Loading...
03/20/1990 - Minutes PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT,, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Nancy Pace Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Councilmembers Hardman, Kirk, and Hale were absent. Council Vice Chair Pace presided at the meeting. The meeting was called to order by March 27, 1990, would be starting Nancy Pace, Vice Chair at 5 :06 at 1:00 p.m. not at 2:00 as she p.m. had previously indicated. Mac Connole, Police Sergeant, said Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive the Guest Speaker would begin Director, was asked to brief the speaking at 2:00 and prior to his Council. Ms. Gust-Jenson began by speech was a general briefing. telling the Council to pull item E-2, concerning an ordinance for a Ms. Gust-Jenson asked the golf course group reservation, Council if they wanted to resched- from their packets to use the ule the Northwest Community Master information for Thursday' s Commit- Plan Tour. Councilmember Pace tee of the Whole agenda. said this was not a controversial issue and there was not enough Councilmember Godfrey asked time to reschedule. Council- if the Council would still be member Godfrey asked if the Coun- voting on this item tonight. Ms. cil could plan a time to resched- Gust-Jenson said that the Council ule. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that would be voting on it at tonight' s planning wanted to conduct a 1/2 meeting because the Administration day tour on the Northwest Quadrant was anxious to have it approved area with the Council . Council- before the upcoming golf season. member Pace said she had seen the area but would like to be briefed Ms. Gust-Jenson said the on the issues. addendum to the agenda was issued because William Cutting was listed Ms. Gust-Jenson said the as a reappointment to the Golf Planning Commission wanted to Course Advisory Board which was conduct a retreat with the Coun- not the board that he was being cil. Councilmember Godfrey asked reappointed to. if there was a pressing issue at hand, or if this could be delayed. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item G-5 She said the Planning Commission involved an annexation and the wanted to discuss working rela- staff recommendation was to adopt tionships. Council-member Pace it in concept, pending a five day said this was a nice gesture at waiting period. Ms. Gust-Jenson improving communication. Ms. said the annexation would be Gust-Jenson confirmed with the placed on the Council agenda for Council that the general consensus consent on April 3, 1990. was to hold the retreat but to Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Gang wait until the budget process had Violence Prevention Training on been completed. 90-90 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 Councilmember Pace asked if there were any further comments. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 16 p.m. 90-91 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Nancy Pace Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Councilmembers Hardman, Kirk, and Hale were absent. Mayor Palmer Depaulis, Steven Allred, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Vice Chair Pace presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES stipulations even though that was what the Planning Commission and #1. There was no invocation. staff recommended. #2. The Council led the He said six months ago the Pledge of Allegiance. Sugarhouse Community Council asked Salt Lake City for the use of this #3. Councilmember Whitehead property. The City told them that moved and Councilmember Horrocks they were not allowed to give or seconded to approve the minutes of donate property to any group. He the Salt Lake City Council for the said the City suggested that the regular meeting held Tuesday, Sugarhouse Community Council bid March 13, 1990, which motion or compete for the property carried, all members present voted through another process. He said aye. the Community Council felt cha- (M 90-1) Brined by this because the proper- ty was located in Sugarhouse and COMMENTS was given to Salt Lake City for the benefit of the Sugarhouse #1. Ken Eltinge, 2319 Foot- area. hill Drive, said he was speaking on behalf of the Sugarhouse Commu- He said the Community Council nity Council. He said there had went through the process and lost been a decision made last week to the bid and the property would now dispose of some property located be developed or used by someone in Sugarhouse (on the corner of outside the Community Council. He 500 East and Commonwealth Avenue) asked that this decision be abated which had been donated to Salt and consideration given back to Lake City a little over a year Sugarhouse. ago. He said it had been donated on the premise that the property Councilmember Godfrey said he was to be used by and for the contacted Mayor DePaulis ' s Office Sugarhouse Community Council. He today and the City had information said it was obvious that when Salt that conflicted with what Mr. Lake City accepted the property, Eltinge was saying. they did not accept it with those 90-92 PROCIDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI", UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 Mayor DePaulis asked the structed to do by the Planning Council if they wanted him to go Commission and the Board of Ad- through the information with Mr. justment, and had followed the Eltinge now. Councilmember God- official intent. He reiterated frey said he thought it would be that he would meet with Mr. better to meet later with Mr. Eltinge and discuss the issue in Eltinge and discuss the informa- detail. tion. Mr. Eltinge said he wanted the issue resolved because a house #2. Dennis Murrow, 648 South being donated for the property 600 East, said he wanted to must be moved within a sixty-day address the problem of hate crimes period or they would lose the committed against gay and lesbian donation. Councilmember Godfrey citizens of Salt Lake City, and said he thought there were already the Police Department' s inability, firm plans to move a house to the ineffectiveness or their disregard property. to respond in an effective and just manner to these crimes. He Mayor DePaulis said his said on Friday, March 9, a office had all the information and situation occurred in which a there seemed to be a conflict with gentleman was hit in the head with what Mr. Eltinge was saying. He a baseball bat. Mr. Murrow said said his office researched the witnesses were able to take minutes and notes dating back to license plate numbers and make April 4, 1988, and he had a packet positive identifications of the of all motions, discussions, and people who had committed the recommendations on the issue. He crime. He said the crime was suggested that he meet personally reported to the police who said it with Mr. Eltinge to discuss the would be looked into but not to information. expect anything. He said the police officer told them that they Mr. Eltinge said he had gone were not the victims, but were through the minutes and the intent bringing this on themselves for was that the property would be who they were. He said gay people donated to the Community Council. were victims of hate crime and Mayor DePaulis said the Sugarhouse were not bringing it upon Community Council was specifically themselves. He said they were mentioned in each of the motions, targeted by others and the Police but the minutes also specified Department was unwilling to there should be a process, which respond. He also said the Police had been accomplished. Department practiced a discrimi- nation policy. Mr. Eltinge said the Communi- ty Council had letters from the He said Memory Grove was a property donor which stated that public park open until 11:00 p.m the property was for the Community but on Saturday, March 10, police Council. Mayor DePaulis said that officers came to Memory Grove at conflicted with what the donor 8:30 p.m. and chased people out of said in all of the official meet- the park because they were alleged ings and also conflicted with the homosexuals - not because they Planning Commission and Board of were doing anything illegal. He Adjustment recommendations. said the police told them that if they did not leave, they would be Mayor DePaulis said the City ticketed. He said he wondered if had done everything it was in- people in other parks were cleared 90-93 PROCE INGS OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 out at 8:30 p.m. or if this was an #2. RE: Set a date to hold a isolated incident based on non-advertised public hearing on prejudice. April 3, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. , to receive public comment and He asked for the Council's consider adopting a resolution support to change the attitude of approving the honorary name of the Police Department and their "Panther Way" for 300 North unwillingness to do anything about between 200 West and 400 West, this. He said he was speaking for pursuant to Petition No. 400-782. a large group of people and said (P 90-66) they were tired of being victims and tired of not having the rights #3 RE: Set a date to hold a and protections that were granted non-advertised public hearing on to everyone else. He asked the April 10, 1990, at 6: 20 p.m. , to Mayor and the Council not to take receive public comment and a neutral stand, even though this consider adopting a resolution was an unpopular issue. He also modifying the restrictive asked the City Council to put covenants on Block 79, 84 and the justice and fairness before what south half of Block 85, Plat A, was popular. He said the gay and Salt Lake City Survey, to allow lesbian population constituted the construction of the Jazz Arena about ten to fifteen percent of and Plaza. the vote in Salt Lake City. He (W 90-3) said they had the right to be treated equally like every other #4 RE: Adopt Ordinance 14 citizen because they were like of 1990 amending the staffing every other citizen. He said he document for the Office of the went to the Mayor' s Office to get City Council to eliminate the an appointment, but could not. He Auditor/Budget Analyst position said he wanted a chance to sit and establish a Community down and talk about this issue Development Coordinator position since it concerned human lives. at one Full Time Equivalent employee. Mayor DePaulis said (0 90-12) complaints were taken very seriously and he would be glad to NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS look into Mr. Murrow's complaints personally. He said he would be #1. RE: An ordinance sure that everyone received amending Section 2.37.030 of the adequate information about the Salt Lake City Code, to increase complaints and their disposition. the number of voting members on the Salt Lake City Recreation CONSENT AGENDA Advisory Board. Councilmember Whitehead moved ACTION: Without objection and Councilmember Pace seconded to Councilmember Godfrey referred approve the consent agenda, which this to the consent agenda. motion carried, all members (0 90-10) present voted aye. #2. RE: An ordinance #1. RE: Approve the amending Section 15. 16.035A of the appointment of David Svikhart to Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Historical Landmark Committee. group reservations at City golf (I 90-9 ) courses. 90-94 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 ACTION: Councilmember ACTION: Without objection Horrocks moved and Councilmember Councilmember Godfrey referred the Pace seconded to set the public reappointment to the consent hearing for April 3, 1990, at 6:40 agenda. p.m. and refer to Committee of the (I 90-11) Whole, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. #8. RE: The reappointment (0 90-11) of John Williams to the Central Business Improvement District. #3. RE: The appointment of Tim Chambless to the Board of ACTION: Without objection Adjustment. Councilmember Godfrey referred the reappointment to the consent ACTION: Without objection agenda. Councilmember Godfrey referred the (I 90-12) appointment to the Committee of the Whole. #9. RE: The reappointment (I 90-3) of William Cutting to the Central Business Improvement District. #4 RE: The appointment of Terri Hartlauer to the Golf ACTION: Without objection Advisory Board. Councilmember Godfrey referred the reappointment to the consent ACTION: Without objection agenda. Councilmember Godfrey referred the (I 90-12) appointment to the Committee of the Whole. #10. RE: The reappointment ( I 90-5) of Afton Kyriopoulos to the Housing Advisory and Appeals #5. RE: The appointment of Board. Colleen Minson to the Library Board. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the ACTION: Without objection reappointment to the consent Councilmember Godfrey referred the agenda. appointment to the Committee of (I 90-6) the Whole. ( I 90-13) #11. RE: The reappointment of Kathy Scheaffer to the Housing #6. RE: The appointment of Advisory and Appeals Board. Kenneth E. Louder to the Urban Forestry Board. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the ACTION: Without objection reappointment to the consent Councilmember Godfrey referred the agenda. appointment to the Committee of (I 90-6) the Whole. (I 90-15) #12. RE: The reappointment of Maj-Greth Homberg to the #7. RE: The reappointment Housing Advisory and Appeals of Patrick Shea to the Airport Board. Authority Board. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the 90-95 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 reappointment to the consent ACTION: Councilmember agenda. Whitehead moved and Councilmember (I 90-6) Pace seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all #13. RE: The reappointment members present voted aye. of Byron Haslam to the Mosquito Abatement District. Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Horrocks ACTION: Without objection seconded to adopt Resolution 29 of Councilmember Godfrey referred the 1990, which motion carried, all reappointment to the consent members present voted aye. agenda. (I 90-8) DISCUSSION: Pamela M. Joklik, 1127 Oak Hills Way, spoke #14. RE: The reappointment in favor of CDBG funds for the of Jim Webb to the Mosquito development of the Children' s Abatement District. Museum Workshop. She said the Children' s Museum had been in the ACTION: Without objection same building for six years and Councilmember Godfrey referred the needed to expand into the upper reappointment to the consent level. She said in 1988 the agenda. museum had 64, 000 visitors which (I 90-8) rose to 77,000 in 1989. She said this year the museum was already #15. RE: The reappointment 50% ahead of 1989. She said the of John Wennergren to the Tracy museum had obtained an elevator Aviary Board. which would make the upper level accessible to the handicapped. ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred the She said in May, the museum reappointment to the consent would be participating in the agenda. Jason Project, which would be on (I 90-14) loan from the Children' s Museum in North Carolina. #16. RE: The reappointment of Cindy White to the Tracy Aviary She said they wanted an Board. auditorium in order to house the project and CDBG funds would be ACTION: Without objection used to build it. Councilmember Godfrey referred the reappointment to the Committee of Councilmember Pace asked Ms. the Whole. Joklik to explain what the Jason (I 90-14) project was. Ms. Joklik said it was an underwater exploration with PUBLIC HEARINGS a submarine. She said the project showed two galleons which sank #1. RE: A public hearing at during the battle against the 6:00 p.m. which was continued from British in the Great Lakes Area. March 13, 1990, to receive public She said as the ships sank, they comment and consider adopting a turned and were in perfect resolution approving the 1988-1992 condition on the bottom of the Community Development Plan. ocean. She said schools had been given program material to study before visiting the museum. She 90-96 PROLE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 said this project could progress Mr. Blackman said the Se further if the City Council would Rancho Motel was for sale which support CDBG funding. She said if could possibly be used for the museum could have this transitional housing. He said technology 365 days a year, then people were ready to move out of they would be able to link into the homeless shelter, but there programs by NASA and other was no other housing. institutions which would give children a chance to participate He supported the Crossroads in actual events. Urban Center request for CDBG funds for a Fish and Garden Councilmember Horrocks asked Project and said refugees if the elevator they acquired was benefited from the project. He brand new. Ms. Joklik said it was also supported funding for the almost new, but was safe and in food pantry. In conclusion he good condition. asked the Council to support funding for the New Hope Center so Councilmember Godfrey read a they could finish their card from Jackie Greb, 840 North renovation. 300 West, who did not wish to speak but supported the Children' s Leam Moeung, 1133 West Museum. Brooklyn Avenue, supported the Wasatch Fish and Garden Project. Steve Blackman, 1102 West 400 He said this program was very North, supported the City helpful to refugee people living Council ' s efforts to preserve low in Salt Lake City. He said they income housing. He suggested that needed help to become self the City establish a fund to be sufficient in the United States, used to construct low income and this project provided that housing. He also encouraged the help. City to continue their efforts to (T 90-8) force landlords to renovate homes or to let Salt Lake City take the #2. RE: A public hearing at homes and work in conjunction with 6:00 p.m. which was continued from Neighborhood Housing Services to March 13, 1990, to receive public renovate them. He said there were comment concerning general housing a number of boarded-up homes in and community development needs the area north of North Temple which can be addressed by from about 600 West to 1000 West. Community Development Block Grant He also said services like Habitat funds. For Humanities wanted homes they could renovate for low-income ACTION: Councilmember people. He referred to an Whitehead moved and Councilmember incomplete housing project across Pace seconded to close the public from Pioneer Park and suggested hearing, which motion carried, all that the City could obtain this members present voted aye. property and complete the project for low-income housing. DISCUSSION: This hearing was considered at the same time as the Councilmember Horrocks said first hearing. the City could not obtain this (T 90-8) project, even though they wanted to, because it was in bankruptcy #3. RE: A public hearing at court. 6:00 p.m. to receive public 90-97 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 comment and consider adopting an Councilmember Whitehead said ordinance amending the Fiscal Year he opposed subsidizing the Steiner 1989-90 Budget. Aquatics Center. ACTION: Councilmember Pace Councilmember Godfrey said moved and Councilmember Whitehead the Council was dealing with the seconded to close the public Steiner Aquatics now because the hearing, which motion carried, all City received this property from members present voted aye. the federal government and either needed to use the property or lose Councilmember Whitehead moved it. He said the school board, and Councilmember Horrocks private individuals and the seconded to adopt Ordinance 15 of Steiner Family had donated over 1990 amending the Fiscal Year $1. 5 million to give the community 1989/90 budget without reference an amenity which it could not to the Steiner Aquatics Center, otherwise have. He said the City which motion carried, all members could not pass up this opportunity present voted aye. and said it was a good example of the public and private sectors Councilmember Pace moved and working together. Councilmember Horrocks seconded to approve the funding for the Councilmember Godfrey said if Steiner Aquatics Center in this the Council did not act on the budget amendment, which motion Aquatic Center now, it would not carried, all members present voted make money and the City would aye except Councilmember Whitehead continue paying in the future. who voted nay. Councilmember Whitehead said DISCUSSION: Steve Fawcett the City was being asked to fund from the City' s Policy and Budget $250, 000 for extra items because Division said this was budget there were no other funds amendment No. 5 for the Fiscal available plus there would be some Year 1989/90. He said the operating costs. He said he did amendment had been on public not think it was a good deal for display for the last week and the Salt Lake City right now. hearing had been advertised according to law. He said the Councilmember Pace said she City Council had previously been thought many items amended into briefed regarding the budget the original budget could generate amendment but City staff members income for the Aquatic Center were present to entertain which she thought was very questions. important. Councilmember Godfrey asked Councilmember Godfrey asked if the Council adopted the Steven Allred, Assistant City ordinance would the Steiner Attorney, if the Council could Aquatics Center be included. make a motion to separate the Steiner Aquatics from the budget Cindy Gust-Jensen, Council and then make a motion on the Executive Director, told the Steiner Aquatics. Mr. Allred said Council that in their motion they the issues could be voted on might want to specifically include separately. Councilmember White- the Steiner Aquatics, but the said he would prefer to vote revised budget schedules included separately since he didn't want to it. 90-98 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CII, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 vote against the entire budget. Councilmember Godfrey asked (B 89-5) if the conditions mentioned by the Planning Staff were included in #4. RE: A public hearing at the actual language of the 6: 20 p.m. for Health Care ordinance. Mr. Wheelwright said Facilities Bonds (Tefra Hearing). the conditions had either been embodied in the subdivision plat ACTION: The hearing was or in the annexation agreement, cancelled - to be rescheduled. but all concerns had been (C 90-102) addressed. #5. RE: A public hearing at John Schaar, petitioner, said 6:30 p.m. to receive public he had been working with the City comment and consider adopting an since 1987 to put this annexation ordinance recognizing the adoption together. He said the main of amendment 14-B to the Master objective was to furnish an Annexation Policy Declaration and entrance to the Salt Lake City extending the limits of Salt Lake Water Department for access to City to include the Carrigan View their water tanks and also to Phase I Annexation and Zoning, correct a neighborhood problem. pursuant to Petition No. 400-582- He said the neighborhood had a lot 87. of disturbances with beer parties. He said he felt this was an ACTION: Councilmember excellent addition to Salt Lake Whitehead moved and Councilmember City and said there would be forty Pace seconded to close the public feet between houses and houses hearing, which motion carried, all would not be built closer than members present voted aye. twenty feet to the property line. Councilmember Horrocks moved Robert Steffensen, 2321 and Councilmember Pace seconded to Lakeline Drive, said he was adopt the ordinance in concept and currently the President of the refer it to the April 3, 1990, Arcadia Heights Neighborhood consent agenda for approval of the Association and this property was full Council, which motion located in his area. He said he carried, all members present voted called a meeting of the Board of aye. Directors last evening who voted in favor of adopting the petition. DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, In reference to the possibility of Planning and Zoning Department, a park in the proposed said this annexation included 3.42 subdivision, he said Lot No. 5, acres of property located in which was the proposed site, was Council District 7 at the mouth too small. He referred to a of Carrigan Canyon. He said the location in the Benchmark petition had been considered by Subdivision which would be more Salt Lake City since 1987 and suitable. He said the park was a there had been extensive priority of the Community Council. negotiations to reach the current position. He said neighborhood Jerry Bergosh, 1961 Scenic issues had been resolved and now Drive, said he lived down the hill everything was in order for the from the proposed development. He City Council to consider the said he was the official annexation ordinance. representative for the Wasatch Scenic Drive Neighborhood group 90-99 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 which had a number of concerns. Councilmember Horrocks asked He said he had seen incremental if there had been any engineering development on the hillside below studies done on the hillside to the "H" rock and expressed his determine stability and asked what concern that this request was one would happen if a forty degree cut more step toward eventual was made. development of the hillside. He said Mr. Schaar had prepared plans Mr. Wheelwright said these for Carrigan View Phase II which issues had all been thoroughly showed development across the explored and the City had a hillside and this was a great geotechnical review of the concern to the neighborhood. He project. He said this site was said Mr. Schaar had a long history unique since it sat on a little of development in the area and bench and was actually a part of expressed concern that the next Lake Bonneville' s high shore stage would develop the rest of bench. He said there were the hillside. extremely steep slopes above and below this project and he shared He said the City had less the same concerns as Mr. Bergosh. stringent slope requirements than He said that was why this the County and he believed that annexation was configured in a was the reason for annexation. He particular way. He said this was asked the Council to recognize the an extremely small portion of the neighborhood's concerns and said original petition by Mr. Schaar there were other petitions before and the Planning Commission felt the Planning Commission for good about this 3.42 acre development on this hillside. He annexation. He said the City had asked the City Council to vote control over the issues once the against this petition and said the property was annexed. Eastbench Master Plan outlined the problems with these undeveloped Councilmember Horrocks asked areas. He said they wanted an if concerns about future overall plan for the hillside developments had any validity. since it was probably one of the Mr. Wheelwright said the City' s only remaining hillsides without interest in this had been building scars. adequately protected and the City had all of the control it needed Dee Baxter, owner of Lot 609 to ensure that future development on Lakeline Drive, said he was done according to City understood that over the 5,000 guidelines. foot level there was a moratorium on building. He asked if this was Councilmember Godfrey asked considered and said other than if the County' s slope requirements that, he had no objection. were stricter than the City' s. Mr. Wheelwright said he believed Mr. Wheelwright said in 1976 that Mr. Bergosh was referring to the City placed a six-month the fact that the City had a 400 moratorium on the approval of new exclusion on slopes which were 40% subdivisions that were above the and steeper and the County had a 5, 200 foot contour. He said it 30% exclusion. He said the City lasted for six months and the end was exploring that issue with the result was the adoption of the "F- Planning Commission and it would 1" and "P-1" zones. be discussed at length this summer. He disagreed with the 90-100 PROCEIINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 comment that the City was less restrictive than the County because of the way the City administered 40% versus 30%. He said the City did not allow averaging of slopes which was allowed in other jurisdictions. He said he believed the City was more restrictive, but the issue would be thoroughly explored in the future. Councilmember Godfrey said the Council was considering this annexation at this point and whether or not issues fit into the Master Plan would be solved in the future when petitions went before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said the remaining property would be developed according to the Master Plan. He said according to the Eastbench Community Master Plan, the property was identified as an area of future development and consistent with the recommendations of the Master Plan update. Mayor DePaulis asked if the petitioner could develop this property if it were not annexed. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that he wouldn't be able to since the County was not in a position to provide services. (P 90-45) The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. aJ€vt- 41421/K144"- COUNCIL CHAIR >i4a T RECORDER CHIEF DEPUTY 90-101 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 13, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Wayne Horrocks Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale Councilmember Whitehead was absent. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting. David Svikhart was inter- Ms. Gust-Jenson indicated viewed prior to consideration of that Council may wish to clarify his appointment to the Historical for the record how their action on Landmark Committee. He indicated Block 57 might relate to the he had been involved with the Redevelopment Agency' s action; development of a master plan for a this could be done during the community in Colorado and would hearing. like to be involved with historic preservation. Regarding item G-4, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, would be Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive present to answer any questions. Director, reviewed the evening' s agenda noting that due to the Ms. Gust-Jenson reviewed the heavy schedule of public hearings, Council's events calendar, and the sound system would be set up requested that items for the in the hallway to accommodate any Mayor-Council roundtable discus- overflow. sion, scheduled for March 20th, be submitted to her by Friday. Regarding F-2, she said changes in this improvement dis- She then indicated that Mac trict and an error on the part of Connole of the city' s police Council staff required this hear- department had informed her of a ing to be set again. class on verbal communications that would be open for the Regarding item G-1, Steve Councilmembers to attend. Mayor Meyer and Scott Vaterlas from DePaulis described briefly how transportation had been working this contact was made. The meet- with citizens on this lighting ings would be held on March 27th district. Some specific concerns and March 28th. had been raised and Councilmember Kirk was working to form a commit- Ms. Gust-Jenson reminded tee in order to resolve the prob- Councilmembers of the tour of the lems. Northwest Community Master Plan areas scheduled for Thursday, Regarding the street name fee March 15. She told them to meet changes, Janice Jardine, planning in the Council Office prior to staff, would be present to answer departure. any questions that Council might have and was prepared to make a The briefing session was brief statement at the beginning adjourned. of the hearing if the Council requested. 90-65 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, March 13, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale Nancy Pace Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES Historical Landmark Committee. (I 90-9) #1. There was no invocation. #3. RE: Approving the ap- #2. The Council led the pointment of John Gates to the Pledge of Allegiance. Historical Landmark Committee. (I 90-9) #3. Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, #1: RE: An ordinance amend- February 20, 1990, and Tuesday, ing Section 14. 12.080, Salt Lake February 27, 1990, which motion City Code, to eliminate the re- carried, all members voted aye quirement of bonds or insurance on except Councilmember Pace who was encroachments for fences or land- absent for the vote. scaping improvements. (M 90-1) ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey referred this to the consent CONSENT AGENDA agenda without objection. (0 90-9) Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the consent agenda, UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember #1. RE: A resolution autho- Pace who was absent for the vote. rizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement #1. RE: Approving the ap- between Salt Lake City, the United pointment of Mark Hafey to the States Olympic Committee (USOC) Board of Adjustment. and the Salt Lake City Bid Commit- (I 90-3) tee for the Olympic Winter Games (SLOBC), expressing the terms and #2. RE: Approving the ap- condition relating to the Olympics pointment of Stuart Loosli to the bid process. 90-66 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 ACTION: Councilmember Hardman State of Utah Sports Authority moved and Councilmember Hale agreed to post $250, 000 in con- seconded to adopt Resolution 26 of nection with the contract. He 1990, which motion carried, all said if Salt Lake City did not members voted aye. receive the Games, the Sports Authority would have the option of DISCUSSION: Councilmember forfeiting the $250, 000, which Godfrey referred to Section 3. 5 on they accepted. He said if Phase page 6 of the interlocal agree- II was not completed, Phase I ment, which mentioned financial would complete facilities so they and organizational responsibility would be usable. for the Games. He asked Roger Cutler, city attorney, if this Councilmember Pace asked for wording committed the city to clarification about the Sports future financial obligations. Authority' s pledge of $250, 000. Mr. Peterson said this was pledged Mr. Cutler said it was not out of revenues from the Games. intended to do that. He referred He said it would be a loan from to the resolution authorizing the sales tax revenue. execution of the agreement which stated that the Council would Councilmember Horrocks asked approve the contract as generally if Salt Lake City would be held described therein. He said the harmless. Mr. Cutler said the resolution was intended to only contract was drafted so that Salt advise the Council as to the Lake City did not have financial contents of the contract and responsibilities other than assur- authorize the Mayor to approve the ing that bonds and insurance contract. policies were submitted. He said if there was a breach of contract, Councilmember Godfrey asked it would be against the escrow about the Sports Authority' s deposit. position on this issue. Mr. Peterson said it was his Craig Peterson, Salt Lake understanding that Salt Lake City Olympic Bid Committee, said the would not be held liable. Sports Authority Board considered (C 90-121) and reviewed this contract last Friday and unanimously voted to #2 RE: A resolution declaring accept construction schedule H of the intention to create Special the contract. He said they were Improvement District No. 38-864 in not a party to this agreement per the Central Business District. se. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk Councilmember Godfrey asked moved and Councilmember Pace about private fund raising. Mr. seconded to adopt a revised and Peterson said private money would restated resolution, Resolution 27 be use for Phase II of the con- of 1990, declaring the intention struction schedule; no private of the City Council of Salt Lake money would be used for Phase I, City to construct improvements in which would be funded by the State the Central Business District of Utah Legislature. He said including curb, gutter, sidewalks private monies for Phase II would with brick pavers, driveways, come from television and sponsor- drainage, trees, planters, tie-in ship revenues. He also said the paving, irrigation, vault abandon- 90-67 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 ment or rebuilding, electrical thereon to assessable costs, which systems, street lighting and motion carried, all members voted operation and maintenance of aye. street lighting for one year, and drains and all other miscellaneous DISCUSSION: John Naser, work necessary to complete the engineering division, said the improvements; to create Special bids for this project were opened Improvement District No. 38-864; at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. He to defray the cost and expenses of said they received eight bids and a portion of said improvement he read the lowest three bids. district by special assessments to The low bidder on the project was be levied against the property McNeil Construction - $1, 330, - benefited by such improvements; to 843.71; the second low bidder was provide a revised notice of inten- Western Quality Construction - tion to authorize such improve- $1,331, 636. 55; the third low ments and to fix a time and place bidder was Workman Construction - (April 17, 1990, 6:00 p.m. , City $1,395, 415 . 65. He said the engi- and County Building) for protests neer' s estimate was $1, 393, 809 . against such improvements or the (Q 89-9) creation of said district; to authorize advertisement of con- struction bids and related mat- PUBLIC HEARINGS ters, which motion carried, all members voted aye. #1. RE: A public hearing at (Q 90-1 ) 6: 20 p.m. to receive comment and consider protests concerning the #3 RE: Accepting a bid intention of the City Council of for construction of Special Im- Salt Lake City to create Lighting provement District No. 38-758, District No. 1; to operate, main- (400-500 South Connector. ) tain, patrol and power lighting improvements; to defray a portion ACTION: Councilmember Kirk of the original capital cost of moved and Councilmember Whitehead lighting improvements, and the seconded to accept the tabulation operation and maintenance expenses report and adopt Resolution 28 of of said improvement district by 1990, conditionally accepting a special assessments to be levied bid for construction work and, against the properties benefited subject to approval of the City by such lighting and improvements; Engineer, authorizing the execu- and related matters. tion of a construction contract for improvements of Salt Lake ACTION: Councilmember Hardman City, Utah, curb and gutter exten- moved and Councilmember Horrocks sion, Special Improvement District seconded to close the public No. 38-758 providing for construc- hearing and refer the protests to tion of designated widths of the transportation engineering roadway pavement, concrete curb division for tabulation, which and gutter, pavement where it does motion carried, all members voted not now exist and related driveway aye. improvements and other improve- ments and modifications, and all DISCUSSION: Steve Meyer, other miscellaneous work necessary deputy transportation engineer, to complete the improvements; for said there were 14 extensions in issuance of interim warrants and Street Lighting District #1 which for the addition of the interest included the Rose Park area, the 90-68 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 West Downtown area, and the Yale- create the district for a lower crest area. He said they held cost. two public hearings to address Yalecrest citizens ' concerns and Mayor DePaulis asked if a there would be an additional property owner who protested out meeting on March 27. He said they of the district could change their received some protests from seven position before the district was of the extensions but not enough created. Roger Cutler, city to remove any of the extensions attorney, said a property owner from the lighting district. He could withdraw their protest said owners of over 50% of the before the district was created. front footage would have to pro- Councilmember Godfrey asked when test in order to remove the exten- the end of the protest period was . sion. Mr. Cutler said this meeting ended the protest period. Brent Cameron, 1618 Yale Avenue, asked the Council to delay Mr. Cameron asked for another establishing the district until protest period after more informa- after additional meetings were tion was available. He said he held and there was further study. was not able to decide at this He said he was not sure whether time and said he signed a peti- the total dollar amount or the tion which asked for further methodology was acceptable. He analysis. He asked the Council to said he didn' t believe that resi- delay action and allow for addi- dents fully understood their tional protests. options and the information they received in the mail did not Councilmember Godfrey indi- specify all the options. cated that the Council and trans- portation division had committed Councilmember Godfrey clari- to further analyzing this situa- fied that the Council would not tion. take action until about May. Councilmember Kirk said they would Councilmember Kirk said not create the district for about according to the petition, people two months. wanted the lights to remain but wanted to consider other alterna- Mr. Cameron asked if there tives. She added that the Council would be additional citizen could make deletions and changes meetings. Councilmember Kirk until the district was created. said she hoped to have a problem solving meeting to consider many Mr. Cutler said he under- options. stood that Mr. Cameron wanted the Council to continue the formal Mr. Cameron protested the protest period. He said the creation of the district at this hearing tonight allowed people to time without more information legally protest out of the dis- about options. He said the trict and if more than 50% pro- information he received in the tested, then the Council couldn' t mail reflected a 400% increase in create the district. He said if the rate and he wanted to know more than 50% did not protest, the what additional options were Council had the legal authority available. He said he was willing but was not obligated to create to pay for the lighting but wanted the district. He said the Council to find out if there was a way to couldn't increase or enlarge the 90-69 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 district but could decrease the ment and consider adopting an assessment or delete areas out of ordinance enacting section 14.08. - the district. He said the Coun- 015, Salt Lake City Code, relating cil could probably continue the to Street Name Change Fees. hearing but if they decided to do so, he suggested they state their ACTION: Councilmember Kirk intentions clearly. moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to close the hearing, Mr. Cutler said if the Coun- which motion carried, all members cil continued the protest period voted aye. as desired by Mr. Cameron, then owners could protest out of the Councilmember Whitehead moved district if they didn't agree with and Councilmember Kirk seconded to the Council ' s ultimate decision. adopt Ordinance 11 of 1990, which He said Mr. Cameron' s request motion carried, all members voted would leave all of his options aye. open to challenge the legality of the district. DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, planning and zoning staff, said Mr. Cameron said he asked for that about 1 and 1/2 years ago the a delay because of the substantial city experienced a large increase rate increase. in the number of requests for street name changes. She said Councilmember Pace asked from there was not an established which budget year this district policy to deal with these re- would be paid and she asked about quests, so the Council requested the rationale behind the time the planning division to develop frame of this project. Mr. Meyer some recommendations for policy said the new assessment district guidelines. She said the staff would begin in July, Budget Year contacted various city departments 1990-91, and they were under a requesting information and also deadline since they would have no received detailed information from revenue to pay for the power after the county address coordinator. the old district expired. He said they would also do construction She said the city' s cost this season. breakdown from individual depart- ments totaled approximately $450. Councilmember Kirk said if She said the staff recommended a the Council closed the hearing and fee of $250 since the new applica- referred the protests to transpor- tion process would require the tation, the formal protest period petitioner to provide the city would end although property owners with information which staff had would have the opportunity to been gathering. She also said negotiate the options. She reit- they recommended this fee because erated that the petition did not that was what the county charged. state that people wanted to pro- test out of the district. She Lastly, she said the proposed said out of 89 people who signed ordinance would apply to prefer- the petition, three told her they ence or honorary name changes. wanted to get out of the district. Legal name changes to clarify (Q 90-2) street locations or eliminate duplicate names were handled #2 RE: A public hearing at through the city engineer under a 6:30 p.m. to receive public com- different procedure. 90-70 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 Randy Dixon, 726 Wall Street, Councilmember Whitehead sug- said the Capitol Hill Neighborhood gested putting such requests in a Council had talked in the past file and when a street sign needed about restoring some of the origi- to be replaced, the new name could nal names to streets in that area. be added at that time. This way He said this would be a way of the city wouldn't have to charge reinforcing the traditions of the people. area and restoring its distinc- tiveness. Ms. Jardine said the honorary street name was put on a separate He also said about 10 years sign of a different color. Mr. ago the city installed new street Wright added that generally when signs that listed the neighborhood people requested changes they on the sign, such as Capitol Hill. wanted immediate action. In their area the word "Capitol" was misspelled on all the signs Councilmember Pace asked if and he suggested that when this the new ordinance would preclude error was corrected, perhaps the historical name changes because new signs could also reflect the of cost. Mr. Wright reaffirmed original street names. his opinion that if changes occurred on a neighborhood basis, In reference to the proposed they would handle the situation fee schedule, he was concerned differently. that their neighborhood would be unable to afford to change the Mayor DePaulis said if the street names back to what they city wanted to change street were originally. names, that would be an adminis- trative decision. This ordinance Councilmember Pace said there would apply to single streets and didn' t appear to be a provision in individual requests. the proposed ordinance to address (0 90-7) historical street name changes. Ms. Jardine said she did not #3 RE: A public hearing at separate this issue in the ordi- 6:40 p.m. to receive public com- nance. ment and consider an ordinance, pursuant to Section 10-9-21, Utah Bill Wright, deputy planning Code Annotated, 1953, adopting the director, said the street name Block 57 Master Plan as part of changes in the Capitol Hill area the Downtown Master Plan. were a comprehensive approach and were analyzed on the basis of ACTION: Councilmember Hardman historical merit. He said exten- moved and Councilmember Horrocks sive changes could go before the seconded to close the public Historical Landmarks Committee for hearing, which motion carried, all a recommendation that such changes members voted aye except would be a historical element of Councilmember Pace who was absent the streetscape and neighborhood for the vote. identity. He said the proposed ordinance would apply to single Councilmember Hardman moved requests but name changes in a and Councilmember Horrocks second- whole neighborhood would go ed to approve the ordinance adopt- through a different process to be ing the Block 57 Master Plan as evaluated on historical merit. part of the Downtown Master Plan, with the following modifications: 90-71 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 1 ) Aggressive efforts should Building, however, if no economi- be made to save the Utah Savings cally viable adaptive reuses for and Trust Building and the Clayton the buildings are found by the Building, however, if no economi- time major demolition on the block cally viable adaptive reuses for occurs, the buildings should be the buildings are found by the removed with the other existing time major demolition on the block buildings which are located within occurs, the buildings should be the public infrastructure areas removed with the other existing (parking, urban park and plaza) , buildings which are located within which motion carried, all members the public infrastructure areas voted aye except Councilmember (parking, urban park and plaza) . Hardman who voted nay and Councilmember Pace who was absent 2 ) If the decision is made for the vote. to remove the USTB, that the parking infrastructure plans shown DISCUSSION: Councilmember on the Master Plan include public Godfrey asked Allen Johnson, parking on levels 2 and 3 under planning director, if anything in the former Utah Savings and Trust the master plan would preclude Building site, allowing for ap- what the Redevelopment Agency proximately 65 additional parking voted for in concept. stalls. Mr. Johnson said he didn't 3 ) That the Master Plan think the master plan would affect depict new retail use on the the RDA's motion which directed former Utah Savings and Trust the RDA staff to pursue marketing Building site. This retail pad, the preservation of structures on as with other retail pads shown on the block. He said the Planning the Interim Plan, should be tempo- Commission' s position paper also rarily landscaped as shown until made similar statements about development occurs. preserving buildings. He said tonight' s issue was to add the Councilmember Kirk moved and Block 57 Master Plan, as prepared Councilmember Hale seconded to by FFKR, and the Planning Commis- amend the motion to delete points sion' s position paper as elements 2 and 3, which motion carried, to Salt Lake City' s Comprehensive Councilmembers Whitehead, Kirk, Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. Godfrey and Hale voted aye, and Councilmembers Horrocks and Councilmember Kirk referred Hardman voted nay; Councilmember to the Planning Policy Position, Pace was absent for the vote. #5 of the Land Use and Development Density Policies, which made Councilmembers Hardman and statements about preserving his- Horrocks withdrew the motion. toric structures on the block. She was concerned that this para- Councilmember Whitehead moved graph was more specific than the and Councilmember Kirk seconded to RDA' s intent. adopt Ordinance 12 of 1990 approv- ing the Block 57 Master Plan as Mr. Johnson said it was part of the Downtown Master Plan, inherent in the Planning Commis- with the following modification: sion' s position paper and the 1 ) Aggressive efforts should be conceptual nature of the Block 57 made to save the Utah Savings and Master Plan that through the Trust Building and the Clayton process if situations changed, the 90-72 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 plan would come before the Council meeting and it didn't appear that for revision. He said they were they considered the RDA' s posi- working on a planning process from tion. Mr. Johnson said they the conceptual phase through didn't directly address that issue actual construction and during since they assumed the RDA' s that continuum the process was action was a directive to the RDA open for change. staff. Councilmember Godfrey ex- Councilmember Whitehead said pressed concern about Council the RDA' s intent was to proceed, action (adopting the master plan) either by selling the buildings or contradicting the RDA's position demolishing them. They didn't regarding the historic buildings want this issue to extend over a on the block. number of years. He said he was not against preserving the build- Mr. Johnson said the master ings if indeed they could actually plan was a guiding document and be utilized. He said the RDA the RDA' s action was much more wanted to proceed with a demoli- regulatory and binding than the tion and during that process there master plan. He referred to the would be time for the city to look last sentence in the Planning for buyers. Commission' s position paper which stated that this was a process and Councilmember Hale said he amendments would occur. thought the Utah Savings and Trust Building, and possibly the other Councilmember Horrocks said two buildings, should be demol- the Planning Policy Position ished. didn' t refer to demolition taking place in the event that the his- Bill Wright, deputy planning toric structures were not redevel- director, said the Planning Com- oped. Mr. Johnson said their mission did not reconsider the objective was to move positively RDA' s actions because staff be- toward the preservation of the lieved the RDA' s actions were as buildings and if this was not a property owner of the USTB possible then they would talk to building. He said they thought the Council about the options for the RDA was directing the time the structures. Councilmember period in which to market the Horrocks said he thought the building, consistent with #5 in option of demolition should be the Planning Commission' s policy specified since the RDA had made statement, and if there was no that motion. response then demolition was to occur. He said the time frame was Councilmember Hardman said if linked to when the last demolition the Council was serious about the occurred on the block for the RDA' s recommendation which was plaza parking structure. He said adopted last month, that motion the overall goal was to preserve either needed to appear by refer- the structures if they could be ence in the ordinance or the marketed, as stated in #5 . If Council needed to make a similar they couldn' t, then the RDA had motion. Mr. Johnson said they established the action to proceed could do that if they so desired. toward demolition. Councilmember Kirk said she Councilmember Kirk said she attended the Planning Commission thought the RDA had directed 90-73 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 immediate action on the demolition buildings but was concerned about since they understood that it the limited amount of money avail- would take 12 to 15 months to go able to spend on the block. She through the process. said they had committed to many developments on the block and they Mr. Wright said he believed may not have the money to save the the master plan did not conflict buildings. with the RDA's motion which gave a more specific direction to their Councilmember Whitehead asked staff. He also reiterated that how much time would be needed to the Council could amend the master find a buyer. He was concerned plan throughout the process. about having vacant buildings on the block for years. He suggested Grace Sperry, former chairman having a deadline so improvements of the Preservation Development would proceed on the block. He Committee and member of the His- wanted to find out if people were torical Landmarks Committee, said interested in saving the buildings the USTB building and the Brooks but didn't want to wait 2 or 3 Arcade building had been listed by years. the Preservation Development Committee as being two important Randy Dixon, vice chair of historical structures. She said the Landmarks Committee, rein- they considered the Clayton build- forced their support for the ing for its possible significance master plan. He encouraged the but it had considerable damage. Council to allow enough time for She said there was nothing wrong the buildings to be saved and with the USTB and there was very marketed correctly. He said little wrong with the Brooks overall the master plan was good Arcade. and would have a great impact on the city. He said the committee She said a city history felt the historic buildings would included the old as well as the improve the master plan and make new. The history of Salt Lake City it better. was unique in the state and coun- try but would be lost unless the Ray Kingston, FFKR Archi- old buildings were saved. She tects, said the demolition could said old buildings shouldn't be be accommodated now or after the demolished because they didn't entire Block 57 parking structure match new buildings. She pointed and park were completed. He said out that several years ago the he didn' t know how long it would City and County Building was in take to market the buildings but the process of being demolished referred to the Pierpont Building but the city saved it because it on Pierpont Avenue which went was part of history. She also through 4 or 5 attempts at rede- said she knew people who were velopment. He said the structure interested in saving the historic now existed as a viable business buildings on Block 57 and was which created a thriving street. concerned that the buildings would be demolished while people were in He said there had been vari- the process of obtaining financ- ous forces interested in tearing ing. down the historic structures on Block 57. He said the Boyer Councilmember Kirk said the Company was interested in the Council was not against saving old demolition since the buildings 90-74 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 interfered with their parking Plan and reopen the master plan to structure and views. He said address issues as they arose. He providing an addition to the encouraged the Council to approve north side of the USTB building the plan. would make it a more viable, marketable historic structure. He John Pace, Babcock Pace and said he was not sure why there was Associates, referred to the pressure to issue a demolition Planning Commission' s Position permit. Paper and recommended that it be adopted as part of the master John Jones, owner of the plan. He said his company was Travel Zone at 324 South Main, negotiating with the RDA to pro- said he was interested in historic vide the final planning for the preservation and thought enough implementation of Block 57 and he historical buildings had been supported the master plan. He demolished. He said the Council ' s said having subsurface parking, intent was not clear since they which would be less obtrusive, was wanted to market the buildings and a strong element of the master at the same time file for a demo- plan as was the development of the lition permit. He said marketing plaza. the buildings aggressively would depend on the price and he urged He said consideration of the the Council to make the price of historic structures was an element the buildings attractive to devel- but shouldn' t be outweighed in the opers. overall consideration. He sup- ported preserving the buildings Cindy Cromer, member of the and said there was no advantage to Planning Commission, said she was demolish them at this point. He aware of the RDA' s action but did recommended the Council take the not move to change the Planning position that any action to ini- Commission' s documents because she tiate demolition would be done preferred emphasizing preservation only to expedite the process so rather than presupposing demoli- further development would not be tion. She said she thought the delayed. Concurrent with that only constituency interested in action he suggested the Council the buildings on the block would voice their support of preserva- be those concerned with historic tion if economically feasible. preservation. She suggested that the city needed to build on that Councilmember Pace said she constituency for Block 57 since didn't know that Mr. Pace would be she thought it was important to present at this meeting to speak. keep those structures. She asked She declared a conflict of inter- the Council to consider the mar- est and left the dais. ketability of historic Salt Lake and how it attracted people. Councilmember Kirk said the RDA considered that additional John Schumann, member of the parking could be provided if the Planning Commission, said on many buildings were demolished. She instances the Planning Commission said the downtown merchants were had forwarded to the Council concerned that there would not be neighborhood master plans when enough parking. Mr. Kingston said issues were still in limbo. He there was no need for additional said the Council ' s opportunity was parking which would be added by to approve the Block 57 Master demolishing the USTB building. He 90-75 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 said the number of parking spaces street wall. She said it was that would be added was between 60 important that the USTB building and 70. He said there was a be part of a street wall along sufficient number of stalls in the Main street so there was not a public parking structure to accom- hole. modate the ordinance requirements and there was also added capacity Lamont Felt, owner of Felt underneath each of the three new Electric, said he thought the development parcels. He said master plan would have a positive there was no need to demolish the effect on retail sales downtown. building because of parking. He expressed concern that during construction the traffic flow not Councilmember Horrocks said be restricted to the businesses . he was not adverse to saving good He asked that the impact be mini- buildings. He said he had not mized as much as possible. heard of anyone interested in buying the USTB building but heard Ed Sperry, real estate agent, it would not be economically said the USTB building had not feasible to operate a business in ever been properly marketed. He that building. said a price was not established and there was no well defined Linda Edeiken, 70 P Street, marking plan. He said until this addressed three issues. First, she was done they should not discuss said Block 57 was important to the demolition, which should be the downtown area and there were many last option. Instead he said they issues involved other than the should be developing a marketing demolition of the USTB building. plan and looking for a buyer. He She said issues to be discussed said it was basically a sound included the parking allocated to structure. public use, size and scale of the park, and whether or not the city Councilmember Kirk spoke on was willing and capable of commit- behalf of one of her constituents, ting to making the park a full MaryAnn Webster. Ms. Webster had community asset. expressed concern about the open space design in the center of the Second, in reference to the block. She said there could be USTB building, she said the future problems if the area was not open and past could exist side by side enough since people would be and be an asset to the city. She fearful about entering the park said there didn't seem to be a during certain hours of the day. feeling among the majority of the She said the police would not walk Council that historic preservation through the park and it could not could be an economic development be adequately patrolled from a tool. She said preservation was police car. not an obstacle but was a strong economic incentive to making a Councilmember Hardman said it vital city. She said before the was unfortunate that much of the RDA bought the USTB building it discussion had revolved around had been renovated and was market- demolition. He said most of the able and viable. She said if the Councilmembers would like to see building was an eyesore it was the building saved if someone was because of the RDA stewardship. willing to come forward and restore it. He said restoration Her third issue was the of the building would require 90-76 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 further public subsidies and he buildings are unsuccessful, before wasn't sure that the RDA was major demolition is finished on prepared or able to do this. the block, that the buildings be demolished. " He said the reason He said he thought it was they moved from ordering demoli- important to establish a time tion to marketing first was to put frame for the building and its the effort on saving the building. future. He said they needed to He said if that was not possible allow for the active marketing of then along with major demolition the building but said he thought of other buildings, this demoli- in the marketing plan they needed tion could be considered. to establish a deadline in connec- tion with the major demolition Roger Cutler, city attorney, which would occur on the block, expressed concern with having the He said he wanted to maximize the plan so detailed and block specif- number of public parking stalls on is that it was more of a condi- the block and said if they were tional use than a master plan. He going to construct underground said a master plan was a policy parking, then he thought it should statement of general direction. all be done at the same time. He said the intent of the master plan was to have a policy state- In reference to Councilmember ment and not a legislative action. Hardman' s motion, modification #1, Councilmember Horrocks expressed Councilmember Hardman said concern about using the word the word "should" was appropriate "should" in the following sen- because this was a policy direc- tence: " . . .the building should be tion. He said the demolition removed with the other existing issue would have to go before the buildings. . . " . He suggested that Historical Landmarks Committee and this was vague and the word should the Planning Commission. be changed to "shall" . Councilmember Kirk moved to Mayor DePaulis said when the amend Councilmember Hardman' s RDA discussion occurred, motion to delete points 2 and 3 . Councilmember Whitehead' s initial She said she didn' t want to be comment was to direct the demoli- specific at this point because tion process rather than make a there could be other alternatives. policy statement. The Mayor said She wanted to maintain flexibili- he was concerned about a potential ty. conflict between the legislative and administrative branches in Councilmember Hardman said he terms of who would order the thought if the building was demol- demolition. ished then public parking should be constructed under it. He said Mayor DePaulis read the it would be more practical to motion from the RDA minutes, construct all the underground " . . .resolution approving the parking at the same time. conceptual design of the master plan for Block 57 as recommended Councilmember Godfrey said by the Planning Commission, sub- the opportunity would be available ject to the reservation that the to the private sector to construct size of the plaza area may vary parking under the pads they devel- and if attempts to market the Utah oped. He said the master plan Savings and Trust and Clayton addressed the public parking issue 90-77 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 and he thought Councilmember to construct parking under the Hardman was suggesting that the plaza and also allow other parking city extend its commitment to where buildings currently existed. parking. (T 90-6) Councilmember Whitehead #4 RE: A public hearing agreed with Councilmember Kirk at 6: 50 p.m. to receive public because he didn' t want to mandate comment and consider adopting an the parking underneath the build- ordinance rezoning property locat- ings. He said he wanted parking ed at 409, 411, and 429 South 800 if it was feasible but didn't want East, from "C-1" and "R-7" classi- parking mandated. Councilmember fications, to an "R-5" classifica- Kirk thought Mr. Hardman' s motion tion, and amending the East Cen- applied too many conditions for a tral Neighborhood Plan, pursuant conceptual plan. to a Planning Commission Initia- tive. Councilmember Godfrey said the demolition process would not ACTION: Councilmember coincide with construction of the Whitehead moved and Councilmember public parking. He said it was Pace seconded to close the public incorrect to assume that parking hearing, which motion carried, all underneath the USTB building could members voted aye. be constructed at the same time as the public parking. Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Whitehead sec- Mayor DePaulis expressed his onded to adopt Ordinance 13 of concern about being too specific 1990, which motion carried, all in terms of the master plan. He members voted aye except suggested adding language that Councilmember Hale who voted nay. would allow the parking to be evaluated on an economically DISCUSSION: Bruce Parker, feasible basis. He said this planning and zoning staff, said would give him a direction in this item was a Planning Commis- terms of policy yet would not be sion initiative to evaluate the too specific. long-range land use planning policies for properties located on Councilmember Godfrey said the east side of 800 East between the master plan already allowed 400 and 500 South. He said the the flexibility of constructing Council needed to evaluate the parking when it was economically appropriateness of the master plan feasible. for this area, and also evaluate and review the present zoning Councilmember Hardman said he situation for the properties on thought there wouldn't be flexi- the east side of 800 East. bility to put public parking under the building unless it was con- Mr. Parker oriented the structed at the same time as all Council to the area in question by the other parking. He said it pointing out the location on a wouldn't be feasible to build map. He said early last year a three levels of parking 37.5 feet developer approached the planning wide. division in order to develop a Jiffy Lube on the corner of 800 Councilmember Godfrey said a East and 400 South. He said the major point of the master plan was developer proposed reestablishing 90-78 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 the Mr. Brake building as a Jiffy ly with no unifying dimension to Lube and remodeling the existing other developments in the area. office building to the east as a Also the development of the Jiffy Mr. Brake facility. Lube and Mr. Brake (now a Pegasus Records store) precluded the Mr. Parker said as staff possibility of direct access to reviewed the site plan, it became the parcels from 400 South. obvious that a number of variances were required in order to develop He said this did not promote the property as proposed. He said the most desirable development staff also identified that the pattern and could possibly promote homes directly south were zoned land use conflict. He said the "C-1" , so encouraged the developer Planning Commission directed city to include them as part of a staff to evaluate the appropriate- commercial PUD. He said staff ness of the master plan for the wanted to develop a coordinated location as well as the present and unified development which zoning situation. He said the would function and have primary master plan for the area was the direct access on 400 South. He East Central Neighborhood Plan of said this would minimize conflicts 1984, and the overriding goal of between the commercial PUD and the that plan was to encourage the school which was directly to the preservation of good housing and south. to encourage redevelopment of residential dwelling units. He said on May 11, 1989, this However the East Central Neighbor- request was reviewed by the Plan- hood Plan also recommended that ning Commission and at that time the location in question be devel- they expressed concern with the oped for commercial business-type site plan. They directed the uses. developer to reevaluate the site plan since they were concerned He said the Planning Commis- about the transition between the sion evaluated three alternatives commercial PUD and the school. in the master plan to establish Mr. Parker said the neighborhood future long-range planning policy also expressed concern about for this location. They first removing the two homes. He said considered the existing busi- during May and June the developer ness/commercial direction of the withdrew the commercial PUD appli- master plan and evaluated the cation and decided to only devel- appropriateness of that direction. opment the Jiffy Lube and the Mr. They also reviewed the appropri- Brake. ateness of amending the master plan to reflect medium density He said the Planning Commis- residential uses for the two sion reviewed this application on homes. Lastly they evaluated the June 8 for a conditional use for a appropriateness of low to medium specialty-type auto center, and density residential use for the they also recognized that the two property. homes remained with a "C-1" zon- ing. He said the homes would not He said following the Plan- be included as part of the devel- ning Commission' s review, they opment but had the potential to moved to amend the East Central develop into any "C-1" permitted Neighborhood Plan of 1984 to or conditional use. He said these reflect medium density residential properties could develop separate- use for the homes located at 409 90-79 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 and 411 South 800 East, and they island if the zoning was changed. reviewed the "C-1" zoning. He said if the two homes developed Cindy Cromer, East Central independently of the uses on 400 Neighborhood resident, focused her South, there would be no direct comments on the individual hard- access from 400 South. Additional ship associated with this case. signage, building styles, nature She said hasty decisions by those of use and hours of operation involved and not the city' s re- could impact the residential quirements had created the hard- amenity for 800 East. ships. She said the public inter- est clearly supported the down- He said the Planning Commis- zoning and those in favor included sion determined this was an unde- the principal and the PTA of sirable situation for Bennion Bennion Elementary School, the school and undesirable for pre- Salt Lake City Board of Education, serving the neighborhood character the East Central Community Coun- of the area. He said the Planning cil, and the planning staff and Commission recommended rezoning Planning Commission of Salt Lake the properties at 409, 411, and City. She said supporting docu- 429 South 800 East to "R-5" in ments included the East Central order to promote residential Master Plan, the draft housing amenities, ensure compatibility policy, the draft East Downtown with Bennion Elementary School, Master Plan, and a proposed 10th and ensure conformity with the Ward Historic District. She urged East Central Neighborhood plan as the Council to base their decision amended by the Planning Commis- on the city' s policies and plan- sion. ning documents. Councilmember Pace said she F.C. Stangl, 6270 South received a letter from Steven Vancott Road, said the issue he Boyden, president of the Salt Lake wanted to address was the confis- City Board of Education, which catory nature of rezoning the "C- stated that they wanted to convert 1" property, to which the owners Bennion school to offices should objected. He said the property the population change. She asked owners had paid taxes for 10 years if they would lose that option if on property zoned "C-1" and they the zoning changed from "R-7" to had the right to use the property "R-5" . Mr. Parker said if the as zoned. He expressed his opin- zoning changed to "R-5" they would ion that this was a discriminatory lose some of the conditional use zoning since only two homes would rights, but they could take their be included. request back through the condi- tional use and rezoning process if He said people had the right the situation changed dramatically to use their property or be com- enough to warrant use of the pensated for the property taken school as an office use. away from them. He expressed his opinion that the property as zoned Councilmember Pace asked if had a significant value and the their request would be considered owners should be compensated for spot zoning. Mr. Parker said the that value. He said he thought property would be incorporated Councilmember Pace's question into the adjoining "C-1" zone at regarding the school was signifi- that time. Mrs. Pace said this cant. He said before the school would leave the two homes as an was built, they indicated their 90-80 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 intention to use the building for preferred to stay their. office space if at some point there was no longer the need for a Nancy Saxton, 164 South 900 school in the area. East, supported the downzoning. She said the "C-1" zone was incon- He said he thought proper sistent with the other residential planning would not allow two zoning in the area and was incon- houses, 41 feet wide and 100 feet sistent with the master plan of deep, to be zoned "R-5" . He said 1984. She said it was important the properties would not accommo- to be consistent and have a con- date the uses allowed in an "R-5" sistent message in the East Cen- zone. He said they would be an tral Neighborhood so businesses island and unusable. knew the limits. Councilmember Godfrey pointed Ed Leeflang, 771 East 600 out that property taxes were based South, supported the commercial on use and not zoning. zoning. He said the neighborhood was depressed and housing was Councilmember Pace asked Mr. boarded-up, which caused transient Stangl if he had an interest in traffic in the area and depreciat- either of the houses. Mr. Stangl ed the property values. He said said he had an option to purchase there was recently a fire in a the home at 409 South. He said he vacant home on Hawthorn Avenue and took this option after the Plan- he was concerned for the safety of ping Commission ratified the his children when they were play- existing "C-1" zone. He said he ing in the neighborhood. He said then took out a permit to change the area needed development in the Mr. Brake to a Pegasus Record order to improve the community. Store, from a conditional use to a He said he had a large investment permitted use. He said he was in his property and supported a acting sympathetically with the development which would improve neighborhood since the record the community. store wouldn't have a driveway on to 800 East or cause increased Johan Leeflang, 409 South 800 traffic. East, said the people who wanted the rezoning had changed strategy Councilmember Pace asked Mr. several times over the last 11 Stangl if he purchased the option months. He said last spring they before or after he withdrew his protested because they said a petition for a PUD. Mr. Stangl business at 409 South would said he had an option previously increase danger to children who but let it expire. He said after walked to school. He said traffic the Planning Commission ratified estimates of between 80 to 100 the "C-1" zone he reinstated the cars a day concerned the petition- option to purchase. He said he ers, yet they requested a teacher then pursued obtaining a permit to parking lot and student drop-off add parking to his project. zone at 409 South, which proposal would increase traffic three Councilmember Horrocks asked times. about the other house at 411 South since Mr. Stangl only had an He said at the next meeting option to buy the house at 409 their arguments were that low- South. Mr. Stangl said Mr. income housing needed to be pre- Leeflang lived in the house and served. He agreed that housing 90-81 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 was important but questioned why refund his earnest money on his the petitioners targeted his new home, the fees to hold his new property. He said during the last home were nonrefundable, and the 10 years the city allowed 19 homes fees paid for the survey on his to be removed from his block in present home were nonrefundable. order to improve business opportu- He said he would lose in excess of nities and school expansion. He $1, 200. He said the Veterans said his home and his father' s Administration would hold his new home were the only two remaining home until March 19, 1990. He homes on their portion of the asked the Council to either table block. the petition to rezone his proper- ty or deny the request. He said during the past 10 years 70 dwellings were destroyed Sybren Leeflang, 411 South within a one-block radius of his 800 East, opposed the downzoning home. He said Salt Lake City of his property. He said he Corporation owned much of the intended to reopen his business at vacant land and there were dozens the end of the year and if his of boarded-up duplexes and homes. property was rezoned he would have He said if low-income housing was to leave the neighborhood. He a problem, he suggested that steps supported the business use in the would have been taken long ago to area. place the existing buildings back into service. He also said if Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. low-income housing was important, Leeflang how long his business had why was his property zoned "C-1" been closed. He said it had been in the 1970s. closed about 1 and 1/2 years but he planned to reopen as soon as he He said at a third meeting, retired. He said the business had petitioners wanted the homes to been at 409 and 411 South. be recognized as historical land- marks. He said during the meeting Councilmember Hale asked Mr. of December 7, 1989, the Zoning Leeflang which home he lived in. Commission denied the request to Mr. Leeflang said he lived at 411 rezone the property, and comment- South. ed that the land had been commer- cial and was intended to be com- Councilmember Godfrey asked mercial. He said after waiting 8 if Mr. Leeflang's business would months for the Planning Commis- still be allowed. Allen Johnson, sion' s decision, he sold his home planning director, said if it was to F.C. Stangl Construction Compa- a legally constituted business in ny and purchased a new home. current operation, the business could continue as a nonconforming Mr. Leeflang said on January use if the property was downzoned. 18, 1990, the Planning Commission He said if the zoning changed and reconsidered their decision. He there was no business then it said he explained to them that couldn't become nonconforming. He downzoning the property would said the business could possibly place him in an awkward position operate under the home occupation and financial jeopardy. The ordinance. Planning Commission overturned their previous decision and recom- Councilmember Hale said both mended downzoning. He said the of the homes are now zoned "C-1" Veterans Administration refused to and could be used for business 90-82 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 so Mr. Leeflang could reestablish Stangl on variances that he want- his business at 411 South. But if ed. He said the only problem was the property was downzoned, he when the Planning Commission in wouldn't be able to operate his December voted to not downzone the business. property according to their own initiative. Josephine Platt, PTA presi- dent of Bennion Elementary School, Nick Colessides, attorney said she was concerned about the representing Mr. Stangl, said in safety of children going to and his opinion the proceedings before from school. She said with an the Salt Lake City Council were added parking lot and another improper. He referred to Salt driveway, there would be a lot of Lake City Ordinances, Sections 21- traffic. She said children were 08-010 through 21-08-040 which currently picked up and dropped stated that a petition had to off and the traffic generated was first come before the Council and static. She said she had no then be referred to the Planning objection to the Leeflang' s use of Commission. He said this process the property for their business was not followed and he suggested but expressed concern that Mr. that the only proper action would Stangl 's development would cause be to refer the matter. He said increased traffic. She supported he presented his concerns to city the downzoning and said if the attorney Bruce Baird. school was later closed, she did not object to the area being up Roger Cutler, city attorney, zoned. said Mr. Colessides was suggesting that petitions could not be initi- Councilmember Whitehead ated at the Planning Commission pointed out that the Council could and then brought to the Council; not control what allowable busi- the petition had to be filed first ness went into a commercial zone. with the Council and then referred back to the Planning Commission. Tony Reiter, 842 East 500 He said Mr. Baird did not agree South, Chairman of the East Cen- with that argument and believed tral Community Council, said one the Planning Commission could year ago the community was con- initiate a petition. Mr. Cutler fronted with the construction of said apparently this issue came up an auto mini-mall in the area, before the Planning Commission which would remove two houses and without a formal petition identi- be next to an elementary school fying who originated the request. and across the street from a He indicated that he would have to church. He said the community, research the facts. the PTA, and school officials opposed the project. Mr. Colessides suggested that the petition must fail because the He said Mr. Stangl scaled jurisdictional elements had failed back the project to only include causing a denial of due process. the two properties on 400 South, which pleased the neighborhood. He Teresa Piele, 363 South 1000 said the Planning Commission East, said neighborhood represen- initiated the downzoning in order tatives appeared several times to preserve the two houses and before the school board for sup- keep the project on 400 South and port to downzone Bennion school . the neighborhood supported Mr. She said the school board listened 90-83 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 to their appeal and voted unani- cil voted for the downzoning, he mously to support the downzoning. wanted the decision to be condi- tional upon a legal review. Virginia Byrd Reiter, 842 East 500 South, expressed her Councilmember Hardman asked opinion that this issue should Mr. Johnson to clarify the issue have been dealt with in the Plan- regarding the parking lot at 409 ping Commission. She said their South. Mr. Johnson said the initial decision caused a period planning staff determined that the of uncertainty in which Mr. Leef- parking lot addition constituted lang proceeded with his plans. an amendment to the conditional She said had the Planning Commis- use. He said the original sion initially supported the project, Mr. Brake and Jiffy Lube, downzoning, Mr. Stangl could have had been approved as a conditional had what he wanted and the two use in a "C-1" zone. He said Mr. homes would have been saved. She Stangl filed a request to add a asked the Council to support the parking lot after it was decided downzoning. that Pegasus Records would become the tenant rather than Mr. Brake. Councilmember Hale said this He said the parking lot would was a highly commercialized area affect the design criteria imposed and as he saw the situation, the by the Board of Adjustment for the only thing that would happen was project and legal staff upheld the that 409 South would be converted planning staff' s interpretation to a parking lot and 411 South that the parking lot would be an would be used by Mr. Leeflang for amendment to the conditional use an allowable business. He said it which had been approved. was inconsistent to downzone an area with only two houses when the He said under the zoning adjoining area ( 400 South) was ordinance Mr. Stangl had the right commercial. He said two people to seek an administrative review would be highly injured by down- by the Board of Adjustment, which zoning this property and in the was in the process. Mr. Johnson future Bennion school may possibly said Mr. Stangl also filed a be used as a commercial use. He request to amend his conditional suggested that downzoning the use approval. He said if the area seemed like a move in the Board of Adjustment ruled that the wrong direction. parking lot did not constitute an amendment to the conditional use, Councilmember Hardman said he the city could issue a building supported the comments made by the permit for the parking lot. Or if East Central Community Council, the Board of Adjustment recommend- the school board, the PTA, and the ed that the conditional use expan- majority of the residents living sion be approved, the city could in the area. also issue a building permit. Councilmember Whitehead ex- Councilmember Godfrey asked pressed his concern about how the how the rezoning would affect this downzoning would affect the prop- situation since it was already erty value. He said he also felt before the Board of Adjustment. uneasy about the procedure that Mr. Johnson said if the Board of this petition followed. Adjustment upheld the administra- tive appeal or approved the expan- Mr. Cutler said if the Coun- sion of the conditional use, the 90-84 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 city would issue a building permit Mr. Johnson said the based on the Board of Adjustment's Planning Commission action to decision. request the downzoning preceded Mr. Stangl filing applications to Mr. Cutler said that Mr. amend the conditional use and Stangl had a nonconforming use requesting an administrative because he had a vested right to appeal. proceed under the old ordinance even if the Council downzoned the Councilmember Pace said she area. He said if the Council basically supported the East downzoned the area and the Board Central Master Plan but had of Adjustment denied Mr. Stangl ' s difficulty with the fact that the requests, there could be no devel- two houses were isolated. She opment as proposed. He said Mr. also mentioned that the board of Stangl ' s point was that he would education wanted an option to use suffer economic loss because the the school as an office building. value of the property he optioned She asked the planning staff how would be worth less as a non- they arrived at the "R-5" zoning. conforming use on a downzoned parcel than on a parcel zoned "C- Mr. Parker said the staff 1" . He said Mr. Stangl may choose recommended "R-5" because the area not to proceed which would leave south of the school and the two Mr. Leeflang with a financial homes was zoned "R-5" . He said loss. the school and the homes would be included in a large "R-5" area Mr. Cutler said Mr. Baird which encompassed the residential informed him that Mr. Stangl had property to the south, east, and filed his option and application west. for permits before the Planning Commission voted to downzone the Councilmember Pace asked Mr. property so the Scherbal Decision Parker about the long-term future was not applicable. This meant of the homes if the property was that Mr. Stangl had a vested rezoned. Mr. Parker said if the right. parcels were developed indepen- dently, they would each accommo- Councilmember Kirk asked why date a duplex or 3-plex; if the the Council should consider this properties were combined, an 8- issue until it was resolved before plex could be constructed. He the Board of Adjustment. said this issue was before the Councilmember Godfrey said the Council because staff believed it Council felt compelled to act but was appropriate for the City wasn't getting a clear indication Council to give a clear direction about what would happen if they to the Board of Adjustment. He did. Councilmember Pace said the said they also wanted to establish Council had not received a copy a clear land use policy for the of Mr. Baird's opinion or re- future on these two properties as sponse. Councilmember Horrocks well as for the school. He said said Mr. Leeflang only had six they wanted to avoid a disjointed days until he would lose money on commercial development at this his new home. Councilmember Hale location with access on 800 East. asked why the Council would want to downzone the property if Mr. Councilmember Horrocks said Stangl could get what he wanted he couldn't equate why it was through the Board of Adjustment. important to save the two homes 90-85 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 when one property owner wanted to Mr. Stangl withdrew his applica- sell. He said conceivably someone tion it left the commercial zoning could construct an 8-plex but he oriented to 800 East, which was a wondered who would do it and when potential historic district. He they would do it. He asked if the said to let that property develop property would become an eyesore independently of the 400 South for several years. commercial strip was to encourage commercial stripping of 800 East. Mr. Johnson said the direc- tion that his office had received Councilmember Pace asked if from the administration and the the proposed parking lot was Council, through its adoption of required for the record store. various planning documents, was to Mr. Johnson said it was not. save every dwelling unit in the city. He said Salt Lake City had Councilmember Kirk referred more vacant commercial and indus- to the Curtis School issue, which trial property than the county caused a major problem in her could absorb in 20 years, but area, and said she didn't want to housing was under extreme stress. base a decision on what the school He said the trend in commercial board might do if the school was expansion had been to buy cheap closed. residential property instead of using the vacant commercial prop- Councilmember Hardman said erty which already existed. He the school board was a major said within 2 blocks of this site property owner which supported the there were 15 acres of vacant downzoning. commercial property. Councilmember Pace said she He said they were in the wanted to keep the development on process of adopting a housing ele- 400 South from turning the corner ment to address vacant dwellings onto 800 East. She said having and provide incentives to property the parking lot wouldn't be a bad owners to put the units back on idea but she didn't want the the residential market. He said buildings to encroach. She asked Salt Lake City needed to bring if it was possible to allow the people back in because currently parking lot but keep the buildings the city was losing 1, 000 people from turning the corner. Mr. per year. He said every action Johnson said if the homes were regarding rezoning or land use not downzoned, development could change from now on would have take place within the confines of either a positive or negative the "C-1" zone. If the Board of impact on the residential environ- Adjustment amended the application ment in this area. to allow the parking lot, it would be linked to the development on He said the 400 South commer- 400 South so any change would cial strip was a vital use but the require a revision to the condi- concern with the property in tional use. question was that the commercial use would turn the corner and Councilmember Hale said that extend down 800 East. He said many commercial developments along when the planning staff first 400 South had "tuned the corner. " supported the project, which Mr. Johnson said that was correct included the two homes, it was and it caused instability because oriented toward 400 South. When others wanted to do the same 90-86 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 thing. He said if the city con- issue before the Council was tinued to allow commercial devel- whether or not to rezone the area opment along 400 South to "turn in keeping with the East Central the corner" , this would eventually Neighborhood Plan. He said he lead to a complete policy change thought it was critical to do so with respect to the central commu- in order to preserve the neighbor- nity. Mr. Parker said they didn't hood and the housing that existed want past land use policies to in the area. He said his area had direct future land use policies. a problem with commercial en- croachment out of the central Councilmember Godfrey said business district, along 400 the two houses were in a "C-1" South, and into the residential zone but southward was zoned neighborhood. He said he hoped residential. He said the resi- the houses at 409 and 411 would dents' request was not inconsis- remain as single-family dwellings. tent and they wanted consistency (0 90-6) and clear land use policy in this area. He said if the city allowed NOTE: Because of the late development to encroach on resi- hour and the fact that the issues dential use it would continue, were related, the Council held In regards to financially injuring public hearings 5 and 6 simulta- people, he said he would have neously expected the city attorney' s office to bring that to the Coun- #5 RE: A public hearing cil ' s attention, which they had at 7:00 p.m. to receive public not done. He said people assumed comment and consider adopting a that because the property was resolution approving the 1988-1992 zoned "C-1" the owners paid more Community Development Plan. taxes, which wasn' t true. He said taxes were based on use and not #6 RE: A public hearing at zoning. 7:10 p.m. to receive public com- ment concerning general housing He said the issue was wheth- and community development needs er or not the Council could accept which can be addressed by Communi- the "R-5" zone as a way to protect ty Development Block Grant funds. the integrity of the residential area. In reference to the Curtis ACTION: Councilmember Kirk school issue, he said it was a moved and Councilmember Hardman mistake that the city ever zoned seconded to continue the public it commercial because when the hearing to Tuesday, March 20, school closed it was used for 1990, at 6:00 p.m. , which motion commercial purposes. He said in carried, all members voted aye. the best interest of the neighbor- hood Bennion school had to be DISCUSSION: Stephanie Harpst, rezoned too. He said the area community and economic develop- beyond the homes and the school ment, said the purpose of to- was zoned "R-5" . night' s hearings were to receive public comment on the three-year Councilmember Hardman said community development plan, and to according to the sequence of receive public comment regarding events it seemed clear that the general community development Planning and Zoning petition took needs. precedence over Mr. Stangl 's petition. He reiterated that the She said although HUD no 90-87 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 longer required the three-year people back into the city. She plans, Salt Lake City thought it also said money was needed to help was sound planning to prepare with the food pantries. them. She said the date on the plan was 1988 because they were Jacqueline Greb, executive including 14th year. director of the Children' s Museum, said they needed funding to im- She said the crux of the CDBG prove their space and provide more plan was found on pages 9 and 10 programs. She said there was a which summarized current and problem with children finding proposed target areas. She said things to do and the Children' s they proposed reopening the Museum provided that opportunity. Jackson, Northwest, and Central City target areas. She said the Patrick Poulin, executive stabilization in those areas director of Travelers' Aid, said seemed to be slipping so they he was pleased that Central City wanted to protect the city' s was being reopened as a target investment with sidewalk programs, area because he had been concerned housing rehab, etc. She said they about the homes closing in that proposed closing the East Central area. He said CDBG funding was and People' s Freeway target areas critical to provide services to in July of 1991, and they proposed the homeless. He said an average closing the South Central target of 379 homeless people per day area and the Sugar House areas were provided shelter. He also this year. She said they suggest- said funding was needed to rehab ed opening the Glendale and Onequa single-room facilities for people areas for limited housing and who were ready to move from the sidewalk repairs . She summarized shelter. He said a lot of single- by saying that the plan was a room units were being replaced by guide for the target areas. commercial units. She said HUD required the Steve Blackman, director of hearing concerning general housing the New Hope Multicultural Center, and community development needs. said they served refugees in order She said they wanted public input to meet their basic needs as well about how the CDBG program was as educational needs. He said doing and what kind of needs were there were 9, 000 to 10, 000 in the community that could be refugees living is Salt Lake addressed with CDBG funds. County. He said the New Hope Center needed $23, 000 to finish Councilmember Godfrey asked their basement renovation which if it would be appropriate to would allow recreational facili- continue both hearings since so ties or potentially a day care many people had left. Cindy Gust- center. He said refugees were low- Jenson, Council Executive Direc- income people and New Hope helped tor, recommended that the Council them become self sufficient. accept the comments from those who stayed and continue the hearing Norma Matheson, board member next week. of the Children' s Museum, asked for funding to help modify their Mary Allen, 364 East 700 building. She said the building South, said more funds were needed was a significant part of the city to upgrade, remodel, and rehab landscape and improved the north older homes in order to bring end of the city. 90-88 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 Wilfred Simpson, 1159 South Kim Anderson, Community 400 East, supported funding to Development Advisory Committee, purchase property adjacent to the said they received $10 million in Nettie Gregory Community Center. requests and had $4 million to He said Salt Lake County was in allocate. He briefly outlined the process of selling the proper- goals, objectives and policies of ty adjacent to their center which CDAC which included: 1 ) using CDBG they used for parking. He said funds for street improvements and the county abandoned the property parks for neighborhood level in the 1970s but they were not services only; 2 ) funding planning willing to donate it to the cen- division proposals that were not ter. He said in 1981 they asked neighborhood oriented from general for a long-term lease which the funds; and 3 ) using CDBG funds to county denied. He said the Black benefit lower-income people and Community had worked diligently to not to fund projects that benefit- build the center and needed the ed the city as a whole. use of this parcel. He said the county was selling the property He said no single-room pro- for $54, 500 and he requested posals were submitted to CDAC but consideration for funding so they funding had been requested from could purchase the land. the RDA. He said the requests were turned down because RDA said Jeff Fox, executive director funds were not available. He for Cross Roads Urban Center, said suggested that single-room facili- there were trends in housing that ties could be funded from tax the city needed to address. He increment money. said the downtown area was reviv- (T 90-8) ing but the neighborhoods were suffering. He said land below The meeting adjourned at 1300 East decreased in value as 11:15 p.m. did land on the west side and in the north west area. He said there was a problem with boarded- up housing and a drop in popula- COUNCIL CHAIR tion. Lastly, he supported funding for the food pantry. Wyllis Dorman, 634 East 700 CITY RECORDER South, suggested that when the Council considered the projects they look at the guidelines. She said she thought the financial guidelines for funding allocations were too high ( $28, 000 for a family of four) . She suggested that funds should be allocated according to the very low income guidelines ( $18, 000 for a family of four) . In a neighborhood receiving funding she said at least 50% of the families should meet the low-income criteria. She also said affordable neighborhood amenities needed to be funded. 90-89 or-) SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tov-- CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER A ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING �( i 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, March 20, 1990 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. 1 . Report of the Executive Director. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1 . Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: 1 . Historical Landmark Committee Consider approving the appointment of David Svikhart to the Historical Landmark Committee. (I 90-9) Staff recommendation: Approve. 1 2. Street Name Change Petition #400-782 Set date to hold a non-advertised public hearing on April 3, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. , to receive public comment and consider adopting a resolution approving the honorary name of "Panther Way" for 300 North between 200 West and 400 West, pursuant to Petition #400-782. _wi "Cy_Acya (P 90-66) PO i PA) aiellefAre Staff recommendation: Set date. ILO' Ma/Kg } ) PfiIthind diduncoi��l WaTito . 3. Restrictive Covenants/Jazz Arena Set date to hold a non-advertised public hearing on April 10, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. , to receive public comment and consider adopting a resolution modifying the restrictive covenants on Block 79, 84 and the south half of Block 85, Plat A Salt Lake City Survey, to allowl the construction� of the Jazz Arena and Plaza. C�,I -, ,p�� „✓--���Z�� UU /I� (W 9 0-3) 1:WWa/lam/J `,o c`J� Staff recommendation: Set date10 c - ' 4. Council Office Staffing Document 1°14 (ei go / Consider adopting an ordinance amending the staffing document for the Office of the City Council to eliminate the Auditor/Budget Analyst position and establish a Community Development Coordinator ,position at one Full Time Equivalent employee. ia, ea,) Cea�,�,vcy� (R 90-2) Staff recommendation: Adopt. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1 . Ordinance: Recreation Advisory Board Consider adopting an ordinance amending section 2.37.030 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to increasing the number of voting members on Cl the Salt Lake City Recreation Advisory Board. Ai , a & Aje'Ll Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. . 2. Ordinance: Golf Course Group Reservation Set date to hold a public hearing on April 3, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. , to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending section 15. 16.035A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating o group reservations at City golf courses. _ / ‘1/ 4 01 (0 90-11) gli-cq < (Lad ia Staff recommendation: Set date and refer to C•mmittee of the,, Whole. 0 �,� •i/ f1'J %v^2 3. Board of Adjustment Consider approving the appointment of Tim Chambless to the Board of Adjustment. (I 90-3) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 4. Golf Advisory Board Consider approving the appointment of Terri Hartlauer to the Golf Advisory Board. (I 90-5) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 5. Library Board Consider approving the appointment of Colleen Minson to the Library Board. (I 90-13) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 6. Urban Forestry Board Consider approving the appointment of Kenneth E. Louder to the Urban Forestry Board. (I 90-15) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 7. Airport Authority Consider approving the reappointment of Patrick Shea to the Airport Authority Board. (I 90-11) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent . 8. Central Business Improvement District Consider approving the reappointment of John Williams to the Central Business Improvement District. (I 90-12) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent . 9. Golf Advisory Board Consider approving the reap ointment of William Cutting to the Golf Adv_isor-y-Boar-ci Oi(/ems(701 (I 90-5) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. 10. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Consider approving the reappointment of Afton Kyriopoulos to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. (I 90-6) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent . 11 . Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Consider approving the reappointment of Kathy Scheaffer to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. (I 90-6) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. 12. Housing Advisory and Appeals Board Consider approving the reappointment of Maj-Greth Holmberg to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. (I 90-6) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. 13. Mosquito Abatement District Consider approving the reappointment of Byron Haslam to the Mosquito Abatement District. (I 90-8) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. 14. Mosquito Abatement District Consider approving the reappointment of Jim Webb to the Mosquito Abatement District. (I 90-8) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. 15. Tracy Aviary Board Consider approving the reappointment of John Wennergren to the Tracy Aviary Board. (I 90-14) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent. 16. Tracy Aviary Board Consider approving the reappointment of Cindy White to the Tracy Aviary Board. (I 90-14) Staff recommendation: Refer to consent F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:00 p.m. 1 . CDBG 14th - 17th Year Community Development Plan/Continuation from 3/13 Receive public comment and consider adopting a resolution approving the 1988-1992 Community Development Plan. (T 90-8) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt resolution. 2. HUD Hearing: Community Development Needs/Continuation from 3/13 Receive public comment concerning general housing and community development needs which can be addressed by Community Development Block Grant funds. (T 90-8) Staff recommendation: Close hearing. 3. Budget Amendment #5 Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 1989-90 Budget. (B 89-5) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 6:20 p.m. 4. Interlocal Agreement: Health Care Facilities Bonds (TEFRA HEARING) (C 90-102) ***Cancelled - To Be Rescheduled*** 6:30 p.m. 5. John Schaar Petition # 400-582 Re: Annexation Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance recognizing the adoption of amendment 14-B to the Master Annexation Policy Declarations, extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the Carrigan View Phase I Annexation and Zoning, pursuant to Petition #400-582-87. T $ P^ y� (�,� (P 90-45) �. iu-r Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. H. ADJOURNMENT. ff FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: March 16, 1990 BY: A,{4 CI R CORDER CHIEF DEPUTY STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 16th day of March, 1990 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. CI RECO ER CHIEF DEPUTY Subscribed and /3worn to before me this 16th day of March, 1990. /17 e,/ (e7:/1 Notary Public residi g in he State of Utah ` My Commission Expires: r ;.r N Public I �:% c 451 So.S�tr%St.Fim 415 I kr. * , My t4 1993 L state of Utah ;e54...,) E CUTIVE DIR>; OR ,6,2j CRAIG E. PETERSON SALT LAKE CITY C RPO TION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council March 7, 1990 RE: Petition No. 400-782 submitted by West High School Recommendation: That the City Council hold a non-advertised public hearing on April 3, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-782 submitted by Kristen Clawson for West High School. The petitioners are requesting that 300 North between 200 West and 400 West be given the honorary name of "Panther Way". Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: The appropriate City Departments have reviewed this petition and have recommended approval of the honorary street name. This request was received before the new ordinance on street name changes, therefore, a filing fee was not charged but the request was reviewed under the new criteria outlined in the ordinance. The petitioner has agreed to pay the cost of construction and installation of the sign, and also for any replacement costs due to vandalism or theft. The sign will not by installed until a check in the amount of $110.00 has been received by the Transportation Engineer's Office. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary resolution and is ready for your action. Su mitted by: B. Z terim Directot lf/ RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 (Approving the honorary name of "Panther Way" for 300 North between 200 West and 400 West pursuant to Petition No. 400-782-89 ) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has received Petition No. 400-782- 89 relating to the change of name of 300 North between 200 West and 400 West to "Panther Way" ; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it appropriate to change the name on an honorary basis without affecting the official name of the street . NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that it does hereby: 1 . Approve the "honorary" name of "Panther Way" for 300 North between 200 West and 400 West subject to payment by petitioner for all costs associated with this change. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:ap SALT LAKE, CITY CORPORATIONS ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP - . PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 January 9, 1990 Mike Zuhl, Acting Director Conuuunity and Economic Development City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-782 - West High Honorary Street Name Change Request Dear Mike: Attached please find Petition 400-782 from West High School requesting Salt Lake City to give 300 North Between 200 West and 400 West the honorary name of Panther Way. The recommendation from the City departments is that this should be an "honorary" name for the street which would not effect the official legal designation of the street. Transportation Engineering has identified the following breakdown for the sign installation: Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Cost 2 ea. Name Plate $21.00 $42.00 2 ea. Street Name Signs 17.00 34.00 2 hr. Labor (1 man) 10.50 21.00 Equipment 10.00 Hardware 3.00 Total $110.00 A check for the total amount, payable to Salt Lake City Corporation, must be paid to the Transportation Engineering office before implementation. Page 2 Mike Zuhl January 9, 1990 Re: Petition 400-782 - West High Honorary Street Name Change Request It is the planning staff's recommendation that this petition be forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and adoption of this street name change by resolution designating Panther Way as an honorary street name and not changing the official street name of 300 North. Additionally, the high school will be required to pay the cost of construction and installation of the sign, and also for any replacement costs due to vandalism or theft. If you have any questions, please call contact Janice Jardine or myself. Sincerely, Allen. C. John on, AICP Plank ng Dir ctor ACJ:JJ cc: Kirsten Clawson, Petitioner West High Senior Class President JOSEPH R. ANDERSON SALT LAKE-CITY CORPORATION PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 507 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7775 January 4 , 1989 Janice Jardine Community Planner Room 406 - Building RE: Petition #400-782 - West High School "Honorary" Street Name Change Dear Janice: The Division of Transportation ' s site review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed "Honorary" street name of 300 North from 200 to 400 West subject to the following : 1) Applicant must comply to all items of the Salt Lake City Policy No. 6 . 03 . 500 for street name change request . 2 ) All abutting property owners affected by the "Honorary" name change have signed an agreement of approval . 3 ) In compliance with Section VII of the city policy, the cost breakdown for the sign installation changes are as follows : Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Cost 2 ea . name plate $21 . 00 S42 . 00 2 ea . St . name signs 17 . 00 34 . 00 2 hr . labor ( 1 man ) 10 . 50 21 . 00 equipment 10 . 00 hardware 3 . 00 TOTAL $110 . 00 A check for the total amount, payable to Salt Lake City Corporation , must be sent before implementation to the following address with approval documentation: Salt Lake City Corporation c/o Kevin Young , Eng. I 333 South 200 East - Suite 201 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 We recommend the City require reimbursement be received within 30 days for replacement of missing or damaged "Honorary" signs . Failure to do so would result in re-application for reinstallation. Sincerel /, Scott R . Vaterlaus Traffic Jngineer 1 BDW/lh cc : Bar. -y Walsh Ste ;e Meyer Kevin Young fi ] PALMER DEPAULIS SALT°LAk GUY CORPORATION; MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. CITY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City Engineering Division 444 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7871 TO: JANICE JARDINE PLANNING FROM: HARRY EWING ' I . ENGINEERING DATE: JANUARY 8 , 1990 SUBJECT: PETITION 400-782 WEST HIGH SCHOOL REQUESTING AN HONORARY NAME OF PANTHER WAY FOR 300 NORTH BETWEEN 200 WEST AND 400 WEST STREET This department has reviewed this petition and will recommend approval of the honorary name change; however , with a stipulation of strict adherence to the City ' s latest policy regarding street name change . HE:cp cc: Vault LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. r DIRECTOR WENI)ELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. SALT 6 MIT ( g -D `Q f SUPERINTENDENT �-` �� �Lot �%� di R ��® ' ,I�/ WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS - a E. TIM DOXEY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT Water Supply & Waterworks PALMER DEPAULIS WATER RECLAMATION Water Reclamation MAYOR JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. CHIEF FINANCE& 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER TO: JANICE JARDINE PLANNING & ZONING FROM: E. T. DOXEY WATER RECLAMATION SUPERINTENDENT DATE: JANUARY 1 , 1990 SUBJECT : PETITION NO. 400-782 - WEST HIGH SCHOOL REQUEST FOR AN HONORARY NAME OF PANTHER WAY FOR 300 NORTH BETWEEN 200 WEST AND 400 WEST The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the above noted petition and has no objections to the Petitioner ' s request. There are no water or sewer conflicts . If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Mr. Ray Eastman at 483-6787 . /kg FORMS cc: File DEC 0; 1989 -7 WEST HIGH SCHOOL v ' , 241 North 300 West 1 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 ITelephone 355-5347 +W E S T,1 .0 Ilum iosene PANTHERS December 4 , 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis, Here is a copy of a letter sent to your Public Works Director, Joe Anderson. I thought you would like a copy. Thank you for all you have done for West High School. I am excited for such a project to take place. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Kirsten Clawson Senior Class President Vof) • HI WEST H SCHOOL G r ' 241 North 300 West 11 : I Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 'WEST : Telephone 355-5347 summtimir PANTHERS December 4 , 1989 Mr. Joseph R. Anderson Public Works Director Department of Public Works 451 South State Street Suite 514 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Anderson: West High School, "The School of Scholars and Champions, " kicked off the centennial celebration in September of 1989 . Several activities and festivals will be held until the culmination of these events in September of 1990 . West High School is the oldest high school established in Utah and has a long line of fine traditions and goals. The Senior class, with support of the Studentbody, Administration, and Alumni Association, would like to present a gift to West High and its Alumni that will last a lifetime. We would like to request that the Salt Lake City Public Works Department, under the direction of Salt Lake City Corporation, to make an additional name to 300 North (in between 200 West and 400 West) to PANTHER WAY. We would like to present this gift to the students, staff, faculty, and alumni during our traditional Pride Week Assembly on Friday, January 12th at 9: 15 a.m. in our Field House. Pride Week will be held January 8th through the 12th. Each day, the students will participate in activities demonstrating their pride towards West High. It would be an honor and a privilege to us if you and Mayor DePaulis could come to our assembly and present this gift on behalf of Salt Lake City, "The City of Scholars and Champions, " to the studentbody and Alumni of West High School, a national recognized school of excellence. I look forward to hearing from you about this exciting opportunity and if I can be of any help please contact me at my home (355-7036) . Thank you very much. Sincerely, Kirsten Clawson Senior Class President cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis Harold Trussel, Principal John Bennion, Superintendent West High Alumni Association, President CRAIG E. PETERSON ALj rT®a� 111 "•�O. RP � �0 [ DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 T0: Salt Lake City Council March 15, 1990 Re: Restrictive Covenants on Blocks 79, 84 and the south half of Block 85 Recommendation: That the City Council hold a non-advertised public hearing on April 10, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss modifications to the restrictive covenants on Block 79, 84 and the south half of Block 85, Plat A Salt Lake City Survey to allow the construction of the Jazz Arena and Plaza. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: In preparing the necessary arrangements for the Jazz Arena a restrictive covenants agreement between Triad Utah and Salt Lake City Corporation dated May 14, 1982 was discovered. The agreement was adopted to allow Salt Lake City Corporation to set the conceptual framework of integrated des1 ,gn use, pedestrian circulation, open space, amenities and other concepts of the Triad Center protect. The agreement is still binding-to-the new-property owners because both property owners acquired the property from Triad by taking deeds in lieu of foreclosure. The modifications will allow the construction of the Jazz Arena and Plaza. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office will prepare the necessary resolution and will be ready for your review prior to the hearing. ubmitted by: 71-17° CHAAEL B. ZUHL Interim Director lf/ _ � 1 MIA EDITIMINI OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 March 16, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST—JENSON SUBJECT: STAFFING DOCUMENT CHANGE In order to make your decision to change the staffing configuration in the Council Office official, you need to adopt an ordinance amending the staffing document . You have each received a copy of the draft Community Development Coordinator job description to review in advance, and I have attached an additional copy for your convenience. I believe the job description is in keeping with your Committee of the Whole discussion. With this change, the Council staffing would include: Executive Director Community Relations Coordinator Community Development Coordinator Budget/Policy Analyst Administrative Assistant Staff Assistant Also in keeping with your Committee of the Whole discussion, $14,295 has been added to next year's budget proposal for the addition of contract budget support. The formal ordinance simply states that one position is being eliminated and the other is being added. _ -1 V . . . , . . " . . . J . RAFr - (1 - • POSITION TITLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR JOB CODE NUMBER EEO CODE ` PAY LEVEL_324 BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTATION EXEMPT (APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL)_ • JOB SUMMARY: i • • This is an appointed position reporting to the Salt Lake City Council through its Executive Director. This position's primary responsibility is to work with the City Council on community development, land use, planning and zoning and related issues and problems which need to be addressed through policy adoption, ordinance revisions, or work with the City Administration or Pnards and/or community and private organizations. TYPICAL DUTIES: - - 1. Works with Council Members individually on constituent issues impacting development, land use and related topics, for example: neighborhood zoning and c} estions and problems, work with the AcIninistration and neighborhood groins on determinations of how to handle hazardous waste sites, land transactions relating to park development and neighborhood projects, etc. Work on constituent issues will be conducted in concert with the Community Relations staff r x r. 2. Serves as Council staff contact with the Redevelopment Agency to coordinate on issues which will eventually require Council action. 3. Serves as the Council's liaison to the Utah Economic Development Corporation and related organizations to keep the Council informed of economic development activity. 4. Works with Councilmprnty.rs to respond to citizen cplictions relating to City real property transactions,• ownership of particular pieces of property, disputes over alley rights of way, etc. 5. Coordinates with community groups relating to community development and land use, including R/UDAT, the Downtown Alliance, SLACC, and others. 6. Under the direction of the Executive Director, initiates policy and ordinance changes, writing drafts of policies and ordinances for placement on Council agendas. Acts as liaison with the City Administration including the City Attorney and City Planning staff in discussion of land use actions and in the promotion of policy changes at the legislative level which will improve executive ability to administer planning and zoning and building and housing ordinances. Coordinates all land use actions of the legislative body as needed with all other affected City Departments. 7. Serves as Council Liaison to the Planning Commission and Board of .:Y_j Adjustment and other boards, commissions and committees with development �J and/or land use responsibilities. Writes staff reports to the City Council to . DRAFT evaluate recommendations of the Planning Commfssion and of the Planning Division staff to determine whether the requested actions promote the planning policies and legislative direction of the current, elected City Council. 8. Works with Council Members individually to initiate zoning changes needed in individual districts. Makes recommendations to the Council, as a whole, on land use items needing Council action. Negotiates the resolution of land use problems and issues needing action. 9. At the request of Councilmembers or the Executive Director, provides information to constituents on complex matters relating to land use planning, including master planning, zoning changes and City procedures relating to the City Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, Landmark Committee and other boards, commissions and committees with land use or development responsibilities. Advises and informs constituents in all matters relating to City Council action on land use planning, zoning and development. 10. At the direction of the Executive Director, prepares policy statements and recommendations on any legislative or policy question to be addressed by the City Council. 11. Provides research assistance to any individual Council Member or the Council as a whole on any land use issue, zoning, development, planning or other issue at the request of the Member or Executive Director. 12. Consults with Council Members to aid them in providing advice to the Mayor on board appointments relating to land use. 13. Performs other duties as assigned by the Executive Director. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 1. Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor's degree in urban planning, political science, or a related discipline and six years full time paid professional experience in urban planning or an equivalent combination of education and experience substituted on a year for year basis. 2. Ability to analyze land use issues and problems, develop alternative solutions, and coordinate processes which will aid elected officials to make final decisions addressing the issues and problems. 3. Ability to prepare and write comprehensive staff reports and recommendations regarding legislative issues. 4. Ability to think critically with respect to legislative issues and to identify and clarify the logical alternatives of action. 5. Ability to act as a mediator and negotiator to aid involved parties to effectuate compromise on difficult issues. 6. Knowledge of municipal government, its operation, organization and functions. • 7. Ability to relate well with the general public, with elected officials, supervisors and coworkers. 8. Ability to provide objective staff support to Councilmembers with varying political philosophies. 9. Possession of a valid Utah State driver's license. 10. Knowledge of word processing. WORKING CONDITIONS: 1. Little or no physical effort. Comfortable working positions, handling of light weights, intermittent sitting, standing, walking. Pleasant working conditions. 2. Considerable exposure to stress as a result of responding upon demand to 10-14 hour days; working for, and being responsive to a seven member Council and the Executive Director with varying political philosophies and sometimes opposing positions; exposure to and participation in highly- political and volatile issues. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of the work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of the personnel so classified. APPROVED BY: DATE REVISIONS APPROVED BY: REVISED DATE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: DATE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Amending the Employment Staffing Document of Salt Lake City Corporation beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT OF SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 WHICH IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 2 .52 . 020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE. PREAMBLE Salt Lake City Corporation adopted its Employment Staffing Document for the fiscal year 1989-1990 as an element of the City' s annual budget. The Employment Staffing Document was incorporated by reference in Section 2 .52. 020 of the Salt Lake City Code. The Salt Lake City Council wants to amend the City Council Employment Staffing Document to delete the position of Auditor/Budget Analyst and to add the position of Community Development Coordinator. The City Council fixed the time to consider the ordinance amending the Employment Staffing Document for March 20, 1990 . All conditions precedent for adoption of the ordinance have been met. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . The Employment Staffing Document for fiscal year 1989-90, which is incorporated by reference in Section 2 .52 . 020 subsection 3 of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be amended as follows : (a) The Auditor/Budget Analyst position shall be deleted from the City Council' s Employment Staffing Document effective May 1, 1990 . (b) The position of Community Development Coordinator shall be added to the City Council' s Employment Staffing Document effective May 1, 1990 . SECTION 2 . The City Council' s Executive Director is instructed to immediately begin recruiting for an employee to fill the newly authorized Community Development Coordinator position. SECTION 3 . This Ordinance shall be effective on May 1, 1990 . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date '/ 90 By, 11141i.441/4d) -2- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc -3- PALMER DEPAULIS �.►rr a.Z\aJ ��ii O1M�llf MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7704 March 8 , 1990 Alan Hardman , Chairperson , and Members of the Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street , Room 304 Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 Dear Alan : Attached is a proposed change to the City ' s Recreation Advisory Board ordinance . I am recommending we increase the number of voting members from seven to nine . At this time there are seven voting members on the board , each of which reside in one of the City Council districts . The proposed change will not effect geographic representation but will allow for two additional citizens to serve on this board . It is my intent that the two additional board members represent the new interest of the Steiner Aquatics Center . Rather than creating a new board to solely advise on the Steiner Aquatic Center I believe it would be more prudent to expand our current recreation board . Along with this proposed ordinance change I am transmitting two recommendations for the new appointments . These two citizens are affiliated with the Aquatics Center and I feel will represent their interests well . Sincerely , givtAA-) le4 -t&GtAkgjal Mayor PD/RBC : jf Enc . SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Salt Lake City Recreation Advisory Board) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2. 37 . 030 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE SALT LAKE CITY RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 2 . 37 . 030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Salt Lake City Recreation Advisory Board, be, and hereby is amended to read as follows : 2.37.030 Board created. There is created the Salt Lake City recreation advisory board, hereinafter referred to as "board, " which body shall consist of [ocven] nine appointed voting members. The parks director, the city attorney, the city engineer and one member of the Salt Lake City golf advisory board (designated by said golf advisory board) , shall be ex officio nonvoting members . SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST CITY RECORDER RLM:cc -2- Your Salt Lake C Parks&Recreatio. 1965 West 500 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Telephone 801 972-7800 March 12, 1990 Palmer DePaulis, Mayor John Gust, Director of Parks Scott Gardner, Recreation Director The Honorable Mayor Palmer DePaulis 451 South State Street Rm. 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Changes in the Group Reservation Policy at Municipal Golf Courses. Dear Mayor DePaulis, The Department of Parks and Recreation requests City Council action to approve the proposed amendment to ordinance 15. 16. 035A of the Salt Lake City Code and to approve changes in the City's Group Reservation policy. Recommendation The recommendation of Parks and Recreation is to approve the ordinance as amended and prepared by the City Attorney' s office, and to approve the Group Reservation Policy as prepared by Parks and Recreation. Funding No additional funding is required to implement the proposed changes, however a positive revenue impact is anticipated. If the courses are able to book the maximum number of tournaments with the maximum number of players from April 1st to September 30th the increased revenue from the new reservation fee alone would be $51, 280. 00. Since carts are required for tournaments an increase in rental fees will be seen, and the Pro ' s anticipate a higher percentage of tournament participants will hit range balls than regular players which will again increase revenues. Background and Discussion The idea of changing the group reservation policy first came up during the study of golf course revenue conducted by Cam Caldwell of the City Council staff . The golf fund will be under pressure this year to make payments on the construction bond and to pay for maintenance on two new courses while not realizing any revenue from those courses. Maximizing revenue is essential for the golf fund for the next few years. Group tournaments are a way to increase revenue and course use during slow periods. There has been considerable pressure from the public to open the courses to more tournament play. Tournaments are an important part of golf and this segment of the golfing public should be served. The additional cost for tournament play of $1. 00 per person per nine holes is a premium paid for the reservation and tee time. Legislative Documents A copy of the proposed amendment is attached as well as a copy of the entire Group Reservation Policy as proposed. Contact Person The Parks and Recreation representative responsible for briefing the Mayor and City Council is Scott Gardner, Director of Golf, who can be contacted by phone at 972-7800. Your consideration is appreciated. Would you please schedule us as soon as possible to take these changes to the City Council. We anticipate a large demand for golf this season and we want to be ready to proceed as soon as weather permits. Sincerely, ' /-- Scott Gardner Director of Golf Group Reservation ' licy Regulations : 1 . Reservations will be taken on the first working day in February at the individual golf courses . Reservations will be taken by phone or in person . 2 . The 18-hole tournament fee will be $21 . 00 _aer person ; ($2 . 00 reservation fee , $12 . 00 green fee , $7 . 00 cart) . The 9-hole tournament fee will be $10 . 50 per_person . ($1 . 00 reservation fee , $6 . 00 green fee , $3 . 50 cart) . 3 . Carts , if available , will be required for each twosome . No private carts allowed 4 . All fees must be paid one week in advance of reservation . No passes will be accepted in lieu of green fees . No refunds for no shows . No senior or junior discounts or passes will be eptea . 5 . If reservation is cancelled after payment is received , City Parks and Recreation will refund only the green fees for tee times the city is able to fill with other players . 6 . Rainouts will be rescheduled or green fees will be refunded . Golf or -Js will determine rainouts . 7 . The minimum number of foursomes is five . The maximum number -without administration approval is 20 . Laraer groups can only be scheduled with administration approval . a . to-hole golf courses will take 18-hole reservations only. 9- hoie courses may take 9-hole or 18-hole reservations . Echadc 1 . Reservtions will be taken for April through the end of the year . 2 . Tee times will be available after 11 : 00 A:1 on weekdays and ante - 1 : 03 PSI on Saturdays , Sundays , and holidays . 3 . No course will schedule more than two tournaments per week on wo ak .:,ys . Courses can schedule two weekend tournaments per urtcii , one Saturday and one Sunday or on two Sundays . 4 . After August 31st , courses will have open scheduling for tournament play. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Golf courses--group reservations ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15 .16 . 035A OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO GOLF COURSES--GROUP RESERVATIONS . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 15 . 16 . 035A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to golf courses--group reservations, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows : 15.16 . 035 Golf courses--Group reservations. Reservations for exclusive use of a course for group play, tournaments, etc. will be allowed in accordance with the following guidelines : A. Payment at least seven (7 ) days in advance of: 1 . A per person non-refundable reservation fee as follows : 18 holes $2 . 00 9 holes $1 . 00 2 . All green fees and rentals, with no green fee discount allowed and no season passes accepted. SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc -2- s-i MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD REAPPOINTMENTS NEW APPOIN MENTS • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tim Chambless to be appointed to fill a vacant alternate position, for a term extending through December 31, 1992. Mr. Chambless has taught at Weber State and the Salt Lake Valley Community College. He resides in District 6. If Mr. Chambless is appointed, one member of the board will live in District 1, none in District 2, two in District 3, one in District 4, none in District 5, one in District 6 (alternate) and none in District 7. GOLF ADVISORY BOARD Terri Hartlauer to be appointed to fill Virginia Ferguson's unexpired term, extending through January, 1994. Ms. Hartlauer is a homemaker and professional ski instructor. She resides in District 7. If Ms. Hartlauer is appointed, two members of board will live in District 1, none in District 2, none in District 3, one in District 4, one in District 5, none in District 6 and three in District 7. LIBRARY BOARD Colleen Minson to be appointed to fill a vacant position, the term extending through June 30, 1992. Ms. Minson resides in District 2 and recently completed a four-year term on the Salt Lake City Board of Education. She has six children and is committed to upgrading the level of literacy among the City's young people. If Ms. Minson is appointed, two members of the board will reside in District 1, one in District 2, one in District 3, none in District 4, none in District 5, four in District 6 and none in District 7. URBAN FORESTRY BOARD Kenneth E. Louder to be appointed to fill a vacant position, extending through April 8, 1992. Mr. Louder resides in District 5 and is an architect in the City. Qualifications for the board stipulate that one member from each Council District must serve on the board. If Mr. Louder is appointed all Districts will be represented on the board. REAPPOINTMENTS AIRPORT AUTHORITY Patrick A. Shea is to be reappointed to a second term ending January 16, 1994. Mr. Shea is General Counsel for KUTV, Channel 2. He lives in District 3. PAGE TWO CENTRAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT John W. Williams to be reappointed to fill his second term ending January, 1994. Mr. Williams is President of Gastronomy Inc. and resides in District 3. William Cutting to be reappointed to fill his second term ending January, 1994. Mr. Cutting lives in District 5 and is Senior Vice President and Chairman of the Board of Penna Powers Cutting & Haynes, Inc., an advertising agency. GOLF ADVISORY BOARD Fred Sanford to be reappointed to fill his first term extending through January, 1994. Mr. Sanford is retired from Salt Lake City Corporation and is an avid golfer. He resides in District 1. HISTORICAL LANDMARK COMMITTEE*****N:) E Louis Ulrich to be reappointed to his ***third*** three-year term extending through July 14, 1992. Mr. Ulrich lives in District 3 and is an architect with FFKR Architects. Because of the current discussions regarding the board ordinance issue, I will put this nomination on hold until it is :/ settled. Mr. Ulrich joins Michael Stransky and Peter DuP. Emerson as committee members the Mayor has nominated to serve a third term. HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD Afton Kyriopoulos to be reappointed to fill her second term extending through October 31, 1991. Ms. Kyriopoulos is a real estate agent and resides in District 7. Kathy Scheaffer to be reappointed to fill her first term extending through October 14, 1992. Ms. Scheaffer lives in District 6 and is the Executive Director of Salt Lake Neighborhood Services, Inc. Mal-Greth Holmberg to be reappointed to fill her first term extending through October 14, 1992. Ms. Holmberg resides District 1 and works in the banking business. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Byron Haslam to be reappointed to fill his third two-year term extending through December 31, 1991. During his time with the Utah Department of Health, Mr. Haslam worked with the Mosquito Abatement District. He lives in District District 1. Jim Webb to be reappointed to fill his second term extending through December 31, 1991. Mr. Webb resides in District one. He is retired from Utah Power and Light where he was an accountant. PAGE THREE ZRACY AVIARY BOARD John W. Wennergren to be reappointed to fill his second term extending through October, 1993. Mr. Wennergren lives in District 5 and is a social worker. Cindy White to be reappointed to fill her second term extending through October, 1993. M. White resides in District 7 and works in the communications industry. # # # a• v of SALT' ROSEMARY DAVIS EAU'GITYr GORPO �'. ;IONi DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Capital Planning and Programming CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7902 February 12, 1990 TO: Alan G. Hardman, Chair, Salt Lake City Council RE: HOLDING REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS ON GENERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND THE 14TH - 17TH YEAR CDBG PLAN RECOMMENDATION: That you to set a HUD required public hearing on general community development and housing needs as well as a hearing on the 14th - 17th Year CDBG Plan, on February 20 for Tuesday, March, 13, 1990 . FUNDING: The City' s CDBG allocation for July 1, 1990 is expected to be $3, 867, 000 . DISCUSSION: A public hearing is required by HUD to obtain citizen input on general housing and community development needs that can be addressed by CDBG funds . Comments regarding the overall performance of the City's CDBG program are also solicited at this time. The hearing is held so that citizens' and community organizations ' comments can be considered before final recommendations are made for annual CDBG funding . To inform the Council of projects you will hear about, a log of 16th Year CDBG requests is attached. Also, since 1979 the City has prepared short term CD plans to guide its CDBG planning. These plans assess current community conditions and delineate target areas in which CDBG funds will be concentrated. The fourth CDBG plan ( 1988-92) has recently been completed which also schedules the phasing into and out of current and proposed CDBG target neighborhoods . The Community Development Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have reviewed the draft Four Year Community Development Plan and approved it along with its scheduling of target areas . According to City plan adoption procedures, this plan should be I submitted to the Council for its review and adoption by resolution. This would occur after the Council holds a public hearing to obtain further citizen input. We are requesting that this hearing be held on the same night as the related HUD required CDBG hearing. k 4 ACTION REQUIRED: That on February 20 the City Council set the date for holding the required public hearings . City ordinance states that plan adoption hearings be advertised for 20 days, therefore, it must be advertised by February 22 for a March 13th hearing. LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS: The resolution adopting the 1988-1992 Community Development Plan and the draft plan are attached. CONTACT PERSON: Stephanie Harpst, Capital Planning at 535-7115 . Submitted by: Lee Kin 13 3 Deputy Director, Community and Economic Development ,:— LK/SLH CDHearing2/90 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 (Adopting the 1988-1992 Community Development Plan) WHEREAS, the Capital Planning and Programming Division of Salt Lake City, Utah, after extensive review involving a wide range of public hearings, meetings with staff personnel, citizen groups and interested neighborhood residents, has prepared a document entitled "Community Development Plan 1988-1992. " That plan details the goals, objectives and policies of the City's CDBG program for the fiscal years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 corresponding to the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th funding years of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development • (HUD) CDBG program. The plan includes a targeting of eligible neighborhoods, the establishing of neighborhood strategies, and sets guidelines for the City's future community development efforts and programming of funds to implement these efforts; and WHEREAS, the City's Community Development Advisory Committee has reviewed and approved the said "Community Development Plan 1988-1992" including the , scheduling of targetneighborhood areas therein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the said plan; and • WHEREAS, a public hearing on—the advisability of adopting the said plan has been duly advertised and conducted before the City Council and the City Council has reviewed said Community Development Plan 1988-1992 and concurs that its recommendations are valuable to guide the City in allocating CDBG resources to address the needs of the' City's communities and neighborhoods and to provide a better urban environment, and it is in the best interests of the City to endorse and adopt such plan as the legislative policy of this city together with the City's 'Capital Improvement Program and other publicly and privately funded programs to augment the City's conservation and revitalization efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that the document entitled "Community Development Plan 1988-1992, " is hereby officially adopted by this legislative body as a general guide and framework for the application and allocation of the -Community Development Block Grant . program for the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th funding years of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG program for Salt Lake City, Utah. A copy of said plan is incorporated by reference and three (3) copies of said plan shall be retained on file at the office of the City Recorder and shall be made available for public review and inspection. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of • , 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL • By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER LVS:rc ' SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK ,. PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIL rOR PAGE 1 COBG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** - LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF , MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 HOUSING 0001 Redevelopment To bring housing units up to -16 $1,100,000 Housing Rehab code. Administered through the $700,000-15 RDA in CD target areas or for $700,000-14 income eligible residents city $803,000-13 wide. At least 60% of funds $824,000-12 used for low/mod income. - 0002 HOUSING 0002 ASSIST - Emergency To provide grants to income -16 $260,000 Home Repair & Com. eligible people for urgently $240,000-15 Design Assistance needed home repairs. $200,000-14 ) Citywide. $200,000-13 $192,500-12 0003 HOUSING 0003 NHS Revolving Loan To rehab houses, commercial -16 $137,000 Fund properties, and problem $90,000-15 properties in the NHS West- $75,000-14 side target area. $90,000-13 $90,000-12 0004 HOUSING 0004 Security Lock To provide dead bolt locks and -16 $30,000 Program other security measures for $30,000-15 income eligible residents. $30,000-14 Citywide. $33,000-13 $33,000-12 0005 HOUSING 0005 BUS Operation Paint To provide technical assist- -16 $40,000 Brush ance & paint for low-income $40,000-15 home owners. Eligible areas. $35,000-14 $39,000-13 $39,000-12 0006 HOUSING 0006 OHS Cleaning & To improve deteriorated vacant -16 $20,000 Securing properties by boarding, trim- $20,000-15 ming vegetation, demolishing $20,000-14 unsafe accessory bldgs. Lien - placed on property. - Eligible areas. - 0007 HOUSING 0007 OHS Boarded/At Risk Repair and maintenance of -16 $75,000 Building Assistance housing and other structures $75,000-15 Program in CDBG target areas. - w E,', SALT LAKE CITY"r `r I''•.�'a' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GR,;::.' PROGRAM • •c ;" • ` Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 2 • • CDDG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) ' • PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ;****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** • LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0008 HOUSING • 0008 Heritage Foundation To help finance and encourage -16 $50,000 . Revlolving Loan Fund the restoration of historical- - , ly and architecturally signi- - ' ficant housing and improve - • • " ' deteriorated housing within - . . the City. - , 0009 HOUSING • r 0009 Neighborhood To fund an attorney to file -16 $13,500 • Attorney Program civil suits against property $7,000-15 ; ' owners who have abandonded 5,000-14 ..ii and deteriorated properties. $9,000-13 r '' Eligible areas. . 0010 HOUSING ` - 0010 Low-Income Housing To provide maintenance and • -16 $30,000 ' ' . '. ' . . Maintenance - CSC repairs for elderly and $13,000-15 . handicapped people who are - • income eligible. Citywide. - ' 0011 HOUSING 0 •- 0011 Mixed Use Housing/ 4500 Sq. Ft. of vacant ware- -16 $129,000 . , ' . • ` Artspace house space into additional $0-15 • • low/mod income housing within $100,000-11 ' ' • the Artspace Pierpont Project. $225,000-08 • • • 350 W., 250 •So. - ' • 0012 HOUSING , . . 0012 Community To support a non-profit -16 $150,000 ' • • • • �,` Development Corp. housing program & provide $80,000-15 •� '• ` funding to initiate programs - . • to meet current housing needs. - • .• • • • Eligible areas. - • . ` ' . ••• it%' +5 . ;.,�V` 0013 HOUSING 0013 Section 108 loan To pay back the $1.825 million -16 $300,000 • ' • Canterbury Apts. Sec. 108 Loan obtained for $300,000-15 • . . acquisition of the Canterbury - - ' • •Apts. located at 1357 North - • • • • Morton Drive. $300,000 per - • year for 6 years. - 1 • . 0014 HOUSING ' • 0 ' 0014 City Wide Land-Write This program would allow the -16 $150,000 • Down purchase and resale of land in - • 0 . " ' the City at a discount for - •• • • housing projects benefiting - • •• • • • , low/mod families. - • . •' • . • . • 0 • SALT LAKE CITY ff� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK i'ROGRAM r,',:i' Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATION. ,OR PAGE 3 , CDOG 16TN YEAR (1990-91) . PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0015 HOUSING 0015 Federal Grants To provide (as needed) match -16 $100,000 ' Matching.Fund money for other government or - privately funded housing - , related projects such as 202 - elderly housing, drug free, - • - and homeless projects. - • • . TOTALS FOR CLASS $2,584,500 7). J • , , SALT LAKE CITY •..• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRAM ,'ROGRAM i;. Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 4 CDBG 16TN YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 BLOCK REDESIGN . 0001 Markea Ave. Design Planning for improvements in- -16 $10,000 250 So., 800 E. cluding curb, gutter, and $0-15 sidewalk. - 0002 BLOCK REDESIGN 0002 West Court Design Planning and design. -16 $10,000 835 E., 300 So. $0-15 0003 BLOCK REDESIGN . 0003 Laker Court Design Planning and design. -16 $10,000 '. 820 E., 300 So. $0_15 0004 BLOCK REDESIGN . 0004 Reeves and Linden Planning and design. -16 $15,000 Block Redesign 760- $0-15 800 E., 340 So. • - 0005 BLOCK REDESIGN 0005 Menlo Ave. Design Planning and design. -16 $10.000 840 E., 200 So. $0-15 0006 BLOCK REDESIGN 0006 Chase Ave. Design Planning and design. -16 $10,000 200-300 South & $0-15 1000-1100 East - 0007 BLOCK REDESIGN 0007 Pennsylvania/Iowa To construct street & drain- -16 $263,000 Place Const. age improvements. $0-15 ,T.;. 940 E..200-300 So. $10,000-13 ;'r,;`• •' C TOTALS FOR CLASS $328,000 . , . 0 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 1 PROGRAM ,': :. 1 Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATION.. ,OR PAGE 5 CDBG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 STREETS 0001 W. Cap Hill Street Improvements to consist of -16 $350,000 Imp. 700-800 No., street pavement, curb and $0-15 300-400 W. gutter. - 0002 STREETS 0002 Euclid Area Street For street improvements to -16 $100,000 Improvements include curbs, gutters, - 100 S. 750 to 900 W. sidewalks, and drainage. - 0003 STREETS 0003 Euclid Area Street For steet improvements to -16 $100,000 yl` Improvements 100 S. include curbs, gutters, - 900 to 1000 West sidewalks and drainage. - 0004 STREETS 0004 Median Island Rehab. To rebuild islands; land- -16 $380,000 600 E., 600-900 So. scaping, irrigation, curbs, $25,000-15 gutters, and sidewalks on the - adjacent portions of 600 East. - 0005 STREETS 0005 Learned Ave. Improv. Construction to include -16 $90,000 40 N., 1000-1050 W. pavement, sidewalk, curb, $0-15 gutter & storm drain pipe. - 0006 STREETS 0006 East Capitol Street Construction to include curb, -16 $50,000 Improvements gutter, sidewalk and fencing - 150 to 300 North to adjoin the new 4th avenue - stairs. - 0007 STREETS • 0007 Berming/Tree Plant- To create a visual barrier -16 $10,000 u°.; ing at Center St. by replanting trees/berming. - _ and 600 No. - • 0008 STREETS 0008 600 W. Improvements Improvements to include curb, -16 $100,000 500 to 600 North gutter, and drainage system. $0-15 Citizens Congress - 0009 STREETS 0009 Sidewalk Curb and Funding for inventory and -16 $50,000 Gutter Assessment assessment of citywide streets $15,000-15 and Inventory & block redesigns to be - constructed in the future. - SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 6 CDBG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) . PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED RECOMMENDED LOG NUM Amount Yr. COAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0010 STREETS • 0010 Denver St. Imp. To construct improvements to -16 $100,000 Central City TA include pavement, curb, gutter $5,000-15 440 E., 500-600 So. sidewalk, storm drainage, and - • water lines. - 0011 STREETS 0011 Alida Place - Improvements to include -16 $16,000 585 Wall St. to 6th pavement of street and weed - North. control. • - • AlqN 0012 STREETS - C: ) 0012 Richards St. Circle To construct a circle at the -16 $55,000 -- 1360 So. Richards St end of Richard St. and plant - & California Ave, grass on each side of circle. - 0013 STREETS • 0013 Lake St. Const. To construct improvements to -16 $126,000 750 E., 800-900 So. include pavement, curb, gutter $8,000-15 E. Central TA storm drainage and water - ' lines. - • 0014 STREETS 0014 Reed Avenue Cleanup To provide yard clean up -16 $5,000 , Reed Ave., 400 W. • assistance to elderly - home owners. - 0015 STREETS 0015 Glendale Area Street To construct improvements to -16 $325,000 Improvements 900- include pavement, sidewalks, - • 1300 So. 900-1700 W. curb, gutter, storm drainage - and water lines. TA - - • 0016 STREETS '. 0016 Handicapped Access Construction of handicapped -16 $50,000 State Street and access. street corners to - • • 5th East provide better access to - lift equipped buses. - 0017 STREETS • 0017 Target Area Street To design street and/or drain- -16 $35,000 Imp/Drainage Design age imp. in target areas for - . construction in 17th year - . program. - • • TOTALS FOR CLASS $1,942,000 SALT LAKE C"' ,• _- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DLO ,ANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOIIMENDAT,,AS FOR PAGE CDOG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr ; CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 SIDEWALKS 0001 Target Area Replacement of cracked & dis- -16 $500,000 Replacement placed sidewalk-100% CD funded $200,000-15 in target areas & other CO $200,000-14 eligible areas. $200,000-13 0002 SIDEWALKS 0002 Capitol Hill Neigh- Target area sidewalk for -16 $10,000 • borhood Sidewalk Capitol Hill area. - Replacement - TOTALS FOR CLASS • $510,000 • cz • • • • • • SALT LAKE CIT ,.��� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 8 CDBG 16T11 YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 STORM DRAINAGE 0001 Guadalupe/Jackson Installation of drainage sys. -16 $150,000 Neighborhood from 500 No. & 600 W. to I-15. $0-15 Drainage System - 0002 STORM DRAINAGE 0002 Guadalupe/Jackson To cover open ditch on 500 W., -16 $260,000 Ditch Covering 200-530 No. $9,000-15 • 0003 STORM DRAINAGE 0003 West Capital Hill To construct drainage improve- -16 $120,000 • Storm Drainage Imp. ments to tie into proposed - 700 No. storm drain. - rI 300 W., 700-800 No. - 0004 STORM DRAINAGE 0004 400 East Storm Drain To construct storm drain on -16 $65,000 400 East to alleviate drainage - problem. 400 E., 500-600 So. - • TOTALS FOR CLASS $595,000 • • • • • • • 3 ti SALT LAKE C j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ULOC, ,ANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 6 CDBG 16TN YEAR (1990-91) • PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PARKS 0001 Jordan Park-Restroom To reconstruct So. restroom & -16 $95,000 and Picnic Shelter construct new roof on existing $95,000-15 1000 So., 900 W. picnic shelter. $20,000-14 $300,000-12 $18,000-11 $50,000-10 0002 PARKS 0002 5TIi Ave and "C" To expand the recreational -16 $90,000 Street Tennis Imp. potential of city owned - ,',1 property. - 'a;a 0003 PARKS 0003 Playground Installa- To install new playground -16 $100,000 tion Citywide equipment which meets current - safety standards in various - parks. Citywide. - 0004 PARKS 0004 Fairmont Park To implement current planning -16 $135,000 Irrigation of restrooms, auto.irrigation, $10,000-15 2400 So., 900 E. and artesian well improvements $200,000-10 in SE corner of park. $10,000-09 $155,000-06 0005 PARKS 0005 Elks Park Restroom To construct restrooms for -16 $63,600 and Lighting, 1300 park users and to provide - So. Main security lighting in key areas - of the park. - 0006 PARKS 0006 Redwood Meadows To expand current linear -16 $250,000 "' Park Expansion park to provide additional - J Redwd Rd., 600 No. recreational opportunities. - 0007 PARKS 0007 Athletic Park- Continuation of current proj. -16 $95,000 Phase III to provide improved restrooms $50,000-15 1300 So.,700-800 E. on No. East side of park and $90,000-14 improve ball diamond in No. $10,000-13 East corner. - 0008 PARKS 0008 Urban Forestry Mgmt. To assess, trim, replant, & -16 $50,000 spray diseased or infested $50,000-15 trees in CD target areas. $50,000-14 $50,000-13 SALT LAKE C*' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC ANT PROGRAM =, Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDAT,.,,,S FOR PAGE 1 MUG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0009 PARKS 0009 Glendale Mini-Park To conduct a land search and -16 $5,000 WS Comm. Council preliminary planning for a $0-15 mini-park in the Glendale - area. - 0010 PARKS 0010 Jordan River Trail To provide a segment of trail -16 $20,000 1000 So., 900 W. over City owned property on - the East side of the river in - the Peace Gardens. - 0011 PARKS 0011 North Gateway To clean up the North Gateway -16. $15,000 Improvement Projects into the City, construct new $0-15 1000 No., 300 W. stream bed for Harm Springs, - and add a childrens garden. - 0012 PARKS 0012 Vietnamese Peace To construct a garden rep- -16 $10,000, Garden-Jordan Park resenting Vietnamese culture. - 1000 So., 900 W. - 0013 PARKS 0013 Westpointe Park To complete a new neighborhood -16 $250,000 N. Redwood Phase II park. $0-15 1900 W., 1400 No. - 0014 PARKS 0014 Sugar House-Fairmont To utilize City owned property -16 $5,000 Urban Trail 1200 E., for a class I urban trail. $0-15 1700-2400 So. $5,000-12 0015 PARKS t' 0015 Wildflower Park To plant wildfowers on State -16 $1,000 500 No., Victory Rd. owned properties by the - North Gateway to SLC. - i ' 0016 PARKS 0016 Forest Dale Golf To renovate the club house -16 $60,000 Course Club (louse as an historic building for - 900 E., 2400 So. use as a public facility. - 0017 PARKS 0017 Park Acquisition/ To buy and improve existing -16 $94,500 Restoration 742 W. land to provide as open space - and So. Temple for Nettie Gregory Comm. Ctr. - SALT LAKE C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC, ,CANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 11 CDBG 16T11 YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0018 PARKS 0018 300 West Median To plant trees down the -16 $10,000 Plantings 400 No. to center of 300 West at • - 200 No. appropriate points. - 0019 PARKS 0019 600 North Median To landscape a narrow median -16 $50,000 between 200 & 300 W. with trees down the center of - 600 No. - 0020 PARKS • 0020 200 North Median To place a median with grass -16 $50,000 • between West Temple and trees in the center of 200 • - and 200 W. North. • - 0021 PARKS • 0021 Nibley Neighborhood To acquire land and create -16 $100,000 Park park. 2876 So., 900 E. SN • • - • • TOTALS FOR CLASS $1,549,100 • • • ,,g • • • • • I , i SALT LAKE C' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLO ANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDAI,.,dS FOR PAGE 1 CDBG 16T11 YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0001 Sunday Anderson For removal of asbestos in -16 $110,000 Senior Citizen ceiling and construction of a - Center new pitched roof. - 900 So., 900 W. - 0002 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0002 Children's Museum of To renovate 2nd floor for -16 $46,000 Utah Renovation expansion purposes to include - public workshop & performance - galley. 840 No., 300 W. • - _ `J 0003 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0003 Tenth East Senior To improve existing parking -16 $150,000 Center Parking/ lot & inner block improvements - Tennis Courts Imp. to park tennis courts. - 237 So., 1000 E. - 0004 PUBLIC BUILDINGS 0004 Troy Laundry Multi- To redevelop the old Troy -16 $120,000 Cultural Facility Laundry Complex into a - facility for small, non- - • profit, arts, ethnic, media & - advocacy organizations. - 400 So., 600-700 E. • - • TOTALS FOR CLASS $426,000 SALT LAKE r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OLOL :ANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 1. CDBG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PUBLIC SERVICES 0001 Renovation of YWCA To renovate heating, lighting -16 $29,235 322 East 300 So. and ventilation systems. - 0002 PUBLIC SERVICES 0002 Housing/Financial To hire an additional housing -16 $23,000 Counseling Program counselor to prevent loss of - CAP housing owned by low/mod - income residents. - 0003 PUBLIC SERUICES y",4'<< r 0003 Housing Outreach To assist families in -16 $40,000 Rental Program obtaining safe, affordable $35,500-15 • (HORP) housing and increase the $29,000-14 number of low cost apts. $29,000-13 available. $26,500-12 , 0004 PUBLIC SERVICES 0004 Westside Food Pantry Operational support for this -16 $29,137 55 No. Redwood Rd. program which provides food & $26,000-15 social services to people in $24,000-14 emergency situations. $24,000-13 $21,700-12 0005 PUBLIC SERVICES 0005 Repair and Upgrade To bring heating, air condi- -16 575,000 of Friendship Manor tioning and hot water systems - 500 So., 1300 E. up to code. - 0006 PUBLIC SERVICES 0006 Crime Prevention To fund the civilian crime -16 $81,302 prevention unit to work with $81,000-15 • �s;: neighborhoods and educate $70,000-14 >�> people on crime prevention $74,000-13 matters. Eligible CD areas. $76,000-12 0007 PUBLIC SERVICES 0007 Building Acquisi- To purchase a building for -16 $100,000 tion for Fellowship the use of AA meetings. - Foundation 1380 So. Richards St. - • 0008 PUBLIC SERVICES 0008 Operation New Men/ To fund Traveler's Aid to -16 $100,000 Family/Womens operate the Men's/Family/ $88,000-15 Shelters Womens shelters. $63,500-14 210 So. Rio Grande. $36,000-13 $31,500-12 $21,000-11 SALT LAKE C ��;'.���'; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC. .ANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 1. CDBG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) . PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0009 PUBLIC SERVICES 0009 Capitol West Boys & To provide a recreation and -16 $32,000 Girls Club counseling program for high $28,500-15 300 No.,600 W. risk poverty youth in the Guad $28,500-14 /Jackson area. $36,000-12 $21,000-09 $210,000-06 $20,000-04 0010 PUBLIC SERVICES 0010 New Hope Multi- Funding to help rehab this -16 $23,000 Cultural Center bldg. used as a community $16,000-15 Rehab. center for Asians. $11,900-14 1102 W. 400 No. $10,000-13 . 0011 PUBLIC SERVICES 0011 Crossroads Urban To opperate a food pantry to -16 $15,000 Center Emegency meet needs of the homeless. - Food Pantry Citywide. - 0012 PUBLIC SERVICES 0012 Transition House To acquire property and -16 $150,000 1900 W., No. Temple operate a drug treatment - program. - • 0013 PUBLIC SERVICES 0013 Wasatch Fish and To provide a food source for -16 $22,000 Garden Project low income people by operating - 1102 W., 400 No. a community fish pond and - garden. - 0014 PUBLIC SERVICES • 0014 Literacy Volunteers To make repairs to their -16 $10,000 • Building Rehab. facility at 175 No. 600 W. - 1,i- Kaye TOTALS FOR CLASS $729,674 SALT LAKE C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC, ,ANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 15 CDBG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) • PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 URBAN AMENITIES 0001 Neighborhood Funding for typing of doc- -16 $2,000 Documentaries umentaries. Citywide. $0-15 0002 URBAN AMENITIES 0002 Neighborhood Self- Up to $1800 grants for neigh- -16 $10,000 Help Grants borhood projects; fairs, news- $15,000-15 Eligible Areas letters, cleanup & trees. $25,000-14 0003 URBAN AMENITIES 1-•• 0003 Bike Path To develop a bike route from -16 $960 Calif. Ave., No. on Emery St. - to 8th So., & East to 10th W. - 0004 URBAN AMENITIES 0004 Bike Path To develop a bicycle route for -16 $3,360 the East side of downtown. - 0005 URBAN AMENITIES 0005 Bike Path To develop a bicycle route on -16 $960 300 E., 800 So. to So. Temple. - 0006 URBAN AMENITIES 0006 W. High Improvement To purchase land in W. High -16 $200,000 Program District for positive impact. $0-15 0007 URBAN AMENITIES 0007 CDC Blocks To clean up, restore, rehab -16 $50,000 West High Area and purchase vacant housing. - I::y ` 0008 URBAN AMENITIES 0008 Living Traditions To support Folk Arts Program, -16 $22,500 Festival (Washington to bring cultural activity and $15,000-15 Square) vitality to the City. - 0009 URBAN AMENITIES 0009 Capitol H111 Tree To plant trees on 4th West, -16 $15,000 Project Victory Road. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $304,780 SALT LAKE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOB .2ANT PROGRAM r'r Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE L. CDBG 1611 YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 0001 Facade Improvement To provide a source of funding -16 $50,000 Demonstration for businesses to improve the • - Project fronts of their buildings. - Eligible areas. • - 0002 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 0002 Minority Business To provide management and -16 $8,000 Technical Assistance technical assistance to - potential women and minority - businesses. 0003 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 0003 Twin Years To restore and develop the -16 $15,000 Centennial Project blighted and neglected - No. West quadrant and gateway - ' of SLC. Ensign Peak. - • • TOTALS FOR CLASS $73,000 f' SALT LAKE C ,•.4C:)) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC .ANT PROGRAM el..' Date 02/12/99 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 1, CDBG 16TH YEAR (1990-91) PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PLANNING 0001 Development of New 2 year project to revise and -16 $62,500 Zoning Ordinance rewrite citywide Zoning $0-15 Ordinance. - 0002 PLANNING 0002 National Main St. To hire a consultant to assess -16 $12,000 Urban Center Site and evaluate the State St., - Assessment Sugarhouse, & Glendale/Calif. - . Commercial Districts for - revitalization efforts and - make recommendations. - `9'e�' - 0003 PLANNING 0003 Salt Lake Housing To conduct a survey relating -16 $38,440 Condition Survey to housing conditions for - 43,000 residential structures in Salt Lake City. - 0004 PLANNING 0004 SLACC Staffing For office space & staff to -16 $50,000 support the Salt Lake Assoc. $50,000-15 of Community Councils. - 0005 PLANNING 0005 Fairmont Master To complete a neighborhood -16 $10,000 Plan level plan for the area 700 E. $0-15 to 1300 E., 2100 S. - I-80. - 0006 PLANNING 0006 Swede Town Hazardous To investigate and report the -16 $8,000 Waste and Air findings of air pollution - Pollution Project and waste problems in Swede - r47,1' Town. - '_:v 0007 PLANNING 0007 Neighborhood Citywide survey of neighbor- -16 $15,000 Identification hood boundries to coordinate - Project with 1990 Census. - TOTALS FOR CLASS $195,940 SALT LAKE r t a') COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOC. GIANT PROGRAM Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 1, CDBG 16T11 YEAR (1990-91) • PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 ADMINISTRATION 0001 Capital Planning Funding for CDBG functions -16 $252,000 necessary to administer the $230,000-15 grant. $210,000-14 0002 ADMINISTRATION 0002 Finance Funding for CDBG functions -16 $35,000 . necessary to administer the $35,000-15 grant. $30,000-14 0003 ADMINISTRATION 0003 Community Affairs Funding for CDBG functions -16 $51,000 necessary to administer the $45,000-15 grant. $45,000-14 • 0004 ADMINISTRATION 0004 Attorney Funding for CDBG functions -16 $45,000 necessary to administer the $42,000-15 grant. $42,000-14 0005 ADMINISTRATION 0005 Planning Funding for CDBG functions -16 $50,000 necessary to administer the $55,000-15 • grant. $55,000-14 • 0006 ADMINISTRATION • 0006 Environmental Funding for CDBG functions -16 $10,000 Assessments necessary to administer the $7,500-15 . grant. $7,500-14 0007 ADMINISTRATION • 0007 City Housing Funding for CDBG functions -16 $26,300 Coordination necessary to administer the - grant. - . TOTALS FOR CLASS $469,300 • SALT LAN { 7` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I. , GRANT PROGRAM I ..:. Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE e CDBG 16TN YEAR (1990-91) s PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ******************: RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 PERCENT FOR ART 0001 Project to be -16 determined - 0002 PERCENT FOR ART J 0002 Project to be -16 • determined - t 0003 PERCENT FOR ART 0003 Project to be -16 � ` determi ned d - • TOTALS FOR CLASS _ • '4 Y SALT LAKE CT ` } COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK ANT PROGRAM t ' Date 02/12/90 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAGE 20 CMG 1GTH YEAR (1990-91) • PROJECT NUM TITLE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS REQUESTED ****************** RECOMMENDED ****************** LOG NUM Amount Yr CDAC STAFF MAYOR COUNCIL 0001 CONTINGENCY 0001 Contingency The amount set aside to cover -16 $175,000 anticipated cost overruns or $139,250-15 • emergency needs. $182,200-14 TOTALS FOR CLASS $175,000 TOTALS FOR REPORT $9,882,294 • r} f,7c1).; vc,,,,,,,,Nc. „4."14:‹ Community Development Plan 1988-1992 ..:: .... -... ::::.7.1,,, IN ,,. .,, ,.-,... --,.. ....,,,,::: .5,44,4x,...V ,,,. ,,„„ a�•?i-� • • Jai•-�=•. 7V t� ^ '% \I ////////. // •/// II ///////. // •// eze • Nil N4i 1\44, \ /e/e• • • • • •••••• •/• / f •;46 ::.�.•.�.-•,-;:.17;::..''•.K �� A I/I///I/. I• I/ •/III/ •i ri•teill-' o:-�•;% -.�::% // I///III •//III/. II .T i.. • •�4:•�-•.�•��:-•-•.•-`••-• • /////,I////I///,I I//III// •/ ./.......10...r......././...........e.e.rkelp.:11$4,tr.,:r... \•:11ki141/4.\\\\\•\•\ '4'▪ /../Atc//////////,/,//////////,/,..// • G.J1• . _ is •� �., t l. ' : t\n•,..,,,ike:, a• /II/ II/, • ,/. ,,,. I /,/I, •I/,,. el :•e •:•w-: ▪• .\\" .\R\ 4`:. -•:z� •"•...:... •1 :� .:►. `l]� t I,/ . . •• • • „ ////,I/ •//. ST .:75at>>::*::$::VP.SAi fe5SIP:?..t3., k\\.\\.\\\\\\\It%k‘\\\X4:' ;':/c'/Ccie'ie'Ie'e/e'/'e.W/I/°//e'e.•'elle Salt Lake City, Utah February, 1990 ::::::: ::;:::::::::;:::: Acknowledgements MAYOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Palmer A. DePaulis Kim Anderson,Chair Rosemarie Rendon CITY COUNCIL Hermoine Jex Renae Pierce Alan Hardman, Chair Bernice Cook Nancy K.Pace,Vice-Chair Russel Allred Ronald J.Whitehead . Nancy Saxton L.Wayne Horrocks Barbara Bennett Tom Godfrey Rosemary Grim Roselyn Kirk Paul P. Osborn Don C. Hale Rawlins Young Diana M. Smoot Marion Willey DEPARTMENT OF COIV MUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Michael Zuhl,Interim Direcor Lee King,Deputy Director CAPITAL PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING DIVISION Stephanie Loker,AICP,Community Development Planner John Riley,Policy Consultant PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION Allen C.Johnson, AICP, Director Ralph Becker William T. Wright, AICP,Deputy Dan Bethel Neil H. Olsen,AICP,Planner II Cindy Cromer Mike Gibelyou,Planning Intern Thomas A. Ellison Lavone Liddle-Gamonal TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Richard J. Howa Ralph P. Neilson Norman J.Weiss, Technician HI George Nicolatus Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Victoria Palacios John M. Schumann Published on Apple Macintosh. i ;` • :7 Table of Contents r.; PREFACE 1 INTRODUCTION 2 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 4 LOCAL POLICIES 4 GENERAL POLICIES FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING 5 PROGRAMMING POLICIES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6 CDAC POLICIES 7 TARGETING OF CDBG FUNDS 8 SUMMARY OF THE TARGET AREAS 9 MAP OF TARGET AREAS 10 NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGIES 11 TARGET AREA STRATEGIES 13 ANNUAL CDBG PROGRAMS 1988-90 24 14TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM 25 15TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM 28 16TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM 31 17TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM 31 IMPLEMENTATION 32 APPENDIX 33 ll Preface Since 1975 Salt Lake City has received therefore, includes the 14th year's Community Development Block Grant activities. As the 15th funding year funding from the U.S. Department of approached, the need to obtain accurate Housing and Urban Development information became ever more critical (HUD).The amount allocated to Salt Lake and problematic. Statistical data were City is based on a formula related to the gathered from several sources for the City's housing condition, population, purpose of comparing existing and number of low and moderate conditions.While not all information was income households. Of course, the directly comparable, it was helpful in appropriation made to the program clarifying some local trends and problem nationally by Congress also affects the areas. Some of the data used by city level of funding the City receives. Since decision-makers is included in the Plan 1981, the total CDBG funding level has (see Appendix). decreased by approximately 45 percent, as concentration on the plight of the The strategies and actions recommended nation's urban areas was de-emphasized. in this Plan represent the efforts of Salt Lake City to conduct the most efficient This Four-Year Plan was initiated in and cost effective program possible for February 1989 during the annual the continued revitalization and planning process for the 15th funding maintenance of our urban environment, year (1989-1990). The Plan identifies given the limitations of the available neighborhoods to be selected for CD information. activities with regard to the level of activity, phasing into and out of each area, and project timing and coordination. The identification process included a wide range of public hearings, meetings with staff personnel, citizen groups and interested neighborhood residents, in addition to the foiulal assessment, recommendation and approval process (outlined in the City's annual Community Development Block Grant Program Policy). The conventional planning process (which would have been initiated in . ,� �». � 1988, the 14th CD year) was not followed °',���°U � the lack of current, accurate data : l� . \: due to with which to identifythe most suitable = areas of the cityfor CD activities. The xf � \ \ �•'::= decision was then made to remain in the current (13th year) areas. This plan, 1 • • Introduction :.::: . : � y.Y. The Salt Lake City Four-Year Community master plans as well as by its goals, Development Plan, 1988-92, will serve to objectives, general policies and direct the City's Community Development programming policies. The Community program for the fiscal years 1988-89, 1989- Development Plan, properly prepared and 90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. These fiscal years implemented, augments the city's correspond to the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th conservation and revitalization efforts. funding years of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant The Federal Community Development (CDBG) program. The Plan is designed to Program provide a framework for the application and allocation of the CDBG program in In 1974 the U.S. Congress passed the fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90, and Housing and Community Development planning for the subsequent two years . Act,which consolidated several categorical This Plan details the goals, objectives and grant programs into one directed at policies; the targeting of eligible improving the condition of the nation's neighborhoods; the neighborhood urban environments. The Community strategies; and sets guidelines for the city's Development Block Grant allows local future community development efforts and governments the flexibility to design the programming of funds to implement programs which will meet the unique these efforts. needs of their communities. The Act's primary objective is the development and The Salt Lake City Council, with the advice maintenance of viable urban areas, by and assistance of the Mayor, city staff and providing decent housing and suitable citizens, adopts an annual Community living environments, and by expanding Development Block Grant program based economic opportunities, principally for upon a three year plan. The program persons of low and moderate income. consists of projects and activities eligible for assistance and which will revitalize the Salt Lake City is a CDBG entitlement city city's declining neighborhoods and and receives federal funds annually to provide a better urban environment. perform community development activities. The CDBG program allows the City to establish its own plan for the Purpose of the Plan physical improvement of its neighborhoods. Money is appropriated by The purpose of this plan is to direct a HUD to local governments for program which best allocates resources to implementing community development address the needs of the city's communities plans. The City is required to prepare and and neighborhoods.The program is submit to HUD an annual application integrated with the city's Capital listing the projects and activities that will Improvement Program and other publicly be undertaken. and privately funded programs. The plan is guided by the city's neighborhood 2 Citizen Participation in Community Development Advisory Committee Development Planning (CDAC) was_ formed and ratified by ordinance. CDAC functions as a liaison among the City Council, the Mayor and The revitalizing, rebuilding and his staff, and city residents. Utilizing such preserving of urban communties requires a citizen group with advisory capacity to the advice and committment of those who the Mayor and staff on community will be affected. Involvement of residents development concerns provides the and other citizens in the planning and planning process with continuity. CDAC implementing of community is composed of 15 neighborhood development representatives projects is an "Citizen input is considered an important appointed by the essential part of factor in structuring the [CD] plan. Mayor and creating a city Expressions of citizen priorities and initiative approved by the that meets the can be the deciding influence when the City Council. needs of statistics, data and technical evaluation residents, who identify several areas or projects eligible for As a part of their depend on the funding." responsibilities city for basic (Salt Lake City Community Development CDAC reviewed Citizen Participation Plan, p.9) services. the policies for the four-year In the past, HUD's citizen participation plan as well as all annual proposals requirements encouraged cooperative submitted for Community Development working relations between city officials (CD) funding. They also interviewed all and citizens. Although revised applicants and participated in meetings regulations reduced the citizen with representatives of involved City participation requirements in the departments and agencies to select planning process, local policies adopted projects and target areas. by the Salt Lake City Council assure that citizen participation will continue. This Because the relevant demographic data plan calls for citizen participation at the available to city decision-makers is city level in the overall application and considered to be out-of-date (and program preparation, and at the therefore unreliable), the continued neighborhood level, where significant inclusion of citizen participation is activity is being proposed or especially crucial to the decision-making implemented. process. Fortunately, the level of participation in the design of CD Individuals need sufficient information activities in the City has grown steadily and assistance in order to understand the since the inception of the CD Program. complexity of the important decisions the Continued success in the city's city faces. At the same time, participating revitalizaton efforts are due in large part private citizens must be able to retain to the willingness of city residents to enough independence that they may truly contribute their time and efforts to the reflect private, rather than city, points of process. view. To accomplish this a Community 3 Goals, Jbjectives and Policies . ... .. .:::.:::. Salt Lake City will be guided in the ❑ - to concentrate the use of funds through administration of the Community the targeting of neighborhoods, especially Development Block Grant (CDBG) where their use will result in improvements program through this Four Year in several neighborhoods; Community Development Plan. The Plan formulates goals, policies and objectives 0 - to offer housing rehabilitation programs for the CDBG program. to owners of single - and multi - family homes; The primary goal of the Community Development Plan is to revitalize, 0 - to provide sidewalk, curb and gutter, redevelop and preserve neighborhoods. and street improvements in target Specific goals of Salt Lake City are: neighborhoods; ❑ - the prevention of slums and blight and 0 - to provide and improve parks, the elimination of the causes of blighting; community centers and other recreational facilities; ❑ - the elimination of conditions detrimental to health, safety and public 0 - to stimulate private investment and welfare; community revitalization by improving existing infrastructure; 0 - the conservation and expansion of housing stock; 0-to improve patterns of residential, commercial,industrial and recreational land ❑ - the expansion and improvement of the use;and quality and quantity of vital community 0 - to provide limited public service services; programs for low - and moderate - income ❑ - the most effective and efficient residents where no alternative funding utilisation of available resources; and sources are available (priority will be given to public service programs which ❑ complement physical development - the alleviation of physical and activities). economic distress by stimulating private investment and community revitalization. The City has identified a number of objectives to be accomplished for the Local Policies achievement of the goals of the Community Development program. These On September 15, 1981, the Salt Lake City are: Council adopted the following general and programming policies, which supplement the Federal requirements, to help guide local officials through the decision-making process. The policies were formulated by the City's 4 .v ..'<.:n`.:,v•Y .2 ': : . es r .n.ri`4ji 'X. 4i.%1 r %'Qv\l Community Development Advisory will be realized through a concentration of (. Committee, the CD planning staff and the funds in those neighborhoods. Capital Improvement Program .(CIP) Team. 7. Funds will be involved at two levels of activity: a) comprehensive activities with a full General Policies for Community range of eligible projects,and Development b) specific levels of activity addressing one 1. The Community Development program or more needs. will be administered under the original intent as outlined by the Housing and 8. Specific criteria for target area selection Community Development Act of 1974. will be observed, with a proposed area containing most or all of the following 2. A short-range plan will be developed characteristics: for programming funds aimed at eliminating blight; preventing 0 - a strong residential component, either neighborhood deterioration by providing existing or proposed; decent housing and a suitable living environment; and expanding economic 0 - identifiable deterioration in public or oportunities, principally for persons of private properties; low and moderate income. 0 - an area of manageable size - larger than 3. CD planning will be carried out in a single project, yet small enough to accordance with existing community, perceive change; neighborhood and capital improvement master plans. ❑ - an area where CD "seed" money will serve as an impetus for continued 4. The citizen participation element will be improvement including the return or carried out in accordance with existing expansion of private investment;and community, neighborhood and capital ❑ - a neighborhood identity, with improvement master plans. recognizable boundaries and significant 5. For the revitalization and needs of low and moderate income redevelopment of neighborhoods to be residents. effective and for the for the programs which are funded by Community 9. Neighborhoods should not be targeted Development funds to be successful, there indefinitely. Targeting of an area will be must be compatible land use planning and considered "successful" when most or all zoning to stabilize the residential aspects of the following criteria are met: of the areas involved. ❑ -The targeted neighborhood is accepted by 6. The goal of stabilization and/or the neighborhood itself and the community at revitalization of residential neighborhoods large is a viable,revitalized area; 5 a` `� 0 -Private investment activity is evident; 5. Existing sidewalk rehabilitation will be = available in selected target areas and other d -Basic services have been made available areas approved by the City Council, and to the area;and will be funded 100 percent with CD money. ❑ -Recognizable goals are achieved. 6. Community Development project programming shall be coordinated with the capital improvement planning program. Programming Policies for Community Development 7. Whenever practical, CD projects will be phased so that planning, design, 1. CDBG funds will be used as one of acquisition and development proceed in several tools to implement the Housing the most efficient manner. Furthermore, Element of the Salt Lake Master Plan. The development plans will be written and plan outlines the city's financial policy to published for each full-scale target area. promote housing. Included in the policy is the use of CDBG funds for land write- 8. In those target areas where down, construction of parking areas in comprehensive activities are planned, support of housing, construction of parks projects aimed at making the greatest and other neighborhood amenities and the impact wil be phased in first. For example, improvement of infrastructure necessary infrastructure improvements will be for housing projects. precede housing rehabilitation. 2. The housing rehabilitation program, 9. In general, a majority of annual CD administered through the Redevelopment allocations will be spent to benefit target Agency, will be available primarily in CD areas. target areas or as specifically authorized by the Redevelopment Agency Board of 10. Annual projects to be considered for Directors. Rehabilitation outside of a target funding subsequent years' programs will area should be approved only if the fit the goals of the 3-year plan, but will be Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors flexible throughout the time frame, in determines that significant benefit in the order to meet changing needs. neighborhood shall be achieved. 11. Projects scoring highest on the 3. CD funds will be used in conjunction evaluation criteria will be given priority with other capital improvement funds, as for CD funding; of the evaluation criteria, they become available, for infrastructure the cost-benefit appraisal will receive high improvements. consideration. 4. CD funds will be used to provide new 12. City targeting of CD areas and programs curb, gutter, sidewalk and street should also take into consideration improvements in eligible target areas with resources available in the private sector demonstrated need. and attempt to leverage them. 6 Y , 13. Steps should be taken to promote joint 3. CDBG funds for street improvements CD programs and economic development and parks should only be used for ;;! . projects with the-,business and other neighborhood-level services. It should be - • - community groups. the responsibility of the City's general fund to construct community parks and 14. Realistic programming of funds shall collector streets. CDAC recommended be initiated in order to improve the some community level parks [in 1989] in implementation of CD projects . Enough order to complete them, but will not time must be allocated to allow each recommend them in the future. department involved to carry out its individual responsibilities, such as 4. Planning Division proposals that are not obtaining citizen input, conceptual neighborhood oriented should be funded planning, design, bidding, construction from general fund. and inspection. 5. CDBG funds are intended to benefit 15. Timely and efficient implementation of lower income people and should not be projects should be required. used to fund projects that benefit the City as a whole. These should be funded by all 16. The Community Development citizens who benefit. Advisory Committee can adopt their own rules of administration for policy formulation and target area designation. Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) Policies In early 1989, the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) developed a set of policies for the guidance of their decisions and actions. These are: 1. As a general rule, all slippage funds will roll over to the next [funding] year. However, CDAC will consider all requests for slippage and may recommend granting of funds on an emergency basis. , • • '.' 2. Funding of contingency requests will be to construction cost overruns or limited _ y CDAC) only. emergencies (as defined b g These will be reviewed and granted on a ..��r ......�•,,:.......::,, case by case basis. 7 _Largeting of CDBG Fun�.� "Targeting" is a process of concentrating of the areas' demographics, housing and public resources in a limited number of other physical conditions, and prospects neighborhoods. The targeting of for future development. Community Development Block Grant funds was initiated in the Salt Lake City Data compiled from the decennial U.S. Three Year Community Development Plan, Census has been a central source of 1978-81, in which several Neighborhood demographic data used to identify target Strategy Areas (NSAs) were identified and areas. In 1982 and 1985 (years in which selected to receive a concentration of previous Three-Year Community Devel- CDBG funding. The selection process was opment Plans were written) the census intended to delineate those areas of the data were current enough to be considered city having the greatest promise for accurate and representative; because the stabilization and to identify data is now 10 years old, it is important neighborhoods that have begun to decline that they be supplemented with other, but, with a concentrated effort, could more recent, information. Difficulties continue as viable residential arise, though, due to inconsistencies in the neighborhoods. The targeting concept was methods of data collection and continued in the 1982-85 and 1985-88 formulation, and in the different ways Three Year Community Development Plan. various agencies and organizations subdivide the city for their needs. As a The designation of NSAs was result, it has been essential to include the discontinued in 1981 for administrative participation of residents, city employees reasons, resulting in less Federal and other individuals and groups familiar regulation and a greater degree of local with the neighborhoods and their flexibility; however, Salt Lake City dynamics in the targeting process. continues the process of concentrating block grant funds in a limited number of In response to these difficulties a special neighborhoods. Today, community areas in meeting was held in May. Representatives which CD funds and efforts are of community groups and city agencies concentrated are designated as "target were invited to come together to discuss areas." and assess their perceptions of the city's neighborhoods and their problems. Much Four of the "General Policies for of the discussion focused on the Central Community Development" listed City and Westside neighborhoods, previously address the issue of selecting especially concerning a widespread view areas for CD funding. These policies that problems persist in the areas despite provide a framework for target area past efforts to revitalize the selection. Selecting neighborhoods in neighborhoods. Comments received at the which the use of CDBG funds might have meeting were influential in later the greatest impact requires a knowledge considerations of future target areas. 8 0 W ,..1.•i.C�.,. : .<l.%. .n.: 'yn., '�f:< x .... ...v t.,.,.Y . . +. \ .ti:.Ati xu Summary of Target Areas for the 1988-92 Four Year Plan Changes to target area boundaries and selection of new target area communities are based upon analysis of existing neighborhood needs, accomplishments and future plans. During the next three years, some previously targeted areas will be re-opened; some currently active neighborhoods will be closed. Two communities, not targeted previously, will be opened. A comprehensive list appears below. Target Year Year Anticipated Activity Plan Area Opened Closed Activities Level Status Jackson 1979 1985 Re-Open in 1990 Limited Written1 Peoples' Freeway 1979 — Close in 1991 Full Scale Written1 Westside 1979 — Continue Full Scale Writtenl Central City 1979 1985 Re-Open in 1990 Limited Written1 E. Central 1979 — Close in 1991 Full.Scale Written1 W. Capitol Hill 1979 — Continue Full Scale Written1 Guadalupe 1982 — Continue Full Scale Written1 So. Central - A 1982 1986 Monitor Limited N/A2 So. Central-B 1982 1987 Monitor Limited N/A2 So. Central -C 1983 — Close in 1990 Limited: N/A2 SugarHouse 1984 — Close in 1990 Full Scale Written1 Euclid 1986 — Continue Full Scale Written1 N.E. Central 1986 — Continue Limited N/A3 Fairmont 1986 — Continue Limited N/A2 Westminster 1986 — Continue Limited N/A2 Emerson 1987 — Continue Limited N/A2 East Downtown -- — Study By Project` Written3 Glendale -- — Open 1989 Full Scale Written3 Onequa — — Open 1990 Limited N/A2 1. Completed Target Area Plan. 2. Limited Target Areas - small area plan not initiated. 3. Plan is a part of a larger area plan completed or being completed. 4. This high-density residential area is being studied to determine how to stabilize it and solve problems particular to the neighborhood. 9 . .:... ,...."...,........,.*„..:,„, ,,., 2.." ..,•••'...•/....:5.:.::,,,•:':, ..,:•.*.:;" :5 :". N......, ''.• ......77,?:, G7.:-'4 • . . . . ,. . • ,‘' - • . s'-5..F• .. --...- ,...-,'--•'-1.-•• '':' : ; = , . -.0,,. PROPOSED CDBG TARGET AREAS (.• _.,.4... . . ,, • .•..11•--••--:-'---* -. -' -_7-.., •,` -•-• Jul-y' 1989 to June '--;`92 •_...• -_-=.-__-=-..;----- 7•-.---..-=':,\•-•"--:.*:_^- i 4, - "-- ----- - -:• -__,---...,___•1: •'':4. __L s•ss-s..-7•1'' ••.. . s,--- - ... Jr--•.::-•-,---.', . . A I. ...,"--•.:--:=7-...,..-=-... -,..-.- .-1,- •,.,..,• :•-. ..,- .! .; ••::.; -- ' T. - ',''.7---F.-•''':!7..:.--'',',,,7=7.-'-..':' ." 1 : ..,•• : - .. ' .! '. . :,`•-",.., ......7,..;". .:- ..&_.••••••-.'5.-..---.1-..--- :=.-...L ..------ • -. ..., . .... .::-.-:.,.....=.- .....--,-- ... ..__ -.,,.,._..:__ - . . -. •- -•••- -- -- • If.1 i I. -0-a• a- .o. .- •d•-\‘ •• • It Capitol EE Hill • -,...,.,.__._ .,--_- A-_, •a __ \ --: ; Olneg4ua -- • ._ -., s.- _- --••• D.:7-0's 0 3 c., a,. _.-, _-c..y•-•• • 9= ---0 --,.;., - , ,- :--;---\-- ••••• :-. ---- -•---- .. -L--,-. --._-_ 2 0 .°'•. . - :\_,\I- - ' .. .1,-. _,_,_ --,- .-•-----..-:--• .. ;t .f.... -`---- ! :t 3,1=7:•'":.-'- ''-:1- '•:::' ,._ : ,„ i!\\\, \1 . '-'•."i !!;''''.."';' ' --.L.7- 24 :I ----,-1 : -'''..--.. ._,_. i• •--- ' • tine-,.-: 1 i'...7-.:---. '''''''.\\ . , .-'-- , ., - - - • .. .,. ,--_- ;1.. •......-.. -- ; r..:-:, 7_. , . ..„______ : . .ir-71 .- , .-.Z. ' '..• _ . . .. . - --•- - I -- , .7,..--/r/{7....(,-- L-,--.,-,_. -..... );--`---- -•-••-•--.."•-•-..... r / z. . , it -,,,,E I. ,----"----, I 'r-a."--, 7.,'_="- '. ,13 '.: , ! f.,7,..--- /•./:. ... / A--,7//4/ :;-•,......, :,-...„•-•,,,,, ..,_:.....-; ,..-‹ ...,„fi.,..: -.2_,,.....__ __ ;. •-i.- -- 1--- ---7/.= ,...,_ -7:.,___271/. _._ .7._ .-. _ f_....2._ _ 7.-/-- ,•7,-,,-:.-::,„ , , , -,i: ,, : ..= : . . _ - .p.:7:' -/ 7-.6?-e/ ,i...., • ,.. ; •'',..,:_/..-_-. '• ' • - ,...:_.--I'......v-___ ___:•__ ___. -- ,..=. __..: -,...., ..... -..... / -"-7---- '-,..,--r•--0'7--------r.- . ii.u-:_-,----.-"--a_._ __ _. 7 ._ ,;_ 7// r-7 7- -.•„.-,_-..,..- *-7--,i4-4-:•,s7 •---.11..-5,-., - - - ..„...•/' s s "s • "'-' !'.•, •...!-----•= ii; :. : ;••••/ i ' . _,C,.en.._, -(..= •. z 7 .....- zi T!.:,;•': 'i 7 1..L,I..,..!',...X,..4/1.,l7..Z ' as;__''... 1 !... ..;r:i LI=..,.,._,.___. ___;; ..-... 1-r- -Dow-n, own • • / ./--•-.---......-,„ .. • -)-- - --,-- - .. i , . - - r,•_.-' ' - , .._ -7,,,,, rj,: .,"'37.-2-:\ 'r--";...1*---• . 5'.:-.'.-- a- - i '',/'- j z.'7'-5 •'''.•='-'. - '` A•=--!•' ''. , .r:i I i .7.7•-:.1..------=---.,/---. ,4•&•, •;.._ 1 ., ti A -,--,1 .- -_.. .. __ : . -••.„..,. _,, .. . 1=7--- - - -- - - :ill__ _,_ • _ _,_ _, _.__, •%. -.-r,z•ir--- „,j.:,,,r)/ 1„ ,-;-:--3,-'4.----•77.77 r-.,-;77..7r , ..A-! ....- 1. ..p ;,, p t, ‘: ;•• , ' -..------•2'-'''=- ! ;•,1". .' " Z.'s=• I: n •• ''' • ''''' '•7- l_:!..' • ....:' -f-: -2 - -=,L--• --;,,'---..:'......2__J• ' - --;,--=L-•:',__ __ - ,r, '',.:,-..:. .;-:=_-___ =;= .7.:-.-_ ;___.. _ __,_,___:I__.__ __.:7__,. ,,.,.....,...;..:;"=-•":: ,•,=.= :25\-ms.. ..ti,... \\.___!:IS. 12. _..f..;__,':2_,;,...,:l,...., - ,•• s.;•-••-••.--7---7 ..: :,--7. • _, "•-•_.,______._ . .• .- _-__...-.__ _ _, r-- -;- - --- ,-- -\--\. .Y, '-'-7777:17Err,:c::=•. 'g, --",- '':,rs ;-.;71; ,i;o:.; al.-i:,-,i-. - arit\ 1 r-• ,--2':-..- -.--;or--7:77-7-7,77---.--1- 1__._=.,-.,„....71_____=____ .T,.... • .2 •__,..__r_f•-, „' ...0.1. ,'..: ...-- 0 E 0 C=.ri-ral. - - ,------.--, re0,,es=.-... --.,:-- \\;,,, \-1 r-.OVA .. ....• 1-,•••,I I. V.. Is s s ,.., ssi-s:-.., .-, •••••.; l't .. . - '- ; 1 - •- ".'•.: tt•- 'o .2 : /1-•-,j- •0- V IL.! -..,-. '• • ..,-• ---..• •----,,_LA. •----.- -;-,-. •-..,... ,..i..-:.-... .L.-_L.,.,.-i':,:r;. . '....:, • • NA. ....-------=::-•::::-=--=--t:-..-T.=77--,-7-7-7 ir --r. ..:7 '.; T•.' -41 I k ',C.!v. -71-..!1„...!.?.X.s.1\: .7\---sC7X,3_\;-\'77-677"•-•:'''': '.-.1....-'7----.::-.. 7-'-'-----:::::----: --._.,T.-±r•r,s,==..=2_=.===±• ...... • •• ,-..:i- ,!-•. .,. /.‘,,--..=.-J.:, riss. --.-.- -- ...._,_-- ____,_7:_ -7:-...:_:,._-__-_'...._-_:_.-,.„...,_.=.,.-:-..-.---..„...._-_-:-...-- • ,f=-'1'....-.-1 .; cp:•••• ! ,oFT L...`r--1-.7:-.:.-..'..-:Fr.,-I. t.i,,. • •:_-.:i::.li...7 N:2.!..`,:•':i.2-, ..--.=-1, - :‘, • •I'........-,,F•-•.-• ...... ; ... ..-,...........=-1 _,......=.- .......,,;74;,..-..-t.-±-.-"---,...-,--,....ILL. ,,,,....'1,-,14., •.•-•-..===.7.--=f.--- :.r•-•-•-..i..::::,---,----,,' •;'s'••• -r'•''='7:--r-1.- •-..-:-.--- 3=-7-- J t, ,-•-_,...-..- - ...--------,,, --.-4-...• .. •i.. ...! ...=. .,--:..::-.-----,„--..---, . •. ,,,,;,,,..,;;..-?;-1,-,e_2-_,'•'---r •.-;-r Li ss ;g•••.=-=-7-...,;,.=...7....z.. .. 1 •'.....4.- '-`="..=-•.••=_E.:-.P....- ',‘ t-1 uer..../...,,!i7,7.-..-.:.:,4--,,. ..,,,,-_- . : -.:‘..E..; l'.'.41:1: -r-7'.....`:-..--',°;-- .-.-- - il a 4‘-•\...--,.;,;,LA.:LP !'?•1 ."--- ;--.z-,-,.,,,-17,4?-;.c : •,,- •=.,--- ;_•:-,_:-...-..- -- -_,_-_.=,•••-.--,- i:: - ;_---• ---7-7:----- ; ., -.,t . I, - C-Lanciaas -,- -..i.--._-__,.._-_-=..,• „,; • ., ;1 ,7--.. .b...,...„,_-_,...:.-_-:1-,,:.•-_-__4,',.• i ---r Pr-7q.,•-•--,---.-,.--------7•-•---- . . . .., :-/ ;•:---.;._•i is, •.•:.• I j s-Ns,. .::1-37.,....„--17 .--,,-- •'-=-7.---7;-...:1,7r-,i-=_:!: .Fi;-'• '==__.::..-:-..“i.i.-___-.•... .,..'....7.:---.1.'• j,.s......•.:;. •,..,2.:7-.;;;.5.,-.-..,,,-,--------.5--- .:;;;.._-. „ •-•-:;,.\;,,---_--•-•=•,-.,i=NA,... L.i...s.As,••'.s,"I•P';-...-•=:•.-••'-.-,-. 4-..,...•I.I- .. . .V...-. -•-•2.';i-,,,_,...-4.11-_; -_.'i,!•,.•*-t-1.'.,,,.==•-t--,--. r---_,',... -...'•:.•i'...•..-•i..t.•.•t•'-J.-E.."..."ti1:'t:i 7•••,-7.-.-...•.M•-.-..----.-4"7tt.-i:.rL-'S.1,.--f,....',--,.I./t.-:;.,..,:.,.I..-2•,..,..........,•__:-,_.7 •,-P.:•?-___--4•,=_.-••_'•-•..!.-i - _.1--,-._.Z_:`..-..__•_ .. - - 1 .,Z 7- 4 .-•.--.,-.r-.-_._-..-,_„- =:. _.-,.. i 7 .--.....7".: II '1:::-;::,-- - •:'.`7_:: :.--i:•,•,'L 'fF,--.L,..,-,,Y7'.2f--.,,:lU.,,1, F7•7.2 '---;•••'.•47.,---=- 7 •--S.-:. -s.',,I-.- ''S'.:-.- :•••.,_'__;.„',.,;7.,•:-..••,', ;••-,.••- ,--1, 11 114 ss S.-_:--Z.:;=n-'''''.--•--' ?...: s_- '1;s: 7.-11-7-'4.23....jil>--=.-"=".1r,' f..-/r/-'71y-/., --/,,c2Lil.-_-_- 7_1;!...",:;:, 7:•.; - •-•;-:-,•;;;";',.-,3)..-,i: ii il ' ; II ;rx,11,-------i': I%-4=- -:=_:7-----%;1,ft-•pa-„---1'7-7.------7-7,--/./Eras,-so F/7.21.77_. _.- •- • .. ,..-_-.:-. . . 01. :c7.,..-- I: •-- -:•...tr,:::-..,...:.„,,,,,r.-•=i-1.••-:,-_-__;,,, -,--.-., - ,-• i _ _.,_ .- _--_ - ----• sts&'' ---'''::-7*P7nr-'77.--"' r 7: - ' " '"•• :•--'‘ "--:""'''' --= ..- --'-‘•'-1-,..'--7-7.--.'-',,,,,--,---- (.1.2,1 ' • . -..___r__- -. ,=_.=-:. 1,--- :-,-QE....-i-?-=----17,-------: -_,--___=•_-_,_- I! II :T' '•.,-.:_..... '--LT- .!F.:2.1 f...„..: .....,.....47.,•r:.:::'''.!?..24--;,-i''' ...,.;.:-., I, ,......-, .-,.,.. --=.7.--• =- , li ri j - ,, ,, .. ,:. rSout....ri-, erEt, •'--. ..----. 7-.7--"' I Oil ,• ::•.'Lii_... I__ ..._1: , =_-_-_•. 4 1 , • ,•,.: ....•-•,........- .....•--- -.-.,--t I _-=--=====,..xv.--.\--5, . . . ,.. '1 .=.•-f 1-A-T-' __ ',..‘_.==.:=1.7:1 7 7i1/ :!... . ..1! :I'.F• .1 .I:t-: ,.. _L',,,.\....,-- ct(Z( 11::.,.,,....,,=2.- -,/7-,,-;:yr, ,__:=-.:-.; r.:• _..-- . ---_....„' 1-1 ;I: II( ;1 .] 1.I t; ,----,----i&..-<--.,..-=:-,:,.___,---------- 1.-77-- - 7..z.(7„._.,, ... ,I. -- .•. - c._.,1 .,... ., •„___-_-,-, • --,,,, , /---,. .j7. •'-------: ----'LL7-7-=7 7:'k ---•C-•'-f7' '.7---' •7. .12 5',._x_.t•__"4 4.'Ll//8 /-1.:M."="'"---:: : ! •••• • •s. . If,-.. •I ,., . ...• ... '1. .1.41. '. . --,•.----. •- - ••••‘, . ' __I ' ....I_____• -___ •.__- .-•••;,:._. •% t----.. ,.... ____., Scheduled ' 1',1•-,'.. .1.-... .'cf.:,-- --.---.C..-.--', . .-'-"s" 4,y,.-R-$.7---f.,y-/ ..,,,.-_-=Tarcet Area Activities 1988-1992 .....!..t .- :.-p.(s:_. •-;."' ..------ =-..=----•. - _--_-:-,.---.-..:- -*-.., LI • /-/*/-'-_/.:• ..... '--E....., ...."--F`.----,121-:-. A Z_1,... s' .' ,s,..--r-- :;ffr.• t--`7,-";-. - - • ,,_,---_-_,,.., aft mr------7--- -• -(-'--;•Iti ‘,D,1 ,- --- . --- • , i : ; ;; :-.._ ' :• : : I;,:', -; t-=- --':'.. :.':._. , -,•;-72'7'- = . .'" 'th y 7-4=7.•:, .-.•••.z-,--. t -• , ......,...• _ _- - - / I Continued 'r•ti- .., ,I ,------..- ---,----,- --,•- !-- -_... ---.m• '...-2•-_-„,-.„4.„------===-_-:- _=_-__-,=-.:--:.-f----7--------.-7'- ---. _'-'• i r‘ 1....-... :-.:7•":" ..-:-.:7:-'-- -:;-:::' I. . .. 1.'.'.1 Open in 1989 - - .• , _:-.- :.• ,_ . •:-_ -e;-----.....---, - ._- ..•_ '-' '-7•-•:-.--.... jin.;!.i. ! ''77-•'_;.-:-...i -.---- _ Open in 19 9 0 7, I I i-,.-.-- -- I---- .=_-,7. :.-:••• s-Te-s' - .' :: --'''•1•':-:if 1 , ...use _...E.__.-....L.---•. _ t-- .. 1 . .---7--• . •-__---- .,... 17/:.-..-••=::--- .-. \N Re-One in 1990 -7- '',---1'-'-7:.--------....2-=7---.--,-=.L.,:..--7 -;r; •-_-==--- --ff.__,-,..-•:- - -..-.-:::::-__,:-_,:::-, .- . ' ' I--• •----- .. .. - • <t,---X\..-_...: ::-_,..-,..L.F.,..,.,.....i...,.-.., :,;: • , ' :, 1 7..7...7----:. 1:.___,...-• ..--..,F i. '-, •:-- -i- ••-- :1-.7.--7...,_-.7-•_:_-, r i' s ;: :7-- .•-----•• 2 i '• ::`,L-:---';,---€.......i-74,.....'7=--,----=.=.•.:-...,,474..4, ,". Close in 1990 ,, i • .! 31 ; •:_-_----_---.-- -,...i.'---:-..-- .....,-,.,__.•-.-a_--.-a-1-=_-,-,----/-' '.:-.:÷z-74--:=..=....._• ) I •...._,...7 i _, ...•g ,--7 t. ...: _.••• _-•!_ -'F •.•- •.7 -P-=.:. .._ .....".7,t-,..-. .; 71 .-..--i-_-e-__.---• -.=_=•-_--2;L,.- •:....-,-. •j •---1.---'11__„--= ,-=r••-.-.'.-.:o i Close in 1991 -:. ...-----;•_-==---,.---‘• ;! -7-'----,:"- -----72---.-a•-, -----;--•• !--,7" -7--,-•-•'. '7:2::,., ,; 1 • , .; •: ..,, •,,.,=_._ Lz. „,„.._,.,..,,,,-.. I :.1,1 . • , ; ' ,,=•-:--....------ "'. -.--'-',-.,-",T.---',... . J.:, .-1 -1..-.-----,. :',....::::: % .' ...u : _.!. ., •.----•-‘ . -..-,.=----•-.: .r..----. ••. - , 1_-,;--••...., l-1-. ._.-,.. VT Study. \ . . •!-'r -,- 1 - . ::: '; :. • . . '. . • Eli Monitor , . 10 • "" •-• it: - •----`;-•---:;-.- €:-:-- • = . - ••- ,•‘',', •(`57'1,-, PROPOSED CDBG TARGET AREAS ,..-.•-• ., • • . - • : - . : ,...:-. .., •,.. , --,c_.... \\ -,,,...-4.• , •., •4,';','74 ' -II....---__,.....,......•_•_. ..• ....-. •__...._.,- . \ ,...&,••• Ju'l-y,.• 1939 to 13une-;"..-:-`1- 92 • •,•.-••4, ••::•-•. z, i . - , er:-.7..:_. ,•::.-, - • • • . _. •• . ? . . , . • ‘" ‘• . I II 1 ''I II--- '' I-,1I• I - ‘‘ --- st... ..! -- . . •:-.=-_-/,--. I:7 r•--4,..----. s\-,.i_t_t_-i;:.z--, : 1 ,. • 1 i:.2 / / :...2,2,:'.....: . • ••=.,:,..,.:1I...1,__,L4.=.., ......:.,--7.,=-'-.\ ',. '.--7-7----••-.1 I •,,,,,, . ‘..,‘. 1. _.,,, .. ' . :. r • • . -___ - ,-- .: -.1,z i . •-• - ••-•.- :----*;•-..'=".:.-- -.•,-.--___. .--•..•.:.--:.,, •L'I'l:-,,,,•-•_..,.;.!.:I .'!-.7-2,----;7=-.77 .--77.-'-'7':--=-- i ' .7I. -, '.. .\- 4 / I t r." • ••••-•!II.. •'4.'7',I• - ----J.:7'r ''' -.7...•, . -:It . t..!7.t 7'.•1-' 14.....7.1 '' '77, ' • ..••I -1 1 \\V, ':•• .7-;-, , , .1 , „ ':•,••••.....-- ..-• l'•'.:•-•„•-`--- "" ',•"...:'."",--.1'•• =1 - ..A.',IL,.,....,,::E=:;•=-1;1•7';,,,--: ,''..', :•••-•I -1 77 :,•••,-,-"*.••=:••••-•....-':\ •.:-.. ._ :c ___ -_... . . • . •• • ;,.... -=-U -...- -.....,..71%.s. - --.. ..- -trr --..'s ..-- •-Li-• . ;;-7'-`.:...-::• '..-._=.: .-‘.• 7 , -_-,-.:. :.. ../ A.:/ / .-...-".--.•: '.7 --.: ; . ,. ,..,:,..:._ .=_ • ,s 1.- - -••-..:•',', 7 , ._ ••• - _•.:- ",----'7, -1: .. 7.; - ---- ,-.., . ., .-__. . , . - . . , - c. . '6, _-Pr:. - p .:...--"•, -5.7 \-..."•77\-:\\---- .• 7- / .- . -.- --. _. • ..-•-..: -. ..: -• --_. ,, t, .. , . •- \\ •.;.,\ - -.--' ' rest Capitol Hill .... .....„.... , ._,,,,_.. , ,„t• - 1:1,..-.• - -...c..\•7•\.-"\, _ , ... c_Z . .. .....-.:- - ,-.. .: . ••-•:',..A._____s - ._ . .•_- 7.4...;.7-7'--- I • Checlia = -- - ,,, ,„ . • _ v . .= ,,,, -,..: ... ,••.-•, -2 /V,...-0 1, C .) -... C•.:; at.Ks,Q,n, -- _ _ __- ----la - .....--. -:-6 7 0..•?,-- .' i\ .. • i. •il• ,-,-r, -7 7,:•.77 7:.....,,,_'.,-', '.-7 7.7,77,. • '7.'7 '772,,:- p - .''' ' ,.-- .., ......- • ‘ ,.."t.,...._.€ • -..,-• 4.--..- -(1.,4,- -,•-•.--:- • -7 -7 . . - =_-.•..-.-__ !...:,,_,... ------.•• . --. ... , . :-=--...,1-•::.7..--•••-• •-•; .1 ,,,: ; --:.•"-• • .717:.••r--::\,t \i ; 1 • ;. -• I., •47..^:. '-r- '--• -,.;'__--,_-r.-. • • -,:.=• '-k...- . ; \t,7-77:-•.• :\ N , ,•••,./(L,c6.„•-- . -.- -- • . •,.,t_••1_•J....I-•._j '.,.. _ • •.: ...,:•., 1 1'2.:• -- . ; i upe -__.-..= _-_-_--_•:.7--- . • • . . - . _ . .... ._ --'-'•• ... , -, ,-\7-12_-..a,_•.., /Z •'. i .,-----. .:- '"-*. • .V:\7 77 - 17/--/- i I 7-• ;- , : .- , - ! r---- ._,.. - ' ,__• • •• • - • - . .c . • " ., ;! 1;,;•.-; _, - ___ - .... -:---•-•,--:----.r-r-7,.- -- - ,--- -- ,,,: N-•-•:-_- •'•71 y [7-•;-:7-1.'---" i 77- ;17. f :: 177.- 7;= ..4' A_-_*:/ t.' , /i' ! ' 1 , ,_ . .7 ----- ;777,77-.., r-t,-r- - . . •- - • ' -.__ 1 _e ••_ __,-.. t__„. _ --,-.---., •-• - I,li-- --7'_;.7.---- t....=-.-....,-.--'• 1111.- - ..--:- ._ . -.. i // ' ' ,--. , i _ __7. .- „,-..,-- •=.. . . , ---1--,-- --- - -- --,-,-. ::''', 11 /E u alia/ --"----;-", -' I ! '.-1---:_" :*--'=. ; ; :i,i•J.! . ! „e,...-=-- i /' , , 1 , 1 . •': . , . _ ../ ..... • , , . •-• ,_._ 1....„. ..,r,___ ,<-<,......• / /f,f.i, ,:-• ‘, .... - ..1_. ;. , L.a-• 7...-- -- --..= --- -. 0......... ..-....7. ,'. • • .7 ' .-•_-_.. . / / / / -- ........____ .,..•__,......,,,.......,___...../... •11.--.-....-----'',. ...... ... .-7.7“,-7- ---1/..--1e- -..--. •--- 1: , --. r-•-• -- ---, ---" '---' -----' --117 =-.. ,7"-- -,*--! •---i- __. .___ d , „r=--1,r...., i4 , .„... , ; • 11. 1.. • 1 '. 1 7 .1-::: ; - ' ' ... .... ., ---/-1 • 1 - • 7 - 7 • 1 • •17 i..,..7- ,...; ,_11u_r.._ ,____ East--••Z,./.._.1, ••..,. Ncyrthea t __:= ___H. '-ln.,..--=-,--__=_,_-:".-ip--7-__-,,---•_,-----z-_-:- .....,-..,_, • • 113,r- 7-7' /.// / /if- --71 :-- ---•=----,'.- l'• r • - •, ,-.----•Q-2-,- . ...-,./.?., % 1r: • ,..- •.....: _-= . , _ •...- .....-- •-1.7:1;•;•:• :".: :; • ,; •, • i. , , 7' _.-,-- - -_:I,_1-.'-,.,•-1•• ' -.• ••,/"'"-, ..`-,-- , if/.--- .___Ii;1 '. - II :L_:I= :2-2.- •___ ..___•11 •_,_.- ;-=...- -Downtown L'--- -.'e-e.• /11/tre/7/_. It' __' :_' -1:. . _ . _:..___:___-,- ,.... ,--..-,., ..r-....•-...‘ !r--it;;r-1..--: ;----, --7.. 77',. r.r. .. (-7 :•••,.; ..: : _.: •.; „:. ',4,': ,-". .- __,-_,.. . . , ., .-..'-.-- , . ,.. . , :. i 1 .--. ' -• --_.-.: '..,7_r,j I.-.."• :•-•,.:,- . -- i:', li ..„-- ,;_•.=.-_---.c,/..,..:'r zi---, , :_• - ' /1 : ' i ' • ' ' ....-- -- - -,_____,.,-, ... .-L .._,.(.:,c2.L., HT________,,,_: 4----- ,---- ,-•- r-• -- - ,-- , Th --- -- ,.-- -7-----.; `,,-- ,r-----I.-----_ ., ;--;f72:17•• -r• !",' --,---'-----ii•--74,---, -11-7 •-• • 7,;---". 777 Ti- : i ':. : , ',- ; . .• .• .--- - ' -•_. i• .. 7 -•--• ,,__ ..• : ;i "------: -7;r5e7::,_•_,./." - \•-'\---- ,- II II: ' ' 7÷=-. I 7 I • , -. , ? .." • ' I7: • ..... II--1 I - ---,'- .-- •.,,,,,....__1 _____,,,,_____ ___ .., _ __. ,,.....,.. ,..-L__-- , .---.1,-- 7- ,--- r- ,-.,-, ,-- r--7 --r-__- .7.-.;7 ,-7, •77.7 ...-- , 7-...,-.: ----1:i ,, ,1 , . ,.: ;'.715.! ••=-1.-- ;••-w-r-'If)17, • •--.. •: - : . 7.-,.... :.,--., , ..•-: •,7 7, ; , ,. st. I' .--- ---' i;:-,.) -.: .._ : EL - Ca, -..._ -• __ -- -__;::-'.•__.L ...1•_:, _1, • ,-_-_____-_--,___- e , ,-, , _ . . ,, _ •_______,---7--r-• 1,/ :77; .=._k';:-.77/", -7-t-7-.,•,----ti.7.\---.• --,:-.7.1 771 ----. --. .--.- ' • -' ." %•. ',t,•'i:!,•'.".--1;-77..-j i;---;iit'--r-,_'-7.-.-j:t.,•.-'.=-=..='•7_..;--..-7-=_..-.=.-=.:-•.:.,,.=-,,-;.--.-..._:-.;,-•---.__,....-_•--1::-1,...•-.•,••_":,•.•--,t.',,',-•,_-,7__.:-1.-.•'.•4-..:,,"c-;=-.-•--__- ;-,-7,„.----,.-7-„(. r--.•,. ,•I',"•4 t,f i__'Lr''___1 i kI.-.'....'.,.-•1'I4 !,- ;...-.",p:1.•l'- '1•.!.1 7..T_-7-_:j.: ',,..-.t7--.7_'7-.7 1.CIS. en 71 t r a 1I1..,i.•.:•.,•,.• . E1.'•1-.,1!.•--,-.,. . C ----,.•,'1- , wes.tside91-4-----1- Peo1es-r - i - . 7-7, - r• ., n ra -.Sr. % 2 = 41 _Ik, D - CLy- - --/ A---'- Freeway ]•:- :•,_-.::•;•--'--, :-:•-"'-"1------ :' - , • -..-•-,•-•,-.-•=__-_-_..7_-.--_-:-_-_...- ____.f/ / ..t.-.-,-, ....7-44 % 3;; 1,11 ..iil . . , •;,,,,,/,t,,,. 1, 1 _ ;]T. ,; o' i!:* -, 41- \0.,, ' ...,..1-- I ;, '-•. i ...'='-,--•--- ....a.. --=---.1._--_-_-_-_= • -"--•___ .....z..._L:z••••:-.: •,__...._,..__-'-•.-•*-:f ,...__... ./7.7•7-- 7'7. .` /' r7,, , I •- - •- • - ..2.._: ..,_::.r.--.-T:1%II..: - - ....---77.7.7-4.4 ___:-._. _ ...._._ ._.- ‘._..... \i___ __J _ .._-_. _ft..!_ .._,..,___:.•• -_ -7----7---7.------------f-Z------ 7_7..7- <..,--,----------,,.----- -1--. ...,„,,..--,•• , ,r7.-._..-=---..:-7:7:7::7:,7-77:- ., .7.--_- •=.:::••=,;,-2-- ---;,-.--..- li \\ d,---,1\;• : •; t:„.•,,...-:,•.,i ,-.7..; - I-.-4,--;-.-_..r"..__a_- ;r.-1 ,.,1,7,-2.(.,Thi•; - . , 1 E; -. •--,,._-•.••-,-,--i.,... 1 18 ,-,sfr.'Li.::-_11- • III'...•....I.,,.."-^..-j ... , , ; ft:=;-',..±.-,71.-!,2..4___......,,.;."-•.,,.._*_. -I ......-. -._.,.- 2...-. . l'. 1 j••• ii•..."-i 1 7.-••:-•1.:Z.--7--....-. 7...,__,.,.• ,,,--___-_--77-_,•_,,, --,.-- T....,..-7-77.-. „.A7A• --7 11-----..1- 7.-- .-:: , 1 „,.. ., _,__- •-•--..,....... :,,..,..., J! r. _ ...___,--,-_,,,-,._.,...., •. ........., •.•-,._...-........_----=1;1 •,-;.. . .•11.:I 4 I- •I 41,1:- 0 i//L--,----t 7,...•17'i.."....• ••----:.-. i:; tt I''''-:=.----• 7•••' ':' . I' •I•1.4'I Uer-t4i.j.:--,.::___.7-',;,' ,,---=7-- • L.7....,,,:•-., ..! i:-,: .,---,...11\ :cwt... •1__ 1 _ .; -1•7;77.;":.\=--''''.• .• ...• r3 i --' .:---17-7,- „_,-.,:t.t„1--,-",-,=i-,:-,., 6 7 2::: y::.. I.: 1, i•-• ..,-...* ;1, ....-.. ..-1-.._,_-. 11 /, ,-:1, .; -,-a is ..:-_'.. . - .,-.1-7- -1, 1 -±...! 1 - -. --4..... - _ t ,=-=:-I, ,:, IV/ . ,, , • t, • C-1.1.enciai.. -.17,-,F.•1._-_,--,--"7. -' ,! it, y,,„ • ‘ •---- ---.-.,.-,:-,.:_ •-,•_-:,:.,7.--_,-_.-......--_-I:f._.°.1,-,-••,-;„,...,.,...,•;+ ,...-,_,._.t.,-_-:.--_=_=--_-:... ,..-.,•-=f.,.,_- ,;1 ‘.L-_-_-_-_-i- _-- •-, 1.1.,.-,. i .7.• - .7,-, -,-.7-7,-7.; *I ...d••• _,,......,.,_7; ... 71=-,-,-- ;'' ;s..: ., .=.--- '..,,,, ...=-,f--- .,, , i„-•_,', ---- - _..---•-.=!,-.--....,....„.- ----', - •• io,„-;.•-,.•:,•s,,,,:ls-;-,:-s••---17"---%--- 77.47 •-•; z.r----; 11 : -.•,,1---.----- ''''' ... _„..=r..,7.,..- ti.,..'..,,...,, -,„ -. ,, ...•,,-.• --_, ___• 7....-_-_-........7•-. b )r.:11.7'..., ••IA 1W • • t V - --,-:41,..___I, 111?-2. .__I. ; ..._:_•_t ;-"___--•_-.- ----=-_--- ___•. ±__ ____..7. )1 z .. -_--7. li _ "'-'----___.L._. •• : r • 4 I• .- -...... ...... ,;, .1, , - l''' -,77::r7;-, ..... - • - - •I____,.,L ::!... ...._.•.... , - .. • ; , - .--,----- .1 ,,!„--,- --„,,. - , .--- ,..--,..f...- - •----•‘77.77:77; ' . .; ,_._...."---,--•L.:- -7-7-- ••- -";-=.--7-t• :-. •'.- :-.1, -, •-• - ., 1 ,I;;,,qt 7-•••-7 .3 11:.-.1:.,..;-,ii , •-,:-: !--,-......,-, !•,,•,-----i,,.„_•-,7,-•;.-±...2E5-..-171,,,-„..1....:... -., : ..A 7,',,,-1,--- ''',/"/ - • - .7. V.: 1•• 7;1..7..77.- .1:1_7 -....7.7-.'7 .t -..- - - 1 i I ;i'•'!"1.".'-'7,' ‘'..r - : rri' : ' ' r,-...-- 7-.,--, •-/•2•-••••.-_-----. ,- , --- •:., •.,, ,., -_-•_ r .-__-7•7',;••• •,:7-',! ; II 1 itli II !iii!,11=.../.:! ,•_-_; ,.._-.. 1.-,-.11:,:.77 . 1......7..t.,;7_, - -7....,-..,.- ...„7-/ .•'3, y ;-,1,_.__._. • ‘,-4,':: •.1 ; .:..r, ,...t•E:4!-.7.•--1, -.:I IL , ;!•Pi 1 ;t--77-7-,L--- -- 77 ,.• • • '7.'7.''f z-B--- -'-7”----'---c 7' Tmer sorr,,--;-./.2.1,-_._ . ._ .. _ = -4,•::----; ; _.:_.!:-..--&-_,..:;.,.. ;; :_-,-,...-••:: ....-7--.:1 - •-77-T7-• •,; ,: '''' II. 11 '77--4=-•=r1 9 r---• 7 7 ..7.1.----•.:7,1.,:=----7-•' 7•-,,_-',._-'-_-1.(7in 77;'"--,-=--,---__,.. ____,,____7___ . ,\••• -,,_-_,..,..,-... • ..;--\-.''\ -----•- ••: •..-,717; i I. 1 c-_ --.:0--,-,•1 !.--...,_ I •=_-__ i • '-'' =--.7.f.=•-,--; =.l: rSoLith'.Centr-4-4;7-J,,----=_-- 7,-7-7,_,..,- ,------=,____,-i • 1- 1 ,-. •7_7----•_-• ,'I i ,', .--. I-; -----: •• 't '; i 0 , ', .. . _______ _..__, __2_‘...t ., --_-_,..,i_ -_,7=-,- 7; -----,7-7----=.. ;LT,,-v-7T-.7,.--; ,....,- -__-=-. ,1 , , ...-7..,--,;..:,--,„;,_-_ :,_2_,_. ' . 1._ __ _.....2 --,____:-----7,.._.:2.1 •I i!t !:_,,-•-i , . -,:i ‘,.. I,.,i; , ;,..-- "I'-,•• •_---,.:=_-.. •-•--i,v1,b., _,,i(.=1 - ,,.;:_:',---••••••=---,-=,.,., /_,---=-.------,:: -__.. • ._ ,_ ' './' I i !17,1;! .., I.; r -; • • ; • •••=-•- •---- -...,-,=-----• -' •• =•••"•'-- --,r...--, • .^.._.:_, 4 •I,-' ;! I;7 : ...=...._„....,... ..‘7,....7,_,-. ,....._,:_,„. ...., . , Ad i; ,.."0.,c •., -•-•'771..--'.-'....-:17.1.7-.A.,,, :• 11 • --•-- 'Pt; ;; ;1•;' .7 I 1' I • -•,_-_-.,.37 ,,, r, -.,------, ,,--,-it:r.....,7,...--(__ ,-47.,_2_,7_,../,../....41,7---,--7.- . ' ..',I ,1 ,I•,,....L.:.,--,=.:-. :,... . : --.-7 7-,' :,a‘.....\--=._--=x tr,,,r.rAl..., A t ric -1...../11..L.1,1 Z I.-71_ '•4 -• 1 ;1 ,•• ill; •; 1--;;•;-::._ ; -- .4.4.,:f-•,,,• ,-.--.7.-.----•- ----,;..e;';-7-/!'' / . ' . .• '7./ / -r7f.---1:-.71".---- ;7,7 I "" ' •,, . •1 I..1.=•17.--, .71 10. •,.713', 1; 'I..---r--,---s"=• : --., :- -.7:---77-71 :4,,,,_:-_--a--.L. :- /..--••••-••,-,-,--=-----z, -f.17 1.:. ; - • •,, ,...-..,..,. _.::Thr ,s',z.=.,-. __---, _,____..,,,,:c=•-•.-;-7-- ,•,,,-,.! . ,.^..-.- ,- , _ S chedu 1 ed !.c.,,r--r-7-. 1.......,r, '--‘ `, --'_-.-_'"--'''-' -4../../., it--•' .-.1-4/1- '.- lii,, •,' '.1 •' .1.., -', . ,-,-- ''. f F.7--..--..=t _,L.,....-, rt..4:/•t/if-777-t 1 1.///:// :I-_777-__'- - •:-...,,,,,-,--,.' ,.- t -7,-,-7:-. :--. 1r ,.. 7 :1..L ..-.,-...- ., • J-r,1.,..t:e. .../...., •.. Target Area Activities --ii -'-7.,:=--- -...:-- ---- ------ --' ---- - _., •- 1988-1992 ••••,.,, -• , - -;,-.-.- .,v...,,. ';' ,:-.-7.-7-..-• -',.:7 z:._, , ..___.,._ -- / , ,..-,..,.• .- :., ,,.. . ..'1' 7; /"....-7-7 7-",:"../.-!...,' ' :; •' ,-........--,..7,•:i..1!...- • • •' - - •' '••-•-•7.-..._•:, piaci (0A-tr \--,------- iped-o- --- .. , •i ,. . , ',A.,, ,-,r//i :,•-;4-717-zi;ei • •---- --• •; !,i-1, ! I--- ---:! ;';'''''' ;- :::. !F-E-=_-=_-___-rk.-.:-.-CA VI:i-7•-• ,7 2,•••••• i T:177.; ..,••••,:•-_-•- . , • ,., \ .• ,_•-• _- •-------•- ,-,__---.- ..,-.----•,.., c,A.,./-,,,. .. _..j 1.•,-,--,--7--, - / fir Continued /A. .,• •.: : . ,.,__- --...:„,.._-_:__ ;-_--,--1-_,_;.__.‘--:---3,. .-•-•-7--,- . ,...=-...-_,---„•_,:-,__• ', --_,------,-...--„=„7---=••.?"=-'--... - .7.-• ' •.17‘,„,_„. 7• •--.-- :r- --'-t----'7 --" Cr-.•-•1 .... t1 -1 y,,--,"31\v. ....•;_..„"4,7.41 V'. .-‘7.'"7. '•••••----.7.‘-'1.'..-:-.-L.: •11• ,! -, ..i• • •• 1.---=i.7=7.1.---7--,-- .,:._.,;..-. ;' i • -T•-;•'--=V A ..e ' ''" :-.2---_. •,-.7.'. ii!1' , 1. '• :...I Open in 1989 , ...._ .. • __:--_-_,.-. • 1 :‘,. ' ' - - 'III-7 - ..• t,' i • .-,..- •..-;,.• I-7,I.,:=L'I-,.1:11 i I.... :. , r------', ---=-4--_- ...., ..;,..FF...:, I''dC,,,Y<I '777 ,. i• ' . .1. ....-III,:-..::.,. t .1°7 •3 3 I Open in 1990 • ,.; I : i_-=-.-_ ---_,-..---7.. ., , _.. ..ous e •_. •_=-,-,-._.1-.,'-'....:_ _•2"_ ...- ,-•.-•,•---•--F-i;---,•• 4.....J.,..., ,....-. •....:•••.•-,. •• :„. 1 -r--,......,. .-=_ r•---7- -.,--5-.: ....y..:,y....,..\/ ,..___..__ ....,._ .... , .:,-.-•,- -• ai Re-Open in 1990 .7_12_---- •._ • ....• • ,...,,-., f, -.,... . .r--',..--'17 •••,•,..--.., • 7 • • -_-_=._• - .. ..• : ,„ -7 ,,----.-- ;...-•---.•.., i•• ;.. , -; • 1 , . . - s - • ..-..-- :.r--.-1.,.- . . r. 1; :•--- . ;•----- • ..; ii Close in 1990 ..,, 1 ; .1 .. L ' 71 . ' ' :.--7.-.1. ,_: • •,..,-.__:_-. =7_7._F•a,r--•.,---,,_,..,.__ 7. •-•- -... _,.:_:.:..-,.__.____ --,-:•_-.1,-....-• 1•7=-fr-=--i__.-------".----••;_:.•,' . . Closein 1991 ••-• ---. .• ,..-_ .-.1, I i .• , ..• i• • !: ' 1 ,, , 7= - - t.. I.'• _ I L--•EI-- ,LL i I . •-.......: • - •-:_,..-.-_:. 1 •, • . ,. .--'--N - ._ VI' Study ‘‘ \ ;7. •;:'T 1;- 1 . ---;il ;•.- ,._..., _ -_„„..,. . , It t ' • - _ .7...-;: •• I, : \-f-•-r ---\\,', ,.._-,---ZI__- ---,----- --,-._._..._ . _ Monitor • 4f Neighborhood S trategies ❑ -recommended best solutions;and In an effort to make the greatest possitive impact within CD target areas, specific 0 - an evaluation of those solutions' "neighborhood level" strategies, in viability addition to the more general community- wide programs have been recommended For areas requiring lower levels of CD for the designated target areas. General activity, written master plans are not programs available within the target areas required. These neighborhoods, classified include: as "limited' target areas, are eligible for the curb, sidewalk and gutter 0 - construction of sidewalks, curbs and repair/replacement program and the gutters where currently none exist; Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing rehabilitation loans, as well as those ❑ - replacement of deteriorated or programs available to all qualified City substandard sidewalks, curbs and gutters; residents. and If these strategies are successful a ❑ - the CD-funded housing rehabilitation neighborhood will not be targeted program. indefinitely. Pressure to continue current activities in existing target areas while Target area residents may also benefit from adding more neighborhoods can dilute the services available to qualified residents of effectiveness of targeting. Some present all areas of the City, such as the ASSIST target areas are ready to be closed; others emergency repair program and Operation will be continued for a few years. A Paintbrush (specific neighborhood limited number of new or previously strategies are discussed below). closed neighborhoods will be targeted for CDBG funding in the next few years. Each target area requires a different level or type of improvement. A comprehensive, or full-scale, target area that receives numerous types of projects should have a published target area development plan. The plan should include the following components: 0-the identification of issues and needs; 0 - determined goals, objectives and policies; ❑ -pertinent data and data analysis; ' 0 - a presentation of alternative solutions 11 fa NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING 'Y In the recent past the.price of housing in many of Salt Lake City's neighborhoods has fallen far below national averages (see graph), while property taxes have continued to rise. The effect of this loss of value has been that owners, unable to rent their apartment units or to sell their homes, stop maintaining their property. This results in neighborhoods in which considerable CD activities and funds were concentrated only a few years ago, that are again deteriorating. This is one reason that it has become necessary to re-open previously targeted (and closed) neighborhoods. AVERAGE EXISTING HOUSING SALE PRICE 120000-- - - - w E 100000 ............._............_,-------------------------..---------------------------..__.._ ...,.,---- 1 National A, J a SL area cr) fli is!! fir, isiti 2 ::]ii 5 M r :,;,;:::1 ,M?::J, :B:s,,, V„ A :4 A-; i,,x, . i?.) _ „ „ 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 YEAR 12 Target Areas I JACKSOP4 This neighborhood is one of two previous target areas that have been recommended for re-opening. It was originally chosen as a target area in 1979 and was phased out in June, 1985. During the six years it had full target area status many projects were completed, including the following: land writedown and new housing development on 500 North, 700 West; the Jackson mini-park; reconstruction of Jackson and Dexter Avenues and 1000 West between 500 and 600 North; $175,000 of sidewalk repair; 125 ,,, units of housing rehabilitation; and new water mains IFILA rtr=— , and fire hydrants where needed. Also, with the ;i-r- ^E nE ' support of City officials and neighborhood residents, W C f- 1' -' MgLl the School Board rebuilt Jackson Elementary School at v: l� ' � its original site on 800 West, 200 North. All this public �\'� }� involvement did spurprivate investment in housing I� --���. � � P -'�. .... i ICE 1 ,`_ _ � � rehabilitation, landscaping, and some business r=: 1, ,_ C expansion. However, in the three years since its closure as a target area there has been a weakening in private investment and the neighborhood's capacity to strengthen itself. This is due, in part, to the soft residential real estate market, a higher percentage of rental units, and a general weakening of the local economy. The Northwest community Council has requested that this area be re-opened to allow for additional City resources be used for sidewalk repairs, median island reconstruction on 800 West, and voluntary housing rehab programs. The previous target area plan, published in 1979 will be reviewed for other possible projects including block redesigns. PEOPLES FREEWAY The People's Free Way was the original name of this neighborhood organized by the Community Action Program in the 60's. It consists of a residential strip sandwiched between natural boundaries of busy Main Street, 2100 South, an industrial area and an on ramp for I-15. A comprehensive and coordinated program of community development activity has been carried out since Peoples Freeway was designated a target area in 1979. All residential streets have been reconstructed with needed storm drains and sidewalks repaired, approximately 150 housing units have been renovated, two neighborhood parks have been developed. The City's general funds were used to build a new fire station, the Salt Lake Housing Authority constructed 22 units of subsidized family housing, and Salt Lake County Flood Control participated in the placement of two flood retention ponds. Street lighting has been upgraded and fire hydrants added as needed. 13 0 The Community Council in this area has �iU�uU i� ... �'iLUC1 been very active in diseminating information —iiT•I , : as to what programs are- available in the , s • ' E.iii- - neighborhood and encouraging residents to `I " " �' take advantage of them. They recently :4 • •.1ril Mil •a I ij--1 sponsored a successful tree planting project : , (_ through the CD funded Neighborhood Self- ;, �. Help Grant program. The southern part of ' '- �,. the area (13th to 21st South) was phased out L./,' 24 \ , - as a target area in 1986. It is proposed that :^ . : _CG .etliJ. il the rest of the area be closed July 1, 1991 (;--" after implementing certain projects in the . TI Li north half of the target area. The Salt Lake1 Redevelopment Agency has designated part __ 1 of the area as an area for business i redevelopment. This will probably preclude the additional use of CDBG funds for street _ � and sidewalk repairs in the area between 700 ®III r CD & 900 South. Peoples' Freeway has been a r 1- -1,7,,, successful target area and will be monitored L 1 j after its closure in 1991 to prevent signs of ,.--� decline. y : �._ _I e 3 _® hi i 7:T-7-''Lb 631 WESTSIDE The Westside Target Area, designated as part of the first Three-Year CDBG plan in 1979, is bounded by I-15, I-80, the Jordan River, and California Avenue (1350 South). At that time curb, gutter and sidewalk were in generally good condition since they were constructed through a special improvement district in the mid 70's. The neighborhood was originally chosen for targeting to guide its J`,_ ^i growth conservehousing.and o sing. Approximately ' ''` ` `' '!'; 200 housing units have been rehabilitated �; €,—� through the Redevelopment Agency, the Salt . f= f T\ Lake Housing Development Corporation i l' :- V r �— constructed 44 units of subsidized elderly j. .11 � `=i i housing, new curb, gutter and sidewalks have ' ` " 'A ` ' " been reconstructed on 900 West, the area's r ,, busiest street, and a block redesign on Bothwell _' � i a �,i r Court at 1040 West and 300 North was t t . ,l accomplished through the coordination of the : .r 6;0i, : i J City, School Board, and Neighborhood Housing --"„ Services (NHS) resources. NHS, a nationally '°"" I_"' sponsored non-profit housing and 14 4,- neighborhood revitalization program, has been working in this area, as well as the a adjacent neighborhood to the west since 1983. The combined efforts of the CDBG program and other NHS programs and organizing strategies have also resulted in demonstration block improvements, moving houses onto vacant lots ,Jordan Parkway improvements and neighborhood fairs This target area has a higher percentage of minority residents, renters, and substandard houses than other areas. That has meant a concerted effort has been needed to stabilize and renew the neighborhood. It is anticipated that the current programs will continue through 1991. As the NHS program will be moving its program sometime in 1990 or 91, the City will re-evaluate the target area for continued participation in the next CDBG plan. CENTRAL CITY Although it had received much of the City's attention from the CDBG program since 1974, the Central City area was actually opened as a target area in 1979 when HUD first required them. During this time approximately $10 million has been spent on the following projects: 8 inner block redesigns, major street improvements to 600, 700, 800 South , 300, and 400 East, over 450 units of housing rehabilitation, the development of - Tauffer mini-park on 300 E, 700 South,Mary Richmond neighborhood park on 600 South, 450 East and City Well mini-park on 500 East and 800 South Other projects include land acquisition for three senior citizen housing developments, expansion of the Central City Multi-Purpose Center, sidewalk repairs as needed, and code enforcement to spur the revitalization of run down private properties. Of these projects, the block redesigns have probably had the most impact. These consisted of improving narrow inner block streets and courts by installing curb, gutter and sidewalk where possible, drainage improvements, mini-parks and neighborhood parking lots to provide off-street parking. The improvements made to these eight blocks has dramatically improved the quality of life for residents. Since this area was phased out as a target area in 1985, a combination of factors have caused first an upsurge in private reinvestment with a positive 5co _o visual improvement, then a gradual decline. Homes J that were painted and rehabilitated 5 to 10 years ago are now in need of additional maintenance. The Community Council sponsored by the Community — E ` Action Program has evolved into a volunteer group t.i with fewer hours to spend on neighborhood problems. And the fluctuating economy has left Oo 5�, investor-owners as well as owner-occupants with fewer resources to put back into the area. 15 Because of this it is proposed that this area be re-opened as a full scale target area in July, 1990. This should bring needed services such as housing rehab back to the community and raise the level of awareness of fighting to keep this viable, close-in neighborhood as a - - livable community in the future. The City can then protect the previous investment it has made in the infrastrucure, housing, and people of this area. EAST CENTRAL The East Central target area grew out of the Central City area. When Central City was closed as a target area in 1985, the eastern part of it bounded by 700 and 900 East, between 500 and 900 South was retained so that needed street improvements could be completed. Major street reconstruction including new sewer and water lines and storm drains have been installed on 700 South, 700 to 900 East; 800 East, 500 to 900 South; Lake Street, 600 to 800 _ = 7,1 South; with 500 South between 700 and 900 East to be `— completed in 1990. Housing rehab and sidewalk _ 5.00So.:111 1.1] repair have been done as requested. There has been 7177-71 - �'' _ much evidence of private investment in houses and - : EAST:= i landscaping. Neighborhood businesses have also -.ZE-NTRA- benefitted from the street projcts and revitalized their -`' 10 ,f j exteriors. As the 500 South and Lake Street (800 to 900 South) OD ho . improvements are completed, it is proposed that this area be phased out as a target area in June, 1991. A final push will be made to interest people in Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing rehab programs before the area is closed. At this time the area seems to be in a successful transition to a vital and stabilized neighborhood. WEST CAPITOL HILL The present West Capitol Hill target area is made up of the original neighborhood bounded by 300 to 800 North between 300 and 400 West (opened in 1982) and a remnant of the prior Capitol Hill area between 200 and 300 West. The neighborhood, with its present boundaries, was opened in 1985. Implementation of major parts of the West Capitol Hill target area plan has occurred since then. Projects to accomplish this have included reconstruction of 400 and 500 North Streets between 300 and 400 West, the development of the Pugsley mini-park on the southwest corner of 350 West and 500 North,street improvements on Pugsley, 450 to 600 North, and Ouray Street, 16 Arctic Court sidewalks, other sidewalk repair, housing rehabilitation through RDA and selective code enforcement. . It is proposed that this area remain a full scale target area through 17th year (June, 1992). Rezoning of commercial and manufacturing parcels which have s mot., been developed as residential land should be _ E s pursued. This would allow street improvements to be made on 700 and 800 North between 300 and 400 ; ,x\ I ._r _HILL West. Because this area is also adjacent to the planned new Utah Jazz basketball arena it will be affected by related development and increased traffic. Careful planning and development must occur to protect West High School's investment in the neighborhood and the residential fabric that now exists. GUADALUPE The Guadalupe neighborhood has been a full-scale CD target area since 1982. During that time a small scale plan was completed, outlining a specific plan of action for revitalization. Projects to accomplish this have included a mini-park on 600 West 500 North, construction of the Capitol West Boys and Girls Club (plus operational support), building improvements for the Guadalupe Early Learning Center, upgrading of street lighting and traffic control signing, sidewalk repair, and housing rehabilitation. Argyle Court, running 0 North from 300 North at 650 West, is scheduled for t _ reconstruction during Spring, 1990. \�lif � g 'raj � _ The City will continue its committment to this area — I ‘zijakW,,tr through June, 1992. It is hoped that ten years of public I i ' L support in the neighborhood will result in a level of private investment adequate to stabilize the area for c the long term. However, other government-sponsored 01 Jl. l I I 36 P o �� — actions such as the new Ja7z arena or the proposed,but r I tri not committed, North Temple interchange to I-15 — would probably negatively affect the area and must be F carefully considered by planners and decision-makers. ST The Cityshould monitor the neighborhood for ----1 N. im U - i g L. changing conditions and consider its long-range future — 1\, while the area is open. Strategies include: working � P g with local minority agencies to educate 17 4f residents about clean neighborhoods, continuing the anti-graffiti program, supporting the Boys and Girls Club in its activities designed to decrease juvenile delinquency,._ encouraging voluntary housing rehabilitation, sidewalk repairs as needed, and covering the drainage ditch on 550 West. SourH CENTRAL- A/B/C The South Central target area bounded by 900 and 2100 South between State Street and 700 East was phased in during 1982 & 1983. Since this is a large geographic area it was divided into sub-areas which were closed out as improvement became evident. Projects completed in section A (between 900 and 1300 South), which was phased out in 1986, included a block redesign of Grace and James Courts with new water and sewer lines, 450 units of housing rehabilitation, $100,000 in sidewalk repairs, and street improvements on Belmont Avenue and Harvard Avenue. Projects in Section B (1300 to 1700 South) �'� ;— ;uu l t1 �L 'I._�I�a consisted mainly of 250 units of housing I1—I Ir-71;i } fl rehabilitation, $150,000 in sidewalk repairs and code enforcement. This area was ]! ..... I! 11 j ,SEA,Y I L phased out in June, 1987. but continues to be an area served by the Redevelopment 'I housing rehab program for income-eligible — I 11co =_I -- !ET] e� !� -''�I� IIC! i7 applicants. Section C (1700 to 2100 South) remains open 1 i �►- but is scheduled to be closed in July, 1990. A r=....!�! to final year of concentrated housing -12 o rehabilitation and sidewalk repair will occur `� _ = I it it 7 :11 I!o inn! , in 1989-90. A pre-planned mini-park on 300 11c° 60. East and Downington (1800 South) has been delayed due to difficulty in buying the land � {I' ,�`._' ! � • but should be completed, after the area �I I_ is closed, if necessary. 11 I I These three areas are homogeneous in nature and are characterized by brick bungalows and pleasant tree-lined streets. However, signs of deterioration noticed in the early '80's were a catalyst to offer City programs designed to stem decline. The entire area, was designated a target area in order to stabilize the existing housing and neighborhood conditions, and will be monitored after closure so that any deterioration and private disinvestment can be detected and stopped. 18 0 ti`., SUGARHOUSE The original Sugarhouse target area, which has been a comprehensive CD activity area since 1982, is proposed to be phased out in July, 1990. Its final year (1989-90) as a target area will allow the completion of curb and gutter improvements on Roberts and Warnock Avenues, additional sidewalk repair, and the phasing out of the RDA housing • — -L`—'J 3 I :: I— rehabilitation program. -r, ,_, ; ,A) `,i Past projects include: completion of a target . L i_s,.,. area master plan, $125,000 in sidewalk repairs, t ' ...11 and the Elizabeth Sherman Pedestrian is -- d Connection from Elizabeth Street under I-80 to r--- the Sugarhouse business area. Private ,�, w J� Ia — investment in the area is evidenced in part by `-" > > _ new commercial development, which resulted $ in the donation of a building lot to the city and general housing repairs, cleaning and painting. 8 3 c 8 ee• �~ s = C� As with other target areas that have been .r 71 9 , 0 �f phased out, the neighborhood will be � `� monitored and evaluated to determine _ changing conditions. The target area plan, -.,.........H which coincides with the recent Sugarhouse '< K Community Master Plan, will be restudied to ensure that implementation will take place using other City resources. EUCLID This neighborhood, which developed primarily as residential uses originally, was rezoned in the mid 1960's to commercial and manufacturing to allow for transition to those uses. After the freeway (I-80) was constructed through the area, that, along with other natural boundaries of railroad tracks and major streets created negative impacts on the residential quality. However, the neighborhood did not redevelop naturally into commercial uses but was gnawed at by No. ' eimple, the establishment of a few non-compatible W. N lif L ..I I uses and the location of Mountain Fuel's plant. 3 �; Residents and community activists requested 'I Li that the area be given target area status as . early as 1980 but it was thought that the - , co negative impacts on the neighborhood could not be overcome. Although the 19 t:... Redevelopment Agency designated the area for housing rehabilitation in 1983, not much activity occurred. Due to the patience and perserverance of the residents, the area was given a chance at further reveitalization through full scale targeting in-1986. At that time, the area was rezoned to a residential use to protect the housing stock. A detailed target area plan was prepared, spelling out appropriate actions, both public and private, necessary to revitalize the neighborhood. Since that time, major street reconstruction has taken place on Euclid Avenue,900 to 1100 West; on Jeremy Street (850 West) between 100 and 200 South; Chicago Avenue, North to South Temple and 1000 West, North to South Temple (which will be completed in summer, 1990). Some additional street improvements on 900 West adjacent to the two sets of railroad tracks have been made by the Union Pacific railroad and Utah Department of Transportation. Sidewalk repairs have been made on other streets and approximately 20 units of housing have been rehabilitated. The area is still an isolated residential pocket but is making a comeback with City CDBG funding as a catalyst. Implementation of the target area plan will continue. Euclid will remain a target area through June, 1992 at which time it will be reevaluated for progress and status. NORTH EAST CENTRAL The North East Central neighborhood originally received the benefits of a limited target area, consisting of RDA's housing rehab program and sidewalk repair, when it was opened in 1986. Therefore, a target area plan was not prepared. Due to citizens' requests, continued community support, and the success of previously constructed block redesigns, the Windsor-Dooley Block (800 to 900 East between 100 and 200 South) has been selected for reconstruction of inner O RTH block street, sidewalk, and drainage. This SAS ' project, funded in 1988, was delayed _ EIVTR - because of difficulty in obtaining needed -s - - easements but will be completed in mid - --: 1990. A storm drain project linking 900 East ! _-__..__ with South Temple will also be completed = ! at that time. Although most of the area's w = - .. , ! infrastructure is in place, it is deteriorating. In the future, the 800 East medians will be rebuilt and rebuilding of existing curb and gutter will be pursued as CDBG funding allows. This area will remain a target area through June, 1992 when it will be evaluated for contined target area status. 20 FAIRMONT/WESTMIN$1 ER These neighborhoods, including Fairmont Park, were opened as CD target areas on-a limited basis in July, 1986. Housing rehabilitation (75 units), sidewalk Epp 470. replacement, and a mini-park on 1000 East T , I _,;{.•- �i�. �L and 1700 South have been the principal � _ activities. -A 1p - �� Although the original plan included the rO blocks from 700 to 1100 East, the areas0-111-1:AU ‘11 were extended to 1300 East due to their o o CD eligibility. The Sugarhouse ICE11 51GA Community Council has worked to do a survey of substandard sidewalk and \r,," _ l increase residents' awareness of other CDBG funded programs like ASSIST Emergency Home Repair and Operation '6° Paintbrush. The residents were also very involved in designing and implementing the Westminster mini-park which continues to be a focal point for neighborhood activities. This area was prevented from residential decline through CDBG targeting. It is recommended that both areas continue as limited activity target areas through June, 1992. At that time they will most likely be closed. EMERSON The Emerson neighborhood, bounded by 700 and1300 East, between 1300 and 1700 South is the third area in the southeast part of the CDBG eligible area that were phased in as a limited target area in 1986-87. The area retains the name of the elementary school which 1100 170 was rebuilt on its site at 1050 East Harrison about seven years ago. This is another -=— neighborhood characterized by small brick �I L�..,-. i bungalows and tree-lined streets. It is these -, I I•°°� ° ' o same tree-lined streets which contribute to 0 decline in the area as tree roots push up o �- 'f and break concrete sidewalks thereby i r creating tripping hazards. Emerson was 1100 originally slated as a specific services target area to maintain its vital status and prevent decline. Approximately 35 housing units have been rehabbed and $60,000 in sidewalk repairs have been accomplished so far. It is anticipated that this community should remain as a limited-services target area through June, 1992. It will then be re-evaluated for continuing target status or phasing out. 21 EAST DowNrowN `` East Downtown has not been granted target area status partially because it is a mixed- . ._.. use area with high density housing impacted by commercial uses encroaching on the east - - - and south sides. It is adjacent to the Central Business District as well as the previous Central City and current North East Central target areas. It is included in this plan because it may be beneficial to use CDBG funding on a project by 'C '`emP1e. project basis to stabilize the residential II ` components of the neighborhood. It is n wJ l p rl ��"i "a 1 '°� "1 suggested that the area be studied, I �. T� ,�(� coordinating with the Planning ty I �-� loll Department, to assess the community's o , R needs in relation to CDBG eligible O ' 3� o projects. As the Planning Department C' 1 IJ,1 [11 ,_; rife: T9 7' further develops its proposals for 1 Wes' T.--1i 'rod 0El r°I nn action in the area it is possible that the Community Development program 5Co 420, may be able to participate in projects such as street parks, infill housing or facade renovations for historic buildings. GLENDALE This neighborhood is slated to be a limited target area during the 15th CD year (1989-90) and a full-scale area for the following two years. The area, south of the present Westside target area, is bounded by 900 and 1300 South between the Jordan River and Redwood - Ez_,, r� r i in R 1 ni r( tom,--' Road. Part of the area was involved in the Federall Assisted Code . nJ F� 1 E '- Enforcement (FACE) and RDA cl 11 1 ,1 �' '�t.. i housingrehab programs as 15 years d a\�` 71r•—• � JOP[4GN• P go �l_,j _ 1 ► ir,,.,.,i y PANKSi ago. During that time approximately ° )IL. >':� i ; s� '� 125 units were rehabilitated. cC . 'vA ,'`)�0• J n;� f7 7_, - t_2i i --in I` Although the area has most of of its �` I curb and gutter in place, several small �� `. w `� �_ :',blocks (1200 West and, Lexington) do w��N7. �, I J I — !not have the needed infrastructure. 3 f - :1(j` -i(7.l1 M , Y ii F IT 1 F1 Also, much of the sidewalk has been displaced as a result of tree roots, and drainage problems are occurring because of the rolled style of gutter used. Most housing is of post-WW II construction. Housing conditions vary but tend to show a need for general maintenance 22 and compliance with code. Strategies include: construction of new curb, gutter, and avement tie-ins where needed, im roved draina e control :"°4'' P P g throughredesign of rolled •.�> curbs, marketing of current;housing rehab programs, and possibly construction of a mini-park. The City's Urban Homestead Program has also been initiated in this area to support home ownership for low and moderate income residents. ONEQUA This neighborhood lies between 1050 and 1700 West, 300 to 600 North, just east of the previous Jackson target area. It is currently a stable area but showing some signs of aging infrastructure and housing. Basically, the needs in this area are for sidewalk repair and some housing rehabilitation. If the City shows a committment to the '� neighborhood through initiating projects 31 ; Loco N° like the no cost sidewalk replacement o .1 �.� , • program, residents' interest in m...1 . N maintaining their homes and yards may 3 increase. Also, by offering the RDA Wi [ housing rehab program, code problems 9 not currently apparent from exterior �"1 conditions may be identifed and 0o No. corrected. \ ' •"`" av� The Onequa neighborhood will be opened as a limited target area in July, 1990 so that housing rehab and sidewalk repair programs may begin. Certain other CDBG programs like Operation Paintbrush will be marketed in the community at the same time. It is anticipated that this area may utilize CDBG services for two years and will be re- evaluated for income eligibility after the 1990 census information becomes available. 23 10.0I.Pkg!i.i;:.a!!!!!!!!!..:.:_ Annual DBG Programs 1988-- J :: g ............. SI _Proposals submitted for CD funding are . . interviews all applicants for CD funding screened for eligibility and evaluated by before submitting a recommended CD city staff and the Community project list to the Mayor. Development Advisory Committee. For easier comparison, the projects are City staff members evaluate the proposals grouped into the following categories: by using five criteria (see box). Each housing, block redesigns, new criterion is assigned a weight between 1 construction of streets and sidewalks, and 10, which represents its importance street and sidewalk rehabilitation, storm relative to the other criteria. drainage, parks, urban amenities, public buildings, public services, economic From their evaluations, CDAC and city development, administration and staff each compile a list of project planning. recommendations. The recommendations are sent to the Mayor. CDAC reviews all proposals and The Mayor reviews the Proposal Evaluation Criteria CD funding proposals and submits his list of Criterion Definition Weight recommended projects to CD Program/ Benefit to low and moderate 9 the City Council. Project Benefit income,elderly, minority, or Members of the Council, handicapped individuals; as representatives of their prevents blight;improves constituents' priorities housing or upgrades neighbor- and concerns, may hoods; and is coordinated recommend changes to with projects in the target area. the Mayor's list. Pre-Planned Continued feasibility of pro- 8 Status ject related to sound planning Citizen groups and and project phasing. individuals have the opportunity to respond Citizen Input Extent to which project has 7 to the Council's a broad base of community recommendations at a support. public hearing, usually held in early May. The Cost-Benefit Consider efficiency,leveraging, 7 Council continues to benefits exceeding cost,and receive written availability of other funds. comments for a two- Economic How well the project directly 5 week period following benefits the city's economic base the public hearing. In by attracting business, increasing May, the Salt Lake City the tax base, or providing site Council adopts the improvements. program for the projected use of the CDBG funds. 24 v`?. 14th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM . •On July 1, 1988 Salt Lake-City received-$3;795,000 in-Community Development Block' Grant Funds for the implementation of the 14th year CD program (1988-89). Because of difficulties encountered in obtaining reliable, recent demographic data, the decision was made to remain in the target areas selected for concentrated CD activity during.the 13th funding year (1987-88). }F$;::i::r:r ii:=r:\R::'.••'::=:%'.',\.c,�\,\, \„ro�r�ti.\.'\:: 3.r, egg {.1a\\\,\.i\.�,T �,:\,�:.�`\i:4:sf!<F�;-'-.:..-.i��5;: MUMM Selected Projects The following is a list of the projects and funding adopted by the City Council for the 14th CDBG year (1988-89). Project Title Funding Amount Housing ASSIST Emergency Home Repair $200,000 Redevelopment Housing Rehabilitaton Loans 700,000 Neighborhood Housing Services Rehabilitation Loans 75,000 Cleaning and Securing Vacant Properties 20,000 Operation Paint Brush 35,000 Security Lock Program 30,000 Neighborhood Attorney Program 5,000 Block Redesign Windsor St.-Dooley Court Block Redesign Construction 150,000 1000 E. Senior Center Block Redesign Planning 7,500 Streets 800 E.,700-900 So. Street Improvements 525,000 Peoples' Freeway Area Street Improvements 300,000 W. Capitol Hill (700 &800 No.) Street Improvements 20,000 500 So., 700 -900 E. Street Improvements-Design 25,000 25 Project Title Funding Amount - Storm Drainage N.E. Central Storm Drainage (So. Temple,M to 0 Streets) -Design 10,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Sidewalk Repair in Target Areas 200,000 Parks South Central Mini-Park Development 90,000 Jordan Park Irrigation- Design 20,000 Athletic Park Improvements 90,000 Urban Amenities Urban Forestry Management &Planning 50,000 Public Buildings Art Barn (100 So. University St.) 130,000 Alliance House (1950 S. State St.) Renovation Phase I 30,000 New Womens Shelter Acquisition or Renovation 175,000 Rape Crisis Center (2035 So. 1300 E.) Rehabilitation 25,000 YWCA (300 So. 300 E.) Mechanical System Improvements 15,000 New Hope Multi-Cultural Center (1102 W.400 No.) Rehabilitation 11,900 Public Services Housing Outreach Rental Program 29,000 Westside Emergency Food Pantry (55 No. Redwood Rd.) 24,000 Crime Prevention Education Program 70,000 City Housing Resource Board (CHRB) 3,000 Womens Shelter Operation (100 So., 800 W.) 25,000 New Men's/Family Shelter Operation (210 So. Rio Grande) 38,500 Capitol West Boys & Girls Club (300 No. 600 W.) Operation 28,500 Neighborhood Self-Help Grants 25,000 Planning Environmental Assessments 7,800 Salt Lake Historic Areas Survey 26,000 Salt Lake Community Progress Survey—Citywide 7,000 Salt Lake Community Progress Survey—Publication 4,500 Administration Attorney, Community Affairs,Planning, Finance,Capital Planning 382,000 26 ATIA Z1 . •Af:4- "s ••. • , • — , ; Art Allocation Percent for Art 3,100 Contingency Contingency Fund 182,200 TOTAL ENTITLEMENT $3,795,000 Percent for Art Allocation The Percent for Art Allocation for the 14th CDBG funding year is as follows: Funding Percent Project Amount for Art So. Central Mini-Park Development $90,000 $900 Athletic Park Improvements 90,000 900 Art Barn Renovation 130,000 1,300 TOTAL $310,000 $3,100 27 $` exa 15th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM • The City received $3,947,000 in CDBG funds for its 15th year community development program, which began on July 1, 1989. This, combined with $200,000 of funds reprogrammed from slippage, resulted in a total of $4,147,000 for the 15th CD program year x/=s{>;f'a.: t>f2 `'>. 1111m!'"""I'"nrillimigv.:=0vNeiiiil i" - smagi- e!IRS Min »:.cam. \• MMkA ,v:\•,..+�::::+.-:i.5}ii:_+i.; ; ;}:viiai iA ..�- �:i9:`S:ii:j'{:jy::il: i:y;iii:ii::::i:i:i::';%• -.wv«/.w.w.Gwnv«iw.•:ri.✓.m:.W::iii::A Selected Projects The following projects and funding levels were adopted by the City Council for 15th year CDBG funding: Project Title Funding Amount Housing ASSIST Emergency Home Repair $240,000 Redevelopment Housing Rehabilitaton Loans 700,000 Neighborhood Housing Services Rehab Loans 90,000 Cleaning and Securing Vacant Properties 20,000 Operation Paint Brush 40,000 Security Lock Program 30,000 Neighborhood Attorney Program 7,000 BHS Boarded/At Risk Building Assist Program 75,000 Low-Income Housing Maintenance 13,000 Community Development Corporation 80,000 Streets 500 So.,700-900 E. Street Improvements - Construction 480,000 Argyle-Edmonds Block (300 No., 640 W.) Construction 85,000 Median Island Rehabilitation Design 25,000 Future CD-EIigible Streets Design 15,000 Lake St. (800-900 So.) Design 8,000 Roberts & Warnock (2400 So., 500 E.) Street Improvements 35,000 Denver St. (500-600 So.) Improvement Design 5,000 28 Project Title Funding Amount Storm Drainage .. . Guadalupe/Jackson Ditch Cover Design (500 &600 W. to I-15) 9,000 N.E. Central Storm Drainage (So. Temple, M to 0 Streets) -Construction 250,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Sidewalk Repair in Target Areas 200,000 Parks Jordan Park Irrigation Installation 95,000 Fairmont Park Improvements Design 10,000 Athletic Park Improvements 50,000 Urban Amenities Urban Forestry Management &Planning 50,000 Bicycle Paths 8,100 Public Buildings Marmalade Hill Center (500 No.,150 W.) Renovation 47,000 Glendale Youth Center (PAL) Expansion Planning 25,000 Alliance House (1750 S. State St.) Renovation 11,000 Crisis Nursery (2020 Lake St.) Renovation 18,000 First Step House (750 W. 400 No.) Renovation 52,000 New Hope Multi-Cultural Center (1102 W. 400 No.) Rehab 16,000 Public Services Housing Outreach Rental Program 35,500 Westside Emergency Food Pantry (55 No. Redwood Rd.) 26,000 Crime Prevention Education Program 81,000 Women Shelter Operation (100 So., 800 W.) 25,000 New Men's/Family Shelter Operation (210 So. Rio Grande) 58,000 Capitol West Boys & Girls Club (300 No. 600 W.) Operation 28,500 Neighborhood Self-Help Grants 15,000 Living Traditions Festival 15,000 Planning Salt Lake Assn. of Community Councils (SLACC) Staff 50,000 Downtown Plan Strategies 35,000 Administration Attorney, Community Affairs, Finance, Capital Planning, Environmental Assessments, Planning 414,500 • 29 . t 1:‘.1 vs-t, Project Title Funding Amount Art Allocation Percent for Art 2,150 Contingency Contingency Fund 139,250 TOTAL ENTITLEMENT $4,147,000 Per Cent for Art Allocation The following projects were selected to receive the one percent public arts allocation for the 15th funding year. Project Funding Amount Percent for Art Jordan Park $95,000 $950 Poplar Grove Park 73,000 730 "Y..- Marmalade Hill Center 47,000 470 TOTAL $215,000 $2,150 30 f.. 16th and 17th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Specific proposals were not submitted for the 16th and 17th (1990 and 1991) program years. However, the Community Development planning program will guide the funding of projects for these years by setting forth target areas to be opened or phased out and by identifying projects for, planning, design and construction. Many projects require funding for more than one year for reasons of scheduling design and then construction. Also,projects may require more than one year of construction funding to proceed with ongoing phases. Planning and programming of projects for succeeding years allows the city to visualize the impact of prior year funding decisions upon the extended CDBG program. Projects initially proposed or funded in 14th or 15th years (1988 and 1989) that may require funding during 16th and 17th years include: Existing Street Median Island Rebuilding New Median Island Construction Lake Street (800-900 South) Improvements Denver Street (500-600 South) Improvements 700 and 800 North (300-400 West) Street Improvements Guadalupe/Jackson Drainage Ditch Covering (500 West, 250 to 500 North) Additional Bike Paths In addition, a few projects will warrant continued funding since they have become the basis for target area revitalization. These projects include: Sidewalk Repair Various Housing Rehabilitation and Maintenance Programs Urban Forestry Management and Planting Operation Paintbrush There continues to be a high demand for CDBG funds for public service projects,both building renovation and administration. HUD allows up to 15% of the City's grant amount to be used in this category. It is anticipated that agencies previously funded through CDBG, as well as new organizations, will depend on this source of funding for their budgets. For example, the city's support of the Homeless Shelter will be needed in future years to insure its continued operastion. As projects are accomplished in target areas and throughout the City during the timeframe of this plan, better living conditions for City residents will occur. 31 IMPLEMENTATION The diversity of projects funded_by the For the revitalization of neighborhoods to block grant requires ongoing coordination be effective the provision of soft projects is with several departments of the city. as necessary as capital improvement Implementation, therefore, necessitates projects.In the 14th year CDBG program 52 competent administration and monitoring percent of the funds, minus administrative of the CD program. The Capital Planning and contingency amounts, were allocated and Programming Division (CPPD) of Salt for capital improvements while 48 percent Lake City is responsible for providing of the funds were for soft projects. And in these functions. the 15th year CDBG program 48 percent of the funds are allocated for capital Relationship to Capital Improvements improvement projects while 52 percent of Program the funds are for soft projects. The Community Development Block Grant Project Implementation program allocates some funds for capital improvements projects. The Community Once projects have been approved for Development Four Year Plan will be part funding CPPD is responsible for project of the Capital Improvements Program (1989- implementation. This division assigns the 90 to 1993-94). Like the Capital appropriate city department the Improvements Plan (CIP), the Plan responsibility of administering individual identifies specific budgeting of projects for projects. fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and will recommend general planning of funds for In instances where implementation of a fiscal years1990-91 and 1991-92. The CIP is project requires the attention of more than guided by general policies and CDBG one city department, communication and related policies. CDBG funded projects cooperation among all parties is essential. within the CIP are identified in the Salt Due to the number of participants Lake City Capital Improvements Program. involved in such projects it is important to The CIP document is maintained and ensure that the original intent of the updated by the City's Capital Planning proposal remains unchanged throughout and Programming Division. the design and construction stages of implementation. Soft Projects Citizen involvement is another important Projects that are non-capital in nature are aspect of project implementation. An effort called "soft" projects. These are projects should be made throughout the such as housing rehabilitation loans, implementation period to keep residents emergency home repair, and public informed about community development services. Examples of public services activities in their neighborhood. Citizen include crime prevention, education and participation can result in continuous lock installation, providing shelters for the improvement of the Community homeless, and building renovations for Development Program. social service agencies. 32 . = Appendix In an effort to obtain as accurate and representative a view of current neighborhood conditions as possible, data were gathered from several sources and presented to decision-makers in columnar form (see Appendix A) for the purpose of comparing conditions among the city's neighborhoods. This, along with citizen input, analyses of past activities in the neighborhoods, along with many discussions, meetings, hearings and recommendations, formed a basis for the planning of the 15th, 16th and 17th year target area programs. Sources 1. 'Average Household Income' data are taken from the Wasatch Front Regional Council's Surveillence of Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics, 1980 edition and 1986 Supplement. 2. The statistics for 'Percent Substandard Buildings' and 'Percent Substandard Housing' are from SLC Planning and Zoning Division's Land Use Inventory,most recently revised in January, 1987. 3. 'Housing Age', 'Percent Minority Residents' and 'Percent Elderly Residents' data are from the 1980 U.S. Census (STF 3A2,Table 109). 4. Households With Schoolchildren' data were supplied by the Salt Lake City Board of Education (1989). • 33 Households with Schoolchildren Y Housing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head 're-1940/1940-69/1970-80 Residents Residents free /reduced-cost lunch households 3.1 68.8 28.1 6.1 10.9 17 34 5.7 87.6 6.7 2.7 19.9 6 30 11.8 84.2 4.0 1.7 16.7 4 9 47.1 47.3 5.6 10.4 15.3 37 33 27.8 59.7 12.5 4.7 19.2 14 26 22.4 69.4 8.2 4.1 20.9 16 27 39.2 50.0 10.8 8.9 16.8 40 49 q Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow Census Tract Traffic Zone _, come,.1980/1987...... _ . . ..Buildings • . Housing-Units Occupi€ - 43 All 29475/31867 0.0 0.0 47 44 All 54047/58437 0.0 0.0 86 45 All 34822/35817 0.0 0.0 80 46 All 16892/17383 13.8 17.3 41 223 17014/17500 4.2 0.1 224 12710/13073 15.4 26.6 225 14383/14794 2.9 2.0 232 19894/20463 37.1 30.2 233 16476/16947 2.6 8.1 234 20007/20579 13.3 18.5 47 All 26792/27564 3.6 3.2 71 235 26098/26844 11.0 11.3 236 28349/29159 11.2 5.8 249 26273/27042 1.4 1.4 251 27117/27891 0.0 0.0 252 24773/25481 0.0 0.0 48 All 25739/26477 2.5 2.3 75 245 26790/27555 3.4 3.2 246 23588/24263 7.5 7.6 247 25376/26101 3.5 1.8 248 29107/29938 0.0 0.0 250 21266/21874 0.0 0.0 49 All 19248/19796 18.5 16.7 50 226 17597/18100 14.9 22.0 231 16750/17229 25.5 21.9 237 19669/20231 20.4 15.3 238 20993/21593 13.8 12.9 243 -----/-- - - - ;,firVII .A Households with Schoolchildren TTousing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head __ re-1940./.1940-69/.1970-80 : Residents Residence ..free /reduced-cost lunch ho holds - 3.1 68.8 28.1 6.1 10.9 17 34 5.7 87.6 6.7 2.7 19.9 6 30 11.8 84.2 4.0 1.7 16.7 4 9 47.1 47.3 5.6 10.4 15.3 37 33 27.8 59.7 12.5 4.7 19.2 14. 26 22.4 69.4 8.2 4.1 20.9 16 27 39.2 50.0 10.8 8.9 16.8 40 49 -,t.,,,, ..,-; * Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow-h •::Census Tract Traffic Zone:, _. .come, 1980/1987 Buildings :- Housing Unii:.; :.OccUpiE - - 43 All 29475/31867 0.0 0.0 47 44 All 54047/58437 0.0 0.0 86 45 All 34822/35817 0.0 0.0 80 46 All 16892/17383 13.8 17.3 41 273 17014/17500 4.2 0.1 224 12710/13073 15.4 26.6 225 14383/14794 2.9 2.0 232 19894/20463 37.1 30.2 233 16476/16947 2.6 8.1 234 20007/20579 13.3 18.5 47 All 26792/27564 3.6 3.2 71 235 26098/26811. 11.0 11.3 236 28349/29159 11.2 5.8 249 26273/27042 1.4 1.4 251 27117/27891 0.0 0.0 252 24773/25481 0.0 0.0 48 All 25739/26477 2.5 2.3 75 245 26790/27555 3.4 3.2 246 23588/24263 7.5 7.6 247 25376/26101 3.5 1.8 248 29107/29938 0.0 0.0 250 21266/21874 0.0 0.0 49 All 19248/19796 18.5 16.7 50 226 17597/18100 14.9 22.0 231 16750/17229 25.5 21.9 237 19669/20231 20.4 15.3 238 20993/21593 13.8 12.9 243 ----/------ -- -- o pHouseholds with Schoolchildren -lousing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head re-1.940./1940-69/1970-80 Residents:. . Residents free /reduced-cost lunch households 51.1 45.6 3.3 21.7 18.3 65 45 61.2 33.1 5.7 9.6 17.9 31 34 72.4 23.0 4.6 7.9 15.5 28 28 72.9 17.1 0.0 3.2 17.9 5 23 68.4 30.3 1.3 4.2 23.3 3 26 ? ? ? 4.6 19.6 14 27 13.3 85.2 1.5 5.0 18.5 13 25 3.0 93.9 3.1 3.8 18.1 7 15 27.3 60.1 12.6 2.6 18.4 4 15 0.5 69.2 30.3 3.7 13.2 1 9 • • Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow , ii - : census Tract Traffic Zone • come,:198CV.1987 -: Buildings Housing Units.- • Occlipi€ 33 All 21311/22635 24.1 22.3 41 116 26069/22182 25.3 29.2 117 21934/23297 30.5 30.2 118 21928/23291 17.4 11.0 119 20939/22241 25.8 22.0 120 21073/22382 12.3 5.8 34 All 21062/22397 8.5 8.3 54 107 22405/23798 2.2 2.2 108 19403/20609 109 21617/22960 17.1 17.4 35 All 27268/28971 19.0 18.7 59 093 20896/22195 33.0 29.8 094 24511/26034 14.5 15.0 095 41164/43722 7.0 7.2 36 All 37962/40621 0.0 0.0 75 096 40984/43531 0.0 0.0 .- 097 34524/37307 0.0 0.0 37 All 29699/31816 0.0 0.0 76 105 33089/35756 0.0 0.0 106 26983/28660 0.0 0.0 38 All 27305/29263 2.8 3.2 - 121 27031/28711 5.1 5.5 122 27566/29788 0.1 0.1 39 All 29713/32108 0.1 0.8 75 123 30219/32655 0.1 0.8 124 29438/31810 1.6 1.7 125 29444/31817 0.0 0.0 40 All 43241/46719 0.0 0.0 86 41 All 35528/38390 0.0 0.0 72 42 All 69023/74557 0.0 0.0 84 • ‘- „ r-cZtA Households with Schoolchildren Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head 0/1.940-69/1970-80 Residents.. :Residents free /reduced-cost lunch households 1.8 72.7 15.5 28.7 7.8 56 34 1.1 45.6 3.3 21.7 18.3 65 45 4.7 32.4 2.9 20.5 18.5 69 48 4.3 34.4 11.3 16.0 15.9 46 51 0 461.7 Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow_ Census Tract Traffic Zone , come, 1980/1987 _ Buildings . Housing.Units . Occupi( 28 All 25259/26956 14.6 15.7 77 196 26375/27848 4.9 6.5 198 23611/24603 26.3 26.5 201 22920/23883 18.9 20.1 208 30902/32202 5.0 3.4 209 25300/26364 * 210 22335/23275 17.3 26.5 211 27475/28630 11.5 212 -----/26364 - - 29 All 19043/20067 14.7 22.4 41 191 13454/15374 19.4 37.0 192 ----/21547 * 193 * /21603 * * 194 17319/17970 37.0 46.8 195 13456/15479 12.8 33.3 213 21716/22303 6.0 16.2 214 25282/25965 2.6 3.8 215 21546/22127 31.1 33.9 216 19062/19577 6.7 4.5 217 14110/14490 12.8 30.0 218 14874/15275 7.4 27.1 30 All 18691/20403 13.9 13.3 55 090 16297/17811 15.8 15.0 091 20871/22809 12.1 11.8 092 -----/20490 • 31 All 22286/23124 16.5 15.5 53 110 21918/23280 9.1 8.8 111 23661/24300 27.0 26.3 112 20997/21564 10.6 8.9 32 All 17776/18449 12.2 9.5 113 13818/14191 17.9 9.7 114 20632/21189 14.4 13.6 115 20462/21734 4.8 4.4 0 0 Households with Schoolchildren Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head --• 40/1940-69/1970-80 Residents. - Residents free /reduced-cot lunch households 6.5 32.4 31.1 34.4 26.7 67 51 6.3 11.7 2.0 38.5 15.6 82 71 2.0 6.0 2.0 33.7 16.0 59 31 ..,.. 9.4 34.7 5.9 33.0 16.3 67 43 3.7 52.6 23.7 23.5 11.1 60 41 r` Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % OS I .Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 Buildings . Housing Units Occupic 23 All 11997/13192 33.7 18.9 15 087 ---/12850 0.0 -- 086 7606/ 8313 11.1 6.3 089. 13648/14915 44.3 23.7 24 All 14163/16299 15.0 34.6 21 185 7976/ 9114 8.8 37.5 186 7536/ 8611 4.3 * 187 17742/20274 12.4 42.1 188 15201/17370 21.5 35.6 189 11206/12805 1.9 * 190 13701/15656 44.2 * 25 All 16476/18846 14.9 52.3 5 164 -----/16162 0.0 -- 165 17309/19779 6.7 36.0 166 -----/ 1900 4.1 -- 167 13305/15203 34.8 75.0 178 14144/16162 23.8 80.0 179 7303/ 8345 10.0 * 180 17087/19525 19.6 77.6 26 All 16565/17262 60.3 65.2 58 168 16023/16697 24.4 35.2 177 16512/17206 80.0 58.6 197 16904/17615 71.1 68.7 27 All 22643/23596 25.5 19.6 56 169 35763/37266 • • 176 20267/21119 17.9 17.7 199 22932/23896 33.7 33.2 200 24759/25800 26.1 13.8 Households with Schoolchildren ' . ng Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head 40/1940-69/1970-80 Residents: : :Residents free jred.uced-cost lunch households - 9 46.9 12.2 24.5 8.9 60 38 5 24.3 39.2 8.8 25.6 30 28 47.2 50.8 5.0 15.3 10 10 = 37.4 3.7 5.5 15.7 58 31 7 29.3 13.3 10.2 17.3 29 30 7 38.3 9.0 6.8 13.6 14 27 8 23.4 15.8 3.8 9.1 0 3 • • ,,, Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Owl,' -,,,..,_,1 • Census Tract Traffic Zone , come, 1980/1987 Buildings Housing Units OccupiE 14 All 14703/13497 7.3 0.0 1 052 15485/14196 3.9 0.0 077 - /13214 16.1 -- 078 14031/12863 0.0 0.0 079 9496/ 8705 0.0 - 15 All 17450/18501 37.0 28.6 21 065 17946/19008 37.2 20.3 066 20598/21817 49.7 30.3 075 16699/17687 36.8 27.4 076 13592/14396 30.8 39.4 16 All 15761/16693 40.3 32.9 16 080 18960/20082 28.9 11.9 081 21657/22939 4.4 3.4 17 All 15761/16693 40.3 32.9 16 067 15748/16680 34.8 30.7 074 15771/16705 45.8 34.8 18 All 16000/16953 62.7 49.3 26 082 15341/16249 51.9 38.3 083 16368/17336 68.3 55.3 19 All 13294/14080 14.8 19.9 4 068 13285/14071 10.2 10.9 073 13306/14094 19.7 33.4 20 All 14860/15813 28.7 34.0 24 084 10881/11891 18.7 61.3 085 15936/16879 34.8 26.6 21 All 12034/13153 3.8 9.1 1 069 11439/12501 2.5 15.4 22 All 6440/ 7038 - -- - 072 12713/13894 4.8 1.9 I ,..,..71, Households with Schoolchildren `i 'lg Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head -.,40/1940-69/1970-80 Residents Residents free /reduced--cost lunch hoasehclds 7.7 47.1 45.2 18.7 1.3 50 31 8.6 45.0 6.4 11.9 10.2 22 22 0.7 41.2 18.1 13.8 16.3 56 47 0.7 41.2 18.1 13.8 16.3 56 47 6.5 39.3 14.2 18.9 13.0 60 48 1.6 25.7 2.7 17.8 20.2 58 46 0.8 26.3 12.9 30.6 10.4 77 48 1.4 27.2 1.4 19.6 23.7 63 63 3.4 12.7 3.9 13.0 22.4 20 40 0 Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow! Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 Buildings Housing Units OccupiE 7 • All 18741/20893 37.7 26.1 28 058 -----/20429 0.0 -- 149 20483/22829 48.7 34.6 150 17895/19945 32.4 21.4 8 All 17698/19273 14.1 7.1 20 059 22295/24848 18.3 13.9 158 15540/17320 16.0 3.9 159 ----/19935 0.0 160 ----/19935 0.0 - 161 -----/14531 0.0 - 9 All 83937/93549 0.0 0.0 95 044 83937/93549 0.0 0.0 051 83937/93549 0.7 0.0 10 All 31532/35154 16.0 15.5 59 048 32334/36037 20.1 20.3 049 27860/31050 15.3 14.5 050 36078/40209 15.2 15.0 11 All 20977/23392 34.9 24.7 21 056 23635/26362 35.3 27.5 057 21416/23869 35.4 20.1 060 21258/23693 29.3 16.3 061 17493/19497 43.5 45.??? 12 All 22272/24816 40.9 31.8 37 054 22383/24946 0.0 0.0 055 21230/23661 46.5 31.9 062 20366/22698 42.4 28.8 063 23438/26122 38.2 34.4 064 25395/28304 36.2 33.7 13 All 76285/85021 6.0 7.4 8 A 60 Households with Schoolchildren trl Housing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head 2re-1940/1940-69/1970-.80 :Residents_. Residents free./.reduced-cost lunch - households 62.9 48.9 1.8 44.7 11.1 83 38 11.4 71.5 17.1 5.8 12.5 1 8 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 1.1 19.6 79.3 25.5 25.5 N.A. N.A. 0.2 97.4 2.4 11.4 5.2 28 27 2.2 72.9 24.9 14.1 9.5 39 31 34.8 42.9 22.3 27.7 11.6 61 34 S Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow ) Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 Buildings Housing Units OccupiE 1 All 14667/15162 39.1 64.8 34 141 13818/14191 35.7 84.6 148 20102/20645 41.0 74.8 151 20102/20645 41.0 74.8 157 10628/10915 39.1 64.8 2 All 33810/37716 2.1 2.5 58 045 56911/63429 0.7 0.6 047 23339/26021 3.6 2.4 3.03 All 32519/41678 3.1 21.9 55 133 40582/41678 30.8 28.0 134 24197/24851 0.0 0.0 135 -----/ 8303 0.0 -- 136 -- / 8303 0.0 -- 137 ---/ 8303 3.7 - 171 ----/ 7607 7.7 -- 531 ----/ 5759 0.0 -- 3.04 All 25490/26279 3.6 2.0 52 138 30615/31441 2.1 1.2 139 6235/ 6403 2.7 0.7 145 16836/17290 22.5 8.9 154 24788/25457 2.9 1.5 170 25928/26628 0.0 0.0 4 All 32749/33634 2.4 2.8 91 143 32966/33856 1.9 2.7 144 32603/33483 2.8 2.8 5 All 24379/25036 12.0 7.3 64 146 26199/26906 8.0 7.2 147 23376/24007 12.0 7.3 6 All 21104/21688 29.0 23.2 66 152 19496/20022 28.8 27.9 156 17007/17466 38.4 46.5 153 25211/25891 24.5 26.0 155 22093/22690 20.6 2.4 . . -. • . . ••••••• my.--- ...•••-• • .7....F•139.01 . • I 1 La -_--5:7 --i-a-r--1 r----mcira___...J r 1 E...____.... ._1---1 : . -1 1------. 9 1 .. .1.....12 : 139.01 )----Lav_ira.1—____T LJ :...... 1 fi-J1 ” I 1 I 11!G= z 5 a 5 . .N ( 1 . ts. 'I 3.03 ' . ti **"`'''''..!,;......... i i ! I--il 139.01 ••••@Km/. ..5. , I 5 ,. .• 7 • A'..r”.4.1. i ••• ," \ I 13.•Arlo. 1 0 7 I I 6 ... 1 1 : so•..•,. .:. •on AvVel. 8 11= 13 . r ....s....L. 21 19 17 15 22 F ..; :•1 27 26 251 1-•<...,•••••• .1.1-1— 1...! -......--......\...„... i _ ! : L , . .,,,,,•It S• — 3.02 i I'l \ •e.9011111 i 1. 4....t I . .... . 24,2221 , 23 20 18 16• I ! II ...... .........."- 1 28 29' 30 '"•4°." 35 ' i ......,. 36 4 ii i . 1 31 "”"'''''" 34.; 37: . ..., . . 1 [ : . . ; KIZa i I : L .____ . ,: •014,c.11. .‘!,'N i ! . 32 ""''''''' 33 38 39 43 11:, I'----1 3 ^ r j 4.1•40.41• , .•., . -'-'. ... 49 "."`"" 46 45 i 44NN4 . , _ -1i .... • ..... . - ..... i 11 ImMNYMINT•mGY,..... 1.tt trr "."4.'" 48 .•\ \ ' SALT LAKE CITY 208 101 1980 01111 teln• CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARIES 118 CIV11110. 'REVISED' SALT PASS CITY,,,,,Imp COMMISSION • m.--- • Ir•l• . .,-.1•,•i'T Y •.'1.t 64 ,••1.,•••••, • ''...:', , 1 Afil. r)6 'r u•r-►c�a• n `, INDIAN HILLS n:J. © n A SCHOOLN /� _n INOIIR E, Mti'iar►l•4n .1:flg CIR •T ^/n /� r n I� ^,\n aBASSAD011 n _^ A 4009 ism g.: 02000 •Aria,, .igt..m.: VIA 1 6A A gROXBURY A A 1 li iJy:�fi7:r.\•/ A A CIR. A A ~ A ll+ ,y *Ira AP- HE I A A '•7:Ayta,la•: USE A HIAWAT .''4' CIR. SKI. INF r Q - SKYLN CHERO I\ IR. /_'1 S A �n DR �n LOGAN FOOTMILL 1� 3ZN A R•BRO K cIR frt y` • u CO CIRCHE A A ^ •�• Y 4 Q v o n� A f 2 BLAINE '9�0 - CI x _ 1 ��� CIR r^ 0 3 A n ur AVE 2 o ^,-, /� �.�..r 1I \'ran- — oo o A FA P P • v z BEACON • SCHA CIR • i P, HEIGHTS 0 A o P SCHOOL \\ A A 0 • A 0 l r 0 AF0 n 0 A MI ° n o n o n y s P 0 A 0 A 0 p 4 1 L n 0 0 c41111 a 1 0 I. A . A P P P s � a _.. •0. AVtZ --I i4 � 0 A Q A P P P P 3 n -_A 0 1 sOUTH_.,_j'- r V An ` •tl0/lam—��� C = n _ "%I '1!A% .,„" .44.1... ly ■ u•nas•••rt • •.••, u 1 .1 O O • t�' �,P� __'� NOTICE OF HEARING J —'N o ; O 0 os�� Z NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ! u *. , 0 Q • 4, p► UP 40.- ON Tuesday.March 20.1990,at z v O 0 • e ,•, 6:30 p.m.,a public hearing will 2 y /� r be held in Room 315. City �a •4 IYFSOI. • QOQOQO o„ /� /�a County Building. 451 South State.Salt Lake City,Utah,be- 3 r - 0 0 0 0 ', s ��.E •A Y fore the Salt Lake City Council !AG WAY QO QO00 0• , y 4 John Schaar to review ertition equesting an2 nex- ation nex j _ T- ••GHA� O 0 0 /p = anon of approximately 3.42 �A• • acres of property located at the �� AV Q•0 •'0 • w end of Lakeline Drive, 1880 1 y4'� •,0 0 • m South lakeline Drive. The an. BREMTwOu• A proposed would be• ti:►al�• - n Otll VeweSubdi ision.The Planning •A:•, A . Commission recommendation of Y•!dumni..; favors:(1)the adoption of pro- r • • •-.q• .�. o at an ofticia sed ri su P ementendmentofo the C as AYWOOp rc� ¢� ty's Master Annexation Policy W C R 7-\C!•1.1•�N.1P ' 'I .• ' ,-u 01 annexation Declaration;of)thee proposed J KA'MOOD Apetitioned C1N ~ properly pursuant to Amend- F menf No.14-B:and ff3)the Resi- 1¢ ` - : : : ? dential"R-1"Use district classili- cation and inclusion in fhe I,,, Foothill Development "F-1" . . li I Overby Zone proposed for the grope ty o All persons interested and pre- II • sent will be given an opportuni- tyB to be heardo in thisa matter. „�� order of the Salt Lake City _ -� Council.this 20th day of Febru- ary,1990. • p��PN KATHRYN MARSHALL j� • _ \\\ fP 90-45 Feb. City Recorder`• • UBLISHED. 25,1990 ��� •• gm• 2M8200301 1! \ J HERITAGE - �Y --ZITY \ -FI 1.7' LINDA HAMILTON SA 'I!` na t 1 v i, �U 0,P1C71 rn rr �� . .. .i���6.. PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE '�_' �' °-. �.•i.I.1� •;r ' -� - •� • MAYOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT :: ;:-;. Policy and Budget Division: 451 SOUTH-STATE'.STREET,.ROOM7248 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH-84111 . TELEPHONE (801) 535-7810 February 12, 1990 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: BUDGET AMENDMENT #5 - PUBLIC HEARING Recommendation: That on February 20, 1990 the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on March 20, 1990 to discuss Budget Amendment #5 . Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: Due to scheduling difficulties, it is necessary to set the date for the hearing much earlier than usual. Therefore, all work necessary for the amendment packets has not been finalized. Council staff has indicated, however, that it would be acceptable to transmit the amendment packets to the Council office on March 13, 1990, one week prior to the scheduled public hearing date. Legislative Action: The City Attorney' s office will prepare the. necessary ordinance and it will also be distributed with the entire amendment packet on March 13, 1990. Submitted by: ✓Linda Hamilton Director of Finance ( LH/SF:lc SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. OF 1990 (Amending the Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 36 OF 1989 ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1989 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1990 . PREAMBLE On June 13, 1989 , the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council" ) adopted the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Director of Finance, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on March 20, 1990 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget was held on March 20, 1990 in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah as adopted by Salt Lake City Ordinance 36 of 1989 . SECTION 2 . Adoption of Amendments . The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, in accordance with requirements of Section 128 , Chapter 6 , Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated . SECTION 3 . Certification to Utah State Auditor. The Director of the City' s Finance Department, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4 . Filing of Copies of the Budget Amendments . The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City -2- Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1990 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Ar'r-ROVED AS TO FORM FMN:cc Salt Lake City Attomey's Office Date -/2- '0 (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990 Published -3- 1990 budget Amendment N5 March 20, 1990 page 1 of 2 I MAJOR FUND CLASSIFICATIONS I INTERNAL CAPITAL EXPLANATION AGENCY/ GENERAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OTHER PROJECT OR DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUND GRANT OTHER FUNDS FUND CLASS TOTALS AMENDMENT REQUEST Airport 18,041.100 Airport CIP Request: Appropriate retained earnings and new revenue, and take advantage of the full construction season, to construct several capital projects. 18,041,100 Attorney 52,000 Process Service Request: Transfer appropriation from Finance Dept. to cover additional process service fees paid by the City Attorney's Office. A change in the 'mix' of these type of payments has created a surplus in Finance and a deficit in Attorney. 52,000 Finance -52,000 Process Service Request: Transfer appropriation from Finance Dept. process service fees to the Attorney's office. -52,000 F'-1 27,199 Hazardous Mat'l Request: Appropriate available cash in the State Hazardous Material Grant fund to purchase a computer assisted program of identifying possible evacuation areas based upon the type of hazardous material/spill and existing weather conditions. 45,888 EMS Request: Appropriate available cash in the EMS grant fund to contract with the county to provide emergency medical service personnel training. 73,087 Non-Departmental 20,000 CBID Banners • Request: Appropriate fund balance to purchase banners supporting the Olympic Games Committee bid. 178,116 RDA Loans/Grants Request: Add program income funds received from re- payments for loans and grants back to the program for regranting/loaning. 425,000 New Women's ed tW a 3Sa5 00a ke uC nty CDBG Wom0 , h eed r.RnqtShelter 26,339 Youth Sports Request: Add new Federal grant revenue (25,0001 and Club close out five prior year CDBG projects (23,661) and transfer balance of CDBG funded Cll. project (1,339) to the CDBG operating fund for this project. The net increase to the budget is S26,339. 40,000 First Step Request: Add Salt Lake County CDBG funds (20,000) New Hope for the First Step project and Salt Lake County CDBG funds (20,000) for the New Hope project. 29,110 Excess ARP/ Request: Create special revenue fund for deposit of Hartland excess assisted rental payments received from Hartland. These funds will then be distributed to Hartland, up to the amount received, based on their need. -32,215 Steiner Aquatic Request: Transfer Contingency funds to Parks for Center 'seed' money to open the Steiner Aquatic Center. -39,000 39,000 Traffic Signal Request: Transfer contingency funds to CIP Fund to 39,000 California Ave. install a traffic signal on California Avenue. -50,000 gang control Request: Transfer contingency funds to pay overtime and training for Police Officers. 3,477,661 CIP projects Request: Transfer prior year project close out funds to 500 S./700-900 E (60,000) and 100% sidewalk Replacement (41.945). Close out Peoples Freeway St. (3,000)end transfer to Art Barn. Close out Jefferson Park (3,387)and transfer to Percent for Art (Elk's Perk). Appropriate Class 'C' funds to the 4th/5th S. Connector Road project (1,170,000). Add property owner assessment revenue to the Redwood-Pioneer Road project (307.000). Add RDA funds (12,000) and transfer TSM project funds (17.0001 to the State F•- `e No. page 2 of 2 1 MAJOR FUND CLASSIFICATIONS I INTERNAL CAPITAL EXPLANATION AGENCY/ GENERAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OTHER PROJECT OR DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT FUND FUNDS FUNDS FUND GRANT OTHER FUNDS FUND CLASS TOTALS AMENDMENT REQUEST Street Storm Drain project. Add RDA funds (490,000) and property owner assessment revenue (290,000) to the Downtown Beautification Project. Add U. of U. Research Perk funds to the Wakara Way/Colorow Drive Extension project. Add S.L. County funds (1.000,000) to the Salt Lake Valley Landfill modules project. 255,479 UDAC Revolving Request: To appropriate additional UDAG repayments. 4,408.490 Parks 60.713 Steiner Aquatic Request: Transfer Contingency funds to Perks for Center seed' money to open the Steiner Aquatic Center. This amount is the difference between projected revenue of S20.500 and operating costs of S105,895. 60,71S Police 50,000 gang control Request: Add funds to Police overtime and training to proactively address the growing concern of gang related activity. The internal gang unit of the Police Deppartment, assigned to this program was funded 50% by Internal savings within the • Department. This request is for the other 50% needed to complete this immediate concern. 52.777 drug enforcement Request: Add funds received from V.S. Marshal's office as part of the cooperative narcotics investigation effort between our Police Dept. and agencies of the Federal government to the budget to purceeralfalloiablefitems tO greater enhance City'sdrug fighting 102,777 • Public Works 43,000 Concrete program Request: To add funds received for work performed by Street crews to enhance their materials budget and other areas to allow them to enhance their concrete program. 8,000 Materiels Only . Request: Increase budget for funds received from Program property owners to purchase materials. 51,000 Totals 132,277 18,041,100 0 3.516,661 1,027,131 20,000 0 22,737,169 t GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 Amended Amended Budget 3/20/90 Budget 1989-90 Amendments 1989-90 Resources Revenue Taxes: Property Taxes $25,042,046 $ - $25,042,046 Sales and Use Taxes 21,345,156 - 21,345,156 Franchise Taxes 14,634,736 - 14,634,736 Total Taxes 61,021,938 0 61,021,938 Other Current Revenue: Licenses and Permits 4,115,630 - 4.115,630 Fines and Forfeitures 3,183,640 - 3.183,640 Interest 2,621,670 - 2,621,670 Charges for Services 2,234,672 79.500 2,314,172 State Beer/Liquor Tax 450,000 - 450,000 Intergovernmental Revenue 1,683,432 52.777 1,736,209 Parking Meter Collections 1,282,862 - 1,282.862 Interfund Reimbursement 3,881,821 - 3,881,821 Other Revenue 153,500 - 153,500 Total Other Current Revenue 19,607,227 132,277 19,739,504 Other Sources Transfer-in From Other Funds 2,266,118 - 2,266,118 Total Other Sources 2,266.118 0 2,266,118 Total Resources $82,895,283 $132,277 $83,027,560 Uses Expenditures Attorney $1,177,213 $52,000 81,229,213 City Council 572.764 - 572,764 Community and Economic Dev. 3,498.585 - 3.498.585 Finance 4,274,390 -52,000 4,222,390 Fire 17,780,680 - 17,780.680 Human Res. Mgt. & Ad. Serv. 3,948.886 - 3.948,886 Mayor 894.658 - 894.658 Non Departmental 3,609,448 - 3,609,448 Parks 5.664,271 60,715 5,724,986 Police 19,120,756 102,777 19,223,533 Public Works 14,264,986 51,000 14,315,986 Total Expenditures 74,806,637 214,492 75,021,129 Other Uses Interfund Transfers: Street Lighting Fund 102,668 - 102,668 Capital Projects Fund 4.980,000 39,000 5,019,000 Refuse Collection Fund 555,915 - 555,915 Fleet Replacement Fund 2,139,500 - 2,139,500 Demolition Fund 20,000 - 20.000 Weed Abatement Fund 15,000 - 15.000 Governmental Immunity 63,532 - 63,532 Contingency 212,031 -121.215 90,816 Total Other Uses 8,088,646 -82,215 8,006,431 Total Uses $82,895,283 $132,277 $83,027,560 AIRPORT AUTHORITY . r ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 4 Amended Budget 3/20/90 Budget 1989-90 Amendments 1989-90 Resources Revenues Landing Fees $6,330.000 $ - $6,330.000 Terminal Rental 11.892.400 - 11.892,400 Automobile Rental 3,130,000 - 3,130,000 Automobile Parking 4,350,000 - 4,350,000 Aviation Fuel Tax 4.650.400 - 4,650,400 Terminal Concession Fees 2,771,200 - 2,771.200 Flight Kitchens 1.872,900 - 1,872.900 Other Revenue 4.969.500 - 4.969,500 Total Revenues 39.966.400 0 39.966,400 Other Sources Interest 988,000 - 988.000 AIP/Other Contributions 12.061,000 4.682.500 16,743,500 Bond Proceeds 26,700.000 17.507.600 44,207,600 From Reserves/Fund Balance 7,857,300 -4,149,000 3,708,300 Total Other Sources 47,606.300 18.041,100 65,647.400 Total Resources $87.572.700 $18,041,100 $105,613.800 Uses Expenditures Personal Services $8,176.243 $ - $8.176.243 Operating and Maintenance 1.228,500 - 1,228,500 Travel/Training 68.200 - 68.200 Utilities 2,422,900 - 2,422.900 Contractual Services 520.400 - 520,400 - Airline Rebate 2,397.000 - 2,397,000 Janitorial Contract 1.224.500 - 1,224.500 Interlund Charges 2,421,857 - 2,421,857 Other Charges and Services 1,026,100 - 1.026,100 Total Expenditures 19,485,700 0 19.485,700 Other Uses Capital Outlay 1,087,600 - 1,087.600 Capital Improvements Budget 59.105.000 18.041,100 77,146.100 Debt Service: Principal 2,980,000 - 2.980,000 • Interest 4,914,400 - 4,914.400 Total Other Uses 68,087,000 18.041,100 86,128,100 Total Uses S87.572,700 $18.041.100 $105,613,800 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 Amended Budget 3/20/90 Admin. Budget ' 1989-90 Amendments Adjustments 1989-90 Resources Transfer from General Fund $4,980,000 $39,000 $ - $5,019,000 CDBG 1,607,150 105.332 - 1,712,482 Salt Lake County 1,089,635 1,000,000 - 2,089,635 Class 'C' Road Fund 1,250,000 1,170,000 - 2,420,000 Redevelopment Agency of SLC 1,746,000 502,000 -145,000 2,103,000 Bond Proceeds - 1,850,000 - - 1,850,000 Property Owners 2,580,000 807,000 -65,000 3,322,000 Charges for Services 203,500 - - 203,500 State of Utah 4,256 - - 4,256 Private donations 5,500 - - 5,500 Carryover Funds 12,140,923 -106,671 1,105 12,035,357 Transfer from Debt Service Fd. 100,000 - - 100,000 Total Resources 827,556,964 $3,516,661 ($208,895) $30,864,730 Uses (Projects) Street Improvements: Sidewalk SID 210,000 - - 210,000 Local Street SID 990.000 - - 990,000 400 South to 500 South 1.000,000 - - 1,000,000 California Avenue 1.250.000 - - 1,250,000 Central Bus. Dist. Beaut 1,830,000 780,000 -210,000 2,400.000 Traffic Safety Management 60,000 -17,000 - 43.000 Street Light Replacement 135,000 - - 135,000 100% Sidewalk Replacement 200,000 41.945 - 241,945 Argyle/Edmonds 85,000 - - 85,000 Euclid 60,000 - - 60,000 500 South-700/900 East 530.000 60,000 - 590,000 Median Island Design 27,500 - - 27,500 Central City 5,000 - - 5,000 East Central 8,000 - - 8,000 Sugarhouse 35.000 - - 35,000 Future Street Redesign 18.000 - - 18,000 400 West Streets 40,000 - - 40,000 Main Street Curb & Gutter 20,000 - - 20,000 4-5th S.Connect-Red. to Pioneer - 1,477.000 - 1,477,000 Wakara Way/Colorow Drive Ext. - 210,000 - 210,000 Traffic Signal on Calif. Ave. - 39,000 - 39,000 Total Street Improvements 6,503,500 2.590,945 -210,000 8,884,445 i Drainage Improvements: State Street 401,000 29,000 - 430,000 Main Street 424,000 - - 424,000 South Temple-'M'/'O' Streets 250,000 - - 250,000 500 West-250/530 North 9,000 - - 9,000 Total Drainage Improvements 1,084,000 29,000 0 1,113,000 Parks and Public Facilities: Canterbury Apartments 60,000 - - 60,000 City and County Building 3,366,500 - - 3,366,500 Miscellaneous Facilities Repair 150,000 - - 150,000 • Earthquake Hazard Imp 100,000 - - 100,000 Sunnyside Recreation Center 2,521,000 - - 2,521,000 Tracy Aviary 150,000 - - 150.000 Fire Station #10 Construction 254,000 - - 254,000 Park Facilities Fund 143,500 - - 143,500 Jordan Park Irrigation/Walk 95,000 - - 95,000 Athletic Park-Phase II 50,000 - - 50,000 Poplar Grove Park Irrigation 73,000 - - 73,000 Farimont Pk. Improve. Design 10,000 - - 10,000 Urban Forestry Planting 50,000 - - 50,000 Marmalade Hill Center Rehab. 47,000 - - 47,000 Glendale Youth Center Design 25,000 - - 25,000 City/County Landfill 450.000 - - 450,000 Art Barn 5,500 - - 5,500 Public Safety Building 6,000 - - 6,000 City/Cnty Bldg. Lighting 100,000 - - 100,000 City/County Landfill - 1,000,000 - 1.000,000 Total Parks and Pub. Fac. 7,656.500 1,000,000 0 8,656,500 % for Art 16,400 3,387 0 19,787 Contingency(General Fund) 123,885 - - 123,885 Contingency(CDBG) 27,500 - - 27,500 Slippage 4,256 - - 4,256 , Carryover Projects 12.140,923 -106,671 1,105 12.035,357 Total Uses (Projects) $27,556,964 $3,516,661 ($208,895) $30,864,730 I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRAM OPERATING FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 Amended Amended Budget 3/20/90 Admin. Budget 1989-90 Amendments Adjustments 1988-89 Resources 1989 (15th Year) Entitlement $2,539.850 $ - $ - $2.539,850 Prior Year Entitlements 1,287.811 1,339 - 1.289,150 Program Income 644,263 178.116 - 822,379 Total Resources $4,471,924 $179.455 $0 $4.651,379 Uses Prior Year Projects: $1,109,162 ($23,661) $ - S1,085.501 Capitol Hill Revolving 14,213 - - 14.213 Administrative Contingency 15.000 - - 15.000 Capital Planning Admin. 49,000 - - 49.000 Rape Crisis Center 43,000 - - 43,000 Community Development Corp. 71,649 - - 71.649 Youth Sports Club - 25.000 - 25.000 Current Year Projects New Hope Cultural Center 16,000 - - 16.000 Capitol West Boys/Girls Club 28.500 - - 28.500 Housing Rehabilitation 1,328,286 178.116 - 1.506.402 Alliance House Rehabilitation 11,000 - - 11,000 Assist 240.000 - - 240.000 NHS 90,000 - - 90,000 Security Lock Program 30.000 - - 30,000 Neighborhood Self-Help 15,000 - • - 15,000 Neighborhood Attorney 7,000 - - 7.000 Oper New Men/Family Shelter 58.000 - - 58,000 Oper of Exist Womena Shelter 25,000 - - 25,000 Crime Prevention 81.000 - - 81,000 Environmental Assessment 7,500 - - 7,500 Westside Food Pantry 26.000 - - 26.000 Housing Outreach Rental 37,500 - - 37.500 Community Affair Admin 45.000 - - 45,000 Planning Administration 55,000 - - 55.000 Finance Administration 35,000 - - 35.000 Attorney Administration 42.000 - - 42.000 Capital Planning Admin 230.000 - - 230.000 Operation Paintbrush 40.000 - - 40,000 Clean & Secure Vacant Propert 21,764 - - 21.764 Boarded at Risk Bldg Asst 75,000 - - 75.000 Low Incom Housing Maint 13,000 - - 13.000 Community Development Corp 80,000 - - 80,000 Section 108 Canterbury Apt 300,000 - - 300,000 Crisis Nursery Rennovate • 18.000 - - 18.000 First Step House Rennov 52,000 - - 52,000 Bike Path 200W 800S-300N 3,200 - - 3,200 Bike Path 300N 200-1200W 3.900 - - 3.900 Bike Path 800S 800-1000W 1.000 - - 1,000 Living Traditions Festival 15,000 - - 15,000 Downtown Plan Strategies 35.000 - - 35.000 " Operating Contingency 54,250 - - 54,250 SLACC Administration 50.000 - - 50.000 • Total Projects $4,471,924 $179.455 SO $4.651.379 GRANT OPERATING FUND n SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 x Amended Amended Budget 3/20/90 Budget 1989-90 Amendments 1989-90 Resources State Grant $63,772 S12,853 $76,625 UDAG Grant Repayments 423,719 255,479 679.198 Utah Transit Authority 5,000 - 5,000 Redevelopment Agency of SLC 15,000 - 15,000 Federal Grant 221,000 25,000 246,000 STT UDAG Settlement account 2.500,000 - 2,500.000 Salt Lake County 109.500 149,500 259,000 Prior year grant balances 654,282 60,234 714,516 Program Income 131,519 - 131,519 Private Donations - 315,500 315.500 Assisted Rental Payments - 29,110 29,110 Total Resources $4,123,792 S847,676 $4,971,468 Uses Emergency Medical Services $63,772 $45,888 $109,660 UDAG Revolving Loan Program 423.719 255,479 679,198 Downtown Parking Study 20,000 - 20,000 1989-90 Renter Rehab. Program 352.519 - 352,519 1988-89 Renter Rehab. Program 295,000 - 295,000 1987-88 Renter Rehab. Program 165,223 - 165.223 McKinney Shelter Project 62,000 - 62,000 Urban Homestead Program 125,000 - 125.000 Homeless Mentally Ill Study 219 - 219 Employment Security Parking 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 New Women's Shelter 109,500 425,000 534,500 • El Centro Civico 6,840 - 6,840 Hazardous Materials Program - 27,199 27.199 Youth Sports Club - 25,000 25,000 First Step Project - 20,000 20,000 New Hope Center Project - 20,000 20,000 Hartland Project - 29.110 29.110 Total Uses S4,123,792 S847,676 $4,971.468 n CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENik STRICT • SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 Amended Budget 3/20/90 Budget 1989-90 Amendments 1989-90 Resources Revenue Interest $10,000 S - S10,000 Business License Permits 115.000 - 115,000 Total Revenue 125,000 0 125,000 Other Sources From Reserve/Fund Balance 40,107 20,000 60,107 Total Other Sources 40,107 20,000 60,107 Total Resources $165.107 S20,000 S185.107 • Uses . Expenditures Operating and Maintenance $73,207 S - 873,207 Charges and Services 79.400 20,000 99,400 Total Expenditures 152,607 20,000 172.607 Other Uses Contingency 12,500 - 12,500 Total Other Uses 12,500 0 12,500 Total Uses $165,107 S20,000 S185,107 „:74 The TEFRA hearing scheduled for 6:20 p.m. , for the Health Care Facilities Bonds has been cancelled. David Smith, the attorney with Parsons, Behle and Latimer, indicated this would probably be rescheduled in the next three to four weeks. ,/ 4:1 vJ) f (.01) , t �Q, AL A Li)a_;wily Ew °,e_E j 00 _� /t OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL "7� CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 6p ! , SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 1 i March 16, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: COUIIILMEMBER ROSELYN KIRK COUNCILMEMBER DON HALE SUBJECT: PE iTION #400-582 RE: ANNEXATION We will coincidentally both be out of town for the Tuesday, March 20 meeting, and so we want you to know that we have both reviewed the John Scharr annexation petition, and we are supportive of it. We have visited the site and, because we will be away, we met again just this week with the Planning staff to review this issue. At this time it does not appear that this annexation will be controversial. Should unusual questions or problems arise at the hearing, we request that the Council delay the vote until the April 3 meeting. Our review of the issue does not indicate that this is likely. Thank you for your consideration of our request. CRAIG E. PETERSON S��` ���a CORPA iI,ON; DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council February 5, 1990 RE: Petition No. 400-582 submitted by John A. Schaar Recommendation: That the City Council accept the attached resolution for review of Petition No. 400-582 submitted by John A. Schaar and L. Mark Neff. The petitioner is requesting the annexation of 3.42 acres of property into Salt Lake City in order to develop a six-lot single-family residential subdivision. It is further recommended that the City Council set a public hearing on March 20, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. for said petition. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The appropriate City Department have reviewed this request and have recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed sixth lot be traded to Salt Lake City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of City owned property needed for the development of Lot 4. This trade provides improved access for the Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, and mccts the needs identified in the East Bench Community Master Plan for a neighborhood park site and also provides an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. 2. The buildable area on proposed Lot 1 be limited to the nature pregraded topography of the property. 3. A holding lot be established on portions of Lots 1 and 5 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned by others not associated with Mr. Schaar and to insure access to the water line easement by the City. 4. Off-site infrastructure improvements be installed which may be identified by City Departments before final approval of the subdivision, as being reasonably associated with the impact of this development upon existing City infrastructure. • k 5. The developer complete follow-up geotechnical field work to the City staff's satisfaction, necessary to determine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil layers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 6. The developer dedicate to Salt Lake City an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent as a part of the final subdivision approval. 7. The developer enter into an agreement for a special service rate contract with the City Public Utilities Department to allow sewer service rates to be higher than the general rates, if necessary, due to sewer service costing more to provide than normal, as a result of the use of a sewer force, main pumping system. 8. Fire hydrant locations are to be within 150 feet maximum of any building lot in the subdivision and be acceptable to the City Fire Department. 9. All roofing materials for any building in the subdivision be limited to Class A or Class B materials in order to limit fire hazards from brush fires. 10. The portion of Lakeline Drive, constructed in the subdivision, be restricted to no parking at anytime. 11. The petitioners install, at their cost, the standardized watershed protection area signage and gate structure at the stubbed end of the cul- de-sac where the future street would connect, and also on the access road to the reservoir site itself, as a part of the subdivision improvements. 12. The petitioner agrees to dedicate to the City a 20' wide pedestrian easement located above the city water line. The staff has been working with the petitioner during the past year and all items identified have either been addressed as part of the final subdivision plat or are contained within the Annexation Agreement which has been signed by the Developer. The Planning Commission has recommended that the property be zoned "R-1" with a "F-1" Overlay District. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the.necessary resolution and the ordinance for the public hearing date and is ready for your action. Submitted by: MI B. Z G Di ector Community and Economic Development lf/ ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP .rv..�r mum. �.✓: 9. �Bd PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 December 28, 1989 Mr. Mike Zuhl, Acting Director Community and Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State, Utah 84111 RE: Petition 400-582 by John A. Schaar and L. Mark Neff requesting annexation and zoning of a 3.42 acre parcel of property they own, which will comprise the future Phase 1, Carrigan View Subdivision, located at the present North end of Lakeline Drive at approximately 1880 South Lakeline Drive. Dear Mike: Attached please find Petition 400-582 requesting annexation of 3.42 acres of property owned by the petitioners who desire to develop it as a six-lot single-family residential subdivision. The property abuts on the South and the East, property presently in Salt Lake City's Corporate Boundary in the area of the Carrigan Cove Subdivision, located North and West from the present intersection of Lakeline Drive and Carrigan Cove Drive in the Southeast Bench Area of the City. Included in the area requested for annexation, is a 0.574 acre parcel of City Water Department Property which is part of the Carrigan Canyon twin reservoirs site. Under the proposed subdivision plan, only five of the six lots would be for building purposes with the sixth lot being set aside for City Public Utility Department ownership and use as the access to the reservoir Site and possible public pedestrian access to the foothills. This petition has been reviewed by the appropriate City Department's and all recommend annexation subject to conditions. The Fire Department has recommended requirements necessary to mitigate the expected slow response time for emergency fire service. All conditions recommended by the reviewing departments have been incorporated into the Planning Commissions recommended Annexation Agreement. The Planning Commission reviewed the matter and the amendment to the Annexation Policy Declaration, prepared for this area, at its meeting held January 28, 1988 and recommended annexation and zoning "R-1" with the "F-1" Overlay District, subject to the petitioners entering into a Annexation Agreement with the City addressing the following matters: Mr. Mike Zuhl December 28, 1989 Page 2 1. The proposed sixth lot be traded to Salt Lake City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of City Owned property needed for the development of Lot 4. This trade provides improved access for the Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, and meets the needs identified in the East Bench Community Master Plan for a neighborhood park site and also provides an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. 2. The buildable area on proposed Lot 1 be limited to the natural pregraded topography of the property. 3. A holding lot be established on portions of Lots 1 and 5 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned by others not associated with Mr. Schaar and to insure access to the water line easement by the City. 4. Off-site infrastructure improvements be installed which may be identified by City Departments before final approval of the subdivision, as being reasonably associated with the impact of this development upon existing City infrastructure. 5. The developer complete follow-up geotechn.ical field work to the City staff's satisfaction, necessary to determine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil layers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 6. The developer dedicate to Salt Lake City an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent as a part of the final subdivision approval. 7. The developer enter into an agreement for a special service rate contract with the City Public Utilities Department to allow sewer service rates to be higher than the general rates, if necessary, due to sewer service costing more to provide than normal, as a result of the use of a sewer force main pumping system. 8. Fire hydrant locations are to be within 150 feet maximum of any building lot in the subdivision and be acceptable to the City Fire Department. 9. All roofing materials for any building in the subdivision be limited to Class A or Class B materials in order to limit fire hazards from brush fires. 10. The portion of Lakeline Drive, constructed in the subdivision, be ;: 4' ' restricted to no parking at anytime. Mr. Mike Zuhl December 28, 1989 Page 3 11. The petitioners install, at their cost, the standardized watershed protection area signage and gate structure at the stubbed end of the cul- de-sac where the future street would connect, and also on the access road to the reservoir site itself, as a part of the subdivision improvements. 12. The petitioners agree to dedicate to the City a 20' wide pedestrian easement located above the City water line. During the past year since preliminary approval of the annexation by the Planning Commission, the staff and developer have been working through the terms cf the Annexation Agreement and final Subdivision Plat. As a result, all items identified by the Planning Commission have either been addressed as part of the final Subdivision Plat or are contained within the attached Annexation Agreement which has been signed by the developers. The way is now clear for the Petition and Annexation Agreement to be forwarded to the City Council for the scheduling of the necessary public hearing to consider the annexation and zoning. The following documents concerning this issue are attached to this letter: 1. A legal description for the proposed annexation. 2. The Master Annexation Policy Declaration amendment to area 14. 3. The Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes of the January 28, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. 4. The Annexation Agreement. The Planning staff will provide the City Recorder a hearing mailing list and the annexation plat map as soon as possible. Thank you for your considerations. Respectfully submitted, Allen C. Jo on, AICP Planning rector ACJ:DLW:GRH Attachments _a SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation and Zoning pursuant to Petition No. 400-582-87 ) AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 14-B TO THE MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATIONS; EXTENDING THE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY TO INCLUDE THE CARRIGAN VIEW PHASE 1 ANNEXATION, ZONING THE SAME RESIDENTIAL "R-1" WITH FOOTHILL DEVELOPMENT "F-1" OVERLAY ZONE, BY AMENDING THE USE DISTRICT MAP AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 21 . 14 .020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE; AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT AND SCHOOL PRECINCT BOUNDARY MAPS; AND SPECIFYING CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, Petition No. 400-582-87 was filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, together with a plat showing the tract of land to be annexed hereafter to be known as the "Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation" , requesting that the contiguous, irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 3 .42 acres of unincorporated territory lying at the present north end of Lakeline Drive at approximately 1880 South Lakeline Drive of Salt Lake County be taken within the city limits of Salt Lake City Corporation to extend the City' s limits; and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by a majority of the owners of real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property, as shown by the last assessment roles, situated in the tract hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the orderly expansion of the City' s boundaries, the City has previously adopted a Master annexation lies within Study Area No. 14 of said Declaration and is the specific subject of Amendment No. 14-B of aid Declaration which was approved after favorable Planning Commission review; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, after examining the petition and having the petition favorably reviewed by the various departments of the City and the Planning Commission, and having accepted the petition by Resolution No. of 1990 , and having considered the petition at a publicly advertised hearing held , 1990 , and after finding the proposed annexation to be consistent and in keeping with the City' s Master Annexation Policy Declaration for Study Area No. 14 and Amendment No. 14-B, the Council voted by two-thirds or greater vote of its membership, in favor of the annexation, and WHEREAS , no objection or contest to such annexation or amendment has been filed as required by law or is presently pending; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Area. That the city limits of Salt Lake City be, and the same hereby are, enlarged and extended so as to include the following irregularly shaped approximately 3 . 42 acre parcel of land located at the present north end of Lakeline Drive at approximately 1880 South Lakeline Drive in Salt Lake County, Utah: -2- „l. Beginning at a point which is N 00° 07 ' 45” W 886 . 12 feet from the South Quarter Corner of Section 14, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and running thence N 00° 07 ' 45" W 448 .93 feet; thence N 89° 51 ' 06" W 122 . 03 feet; thence S 30° 32 ' W 165 . 47 feet; �p thence Westerly on a 50 . 0 foot radius curve to the left, 2��' q0 chord bears S 46° 01 ' 30" W 77 .412 feet, a distance of 5" 88 .53 feet; thence N 64° 42' W 21 .10 feet; thence Northwesterly on a 220 . 885 foot radius curve to the left, chord bears N 70° 39 ' 28" W 45 . 853 feet, a distance of 45 . 94 feet; thence S 24° 30 ' W 142 . 00 feet; thence Southeasterly on a 478 . 34 foot radius curve to the right, chord bears S 52° 27 ' 25" E 162. 333 feet, a distance of 163. 12 feet; thence S 46° 45' 05" W 139 . 22 feet; thence S 47° 54 ' E 32 .50 feet' thence S 42° 06 ' W 16 . 00 feet; thence S 69° 30 ' E 183 .55 feet; thence N 06° 00' 00" W 39 . 36 feet; thence N 84° 00 ' 00" E 51 . 00 feet; thence N 06° 00 ' 00" W 11 . 95 feet; thence N 55° 06 ' 32" E 153 .70 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 3 .42 acres . SECTION 2 . Zoning. Be it further obtained and declared that the above Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation is hereby zoned Residential "R-1" and included in the Foothill Development "F-1" Overlay Zone and the Use District Map as adopted by Section 21 . 14 . 020 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to =the boundaries of use districts shall be, and the same hereby is amended by the addition of the Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation zoned Residential "R-1" . SECTION 3 . City Council and School District Maps. The Salt Lake City Council District and School Precinct Boundary Maps are hereby amended to include the Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation in Council District 7 and School Precinct 6 as specified on such maps . SECTION 4 . General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the tract of land described above in Section 1 shall henceforth be within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City Corporation. All ordinances, jurisdictions, rules and -3- obligations of, or pertaining to, Salt Lake City are extended over and made applicable and pertinent to this tract of land; and the streets , blocks, alleys and public ways of said tract shall be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of Salt Lake City in that behalf . The monuments of the City Engineer shall henceforth be taken therein as the standards of location and distances of said land. SECTION 5 . Conditions Precedent. Prior to the acceptance of this annexation and the publication of this Ordinance, the petitioners shall enter into an Annexation Agreement with the City requiring such terms and conditions as have been recommended by the Planning Commission in a form approved by the City Attorney, which Annexation Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 6 . Filings and Notice. Upon the passage and publication of this Ordinance, the Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the County Recorder of Salt Lake County a copy of the approved annexation plan or map, duly certified and acknowledged, together with a certified copy of this Ordinance. The City Recorder is further directed to provide notice to the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to applicable state law. SECTION 7 . Publication and Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this Ordinance until an annexation plat prepared by a registered professional engineer or surveyor at the developer' s expense has been submitted to the -4- City meeting all City standards for such a document and has been signed by the Mayor. Further, this Ordinance and the Carrigan View Phase 1 Annexation may be repealed by the City if the petitioners or the petitioners ' heirs, successors or assigns fail to comply with the provisions of the Annexation Agreement. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: . 4 ;"'- CITY RECORDER ;"r// _ Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:ap -5- • (: SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COVMII SS I CN STAFF REPORT CN THE PROPOSED ANNEYAT I CN PE I'I T I CN NO. 4 0 0-5 8 2 BY JCI-IN SCHAAR AND ERN I E FEDCR, APPROXIMATELY 1900 SCUI1i LAKELINE DRIVE, AND PROPOSED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FCR CARRIGAN VIEW SUBDIVISION AND RELATED ACTICNS • OVERVIEW OF ISSUES This is a request for annexation, zoning and preliminary subdivision approval for 15 lots to be known as Carrigan View Subdivision, which is proposed to be developed in three phases, only the first of which is proposed for annexation at this time. The annexation and zoning actions are a recommendation to the City Council which must hold a public hearing prior to final approval . The subdivision approval is under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and the Mayor. BACKGROUND This property is part of an approximate 40 acre parcel of unincorporated Salt Lake County jurisdiction which has existed as a peninsula, extending into the boundary of Salt Lake City for many years . The staff has been working with Mr . Schaar off and on for the past five years to get this parcel annexed and the peninsula eliminated. The proposed Carrigan View Subdivision consists of 6 lots in the city and 9 lots in unincorporated Salt Lake County. The lots in the city are to be zoned "R-1" and he developed on extensions of Lakeline Drive as a dedicated public street . Future subdivision and private street development of the remaining property to the South and West is anticipated by Mr. Schaar and would tie into the cul-de-sac on Lakeline drive and also to the stubbed street off of 2100 South street , east of Scenic Drive. The staff has been able to come to an agreement with the petitioner regarding annexation and subdivision development except for .one item, Which the Planning Commission will need to decide. The developer desires to have the Salt Lake Planning Commission grant preliminary approval to the entire 15 lot subdivision, thereby locking-in lot sizes for an 18 month period. This desire is designed to exempt the second and third phases of the subdivision fran changes in minimum lot sizes which have been discussed in the past and are anticipated for consideration in the near future. Because of this , the staff cannot reccnu;end that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval to the subdivision beyond Phase 1 which consists of six lots . The developer is asking the Planning Ccrmission to grant preliminary approval to the entire 15 lots , even though only the first phase can be annexed at this time due to problems with developability and zoning of the remainder of the 40 acres of property composing the peninsula. Under the State Annexation Law, the City does have the extraterritorial authority to grant subdivision approval in areas located within one half mile of the City's boundary in areas declared for annexation. t b Page 2 - Petition No. 400-582 (cont . ) REMVN1ENDATIQ'1 • 1. The staff recunoends that the Planning Carmission grant preliminary subdivision approval for the first phase area only, with the question of lot sizes in the second and third phases being held to whatever sizes the ordinances in effect at the time of annexation would allow. • 2. The staff recommends approval of the basic configuration of the extension of Lakeline Drive, ending in a cul-de-sac and not connecting with any other public street, including Devonshire Drive consistent with the past policy of the Planning Ccrrmission. 3. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the annexation area contained in petition 400-582 be zoned Residential R-1 with a Foothill Development Overlay Zone F- 1. • 4. The staff recommends that a pre-annexation 'agreement between the • City and the developers be a requirement of annexation. This agreement should address the following points: a. Proposed Lot No. 15 be traded to Salt Lake'City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of city owned property needed for Lot No. 4. This trade would provide improved access for the • Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, as well as meet the need identified in the master plan update for a neighborhood park site and also provide an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. b. The buildable area on proposed Lot No. 1 be limited to the pre- grading topography of the property. c. Holding lots •be required on portions of Lots No. 1, 5, and 6 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned• by others not associated with Mr. Schaar. d. Installation of any off-site infrastructure improvements which• may be indentified by City Departments as being reasonably associated with the irrpact of this development . e. Performance of follow-up geotechnical field work as necessary to determine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil layers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval . f . Dedication to Salt Lake City of an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes • classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent . g. Agreement to enter into a special service rate contract with the City Public Utility Department to allow sewer service rates to be higher than the general rates, because the sewer service will cost more to provide due to the use of a sewer force main pumped system. January 20, 1988 DLW/mh I - ^ r.O ' J n c1R. \cc . 1 r-- /1 CIR. ICu\ A__ `wBa rt 9 N TTI n ., n !NOIaN HILLS n u Qj - n .� scHoo! n A A C �,� J \ b1 CIR q4� �P/� ,? n "I' A n ASSADOR T • Pa 1 n ..ROXBURY A A y '_, CIR. n /�• • 6YZlA •R. R n APACHE n n n \-; moos. ,G' HIA 41' CIR. SIC . SKYIIMME CHERO EE CIR. �Th CI� CIR. OR n A A _.: sKv v. /� OAK8R00 K .-..-__ 'i': •. OW COMANCHE 3 SIR. n Li _�.. 1` ,..l: s • • Z CIR. A U Z ; • '� `, o As/A A 1 tn OW NM __,T .:e+E R F la LI\ n n i? P P , i. m". t n = P� j SEACO. •SC, r1a~ l( 1 "EIOH-S i 1 \ A % n 0 0 n00 p SCHOOL — _ - ;..‘,' 0 A 0 'A O A • X — -- �� ��J A 0 F 0 A �'1, H1 _Ic�'%` p 0 A 0 A 0 , P ',' p p o 1 - IZ P J_ - __ P P S ,.\ \ . . ,.1.. •- •-. sCUTH sr6.4 I-. li rA ___,, A mialimMI111.11=i a.9A (1. I i -i L.1 ] . c.\._/ /\ .2. ...- A "' :. 1 v., ./\................„, _,J,1,1,4tA. ' \ ,...,:\ n • A \ A_.. A Z a • 1 A - •OOOO 4 9ar�`�Zc 'r � i' 1 0 O. ,, /� c '�` 1 00000 1... i n 1' “� ei Z 0 O 000 E ? _ ��. �.' gGG �aY 0 O AV C10 ice` O O 0 I aaErT'wcc, n On O n __ $ CIA I. t, Rxq. A' "i" sine • • C111. 1. \�.I.1- 1.3 0 • r m \.'\\\. .. 1 J': -,... 7 *. .1. . A® January 28, 1988 7/ .//11nutes • Page 13 EL/HUURST PARK SUBDIVIS1CN at 450 North 1550 West - for preliminary approval. W. Wheelwright indicated W . Tan Perrero, the petitioner, is present. This, subdivision was previously given preliminary approval in July, 19R4. It was approved as a 13 lot duplex subdivision with a cul-de-sac off of Walnut Drive. It is redesigned as a 14 lot single family subdivision. The street design and lot layout has remained the same. W. Schumann made a motion that the Planning Carmission give preliminary • approval to the subdivision with the understanding that there will be a restriction on the plat limiting the property to single family dwelling only and that the Planning Director have final plat approval . W. Stepan seconded the notion; all voted "Aye" except W. Neilson who opposed. CARRIGAN VIEW SUBDIVISICN at approximately 1800 South Skyline Drive - for preliminary approval and Petition No. 582 by John Schaar for annexation of the plat . W. Wheelwright indicated W. John Schaar and W. Ernie Fedor, the petitioners, are present . This is a request for annexation, zoning and pr•elirninary subdivision approval for 15 lots to be known as Carrigan View Subdivision, which is proposed to be developed in three phases, only the first phase is proposed for annexation at this time. The annexation and zoning actions are a reemmendat ion to the City Council which must hold a public hearing prior to final approval . The subdivision- approval is under the jurisdiction of the Planning Ccxrrnission and the Mayor. This property is part of an approximate 40 acre parcel of unincorporated property which has existed as a peninsula, extending into the eastern boundary of Salt Lake City for many years . The staff has been working with W. Schaar off and on for the past five years to get this parcel annexed and the peninsula eliminated. The proposed Carrigan View Subdivision consists of 6 lots in the City and 9 lots in the unincorporated county. The lots in the City are to be zoned "R-•1" and be developed on an extension of Lakeline Drive as a dedicated public street . Future subdivision and private street development of the renaining property to the South and West is anticipated by W. Schaar and would tie into the cul-de-sac on Lakeline drive and also to the stubbed street off of 2100 South street , east of Scenic Drive. The • staff has been able to cane to an agreement with the petitioner regarding annexation and subdivision development except for one item, - which the Planning Cannission will need to decide. The developer desires to have the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval to the entire 15 lot subdivision, thereby locking-in lot sizes for an 18 nxmth period. This will exempt the second and third phases of the subdivision fran changes in minimum lot sizes which have been discussed in the past and are anticipated for consideration in the very near future. Because of this, the staff cannot recommend that the Planning Commission grant preliminary approval to the subdivision beyond Phase 1 which consists of the six lots. Under the State Annexation I.,aw, the City does have the extraterritorial authority to grant subdivision approval in areas located within one half mile of the City's boundary in areas declared for annexation. PC Minutes January 28, 1988 Page 14 Mr. Ellison asked why phases two and three are not ready to plat . W. Wheelwright stated that if anything is done on phases two or three it closes the neck on the peninsula to the point where the attorney's would not allow annexation because it would violate the state annexation law. Mr. John Schaar stated there has been an exceptionally good relationship with W. Wheelwright and the Planning Staff on this piece of property. Mr. Schaar stated that he is in agreement with this, we were asking for the whole piece of property to be annexed but Mr. Wheelwright has asked us to withdraw that . We are willing to work with Mr. Wheelwright any way possible. However, we would like the Planning Commission to make this a project that will be worth while. Mrs . Wacker asked, concerning the nine additional lots, if the ordinance were to change to have bigger lots what would the Planning Commission be looking at? Mr. Wheelwright stated that at least one-third of the nine lots would be lost . Ms. Craver stated that this is obviously an extremely complex issue that has been going on for quite sane time. This is a very fragile and vulnerable piece of hillside that will be creating a potential island of development on the hillside with the land below and around it not being developed. It seems the Planning Commission would be condoning putting houses on every possible piece of hillside. Mr. Ellison asked how this subdivision relates to the points of access and logical buildable areas . Where would other buildable lots be located and where the access might cane fran to reach them. W. Wheelwright stated that the only other developable land is located to the West and to the South and it is W. Schaar ' s intent to try to get zoning and density to allow him to do a private street development servicing this property. Mr. Neilson asked how many lots require sewage pumping? W. Wheelwright stated that there are two lots that require sewage pumping. Mr. VanAlstyne made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that staff prepare for the public hearing of the annexation of the entire Schaar, Knowlton and Harrison properties . If there are any issues that remain on the table with staff, that they be resolved so that the borders can be- squared off . Mr. Schumann seconded the motion; all voted "Aye" . Mr . Schumann made a motion that the Planning" Camrission approve Phase I of this subdivision and zoning with the understanding that there would be a 20 foot wide holding lot on Lots 1 and 5 and that the balance of the subdivision, Phases II and III , be held and not developed until a • nrasterplan is brought hack before the Planning Commission as to the development of some of the adjacent properties subject to the following staff recommendations : , PC Minutes January 28, 1988 • Page 15 1. The staff recurwends that the Planning C'armission grant preliminary subdivision approval for the first phase area only, with the question of lot sizes in the second and third phases being held to whatever sizes the ordinances in effect at the time of annexation would allow. 2. The staff recu nnends approval of the basic configuration of the extension of Lakeline Drive, ending in a cul-de -sac and not connecting with any other public street , including Devonshire Drive consistent with the past policy of the Planning Commission. 3. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission recarrr nd to the City Council that the annexation area contained in petition 400-582 be zoned Residential "R-1" with a Foothill Development Overlay Zone 4. -The staff recommends that a pre-annexation agreement between the City and the developers be a requirement of annexation. This agreement should address the following points: a. Proposed Lot No. 15 be traded to Salt Lake City Public Utilities in exchange for a small portion of city owned property needed for Lot No. 4. This trade would provide improved access for the Water Department to its existing twin reservoirs, as well as meet the need identified in the master plan update for a neighborhood park site and also provide an improved access point for pedestrian use of the foothill trail network. b. The buildable area on proposed Lot No. 1 be limited to the pre- grading topography of the property. c. Holding lots be required on portions of Lots No. 1, 5, and 6 to insure access to potential buildable areas on land owned by others not associated with Mr. Schaar. d. Installation of any off-site infrastructure improvements which may be identified by City Departments as being reasonably associated with the impact 'of this development . e. Performance of follow-up geotechnical field work as necessary to - determine the maximum depth of moisture sensitive soil layers for all lots in the subdivision prior to final plat approval . f. Dedication to Salt Lake City. of an open-space and vegetation preservation easement over all portions of the lots with slopes -classified as undevelopable due to slopes in excess of forty percent . g. Agreement to enter into a special service rate contract with the City Public Utility Department to allow sewer service rates to be higher than the general rates, because the sewer service will cost more to provide due to the use of a sewer force main pumped system. . - r PC Minutes January 28, 1988 —2/ Page 16 (` . Mr. VanAlstyne seconded the motion; all voted "Aye" except Ms. Cramer who was opposed. Mr. Neilson stated that he would like to go on record as being opposed to pumped sewage, private streets (except in PUD's and condominium projects) and any increase in the density fran what has been seen here and would favor lower density for the remaining area. Mr. Schumann stated that he would like to compliment the staff on preparation of the various subdivisions . They were clean, precise, and they answered all the questions . PLANNING ISSUES Presentation by Doug Hatterv. Wasatch Front Regional Council of Governments , concerning the proposed 20 year Highway Irrprovernent Plan Mr. .Doug Hatterv, fran the Wasatch Front Regional Council of Governments , stated that one of the Regional Council 's responsibilities is to prepare a long range transportation plan for the region. A plan was just approved last summer and presentations are being made so that people are aware of it . Basically. the plan recaimends that bus services are expanded as the area grows and a major improvement to the 1-15 corridor by using a Light Rail System and freeway inuroverrents. Mr . flattery discussed the proposed highway improvements within Salt Lake City. f Mr . Hattery explained that the top priority projects are I-15, north/south streets in Sandy and streets in the West Valley area. Ms . Cramer asked what percent of the new road construction would require right-of-way acquisition? Mr . Hattery stated that much of the new construction will require property acquisition. Continue discussion concerning the Planning Commission's strategy for the Downtown Plan Mr. Johnson stated that Planning Staff has put together a recommended . work program and strategy showing how the Planning Commission can input information fran the R/UDAT, Chamber of Carmerces ' Downtown Camrittee and the Mayor' s Downtown Executive Carrrnittee. The following handout was discussed: The Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning Staff recunirnds a strategic program with benchmarks for completion, adoption, and implementation of the "Downtown Master Plan" .