extends across 125 ' of the depth of the property. If granted, the zoning change would facilitate the expansion of office facilities on the petition site. PetitionArea lo I , i' ' It.2..s.%,j . i ' av J` ? I•. c. :. w ,- lb 0 - 0 .0 1 0 ° • e . 3i : ' P OM °.•.e.•O ` / �� • 13 N 1 13 7 .24 -=6Gililill 0 . 0 . 0 - . may !/ ACt-- I IZ'rl it, J. .1 I 4 BACKGROUND The petitioner has requested that property now used for parking and open space for an existing office building be rezoned to allow for the expansion of that office building. This portion of the petition site was granted a conditional use to allow parking in a residential zone for the adjacent office building. The surrounding area adjacent to the petition site is generally occupied by existing single family homes , neighborhood businesses and one nonconformingly located business . On April 19 , 1982 the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment granted Case 8909 which allowed the petitioner to construct a parking lot in a residential R-2 zone. This lot is located immediately East of the office building which was also constructed in 1982 . ANALYSIS The petitioners have requested that only the east 40 feet of their lot be changed from a residential R-2 classification to Business B-3 . The staff has observed some merit in expanding this request to include all the property from the east line of ,: the petitioners parking lot to 900 West and south to California `=� Avenue. After discussing this with the petitioner , it was agreed that while this is area is substantially larger than what is requested in this petition, it could provide the flexibility to instigate additional reinvestment and development in the area. ♦:TJf.'i'tL.. -- -•- • EXISTING LAND USE t 1 1 I ! I ! I It . . 1300 SOUTH i . Pellllon Area J . : x j NORTH _. OFFICE •n Z 2 SINGLE FAMILY HOII.IE 1 : L. . I w JI I --_ '- OFFICE /STUTAGE I . 2 LL , tu -, �_ - 'SINGLE FAMILY H E I :SINGLE FAMILY• - CT) _1.rAnnpl HCME . , VACANT 1 CALIFORNIA AVENUE PETITIONERS ZONING 7 •�• - --_ REQUEST I • I t t 1_ I I I I t i 1300 SOUTH 125. • REQUESTED 'EXISTING\ R-2 Zoneng I it t 1 . : ,. - ..-..-.. >3= Zarin .-- NORTH • . CALIFORNIA AVENUE 1 • • Preliminary analysis of the land use of the area shows that the office building built in 1982 was the last substantial investment made in this neighborhood. Single family homes directly to the south of the petition area have substantially served out their useful lifetimes yet two of these homes are occupied by long time residents of the community. Any efforts for redevelopment in this area should be sensitive to the needs of these residents. Other structures in the area include :a burned and boarded single family home and a nonconforming office and storage building which appears to be accessory to the petitioners main office building. Last year the city completed the reconstruction of 900 West Street which involved the widening of the right-of-way. At this specific location, the existing homes south of the petitioner ' s property now are located within a few feet of the public sidewalk. The Westside Community Master Plan Update acknowledges the properties between 1300 South and California Avenue on the east side of 900 West Street as transitional. . Neighborhood oriented business locating at' the northeast corner of California Avenue and 900 West Streets is the recommnedation of staff in that Master Plan Update. - RECOMMENDATION • The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the concept of Petition 400-710 and expand the zoning change to include the area 'immediately to the South to California Avenue and West to 900 West. This recommendation' is based on evidence that the proposed development would generally be in keeping with the master plan now being developed for the area and appropriately market the property for reinvestment and redevelopment of this neighborhood. _ STAFF RECOMMENDED F - ZONING CHANGE I 1300 SOUTH • NOE"_TH CALIFORNIA AVENUE Cristian A. Schulz . City Planner II • PC MINUTES April 14, 1989 Page 8 • a- BUSINESS . _ Utah Heritage Foundation Meeting Mr. Schumann stated that he had received a notice from Mr. James W. McPhearson of the Utah Heritage Foundation, that a mooting will be held April'14, 1989 from 10:00 a.m. until Noon in the Governor's Board Room at the Utah State Capitol Building for any of the Planning Commission members interested in attending. The purpose of the meeting is to review the possibility of the Utah Heritage Foundation doing a "Main Street Program." Mr. Schumann explained that this program would basically be another master plan for the Downtown area. Mr. Schumann requested someone from the Planning Staff attend this mooting and report on it to the Planning Commission. R/UDAT STUDY . • Mr. Schumann stated that he is becoming increasingly concerned about the comments he hears referring to the R/UDAT study as the officially adopted Master Plan for Salt Lake City. Mr. Schumann said he feels a statement needs to go out from the Planning Commission informing the public that the R/UDAT study is NOT the official Master Plan for the City. Mr. Van Alstyne moved to have a statement issued explaining that the R/UDAT study is not the official Master Plan for the City, but that portions of it are being considered as suggestions for the Master Plan. Mr. Nicolatus seconded the motion. Mr. Howa inquired how this statement would be made. Mr. Johnscn responded that a letter to Mr. Craig Peterson would be drafted for Mr. Schumann's signature. Mr. Van Alstyne suggested that the letter be sent to the R/UDAT committees. Mr. Schumann asked if that suggestion was included in the motion. Mr. Van Alstyne responded in the affirmative. Mr. Nicolatus accepted the suggestion to the second; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. • PhTilactIS INFOORMAL HEARING AT 6:00 p.m. - Petition No. 400-710, Gilbert and Thelma Iker recuesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located at 1307 South 900 West from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3." Mr. Ellison disqualified himself from this matter due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Wright presented the staff report stating that the petitioners have only requested that the east 40 feat of their lot be changed from a Residential R-2 classification to Business B-3. Mr. Wright added that the staff has observed some merit in expanding this request to include all of the property from the east line of the petitioner's parking lot to 900 West and south to California Avenue. Mr. Wright explained that the Staff's position on this expansion had been discussed with the petitioners and they are in agreement with the expansion. PC MINUTES April 14, 1989 Page 9 Mr. Wright stated that the Westside Community Master Plan Update acknowledges the properties between 1300 South and California Avenue on the east side of 900 West Street as transitional. This master plan recommends neighborhood- oriented businesses for the northeast corner of this area. Mr. Wright stated that the staff is recommending two alternatives to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1) approval of the petitioner's request on the east forty feet of their property, and 2) approval of the staff's recommendations for expansion on the rezoning request to include the area immediately to the south to California Avenue and West to 900 West. Mr. Wricht also stated that a community council meeting had been held and they are in favor of the approval of this petition. Mr. Schumann asked if the community council was in favor of approving staff's recommendation on expansion of the petitioner's request. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative. Ms. Cromer stated that her understanding of the residential parcels on the northwest corner of the intersection were currently zoned B-3 but that rezoning them to their current use is being considered. Mr. Wright said that • was correct. He added that the 1974 Master Plan suggested rezoning according to use. Ms. Cromer then. inquired as to the time frame on this. Mr. Wright stated.that no petition has been submitted on this but that it could be initiated by the con uunity council, by the property owners or even by the Planning Commission. Ms. Cromer asked if it would be possible to initiate this without the community council having to come up with the filing fccs. Mr. Johnson responded that there were two ways this could be handled. Cne would be to wait until the master plan is updated. At that time, the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that the zoning in that area be changed. Mr. Johnson stated that a motion could be piggy-backed to this petition. He suggested that before doing that, however, the scope of this hearing be broadened to notice those property owners. Mr. Johnson stated that another option would be to have the community council file the petition requesting the rezoning. Ms. Cromer then inquired if they would have to file the petition filing fee. Mr. Johnson responded in the affirmative. • Mr. Schumann asked if proper notification had been sent out to property owners in the area since staff was making a recommendation somewhat different from the petitioner's request. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative. Mr. Wheelwright informed the Planning Commission that two years ago when this area was under consideration for another matter, the Traffic Division had requested that the remnant parcel along California Avenue, going east from 900 West for approximately 165 feet, be retained in order to prevent driveway access to California Avenue. Me. Bob Jacobi, representing the petitioners, stated that the Ikers would be happy with either their request being approved or the staff's recommendation for the expanded rezoning being approved. Mr. Schumann opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to speak to the Planning Commission. PC MINUTES April 14, 1989 Page 10 Ms. Sandra Richter, representing the owner of the property directly south of the Iker property, stated that the lady who owns this property has never received notice of the community council meetings on this matter. Ms. Richter added that this lady is not interested in selling her property or moving. Ms. Richter added that the lady who owns the property has her invalid sister, who is cn dialysis, living with her and they have no intention of ever leaving this home. Ms. Richter further stated that these ladies cannot afford to live elsewhere and are uncomfortable with the pressure they feel Mr. Iker is exerting on them to sell. Ms. Cheryl Tulius, 1380 South 900 West, stated that she is opposed to this request for rezoning. . Mr. Schumann stated that the Planning Staff had received a telephone call from Mr. Gordon Wesemann, owner of the property at 1325 South 900 West stating that he would be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting but added that he is in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Richter pointed out that Mr. Wesemann owns the boarded up house that was burned so he wouldn't care if the area is rezoned. Mr. Schumann informed the property owners that there would not be an immediate impact forcing them to move out of their homes if the rezoning is approved. . Mr. Mark Elkins, 1200 South 900 West, stated that he is in favor'of the rezoning since he believes the rezoning would result in the area being cleaned up, resulting in increased safety for the area. Ms. Camille Elkins, 1200 South 900 West, and an employee of the Ikers, stated that she is- in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Elkins said she feels the rezoning would clean up-the area which is an entry way to the neighborhood, and would make it safer for the neighborhood children who walk in front of the property to the elementary school. Mr. Wright read a letter received from Mr. Leith Mending, 1350 South 900 West stating that he has no objection to the rezoning of this area. That letter is filed with the minutes. Mr. Johnson stated that the property immediately south of the Iker property to which Ms. Richter referred, is already zoned B-3 with the exception of the . rear portion (approximately 40 feet) which is zoned R-2. Mr. Becker inquired if the Planning Commission could consider an amendment to the Master Plan at the same time as a rezoning request. Mr. Johnson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Schumann closed the hearing to the public at this time. M.S. Cromer moved to see all four corners of this intersection considered together as one entire package. Ms. Cromer said it appears the master plan of 1974 has not been acted on and needs to be looked at. She added that the burden of planning should not be put on the shoulders of the property owners, nor should it be at their expense. Mr. Van Alstyne seconded the motion. Mr. Bethel stated that he fools it would be a big mistake to eliminate the residential use of the northwest corner of this area. Mr. Bethel added that he feels the residential uses in the area adjoining the Iker property on the east need to be protected. • PC MINUTES April 14, 1989 Page 11 Mr. Hcwa inquired if Ms. Cromer's motion was to table this issue. Mr. Schumann responded that what Ms. Cromer was requesting was for the Planning Staff to refile a petition that would permit zoning cn the proposed parcel on a modified basis and to eliminate the B-3 zoning on the northwest corner. Mr. Schumann asked Ms. Cromer if he had stated that correctly. Ms. Cromer responded in the affirmative and requested that the property owners in the area be notified and that all four corners be dealt with simultaneously. M8. Cromer, Mr. Van Alstyne, Mr. Nicolatus and Mr. Howa voted "Aye;" Mr. Becker - and Mr. Bethel voted "Nay;" Mr. Ellison abstained from the vote. The motion passes. Mr. Nicolatus stated that the petitioners have requested only the east forty feet of their lot be rezoned from R-2 to B-3. Mr. Johnson agreed and said that was one of the two options the Planning Staff was suggesting. The other option was suggested in order to make the larger parcel conform. • Ms. Cromer stated that she had no problem dealing with the original petition reouest as long as all four corners of the intersection are considered in conjunction with re-examining the master plan for the area without having to . - have someone pay additional filing fees. Mr. Becker moved to approve the original petition, as filed by the petitioners, to rezone the east forty feet of the petitioner's property from - R-2 to B-3. Mr. Bethel seconded the motion; all voted "Aye" with the exceptions of Mr. Howa who voted "Nay" and Mr. Ellison who abstained from the vote. The motion passes.' SUBDIVISIONS Preliminary plat approval for "Industrial Centre Park Subdivision, Phases 4,5 and 6" located on California Avenue west of Pioneer Road. Mr. Wheelwright presented the staff report stating that: this is a request for preliminary subdivision plat approval for 25 acres of industrially zoned property. Mr. Wheelwright said that Phases 1, 2 and 3 have been previously granted and Phase 1 has been recorded. The final platting will be in three phases and staff proposes that final subdivision approval authority be granted to the Planning Director. Mr. Wheelwright stated that Mr. Dahlberg, the developer, owns a total of 75 acres and this request will complete the subdivision approval of the entire 75 acres. Mr. Dahlberg has constructed $500,000 worth of street improvements thus far, on California Avenue and 3200 West. Another $150,000 worth of improvements on California Avenue are pending completion of the Interchange project in I-215 at California Avenue, scheduled for completion by UDC2 later this summer. Mr. Wheelwright stated that all city departments have reviewed this project and recommend approval. Mr. Wheelwright said the staff recommends the Planning Commission grant approval for Phases 4, 5 and 6 of the Industrial _ - - di) rY-16" VQ--(.L4.117.c • ..-'1.4kt 10-4/ Y117 '(>16 CC_J 6/.14Kz __ _ ---7/7 24r-e-e__ .1-j( --71 . •_ 4r.) . .". 1(-d-C-Lif - • • . • . • . . • • •...-. • •• - ..- • . • - • . . _ . • . •,. .• • . . . . _ . . - • -• • „ „ • . • • . ,.. • . . , . . • . . . • . _ .. • _ . . . - . • . . • - • • . " . . . . • . . .• • • • - . . • • • - •• • • •... . • . . . • . • • .. ..„ • . ..• • , _ • • '‘.. "..• • • • - • . • . • • . • • / , • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • . • •• •,. • • • . • - • • ZNIO=MMI ASSOCI!�—7j 31 March 1989 Mr. Robert Jacoby Suite 4005 307 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Dear Bob, Our application for rezoning our property at 900 West 1300 South to B-3 in its entirety will be heard on Thursday, March 13th, at 5 P.M. in the Salt Lake City Commission Chambers. We will be scheduled early in that meeting, according to Cris Schultz from Planning & Zoning, who will be there also. • Gi! and I will be out of town on that date, and we would like you to repre- sent us at the meeting. Please address any issues which arise concerning our application. We would also like you to express our support of the Planning & Zoning recommendation for rezoning to B-3 the larger block of land which in- cludes our property and all the other parcels fronting on the east side of.900 West between 1300 South and California Avenue. Street Adores • Regards, 1307 So...:;h 900 West. Sait Lake Utah 8=10 (801;972-cSS0 THELMA IKER Mailinc to'rosses: Main O'iice. P.O Box .,., cc: Cris Schulz Salt La{-G: Utah 8- 1 ) • TWX 91 C- 25"01 E Branco • P n B o: Boise. Idaho 83707 (208) 322-1828 P.O. Box Pocate:'o- Idaho 83201.. P.O. Box 22E7 St. Georce. Utah8=770 MEMlEr O1 o s'c 6% M` s. ACTION BROKERS INTERNATIOK : "T A LICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the departlrent of Development Services • 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City U ah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: 1 107 South 400 1.iesi Sal* Take ri *i7 PT R41 CL4 • fiuu a B3/R2 classification to a B3 classification (Use reverse side for legal description)_ ATTACH TO. APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. 3. Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezoning from all affected property owners. 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. • L ABOVE INFORMATION, IN DETAIL, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THE PETITION TO HE PAY CONSIDERED SY THE PLANNING ODMMISSION. Signature of the applic ' ddress p n RnY R4ft eT r 84110 or 1307 So. 900 Nest Te oreumb ear o} Zip Code cT r T RA1nG 7 Rspe4Ltni FILL CUT REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. IMO-1/0 Date /t4(,/?j,-/ Receipt No. [C,,,-,; � 7 _ Amount $ Oc),(ln G.71) stic gie smY(c I 1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council May 31, 1989 Re: Petition No. 400-669 submitted by William and Mary Ann DeNiro Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 18, 1989 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-669 submitted by William and Mary Ann DeNiro. The petitioner are requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located at 360-366 South 900 West from R-6 to a B-3. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the rezoning of the property at 360-366 South 900 West to B-3 classification. The zone will allow the property to be marketed for "neighborhood" oriented business uses as presently defined in the zoning ordinance. However, it will not allow the use of the site for a "detached" car wash facility. The petitioner requested that the B-3 zoning ordinance text be changed to allow "detached" car wash, the Planning Commission and staff have denied ' this request. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and necessary ordinance is attached for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG g. PETERSON Director lf/ $yw'� SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located at 300-366 South 900 West from Residential "R-6" to Business "B-3" pursuant to Petition No. 400-669-88) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE t CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by William and Mary Ann DeNiro, No. 400-669-88, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at 300-366 South 900 West from Residential "R-6" to Business "B-3" 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-6" is hereby rezoned Business "B-3" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: 11 BEG 149 FT S FR NE COR LOT 1 BLK 33 PLAT C SLC SUR S 33 FT W 141 FT N 33 FT E 141 FT TO BEG 5184-o6o7 7 , COM 112 FT N FR SE COR LOT 1 BLK 33 PLAT C SLC SUR N 36 FT W 141 FT S 36 FT E 141 FT TO BEG BEG 78 FT N FR SE COR LOT 1 BLK 33 PLAT C SLC SUR N 34 FT W 141 FT S 34 FT E 141 FT TO BEG 4o75-3o3 COM 45 FT N OF SE COR LOT 1, BLK 33, PLAT C, SLC SUR: N 33 FT: W 141 FT: S 33 FT: E 141 FT TO BEG 4453- 1268 BEG AT SE COR LOT 1 BLK 33 PLAT C SLC SUR N 45 FT W 141 FT S 45 FT E 141 FT TO BEG 4o75-3o3 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 , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -2- DATE...._ =•.it3__ -... ALLEN C. JOHNSON - MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RALPH BECKER SANDRA MARLER [\�1l + I �� II T� 1(((1���lll'�'R,�'� T J��Q CINDY CROMER SECRETARY SAL►�T o i( ' �-'1'11Y1 `.�",��10. .�t+,©.1a1 THOMAS A. ELLISON LAVONE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RICHARD J. HOWA NAL MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 F. KEITH STEPAN PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER May 8, 1989 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 S. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-669 - DeNiro rezoning - 400 S. and 900 W. Dear Craig: Attached please find Petition 400-669 from William and Mary Ann DeNiro requesting rezoning of their property located at 360-366 South 900 West from Residential R-6 to Business B-3 or Commercial C-1 and to amend the text of the Business B-3 Zone. At their regular mooting April 27, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council the expansion of the zoning on this property from Residential R-6 to Business B-3. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at an informal hearing on February 9, 1989. At that time the Commission voted to table action on this request until the petitioner secured a tenant and submitted a site plan for Planning Commission review in order for them to determine exactly what they are dealing with and mcct with the neighborhood. Mr. DeNiro has been unsuccessful in securing a tenant for the site and submitted a letter addressed to Chairman Schuman requesting to have his entire property rezoned to Business B-3 without a specific use for the site. The expanded B-3 zoning will allow the property to be marketed for "neighborhood" oriented business uses as presently defined in the zoning ordinance. However, it will not allow the use of the site for a "detatched" carwash facility. The planning staff did not support a zoning change to Commercial C-1 because the City's existing zoning ordinance allows certain C-1 uses which conflict with the Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan and the staff did not support the requested amendment to the text of the Business B-3 zone. The carwash issue cannot be resolved with the existing ordinance and the staff feels that changing the wording for this one section is not the best approach. The planning staff has been given the directive to further examine the Business B-3 and Commercial C-1 districts and develop new zoning ordinance alternatives to address the issues of "neighborhood" oriented business activities. Page 2 Craig Peterson May 8, 1989 Petition 400-669 - DeNiro A copy of the staff report and supporting documents are also attached. If you have any questions concerning this petition, please contact either myself or Janice Jardine. Sincer y, Allen C/ Johns n, AICP Planning Dir tor cc: John Schuman, Chairman Salt Lake City Planning Commission CP-Pet ACJ:jj pankej _ ia, • I I . APR 101989 AeRii 11); • CITY PLANNING & CN & ZONING COMMISSLON Q 1S510d • $4,144. �mtillei GQMM r April 10, 1989 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Mr. John Schumann, Chairperson 324 South State Street Room 203 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear John: I appeared at an Informal Hearing on February .9 , 1989 regarding Petition No. 400-669 by William V. and ?Lary Ann DeNiro to amend the Zoning Ordinance and/or rezone property at 360-330 South 900 West. My tenant informed me on February 28 , 1989 "---- but after careful consideration we have decided not to pursue a rezoning and permit at this location." I :) do not have a back-up tenant. Tenants and prospective businesses are extremely difficult to attract to this particular area. I urge the Commission to review and amend the text of the 3-3 Zoning because it is excessively restrictive and excludes good and valuable businesses from establishing in this area. I would like to proceed with the application and request that the parcel be Zoned B-3 . Currently it is Zoned B-3 and R The entire parcel has been in a B-3 use for approximately the past 20-25 years. The Zoning of the entire Parcel to B-3 will allow me to pursue a tenant and get a business operational without further delay and/or risk of loss of another tenant. Sincerely , William V. DeNiro WVD/mot Copy: Janice Jardine • f _� 2290 EAST 4500 SOUTH SUITE 260 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84117-4465 TELEPHONE(801)278-0466 February 28, 1989 Bill DeNiro RE: 400 East & 900 West Salt Lake City Dear Bill : Thank you for offering us this location, but after carefuL consideration we have decided not to pursue a rezoning'and permit at this location. Sincerely,• /4471 Y-1746,2564---" Harlan McGregor Manager, Real Estate & Development HM/k 1 MEMBERS: ALLEN C. JOHNSON RALPH BECKER PLANNING DIRECTOR N WIT CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER S ` r i k W ©o°?a rI;O j THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD J. HOWA Ex-oFFtclo MEMBERS: MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY_ Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLATUS JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Janice Jardine _ Long Range Planning/Urban Design RE: Petition 400-669 - DeNiro rezoning and zoning expansion request at 360 - 380 South 900 West - The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at an informal hearing on February 9, 1989. At that time the Planning Commission voted to table action on this request until the petitioner secured a tenant and submitted a site plan for Planning Commission review in order for them to determine exactly what they are dealing with and meet with the neighborhood. Since that time Mr. DeNiro has been unsuccessful in securing a tenant for the site. He has submitted a letter addressed to Chairman Schuman requesting to have his entire property rezoned to Business B-3 without a specific use for the site. ' The planning staff's original staff report is attached. The staff's recommendation remains the same: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the expansion of the zoning on this property from Residential R-6 to Business B-3. Expansion of the zoning as requested will provide adequate commercial square footage to accommodate a site design which is sensitive to the compatibility guidelines outlined in the Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan. New development will upgrade the existing streetscape to the City' current standards by replacement of deteriorated or substandard sidewalk, curb, and gutter and providing landscaped park strips, setbacks and residential buffers. The expanded B-3 zoning will allow the property to be marketed for "neighborhood" oriented business uses as presently defined in the zoning ordinance. t SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ,. - PETITION 400-669 MR. WILLIAM DENIRO REQUESTING TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE BUSINESS •B-3 ZONE AND REZONE PROPERTY AT 380 SOUTH 900 WEST FROM BUSINESS B-3/RESSIDENTIAL R-6 TO BUSINESS B-3 OR COMMERCIAL C-1 OVERVIEW This is a request from Mr. William and Ms. Mary Ann DeNiro requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Sec. 21 .52.010.6.a. which regulates gasoline service stations and/or, rezone to Business B-3 or Commercial C-1 that portion of their property which is presently Residential R-6. This property is located on the northwest corner of 400 South and 900 West Streets. The proposed use for the site is a self-service gasoline and convenience store with an automatic car wash. 3 RU SOUTH J 2 • Vf •, F J , . . . 4 •1`.::1 � \ t • J �" s u n O 4. n = O m NO y �� Sou h r �r 1 .•. Vf(1., ‘ \ , l ] .- ....- C . \' '\,:,%%J _A\ ,...,:' 4 BACKGROUND The existing structure was used as a small grocery store until it burned in June of 1988. The property has remained in the same ownership for approximately 50 years. The surrounding land uses to the west, north and east across 900 West are residential. There is a church on the northeast corner of 900 West and 400 South, a "7-11" convenience store on the southeast corner and "Neff Floral" on the southwest corner. All four corners are zoned Business B-3. ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS The Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan has identified this area to remain zoned for neighborhood businesses which provide services and commercial activity at a neighborhood scale. The intersections of 900 West at 400 South and 800 South are identified as the areas principle retail nodes and as such should be encouraged to redevelop. The Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan states, ". . .the commercial uses should not be intrusive nor create a negative impact on abutting or surrounding residential areas." The plan outlines compatibility guidelines which protect the neighborhood environment and allow flexibility in site plan design in terms of visual quality, traffic generation, sound attenuation, streetscape and urban design characteristics, and building orientation, height, bulk and placement of support equipment. With the expansion of the zoning as requested the site will have adequate square footage to accommodate a site design which is sensitive to these standards. New development of this site will upgrade the existing streetscape to the city's current standards by replacement of deteriorated or substandard sidewalk, curb, and gutter and landscaped park strips and setbacks. Street trees should also be planted as directed by the Salt Lake City Urban Forester. The Major Street Plan and Official Map designates both 400 South and 900 West as minor arterials. These streets are able to support commercially oriented traffic without creating any significant impact on the residential areas. ZONING ISSUES The present zoning is Business B-3 from 400 South north 100 .feet then 81 feet of Residential R-6. The petitioner is requesting to have the entire site which is approximately 25,000 square feet changed entirely to a Business B-3 zone or Commercial C-i zone in order to accommodate a gas/convenience store and car wash. Both the Business B-3 and Commercial C-1 districts could be appropriate commercial zones for this area as identified in the Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan. The B-3 zone allows a gasoline service station which includes ordinary repairs and servicing of vehicles and as an accessory use one bay of the building may be used for an automatic car wash with all services required to be conducted inside the building. The C-I zone allows as a conditional use a detached automatic car wash as an accessory to a self-service or full service gas station with specific conditions to be met. Since the proposed use for this corner is a gas/convenience store with a car wash and will not provide vehicle repair or service the site will require a Commercial C-1 zone: However, the Commercial C-1 also allows high intensity uses such as printing plants, storage warehouses, soft-drink bottling plants and auto rental agencies which are incompatible with the master plan which specifies commercial activity at a neighborhood scale. The petitioner is also requesting to amend the text of Sec. 21 .52.010.6.a. of the Business B-3 zone which deals with gasoline service stations by making the repairs and servicing of vehicles an option, changing the wording from "including" to "may include". The carwash issue cannot be resolved with the existing ordinance and the staff feels that changing the wording for this one section is not the best approach. The planning staff has been given the directive to further examine the Business B-3 and Commercial C-1 districts and develop new zoning ordinance alternatives to address the issues of "neighborhood" oriented and located business activities. RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff has scheduled an informal hearing to receive neighborhood input on the proposed zoning expansion. Staff attended the January 25, 1989 meeting of the Westside Community Council and provided information concerning Mr. DeNiro's proposal. The proposal received a favorable consensus from the Community Council. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the expansion of the zoning on this property from Residential R-6 to Business B-3. Expansion of the zoning as requested will provide adequate commercial square footage to accommodate a site design which is sensitive to the compatibility guidelines outlined in the Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan. New development will upgrade the existing streetscape to the City's current standards by replacement of deteriorated or substandard sidewalk, curb, and gutter and providing landscaped park strips, setbacks and residential buffers. The expanded B-3 zoning will allow the property to be marketed for "neighborhood" oriented business uses as presently defined in the zoning ordinance. However, it will not allow the use of the site for a "detatched" carwash facility. Within the context of the City's existing zoning ordinances, certain C-1 uses conflict with the Westside Neighborhood Master Plan. Therefore, the staff does not support a zoning change to Commercial C-1 . January 1989 Janice M. Jardine PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 8 IN1t'TMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-669 by William and Mary Ann Deniro requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Section 21.52.010.6.A and/or rezone property at 360-380 South 900 West from Business "B-3/Residential R-6" to Business "B-3" or Commercial "C-ll" to allow a Rainbo Oil Gas Station Convenience Store. It was pointed out that the notices had been sent out to the neighborhood giving an incorrect address for the petition site. Mr. Schumann inquired if ' the hearing should be postponed. Mr. Wright stated that the same people would have been notified, and since this was only an informal hearing, he recommended proceeding with the information and the people present. He pointed out that a formal hearing before the City Council would be held on this matter and advertised in the newspapers at a later date. Mr. Wright also stated that this matter had been before the community councils and the neighborhood was aware of the petition. The Planning Commission agreed to hear the matter at this time. Ms. Jardine presented the staff report stating that the petitioner is requesting Salt Lake City amend the Zoning Ordinance, Section 21.52.010.6.A, and/or rezone the area in question from Residential "R-6" to Business "B-3" or Commercial "C-1" in order to facilitate a self-service gasoline and convenience store with an automatic car wash. Ms. Jardine stated that the Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan has identified this area to remain zoned for neighborhood businesses which provide services and commercial activity at a neighborhood scale. The intersections of 900 West at 400 South and 800 South are identified as the area's principal retail nodes and as such, should be encouraged to redevelop. Ms. Jardine said the Planning Staff recomunds that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, the expansion of the zoning on this property from Residential "R-6" to Business "B-3." Expansion of the zoning as requested, will provide adequate commercial square footage to accommodate a site design which is sensitive to the compatibility guidelines outlined in the Westside Neighborhood Land Use Plan. New development will upgrade the existing streetscape to the City's current standards by replacement of deteriorated or substandard sidewalk, curb and gutter, and by providing landscaped park strips, setbacks and residential buffers. The expanded "B-3" zoning will allow the property to be marketed for "neighborhood" oriented business uses as presently defined in the zoning ordinance. It will not, however, allow the use of the site for a "detached" car wash facility. Within the context of the City's existing zoning ordinance, certain "C-1" uses conflict with the Westside Neighborhood Master Plan. Therefore, the staff does not support a zoning change to Commercial "C-1." Ms. Jardine added that the community council is in favor of this petition. Ms. Jardine said that the Planning Staff is not in favor of amending the text of the zoning ordinance dealing with the "B-3" zone. Mr. William Deniro, the petitioner, 415 East 4800 South, stated that it is very difficult to obtain tenants for this property. He handed out a paper outlining his suggestions for three possible solutions to this matter, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Solution #1 requests a zoning ordinance amendment to change the wording ". . .including ordinary repairs.. .," to read ". . .MAY INCLUDE ordinary repairs. .." as well as a rezoning of the "R-6" portion of his property to a "B-3" classification. Solution #2 requests I PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 9 approval of the petition under Chapter 12C of the ordinance dealing with mixed use transitional overlays which would allow the operation of a gasoline service station, providing a conditional use permit is obtained. Solution #3 requests amending the Use District of the "B-3" and "R-6" to "C-1" which allows detached automatic car wash facilities when a conditional use permit has been obtained. Mr. Deniro stated that he is in favor of Solution 41 but will accept either of the other two solutions. Mr. Wright stated that the staff's opinion of the minimum requirement for a service station is that it provide automobile repair services. Mr. Wright stated that an opinion received from the city attorney defines a service station as any place selling gasoline and oil. Mr. Wright added that when Rainbo Oil was attempting to meet the repairs performance requirement, they decided to do a joint venture with Minute Lube connecting the two buildings. This solution was not acceptable to the Planning Staff. Due to the difficulties encountered with this matter, the Planning Staff is in the process of recommending City Council revoke Paragraph B of Section 21.52.010.6 of the zoning ordinance. This would eliminate the problem of determining in which zones car washes are allowed. Mr. Wright explained that this ordinance was drafted several years ago to allow full service gasoline stations with an extra repair bay to install a car wash in one of the surplus bays. The car washing service was for those people who had their cars in for repairs, not the customer off the street who simply desired a car wash. The type of facilities now being placed on the market cannot meet the criteria in the ordinance due to the requirement that no cars may be allowed to line up waiting for the washing services. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Staff will be studying the text of the "C-1" and "B-3" zoning ordinances, the actual districts, and the placement of businesses in these zones during the next six to eight months. Mr. Kim Anderson, 768 North Redwood Road, Vice Chairman of SLACC, stated that he would oppose any change to the "B-3" ordinance at this time. Mr. Joseph Neff, of Neff Floral on the corner of 900 South and 400 West, stated that he is in favor of the petition since he feels it will upgrade the neighborhood and add much needed vitality to it. He stated that construction . in the neighborhood will send out a message of growth. Mr. Deniro presented a petition signed by the abutting property owners stating they are in favor of this. matter. Mr. Deniro also presented a letter signed by Councilmember Wayne Horrccks stating he is in favor of a Rainbo Oil Gas Station being constructed at this location providing Rainbo Oil mitigates the impact of the car wash on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Wright stated that though there may be ways to design a convenience store with a detached car wash, the Planning Staff is concerned that if a change to a "C-1" classification occurs for this particular corner, the same issue might come up for the other three corners in the area. In addition, some "C-1" uses are not compatible with the master plan for this area. Mr. Ellison stated .that the fundamental problem with this matter is that there is not a proposal for a specific use of this property, since negotiations with Rainbo Oil are only tentative. Mr. Ellison stated that it would be easier to • PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 10 make a decision on this petition if the Planning Commission was dealing with a specific use. Mr. Deniro stated that he had submitted a-letter from Rainbo Oil with his application expressing their interest in leasing this property n - for a gasoline convenience store at this location. Mt. Ellison then stated that the Rainbo Oil station might not be inconsistent with the master plan for the area but another "C-1" use might be. Mr. Deniro addressed the issue of specific use by stating that this was the reason he had submitted the letter frcrn Rainbo and two site proposals, one with a detached car wash and one with an attached car wash. Ms. Jardine pointed out, however, that Mr. Deniro was ' also considering dealing with Conoco and that the negotiations with Rainbo were not final. Ms. Cromer stated that she is opposed to any car wash abutting residential property. Mr. Hcwa moved to table this petition until the Planning Commission has been able to look at the site plan in order to determine exactly what they are dealing with. Mr. Nicolatus seconded the motion. Mr. Ellison suggested that the petitioner be required to meet with the neighborhood. Mr. Howe accepted the amendment to the motion; Mr. Nicolatus accepted it to the second. Mr. Wright stated that he had spoken with Mr. Harlin MacGregor of Rainbo Oil who has asserted that Rainbo Oil is not prepared to present a specific commitment to the Planning Commission for development on -this particular site until the zoning has been changed, allowing them to develop their site plan. Mr. Deniro stated that Rainbo has submitted two site plans. Mr. Wright then stated that Mr. MacGregor would not come to the meeting and state what Rainbo would be willing to construct. Mr. Wright stated that Conoco is not constructing a car wash at their site on 1300 South and State Street where it is allowed and, therefore, there are businesses who might be willing to develop on this site without the car wash facilities. Mr. Deniro said the car wash is not the issue but rather, the wording in the ordinance requiring ordinary servicing of vehicles that is causing difficulty. Mr. Wright stated that if there is no need for a car wash at this site, the staff recommendation for expanding the zoning to allow for an appropriate amount of property to market for "B-3" use, is consistent with the request. Mr. Nicolatus, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Neilson and Mr. Hcwa voted "Aye;" Ms. Cromer and Mr. Becker voted "Nay." There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Secretary C SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING CCNMISSION DATE: Dec 1 1988. TO: Rae Hunsaker - Fire Department. FROM: Efosa Osazuwa-Planning. a- � RE: Petition no 400-669 -Deniro rezoning request Please review the attached petition requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property at 360, 362, 364, 366 and 380 South 900 Wept to allow a Rainbo Oil Gas station Convenience Store and also include a carwash. Please return your cements to me by December 9, 1988._ Thanks 647 Lis A/C d/eeZ/dA/ I 74 c} f p 7/Ls el�o A/ ZA/1 as d.�� �,ee d,7 lleer/gem e-iv/ss ia,e_g. ` 7 mew Zease e_ eo e� /V e NS/iCG(6 04/ /s do/s/e--, LEROY W. HOOTON. JR. DIRECTOR 0 WEN DELL E. EVENSEN. P.E. �' ' �i r i +lGITY�GORPORATIOI SUPERINTENDENT 1J I WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS "�'� '�i9+� ''°�'W a� �"��"►av-.aamow'1 E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC'UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION - WATER SUPPLY& WATERWORKS PALMER DEFAULTS JAMES M. LEWIS. C.P.A. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE&ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER MEMORANDUM December 8, 1988 TO: Doug Wheelwright Planning & Zoning • FROM: E. T. Doxey i` Water Reclamation Superintendent RE: PETITION NO. 400-669 - DENIRO REZONING REQUEST The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the above noted petition and has no objections to the petitioners request If you have further water or sewer questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Mr. Vince Houtz at 483-6725 . /co FORMS IEL'B DEC 2 7 1N SALT'YAM onirG O RPOR.r IONI .ra ....� •cs aa.w I-w..v.a W++•c.v.w.a w.d v�u-ar.a FINANCE DEPARTMENT LANCE R. BATEMAN, CPA Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR 5TH FLOOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PURCHASING (801) 535-7661 PROPERTY 535-7133 December 23, 1988 TO: Efosa Osazuwa Planning FROM: Eric H. Thorpe • Real Property Manag RE: PETITION NO. 400-669, DENIRO REZONING REQUEST This memo will confirm the previous phone conversation I had on this matter with Janice Jardine. As Janice and I discussed, Property Management has no objection to this petition being granted. Please contact me if you have any questions. EHT/mt APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City Utah, to: 1. Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section 21.52-.010 6. a. (Use reverse side for requested text change) OR 2. Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying t following property located at: - 360, 362 , 364, 366 and 380 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 R-6 Portion to B-3 OR fran aB-3/R-6 classification to a C-1 classification (Use reverse side for legal description ATTACH TO APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. 3. Description of the pLoposed use to be made of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezoning fran all affected property owners. 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. THE ABOVE INFORMATION, IN DETAIL, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THE PETITION TO BE PIOPERLY CONSIDERED BY COMMISSION. W/4)1174 1--42 388 East 4800 South Signature of the applicant ( �i ‘Aq Address 415 East 4800 South 266 1037 Murray, Utah Telephone Number 262 7310 - Zip Code 84107 FILL OUT REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. 40.6 6 Q \: Date //hrn{ Receipt No. (')j ,- cW 0 Amount $ )LJ.00) • ATTACIIENT TO APPLICATION: 1. The present Zoning and text is excessively restrictive and excludes good and valuable businesses from establishing in the area and does not in fact provide for the general welfare of the area and its residents. A amendment to Ordinance 21.52.010 6. a. from "including" TO "may include" or reclassify- ing will allow the desired flexibility but still provide the City and residents the full protection that exists under the present Salt Lake City Ordinance regulating Zoning. 2. This property was originally acquired by my father and mother in approximately 1938-40. My father is deceased and my mother is 76 years of age and without social security benefits. The store on the premises was originally built as a "Safeway Super Market", leased to the Art Reynolds family for two generations, Steve Regan and then Clark Fjelsted as "Clarks". The structure was set on fire on June 28, 1988 by juveniles. The owners made their investment in this area, neighborhood and property almost 50 years ago. The area and residents have been good to my parents and also to the tenants and they likewise have been good to them. The proposed tenant will make a sizeable investment in this neighborhood. This is a unique oppor- tunity to attract an excellent tenant in the area and to attract and encourage other ones also. My mother now needs your help to keep their original invest- ment alive. The area recently has taken on the appearance of a depressed or blighted one and is in need of an infusion of new businesses to help up-grade it. It is extremely difficult to attract new business and tenants into this area. Recent indications of Los Angeles type gangs exist as evidenced by the paint- ing of business establishments over the recent Labor Day week-end with "Krips" and other gang graffiti. Zoning needs to be amended or changed to provide and allow flexibility for the establishment and operation of desireable new businesses in the area. There are currently 347 acres of B-3 Zoning in Salt Lake City. Changes need to be made now or in the near future enormous amounts of City Redevelopment monies will have to be spent to re-vitalize this area. The best solution is to provide the flexibility and to let private money and free enterprise correct the present downward trend. 3. The proposed use is for a retail grocery, self serve gasoline, and car wash with the prospective tenant being but not limited to Rainbo Marts (A14000) . 4. Traffic counts and a market study indicates that this is an excellent location for such a business. Rainbo develops a superb site with quality construction and landscaping that is unequalled. They would be a real asset to the area providing needed and desired goods and services and would be a pride to the neighborhood. A recent survey of neighbors abutting the site indicates enthusiastic support for the project and for the tenant. The desired site size for the prospective tenant would be the entire 141' x 181' . 5. Endorsements per attached. 6. Rainbo exhibits. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number(s) on reverse side of this application. r„o' August 15, 1988 Salt Lake County Assessor Salt Lake County,.Board of Equalization Government Center 2001 South State Street $N2300A Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1300 0 Dear Board: I hereby request an adjustment downward in my tax liability for the 1988 tax year based on the following facts: 1. I am 76 years of age. 2. I am a widow. 3. I receive no social security benefits or insurance benefits because my deceased husband was self employed. My social security number is 529 68 0432. 4. I had two sources of rental income as follows: 94a.5 a. Parcel 16 07 308 001 0000 leased for $922.70 per month with a 1988 tax of $1638.82. b. Parcel 15 02 402 032 0000 leased for $650 per month with a 1988 tax of $1,123.43. This rental was set on fire by juveniles on June 28, 1988 and is untenable. 5. I still have all of the fixed expenses with a reduction of approximately 41% of the income. 6. I have large insurance costs and am in poor health. Your careful consideration and requested adjustment will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mary Ann DeNiro MAD:mot 'ram y • r i • 2290 EAST 4500 SOUTH SUITE 260 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84117-4465 TELEPHONE (801)278-0466 September 8, 1988 _ William B. Deniro 415 E. 4800 S. Marray, UT 84107 SUBJECT: GROUND LEASE N/W CORNER, 400 S. & 900 W. SALT LAKE CITY, UT Dear Mr. Deniro: The purpose of this letter is to express our interest in a ground lease on your property located on the north side of 400 South_ and the west side of 900 West . (approximately 25,121 square feet ) . We would require an initial primary lease term of five years with four five (5) year options. We would propose an initial net rental • rate of $1 ,000.00 per month with five year increases of 12X. This ground lease offer is contingent upon: 1 . Acquiring adequate municipal approvals which allow Rainbo Marts to use the property for a retail grocery, self serve gasoline, and carwash. 2. Acquiring an off premise beer license. 3. Acquiring a building permit and sign permit for its standard plan specifications. 4. Ground water and soil tests acceptable to AMXO. 5. Final approval of AND CO management , and 'execution of a definitive lease. (See Exhibit A. ) Sincerely, ni Arizhr_. m-7 .0,-)5.70-- Harlan McGregor Manager, Real Estate & Development H_LM/kl Accepted Date W.B. Deniro cc: Dan Simons a°a F. SALT' ` ' GI J( RPORATI.t N1 ...�.aern cr l�na,s� ••»f-s a -.ramr-.: •�....0 d•a OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUITE 300, CITY HALL - 324 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 October 31 , 1988 Mr. William Dinero 415 East 4800 South Murray, Utah 84107 Dear Mr. Dinero: As we discussed previously, I would like to express my support for your efforts to locate a Rainbow Oil gas station convenience store on the corner of 400 South 900 West. My support is contingent upon Rainbow Oil 's agreement to mitigate the impact of the car wash on the surrounding neighborhood and upon a petition signed by the impacted neighbors. I have received a copy of that petition, and am now willing to extend my support for this development as long as it is understood that the location and design of the car wash will be such to minimize noise in the neighborhood. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 004-)°r-LX:r14-4VC;14-4.1--" L. Wayne Horrocks Council Member District Two LWH:ccr - WE THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS ABUTTING AND/OR AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS ENDORSE AND SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDING AND/OR RECLASSIFYING OF THE. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 360, 362, 364, 366 AND 380 SOUTH 900 WEST, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 TO BE USED FOR A RETAIL GROCERY, SELF SERVICE GASOLINE, AND CAR WASH. WE URGE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TO GRANT THE REQUEST. NAME: ADDRESS: ZY ,.. ,....77CV _.f-,<_,/„ 7// --------4: --- 7.1.4':/ - cz:4-1 e.,..› , _/. -7,_(,-.) c-- - . /' / ----, / Cam' C J- c/ L% 1 ��r �� fD� cSr-2 C-e) Z(-)e YYY..%7II/A/ 77 //////// 21 — 7L ,, ' ''') Yr. -46,2-- ,Si) ,F ' 1, 6/-0-- 2e; ,2"., ,y4.4(26/ (0:76 )?' g-� � ;C1 „..,..,.3c -. :3 11-7_, se,. ----,,, ,, v,, ,---;z57.-- Y r�-2 - - 22 \A) C, D S.(2 b '' %'q°'ic._/7L' • _ L (-/ • Salt Lake City Planning Commission Staff Report Petitions .No. 400-731 and 732 by Clark Development . -" to Rezone Property and to Vacate and Close Certain Streets and Alleys within the Sugar House Business District. OVERVIEW t o mI� �— tJC.i JLThis staff repor t is addressing "I two separate petitions . . Petition �(� 400-731 is requesting the city to rezone properties located between ; 1 � 7 -:....:. ::: Simpson Ave. and Interstate 80 3 .. . • and between Highland Drive and 1300 East Street from Residential . �' - ��.:� ili "R-2" and Commercial "C-1" to as �'' • - Commercial "C-3" . Petition 400- _ 732 is requesting the city to - • . vacate public streets and alleys 1 ,11 -'""' . in the same general area . (seem mac) The area affected by this . a' - . request is within .Phase III of FA&!MONT )Lac . the Sugar House •Neighborhood 111010001:1110_ Development Plan / Redevelopment • Project Area. (See Figure 1) . (- n� . The Clark Development proposal calls for 235 ,000 sq. ft. of new retail uses . The Shopko building consists of 102,000 sq. ft. of the new retail area . See the attached table for a detailed breakdown of buildings proposed. Several .restaurant pads and a • • grocery store are included in the building- tabulation. Also proposed is the renovation of the existing Simpson Avenue retail mall. . • Clark Financial Corporation is requesting from Salt Lake City . financial assistance of over S2. 6 million to provide the • oocortunity to redevelop this area of the Sugar House Business District. If Salt Lake. City is to assist financially in this development, all impacts related to implementing the proposed development package should be mitigated and the development should comply with the master plan policies of the Sugar House • Business District. BACKGROUND . The 1985 Sugar House Master Plan identified this •area as a medium to high density residential area . However , with the adoption of the Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan this area was identified as a mixed used retail center . The land use plan contained within the Sugar House Business District Strategies/Recommendations Plan (Westplan) establishes the . present city policy for "future land uses" within the Sugar Ho s Business District. (See Figure 2) , . \Y\- 1-)) \6' • C, • • • • • t • • z . • Figure 1 _ r =a • • - -_ `'1 - . - • . SZ R.Fig.. T. BEIGE I .ENr-PI.�'Ili--- ? k • Slm P_ i . . • t ' . y • • • t.. . • L\\.,_\ . i. . . 1 .... a cr:n i - ')` - C-1 c ; .. . .-.; ..1 0 0 - r- • § . ' I 01/ r , .., _ . -. ,.... - ...:-= • =!_,..! ... a... i-4.1 i ••—• 'I 1 -V t...- :•-• i --- .-rr—._--— .t....:__—�. it 1 rt { _ -- •\'_t 1{JW2.0U:L laa[ 1 Lr ` 1l•.,-1 i== PHASE 11 1 =-r-1• •,, - . ... -' — �. _ - - - '-R__—, • - . \ . . .. 7 = 1..!'-- - 1 ` �� _ _ - -_i_ I ..,E — •-:�•'-- ::: _-----••........... ... ._� 1 = l--�---. PHASE 111 - -_-i' fa.a u0,.r)aa.i ..=-z _...— -:-'-- ::1•:..—_ -..i•._._ - - --_ --5-------- —- %1- ,"- 1 IN rEPSTAr- 30 . \\ . • 1 ,•..... 1 ••• . . • .. .. , • . ...r• . . • . •• .• • • • .- . . - . • -. . •. • . - • .. • . . . . . • • . . .•Figure 2 - . • . . •--: •. • . • ----?-:>?..,. • . . .• • . . . . . • -.:7..--,••-•:..., . . • • . . . . • • • • • -- • - .... .- - •• . ._ ._ . . . . ... --. . . :•-. . . . - - - - . —--- • • • . - •• . . . . • _ . . . -. .- - . .• — • ..___. — - • . •• • - • - . • . • • • • • • i • . . .•• : - • ... - • .ses (MOM 0. i I Lill .:.-. •Cf) . _ • •••• c ,,. .0 , i- K-Ii-Ls_-3 c - 0 : •' • • _ _ry ._ ..\-ii FlAksONA ,VENUE aC C •Cl= 0 : ; L . ,• •••1 C • li•"'"'\•• ••".....7 I',,,,,,,,,,.171‘?-C114....-RE-S.7.0-ENTIA---1.. -?.. Q - 0 0 Ela .• • =.1' ZI c VSTREET V 1 0•••----- -.-..,• •o. . .. , C -'",..."7;f; ,:.-T--...----..:•-_?-14S7TTUTION Al.,.,,..3.,,,F. :-.....== ci • <I 4r II -: :•7--••••=_2•40•01 .-r.=...,:....,..- : z••., i C • • ay; C-,:t."...,CCO AVENUE I . iTiF---= ="7.•--F-•.-.Frie - I.14 i C- (r-•-•--• E omm•u,.. 72. .-i.. _ .... L, . C a , •L --.7 . _...-, . ...:27.7./.7-k-Vill i, ...:-/,er7Sr/Fiii.,-;,. J. • ,.,..............,1.;.711..-___L.:.:,,, • -_L.7.1. . ''''..:•-; .C7- • . '''''. -1 P - _ --.. :p E RIF R M A NIS E:':''. i' ii.-7,!. ..r=:1 t.4 1 -=-- ---= 1-.. PARKING . % :i 4 1 MUt.i 1-r A MILT ?-_. • .1c......z:_c_-,- .r. • :.-.....r--.:IZ 0 N t E-_--,...... a ' _:.4-- RISIOENTIAL-- 0 E:tz...-___L-rx:.----.--• VII: 1...-, r•-CI-).,- ::11:14.11-G.) Um ..... ri . . ....• ...., '•77-....S.N."...\\\\,..}k ,•--.,Q ?,..- ''. •:...., IL...,,,T1 'Arf3•.'''..-1'"-,...-•,' -. ' ''''-'.'"-• '''''‘i•-: OARKIN .. .e, p . mix-0 us-as. -,___• , -_,,= .--- .i.,: -ci C•••• 'G I" ...-..7"-='). PK.I."; (.,:iii:= (.7-0CG.4.-'':,,:.•.rj PK ..1.-:- _4 i •:-., • . • _____ ' ! Lscria-ralp....L..a.a.:"---_. -7"111=i--F....• •.<le' Ft •,...„.... ....- . _ 11 'FitiC:=.1siia•virv•V•••li.F;ilff,,.....-...... ...77..-„,„: _____•••.••••".„..• .,......................... t ----- -____.,.:=, 1.7R---. -,..---,,,lif-E---0-,,, . ......! R c . i L „,::,.......::„•=,..., „,„ ,...,s„....,.., ,-,,,k, ,, ,...-.., 2 . .. .... .....,...,...............„ • v•,,,;,\NNs..,;;;•0 r•-•al.;.:, „.2_. ........,_,_, ..t:t.. - , vj:::..,:....•--...,1 I••••_r--'L.....:________.,,j ,,. • ,• t,,..--.. ...,........4 -..:: ”....1 -___•:, :-.-7:.: iz...-..i.r- iTP--:.--- - _. '.!..:.; ii......I7.• .2...,., i i ('-'-----.--.., .y. I la-,-,...........--,,, w..:=;.---,-....,,,.....-...,-....... ,,,,,r 2.11......•1 . .. •..., 2 3..,• p,.._A z y.•...;•.:q.,,,,,,,,,,,\•,..3„.,..,‘••t„;,z,„:, • „*„...,,,z.,„ . , \, -'"--.•••-•••,-,.,,.. ' •=;.-',S T R = = T C 0 M M C I A Lq: ..',:',.:1".1::.:;;:.••••••........!!!„ r.,!..-....-::::ti„.7:-.....,,MIXED USE'Z' • ••••;,,,-MIXED USE \' r•--. , .•-•-••••••-•-•fq•-•••••„„„ = 2.--..,.. : 1 r.s--- --i•.•••:„_-----..,..:. • ,.... •-= — • ,,.......,-,......„-ei...4.4,•,•„•.._.:• .,L,•,_:,._.,.-_%...:„....;A ET ALS SLAV,C2F:k\ • \\,,.:..\-...:,,,...,,,0.eicz \ 4.1.1:. . I ..\?•, N,\\at=erruL • • ,c-A.-,IGIvIci-\::\a_....ZI.7" Ci C.- ; -. \ -2\ 17 I 1 ....•••;•.:.f.i,'....'.:.1. : ...11 i..:'......7.•.....- 11,.....tc,.......f.7::.:,:p.i.,,",:j7.,..,.,.Ns\. ‘..sk.,..\,,..,..,\\.\,\\t±.....\.,‘, . 77, 4:1tsa:;1201... s, \ Li :s:- •-,....„-:::,::1 i `-' _:•-•-• „c:>_.....: ....::-..^:. ••,. ... ,-•_,,,.:..a,,..tcz .‘..,‘„•••01‘\, . t'''7i4;•:'i i 1--- • r--•- PK: 1 ' '''''''''.--- -......'-1 -.-- r -N1-----.--•••••%., .. ;:'r L . -...4.-,-\--,..-.,, - -- - --..- .-4:;...,.......... , . - - -•••• ..2L1 HSTIT.'-z '-.--..:. ----;•,--1. -, 1.---,-.:,;--....:::::-:,........ -....,\\-ks. ..• - - _ . .::- ---,---;•-lf,-; .•1 ...„....,...,,,,..„,. C : r.r=-::". Tefilgli. P ER PC RM•I'•:ICE: - 1•,•-•.::::::.;;I:::?...;:=c,p:i.i.: \t-4,4051-1.,* ,;. ,.......,:.. !7.,... ...,.-..-,•,•,-: ..„,./7..._.....,,s .s. suca•ANot..z.v.:pAroc 1 ii-•''''''''••'''':%, 1: 7,'`I"- : 1 • '.,••••••••••••••••------'w!:::stff?, --,_-..-. ..!!..m_1- . ,\,,,., - t''..;:. -i.;;. .,.•,;.i. • ..7c 1 -..7:•-•'-''-; ...,:: - , .---•- .. c r- i:g..4 MAJC R ---- •:=1- '=1., •-•--'4- "..-;::'''---:-*•1 -- :--- . _!;)!F _i___„. i.;Z;R ET A IL ':.r.:1::-..... '......w........-7.:.:A„.•1..11X ED US c. — t„s:„:. 'MIXED USE.".•"\\\,...-rsy:Z.- Ca)....{c 1..::.......c2NTER••••••••••17::;; \ ...1,tyffrxfft ?c• ACT.S.../SL1,,,,C1 \`:•\\ zu•tcl/nv-Lvv_ ' \ 1 - I .4:'71.± -'11E2 iriaE.HIF:-:: Ai-TETI-7- i:::,..f.::;;_.,-rr.,,--41.-4-2...,-:_:',-.:;,..:k• ,,Re-rAIL:..,:-. ,;:g.--,....-n....7.-.. ...,,,....,......scz Tu.-.. . P1:::‘ \ ,...„......„,7/-1/4,,z,.... .t........,4 .---..VSIDg.• L..,'%,,,,,..,,,‘ ... g.)t: ..i sa 03?„,einc-c-IL7.,..„,3 H°...,,--...., \:;.:.....,-..,-.-.....-........v. Z.(\t„....-s",•,....„ ••-•-•'•;•••••• k_-••z•M:::z...:...;::::•Z:_:.‘K.\\4•,••••.* ...: I .,-:•_.: .-:.... .1t Ft EMU:JEN-71AL : P-7_. PK.G ,..:V.-.1.,.....7....,......,,,!...,.:...n.n..•,-,17:-:•fa. .........___ ......._--__ .....r .,,.\,...‘fliv, 1 . '•••••;":41! "'-'‘--, 1 ------' _ • , '-•C--- 7-:-_-_-. 4:;;;;;;;:pyl.. :::;::::1;:::::.-...x-.:.:.:7:.:;.-0,..:::: 1 !:- .....-,... 7-.2,c: , ,r-..,.,-.'-."7..,..=. i C_,- U • '.........„:1Ma...), CA: 1 :..... .7;c i,-.4" tr;.:.:-,-.-=-11 ' tt • • '''''''''''''''''''"""""".•............ . •" ..,,,,,,,,z,..,:-'-',:s.'f ft!'....::•-::. .0.• ,s!,A.U.:',.; ; ---'-'.4;;;;;;&.:5 1 s\\%. • . - s -ell' ; \ \ . ..:• •-..::_. ;:.:7- I. ;•-•--'..-.it--; :T:IY:7::;;g:7,7, 'L.:-.2:\ A •, . . •• . AEC_ o.vt .....-.................. • N 1.."` r.""'-'-'""'•' Cni s•-..:-.3..,=-4.3:-... :,..11.,= ir ,....... %. 7ETAII-s...:Y:r ":":":if:':';':':-ff:'7:*7-?•”-=-7, jrra• • 1 }- /••• •.'...••,%. t -.„„ ...:::::„......„1, Z.:;;;;;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..1:.::::S4:1•:71f:• , .,3,r....-'1.,"Cl‘ a ''''.1...", slks,•••':'•:: .•••%;:;':?f;:41Y.- .. .................................................................... l•V.--'.74-c-rv...; = F• 1 [ 14.41)\_,-, ;,:••,,,,_-, 1. •- _____ ;N "•••• • "-,''..."" . • • ..''.6.-v''''' ';'., ':•*.;"••:.grEgib--- II ts. •• s, 1 .....,......•• 1 \',.•••,v*.' . 7t :::::?;:•;X:K:::::::::::::::1 MA-;CR RETAII-'::=1:::::(- 0 .- :74. -1 1 ..-.. .:,•, -„:::,:,..;:as 0.2 yi.s......,::::.;,.;;:,:.:.:..:.:..!.!..:.?) CENTER '=.4.f.g., E - )- ; .!!..:•!,7-,N -,./5..a.:E i - )•II ,,...u. %,,,.....-...st;..:-.... ..... ..s:.....:):VavaTh,f_41'3:011E3 7,4:11 .,-,..,, .,:...,.• •zi . • • r : I . 11.7----',mixED uSZ -`,;:\::...:::L:Lz. :•cfr7;g%'.;5.77%;•_WI,`2•%.,L2:2: 1,4:1 ass% 1-•n C 114;:;1& u - CI, "'"A'''''?:•'SZ-S.M.,-'1:2' ,,,,.,..,-,...........=... P‘•7'` - .< 11-.•:raISI"Hri•"•t.,'A ..........Tic----•--. ...... , ' USE ''''''11 7... -• 1 CT:!•;..: ::r.:,;:,-. ....,i-i-4.,. 1,---,.. ,n•--7.:;!;....:::::::•.::1-.........;.;.......;;Irp....:,_„--,,f7r..,__':Y. ss.c"""=1 ';‘,:`:.1::--:. - ..:,.... .„•,,,•,1,.,,,...,.......k..„ t.,,.......1.1.•,,,.,,„.....-:,...•::u•vs- -•: Spiv<v . V Ina.:t'll,;:i • FAIRMONT PARK : ' 1 I i•,:',:.`.0:.,‘,„,:::,•-:I:1 ..,21::•:•:.:•:•::1:•:*:1•••••••••••••••,,,,,,,,:;;•'.:;%.'.•••;•1. • C-2....: 1 • •• •‘;,i_t . . .,:;..,‘,...:.:..2,__-. , •e...,:j.... ;•:::::::::::•;:::::::::::::::::y::•:::::::•.: ..'.sNr ••• . _ • I ••;'•:"If•Yff:Y : ' •' •''''''' ...:` n .. t •-' 1,.. , .:s\\,::.,•.,;,..,:;.;ks' .•.:r,?!,:rfrt'ffri'fi7-•,,.... -.... .. ....... ' o, „„....imtiT ,. . ..•-..1•••.m,oim,..; • - \ _._.............................n INT=R57:.T-F. 80 1 'Els: It ' i I . I • ..- .. i c...1'.... I . . ' . • • • - The-proposed project is -within Phase III -development area and the- - land use designation is for a mixed use retail center . The (1) purpose of this mixed use retail center is to encourage. a mixture of retail commercial , service commercial, office, hotel and public openspace uses . Any complex of multiple structures developed within this area needs to- be functionally and aesthetically interrelated. planning criteria in the Master Plan for this area does not call for neither the extremes of detailed standards nor complete flexibility and discretionary negotiation of standards. • A review of development proposals may be made by a design review committee established by the Redevelopment Agency. On their May 11, 1989 meeting the Redevelopment Agency referred to the Planning Commission the implementation of Phase III of the Redevelopment plan. The design objectives for this area are contained in the Suc_r House Master Plan on pages 6-9 and 16-17. Within the Redevelopment Plan Phase III development was . recommended not to occur until Phases I .and II were completed as part of .implementing the neighborhood development plan. Phase ITT is to be considered only if market conditions have changed .to warrant proceeding with development within this area prier to c-mrletion of development of the other two areas . TO .sucpojrt and recommend the actions of these petitions within _ Phase III of the redevelopment plan .a determination of whether . market changes have occurred to warrant the _city' s participation in.Phase III needs to be made. This was accomplished through a public meeting on May 11, 1989 by the Redevelopment Agency Board o_ Directors . At that meeting, Clark Financial Corporation submitted evidence to the Redevelopment Agency indicating the market changes to support the development of Phase III. The Redevelopment Agency found that current market conditions in the Sugar House Project Area, and the completion of portions of Phase I activities , and portions of Phase II activities, that. the Board of Directors have determined that the market conditions referred to- in Section K of the Sugar House Neighborhood Development Plan have changed and now warrant that the Agency proceed with the planning and implementation of Phase III activities . ANALYSIS Existing Land Uses The requested rezoning area consists of approximately 17 .7 acres . Within the Residential "R-2" area there are 37 residential structures . Within the Commercial "C-1" area there is three residential structures and six commercial structures . This information is based upon the existing land use files of the city. . Several of the residential. structures are occupied. • Street and Alley Closures. Three streets are requested for closure between Highland Drive and 1300 East along with the existing alleys. A portion of the - Ashton right of way functions as the access to Interstate 80 and has been deleted from the calculations below. The requested areas are highlighted on the site plan. Streets Alleys • • Simcson Ave . 87 , 500 sq. ft. North 19 , 200 sc. ft. St:ingham Ave. 64 , 700 sq. ft. South 18 ,300 sa. ft. Ashton Ave. 55 , 200 Sc. ft. Total 37,500 so. ft. Total 207 , 400 sc . ft. Appraisal estimate of land value in this area by David Van Drimmelen, MAI and Tod Jones Appraisers is S10 . 50 per square. foot. The approximate value of property requested for closure would S2,571 , 000 . • Closure of only a portion' of Strincham Avenue is requested however , the staff recommends that if the proposal is accepted then complete closure of :this street is necessary. A remnant stub street is not a desirable solution. The construction of a culd_sac would be necessary to allow a stub street. • • MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS _ The Following are Planning Criteria excerpted from the Sugar House Master Plan : SUGAR HOUSE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • - =o encourage new development which will substantially strengthen and unify the Sugar House Business District focused at the Sugar House Plaza Monument . at 2100 South and 1100 East . - To improve circulation capabilities including street networks , off-street parking , pedestrian movement opportunities . - To provide pedestrian-scale activities in the Sugar House 7usiness District by providing openspace corridors and =treetscape amenities . HOUSING PRESERVATION AND REDEVELOPMENT - Creation of an urban residential neighborhood within the Sugar House Business District . Comprehensive rezoning for appropriate residential development and mixed-use development. • • SITE PLAN PROPOSED-BY CLARK-DEVELOPMENT • WlL'.1lNGTON AVE . l / Cw o.i'Q _._ C .0 \l' _\ 1� • — _ . "\ I .:''-•,__ =.7'. -.L-------...____ ------______ ....____. ....____. .... •._ ,•\;„... L///:?=:7\.;\;•':\ . : a • . ' :1 :1• I. 1; .ili 11 . . Ili Ir : � I = _, . , , __.• • . . � i 1 . . • i ' •. i , r.1,...T__� ►., , ' ' -A - � ,: % I\ ' .� � . • /3. I• •:...", ..„..... 1 , . ... , .._.. ..... ,.., , ........ ‘ ... ,,.• • . __ I ! ,• . . . \..... ...„.. __. .,... "- � ,— ., ..,• .,, ..,,;• i , ..„,„.I . , ,..,111:I11 :„: , - ' �__ : 1, 111 • - .. SIMPSON AVE \ • _ - • _ •- -....me -- -- .--ems= .� i_ !!i. • 1.•_ _— • i1 -= a.:== .... . .. - .. . ; — it ..:1.t:..11•II� 1. ., ! :1: t , i - —, ..— s i- _ — _ ii—i4yt.-t.'l i 'I • _1 it. . I 1-- _ _.2. Yr r 1_ _ � • _ _ ;\ {'1 •'/ I i,ii:,ii:iL:liIIIIIiliIIII''l.iil: l:1:... i lillii� \� • - ASiTON AVE - . r i Streets and Alleys j Petitioned for Closure '� - Providing residential development in the mixed-use center north cr_ Simpson Avenue and east of 1200 East may fulfill the objectives of introducing an urban residential neighborhood. COMMERCIAL AREAS - SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT - Concern for decentralized commercial growth. - Incorporate pedestrian orientation and pedestrian amenities into development alternative; use convenient and attractive- yedestrian linkages between anchor attractions . - (_,corporate adequate off-street parking into development with identified access , proper buffering and landscaping . - Provide Guidance to development proposals through a "Compatibility Review" ordinance to ensure harmony_ with the • - urban design objectives of the Master Plan. - Innovative development proposals integrated properly with open _pace amenities , community facilities ,. and pedestrian opportunities . • - Salt Lake City should retain ownership of all procerty it currently owns in the Sugar House -Business District, including - str`ets, alleys and parcels , until such time as comcrehensive development pians are to be implemented. Future rights-of-way_ could thus be acquired through land trade arrangements rather than expenditure of capital funds . _ - Whereas the city can offer financing incentives and capital improvements , private developers can provide innovative development proposals integrated properly with the urban design criteria and policies . • OPENSPACE IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT - presently the amount and cuality of openspace in the Sugar House Business District requires - improvement. A streetscape improvement plan should include a landscaping element and a street tree element providing more "green space" to the business district. As redevelopment occurs .in the Sugar House Business District and the multi-use center , bikeways and pedestrian corridors should be incorporated into development plans . TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - In designing any off-street parking facility, customer service and convenience , and minimum interference with street traffic flow must receive high priority . Accessibility and ease of entering , circulating, parking , unparking, and .exiting , are all important factors in the location and design of off-street . a . 1 carking .facilities . Access points- should be -landscaped, = =_ however; vegetation should be low so as-not to:interfere with ^ '` sight distance and—signage-. - 1300 East Street south of 2100 South is an arterial street - designed to serve large volumes of traffic. Access to adjacent . land should be from side streets. - - Commercial-oriented traffic should Use Interstate 8D , 1300 East, 2100 South, and a new road aligning the 1-80 off ramo with Sugarmont Drive as primary access to the business district. Secondary access is along 1100 East and Highland Drive. Sugar House Business District - Parking and Circulation Study 2100 South Street is a major east-west route crossing the Salt Lake valley. By relocating local traffic to an alternative east- west street the conflict between through and turning vehicles could be reduced. . • CONSEOVATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION i - The proposed Highland Park Historic District is divided into eastern and western halves by 1300 East Street, the. western . half s bisected again by Highland Drive. .To encourage -.-.1,0 - stabilization of the western half of the Highland Park District, the following. steps are recommended: . - Encourage commercial through-traffic to use 1100 .East Street, instead of Highland Drive, to get to the Sugar House Business District._ - Redesign the intersection at Richmond Street and Highland Drive to ensure that commercial through-traffic uses 1300 ' East. - It is recommended' in the master plan that the portion of Highland Drive between Richmond Street and Interstate 80 , which is located within a potential historic district, be downgraded to a residentially oriented two-lane roadway. • - The collector street connecting Highland- Drive and 1300 East is essential to the elimination of negative impacts of excessive traffic on .Highland Drive upon the preservation of this potential historic district. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT Design Guidelines - The streetscape design should incorporate a consistent theme strengthening the association of unrelated buildings . • . . . - The general pattern .of. buildings., should help to define street areas and . other public . openspaces. . - Islands should be provided between parking aisles and stalls tc - break up hard-surfaced areas . Berms .and other changes of grade are recommended wherever possible. - Uniform identification signs should designate access to parking • lots and parking structures . t - Distinctiveness of buildings and areas should be revealed by preserving and highlighting architectural features common to t` e area by using special material and colors . Buildina Heicht and Setback - Highland. Drive is a commercial fringe area which has a fifteen oot landscaped setback and a height limit of two stories. - Mixed-use areas are required to have a twenty, foot landscaped - - - front yard setback with the height limit approved . bv the Planning Commission. • HOUSING WITHIN THE SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT 1 . Rezoning of the Residential R-2 area would eliminate the citv' s .most effective tool to ensure that some form of urban • housing will occur within the Business Distrjct. A transfer of land area that is zoned for residential development would allow the city to retain this leverage tool to implement- the master plan. It is recommended that property to the north- within Phase TT area , that is designated for Residential Host Mixed-Use be rezoned temporarily to a Residential "R-7" or "R-5" classification as a holding zone until the city can create and put in place an Urban Residential Host Mixed Use Zone . The Residential "R-S" classification is identified, within the Sugar Hcu=e Master Plan as the temporary base zone for the residential area . - • 2 . Public property that is requested to be vacated instead of being sold could be traded for other property owned by Clark Financial to be used for future housing development and right of • ways for public streets . OTHER PLANNING ISSUES Social considerations In rezoning residential property to commercial and utilizing city subsidies the city should require that adequate notice to renters be provided and possible relocation assistance be required. 4 . Property Disposition Xi 1 Within the Neighborhood Development Plan it is identified that all real property acquired by the Redevelopment Agency be sold or leased to public or private persons or entities for the development for uses permitted in the plan. Salt Lake City ordinance Chapter 2-58 City-Owned Real Property identifies methods of surplus property disposition. These methods are either trade, sale, lease, or irrevocable transfer preceded with Planning Commission review. SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS - To comply with master plan guidelines - Circulation - 1. Provide east/west connector street from 1300 East that links with Sugarmont Drive. This street would allow building- _ orientation to 'a public street and provide the necessary linkage • to minimize the traffic impact upon 'Highland Drive south of the Interstate. Without a connector street traffic.would be focused f _ toward Highland Drive and negatively impact the housing • preservation objectives of the master .plan. 2. Provision for a design solution. that would be adequate - for -- • west bound traffic onto Interstate 80 : Until it is known how much property if any is needed to allow for an appropriately designed interchange for I-80 vacation of. the_portion of Ashton Avenue effecting the on ramp should not occur . 3 . Access Drives into parking lots . To ensure efficient internal circulation, storage areas at access drives must be 'designed to allow for adecuate capacity. Storage cn the driveway should be of sufficient length to keep stopped I I . vehicles from blocking the path of entering vehicles. Failure to provide sufficient .storage will result in unsafe and confusing vehicle-conflicts . The following are- recommended minimal design requirements for access drives off of arterial roadways and the major access point off of Highland Drive; a . Minimum throat length of 75 feet that is free of curb cuts into parking areas . b. Maintain a 120-150 feet of internal storage area . c. Use of landscaped areas to provide adequate visibility of access drives . • - a_. Loading Docks - location and design a. Locate at south side of building along freeway. - • .. } • • _•- 7'UTT; ING a UL T!ON • . C""- • scLT?.. �'C0^_'AG_: LTc • . -- 80 ,C40 0 - C 7 ,700 New C_oce_r -= • — tiek des`�4 1 ,?_7 Net. woe --m.._ 00 Z2,400 ?�zt: Ccr_`re-"--== cn Sic==/- �� OZ, 000 . . _ 3= 200 N., -` _ •• - 1 _ 55 , G27 - Nxi; s;..1C se..- t 2 y - 44 . _:: s_ 7.c •Ra-_. ' j = 22, 700 tiewc:ems =T•_`7 -1 • •_ - _ 777 s= =- • - _ • . 0:- • . • ._ 17 1 S• 12,000 Tut..,. Pa 1 T 4° ,650 -(T _.2 rcz _:'_dude. in --s" • • - J • • • • • 127 'l L . - 'S'_sctzra -t-= 385 ''�• ._ .. - •- - Tc t.al •_ . E • tv`: Qa�b� t1�, - - -i . si‘v& r• ti 1 1 ' Willi" .-' '...fir•-11!Li irt....e. I„Ns. .)- -''- — ; R ...i;CI- ,MI- �If 1; ••••••-ill... 1yy��II __•_ • • II - . .. ... II•' .! . _ _ 1I �I,_ - IIIHIHilll�� �' I I '` � l 1 _/ I t F - I _' I i 1 ii 1: f- NI I�'I'-' �I • L - — I h 1' 1`• `,� I I' t IrI - "�I .-.-- --flTr1 I l l l l r l t l n ,-j 11 L� { ' r1 _ _1 • _ ► . _. 1 I ; i,-�u-1 ;• 's _1 ' • --dill!1.11 I.I 1.111I . .......•• ...vii..-.:-,t, . . i ! -- 1 -, ____ _1 1.___fifi .1-I = ......-•.,.,•::','••i'i' .Crv.- ,; :.,1,-'...1 1:. 1,. . . 1 .....„..--••••••I 4'..,1 ,... :-..I , _ il4.r .7;1'i, P 'R ••. .t.:-•1' 1 ' !'t y. I • j • 1 • j llft- 1i {� :t,�i.�,, l r.1 !',,r. q 4:rg, tfA b,'a',n.t -j i !r �J —ice,-� t�'llTi.:l(3 i};fY� Iiii.F11-F-7i,..,.io...,:,;,-,11 -. St I 111���1111111-I I.I•I I I I I I •li- •I_"j • _ _`�. t,ry{s`�a�,tl�•ri14JZ1i'.;"� ! �JiTI' l rf ii I j 1• •ri '— r '"r _ ..�� P.,waIt wii i.Atti �m Itl"il"ii:`};y•J it j� I 1 .'—i .` _ _ t — Hi! I —il-"f.,, :c;,•-�,,(�,�,,!,., :ti. �i!.r i.. ti:4.'•7"J,. ,., 1 U!IIIlHlI11IfflflI!tHIi �C Z .—i _ " . .., •+iki•�•'{1 Sr/.'. • ). ,I illTjs , {1 9 . ' • 1 = \' `I -1: .,— 111111[11• -/ii �1--, •mac 4.:-i, ••1;�M' VS,'i. ).i i'•�]t�-1 Ii7r,L� 1. l�rl-� , i. _�' Y J•l--�-7 '.i�C'•'at?`:Ir- '�;17: .L' .'.Y.'t�: .r;f=..a fN I) -I-I-I�I -I �-1H•1-IIH-If}-�I-llfl�l' _ • _ • i Sd— 7 �'` s•ZffII a _i 'I Li: Z t_, �, -_—_ ---�; :r / il 1111111 111111111111111-ii• 1 i_ — 11t ! _ i i IIIIIII�� _i: 1 -_\...-- .-:: L Iii!_-7•___7-_-.1 = _; ,_ ,:IF{IIItlill.i IIIFIIII1 l -1 o = �_= _ = - � 0 = ptiiiii.ii.iliffillidtlii[tilLi.1Ii � .� • 1 -4 j: -i 2 iii Z _ - -isj- - - -- - -- z I _ 'U 1 m = r ,; 1___J t I c, -I 111111111j , 11111111111111111] i • Z,I_ • ' I A i i 1 ---, Hiiiiill ..„.....____ _ [\ ' — .t " ,l,.l , c=-, ci�: < cf—' [-I I-I ; `•j' - ' - -- =1 _� m ' , i. - - i : _l = • j 11 ;LI 1 \_:- -:._ _ _! _. H IIIIIIII ( I id I EI i I I I IIft: � ir11, 1111* =— _1 _. 1 I t HITI I i I _- -_ - _ - • ; 111-1-1111.:1.1 lw LlIJ�1r =_.1 _ +\ , lig i • i ( iI T =I �Illlllif(t1(IIIIiI!IIil1(IH[TI_, ;— ' I\ . ' �`� �-Li�"` � � �I I i(1 (.1J 1;i'f l l l l l l l l l�I l i l l l l l l l� 1 � M • ) '�:..`. • . _._ • • '- 1300 EAST • • b. Provide and show location for other buildings. c. Loading docks should be screened from 1300 East and Highland Drive view. 5 . Provision of handicapped parking spaces. • 6 . Meet all of the circulation and_ transportation concerns of the city Transportation Engineering Division. Open Space 1, Provision of landscaped front yard setbacks for 1300 East, the new connector street, and Highland Drive. • • 2 . Provision of island landscaped areas to break up the impact • of the hard surfaced parking areas . • Refuse Collection • Shaw locations and how they will be appropriately screened. • RECOMMENDATIONS Rezoning Petition Considerations • To rezone this area to a Commercial "C-3" classification would not be in accordance with the master plan: A commercial "C-3A' zone classification would be more appropriate. This district recuires a fifteen foot landscaped front yard setback, which would be ecuivalent to what the master plan calls for within the commercial fringe areas . However , the Master Plan acknowledges the need for a new zoning designation. • As a condition of the rezoning the city should require that the approved site plan meet the urban design criteria of the master plan. Specifically a determination as to the minimal landscaping recuirements of parking areas . The development plans need to include provision of street trees . • provision of a holding zone of other properties within Phase II to ensure provision of future residential development should be considered. Street and Alley Closures Petition Considerations '•�� of the existing streets and alleys should be closed excluding any necessary right of way needed for access to Interstate 80 . However , the developer should provide an appropriate right •of wawa and improvements• of a public connector street between Sugarmont Drive and 1300 East. ' 6 . Recommendation =` _ =` The staff recommends that the Planning Commission convene the informal hearing on June 8 , 1989 to receive presentation of the development proposal from Clark Development-, a staff review of • the Master Plan considerations, and citizen input by receiving public comment on the development proposal. Clark Financial is ' presenting their development plan to-,,the Sugar House Community ' Council of June 7-, 1989. . The staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the review of this proposal to their June 22nd meeting focusing on - the site design considerations. At this meeting the Planning Commission recommendation to- the City Council should be formulated. At the request of Clark -Development the City Council has scheduled - a July 11, -1989 public hearing on- these petitions. The staff will continue to prepare the final recommendations to • the Planning Commission for the June 22nd meeting. Based upon the present information and site plan, the staff can conclude that many- of the critical design elements and development criteria of the master plans are not being followed. These critical planning elements include: 1.•: Circulation - No provision for east - west connector street. 2. Building orientation and focus - The present site plan -0 appears to be decentralizing the commercial growth within the Sugar House Business District. Retail use oh_ Highland Drive between Ashton and Stringham Avenues should be rebuilt or retained, a parking lot with the back of the Shopkd' building expose to Highland Drive view is not an acceptable urban design solution. . 3 . Pedestrian Circulation - Not addressed in present site plan. The Planning Commission should consider how this would be accomplished within the Sugar House Business District if not included in the Phase III area such amenities need to be provide^ in the Phase II area . . 4 . Landscaped Setbacks - Request for Commercial C-3 zoning. ' Landscaping within parking lots . Streetscape design on 1300 East should respond to existing design on Highland Drive and 2100 South. - • Everett Joyce • . June 1989 APPLICATION FOR ZONING A.MENDEMENT- To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services • 324 South State Street Suite t201 Filing Fie $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 • (*if a public hearing:i.s held) Apolicat cn is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City Utah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By arreric-rg Section (Use reverse side for recuested text chance) ;re-nd the Use District (Zoning) tap. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying _ :1 the following property located at: from Simpson Avenue to Interstate 80 and from Highland Drive to 1300 East • • • R-2 and f_cm a C-1 classification to a C-3 classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATTACH TO APPLIC ATICN • 1_. The reasons Why' the present zoning is not prune_ for the area. 2 Changes which have taker place in the area which justify a chance in zoning.. . Cescri ticn of the Proposed use to be made of the pro_erty. 4. Other items which justify a chance in the existing zo.inc. 5. I_.-ic_ti cr. of support for rezoning from all affectad property owners. 6. A y other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper'recommendation. 7. Si cell Parcel Identification Number. THE ABOVE L`FORMATICN, UT DETAIL, MUST AMP NY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR 1Ht. 1,, aaa'SCN TO BE P�'LZET CON IDERED by THE PLAWLNG CCMESSION. • Signature of the applicant. �a�' - - � . . s4r Address 21 as Ni nrive , St200 Salt Lake City , UT Telephone i76rber 485-2321 Zit) Code 84106 FILL CUT REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. �(M-9.3/ Date �s19/V Receipt No. Amount $ /!%(7.(--0 • _• _ _ .. i�" .. .. _.._ if-._ '' ......_._ '..• -- --.. ..,..w".' "..'`- ash-:a.:rX�•'�tret 'lti�7'7`.. ._.--- _'.''Nh<•x •�y�pCIM5N4.4M•.�rAv?�.J�+Nr4..•.`a y� i-:7;z. _ _ r...^ _.... y�•+ Y.•_:...5:7•-�. ir7a.y. Via+_-1, 1' : s.'^.Z \:. _ _ `r".act %w'iisi'.:: .`+c►n— "+•. :...�+,•.v.r..p - _- u:i..•n...1i a.i;"".^"?SL'i�'t}�•2%ec:a Y �+!.._^.• .1�-• '= Ys• V� �. �=K� .. .. - 1lry ,y •s.1'! ..1e..LS�- ++::aw L-7. ".:'isY.+..f' ?'4� `t' �.• _.^ c. a'r - .is•.}�: -r • _ --__ _ �i...`A`�_ tvttis M:No_...+ajv1. �lm,71.....':�e"ai r4 7v'�yf�A �:.+..._ { 7'%:.•w.�.'` �i: •::' .. " _. L.:.�:;r._.s.6s..c»:;. '� E;•;:t,•==-1::__ �c�,: „a,,.;'.� ,..E :a;•�swr ' ' �.�� di• 3. -.•. ,..w.!+�• �!. '�'Y`,:ps+:�...in::r'':�. ��t t :J•:.•;n i.'i+o 'a +M. � ..;%: � "A!+ r.irr�+.�•±: � +• F'''�` D�.-'•` _ . . -`...:JUSTIFICATION'FOR _�`#". . �., er,,... f ,z: •---- _ _ _ ._ 'APPGICATION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT The area for which re-zoning is requested "(the area between . . Simpson Avenue and Interstate 80 and between Highland Drive and 1300 East) was once a viable residential neighborhood. However, when Interstate 80 divided it: from the rest of the residential neighborhood to the south , it became an island, bounded on the north and west by commercial uses , on the east by a major .arterial (1300 East) , which carries 37,000 cars per day, and on the south by an interstate highway (Interstate 80) , which carries 74,000 cars per day. During the period since the construction of Interstate 80 the neighborhood has gradually but steadily declined to the extent that it is no longer a viable residential area. Banks have red-lined the area making it impossible to obtain • financing to acquire or improve the existing homes. Vandals have stripped electrical panels and wiring from some of the vacant homes and have broken windows•, knocked holes in . - interior walls and even burned others .- • • Approximately eighty-six percent (85. 5%) of the land for which re-zoning has been requested is owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. and Clark Financial Corporation. • Additionally, almost one-fourth (22. 5%) of the land is used as a parking lot `serving the retail center north of Simpson Avenue. Re-zoning the property will permit .it to be put to its highest-and-best 'use, a retail shopping center. It will also put a halt to the continuing decline of the existing residential area and will substantially revitalize the Sugar House business district, upgrading the quality of retail tenants in the area , increasing sales tax revenues to Salt Lake City and raising property values . • • VIark Ffr�aracial Corporation -' .. A Professional Financial and Investment Consulting.Firm May 5, 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis • 324 South State Street Third Floor Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 • Dear Mayor DePaulis: , . Clark Financial . Corporation hereby requests that Salt Lake City Corporation vacate the following streets and alleys: (1 ) Simpson Avenue, from Highland Drive to 1300 East (2 ) Stringham Avenue, from the eastern boundary of Bend Floral to 1300 East - (3 ) Ashton Avenue , from Highland Drive to 1300 East (4) All of the publicly-owned alleys in the area bounded by Highland Drive and 1300 East and by Simpson Avenue and Interstate 80 The above vacations together with the re-zoning which has also been applied for , would result in construction of 165, 000 square feet of new retail space in Sugar House as well as rehabilitation of 120, 000 square feet of existing retail space (see attached site plan ,. S ' cerely, - \ zg Jame A. McGuire, Devel pment Director JAMCG:vp 2144 South Highland Drive, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106-2807 (801) 485-2321 FAX 467-1505 P•is �ssec�_ • , SLACC \- 324 So.State Street Salt lake City.Utah 84111 Telephone(801)535-7915 -DIE14 4, - co • fl MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 1989 70: " Redeve l opnen t Agency Salt Lake Association of Cormunity Councils ( SLAG ) 'SUBJECT: Shopko The SLAG Board in its May 10, 1989 meeting voted unanimously to support the Sugar House Comrvnity Council vote taken at their May 3, 1989 meeting to support the Sugar House Master Plan. SLAG opposes any proposals which would- be contrary to the_Sugar House Master Plan, . i.e. , _Shopko. {� • V (i7 SALT a C' TNG��I ' IJ T DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUH STATE STREET, SUITE 404 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 DATE: July 5, 1989 TO: Willie Stoler, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rosemary Davis, Director SUBJECT: Jazz Arena UDAG Application RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that a public hearing be set for Tuesday, July 18, 1989 to receive comment regarding the submission of an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for an Urban Development Action Grant to support the establishment of a district energy facility that may supply heating, cooling, and electrical energy to the new Jazz Arena and other buildings in the downtown area. After the public hearing, we further recommend that a resolution be adopted authorizing the Mayor to sign and transmit the necessary UDAG application documents . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: No commitment of City funding is required. DISCUSSION: To contribute the financial success of the new Jazz Basketball Arena, it is proposed that the City seek a UDAG for approximately 3 million dollars to construct an off-site energy support facility. This facility would produce hot water or steam, and chilled water as the primary heating and cooling loads for the arena . The energy support site may also include an electrical substation required for the arena. The same energy support facility could also serve other nearby buildings . Both the Salt Palace and the Center Theater may be interested in obtaining chilled water from a central plant. In addition, the State anticipates the Union Pacific building will have significant cooling needs as that building is renovated for public use. Since this is the final UDAG round, and competition for funding is expected to be keen, a project with a large community impact will do better than a single purpose proposal . It is anticipated that Utah Power and Light Co. will be a major participant in this project and that the City will coordinate the infusion of public funding into the project to make it feasible. The application must be submitted to Denver HUD by July 31, 1989 . Preliminary funding selection will be announce at the beginning of October. Sincer y, /hose�tary Davis ( Director RD/RMB<ap>9075 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN APPLICATION FOR A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U. S . DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah; 1 . It does hereby approve the attached application generally described as follows, including such modifications thereto as may be determined necessary to comply with all applicable statutes, rules or regulations: AN APPLICATION FOR AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT (UDAG) UNDER 24 CFR PART 570, BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis , Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said application and subsequent agreements to establish the program within the local jurisdiction, including such modifications thereto as may be determined necessary to comply with all applicable statutes , rules or regulations, 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 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST CITY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR _ OMB Approval No.0340-004 2.DATE SULIEUTTED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE July 31, 1989 AppticenlIdontifiar I. TYPE OF SUDMIS$ION 3.DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application identifierApplication Preappllcation E}( Construction 0 Construction 1.DATE RECEIVED DY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal identifier 0 Non-Construction 0 Non-Construction S. APPLICANT INFORMATION Legal Name. — — Organizational Unit; City Government Salt Lake City Corporation Capital Planning Division o Address(give city, county, state, and zip code) Name and telephone number of the person to be contacted on matters involving this application (give area code) 451 South State Street Rosemary Davis, Director Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Capital Planning Division (801) 535-7902 I. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IEIN): 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT:(enter appropriate letter in box) A. State H Independent School Out. 8 7 "' 6 0 0 0 _ 2 7 _ 9 B County I.' State Controlled Institution of Higher Learning C. Municipal . J Private Unrversity 1. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 0. Township K Indian Tribe New ❑ Continuation ❑ Revision E. Interstate ' L. Individual F Intermunrcipal M Profit Organization If Revision,enter appropriate letter(s)in box(es): ❑ ❑ G Special District N.Other (Specify) A Increase Award B Decrease Award C Increase Duration D.Decrease Duration Other(specify): .I. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: Housing and Urban Development 10. ASSISTANC0'FEDERAL E NUMBER DOMESTIC 1 4 A 2 2 1 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT: Energy support facility TrrE. Urban Development Action Grant (see attachment ; 2. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT(cities. counties. stares. orc-): ( Salt Lake City, Utah 13. PROPOSED PROJECT: 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: Start Date Ending Dote a Applicant b Protect Oct. 1989 Oct. 1990 Utah 2nd Utah 2nd 15.ESTIMATED FUNDING: M.IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12272 PROCESS? a Federal $ 14 a. YES THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPUCATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON b Applicant a .00 DATE c State $ .00 b NO ❑ PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E 0. 12372 d Local $ .00 ❑ OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW e Other $ .00 f Program Income $ .00 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? ❑ Yes II 'Yes.-attach an explanation ❑ No g TOTAL $ .00 11. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY 'UTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED T a Typed Name of Authorized Representative b Title . c Telephone number Palmer A. fePaulis Mayor (801)535-7704 d Signature of Authorized Representative a Date Signed , Previous Editions Not Usably v. _ Siandaid Form 424 'bcv 4.88t '� � PrpuribeC Dv OMB l,TK..idi A.10