Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/08/1990 - Minutes
PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 8, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, 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 Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting. Council Chair Alan Hardman She asked the Council to called the meeting to order. discard the blue calendar of meetings that was distributed last Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council week, and to use the updated Executive Director, reviewed the calendars which were included in calendar of invitations for the the packets last Friday. Council, noting that the Round- table Discussion with the Mayor Regarding the agenda, she was scheduled for May 17 and would indicated an addendum had been be held in the Mayor' s conference prepared for the Post Office Place room. She asked that agenda items property since it would save the for this meeting be submitted to petitioner a large sum of money her before Tuesday of next week so and would assist him in gaining that the tentative agenda could be his financing. ready by Tuesday night' s meeting. Regarding Item E-1, payment She indicated that Riverside in lieu of taxes ordinance, the Park had been reserved for the packet information indicated the Thank-You Picnic and had been text would be forthcoming. She scheduled for August 8th. She indicated this ordinance still was noted there was one item which did not available, but should be by not appear on the listing. This May 15th prior to the hearing. was an invitation for the Council She advised that it would be to attend the opening of the acceptable if the Council were to petting zoo this Saturday at 10:30 act on this tonight, even though a.m. The host of Mutual of Oma- it was the office policy to pro- ha' s Wild Kingdom would be vide this ahead of time. present. Councilmember Hale indicated he would plan to attend Concerning Items F-1 and F-2, on behalf of the Council, since these were on for adoption to other members were not available allow for technical corrections to attend. only. Ms. Gust-Jenson indicated Item F-3 was the next step in that a briefing regarding the the process for this Special Housing Development Corporation Improvement District. She indi- had been scheduled on May 10th cated that Scott Vaterlas, trans- following the RDA meeting, since portation division, would be the RDA had indicated the meeting present to provide information would probably not last past 7:00 during the meeting. p.m. 90-149 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 She indicated that Item G-1 along with a memo from Ed Snow, could be referred if necessary, council staff, noting suggested since the Council staff had no changes. information on what kind of commu- nity response might occur during She indicated that Stan the public hearing for this alley Penfold had agreed to the Admini- vacation. stration's recommended changes in concept. She suggested the Coun- Concerning Item G-2 regarding cil could approve the ordinances alley vacation fee waivers, she in concept and they required said three versions of this ordi- separate motions. nance had been included in the Council ' s packet for their review. The briefing session was She clarified for the Council that adjourned. the fee increase to $35 did not include subsequent advertising for hearings that required advertising four times, which would be a $114 cost to the City. Councilmember Whitehead commented that he would be inter- ested in seeing the city waive the fees for alley closure petitions for a period of time, thereby getting the alleys closed and resulting in reduced expenses for the petitioners and the city. Ms. Gust-Jenson continued, indicating that the Council staff had omitted one of the ordinances pertaining to the airport. She said the Council could act on the ordinance listed on the agenda but the other ordinance would be scheduled again. She indicated that Item G-4 was routine, but Roger Evans from the building and housing division would be present to answer ques- tions. She noted that the hearings for Items G-5 and G-6 would be combined, and that Stephanie Peterson, community affairs divi- sion, and Stan Penfold, SLACC, would be present during the meet- ing. She indicated that informa- tion received this afternoon pertaining to the notification ordinance had been distributed 90-150 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, May 8, 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 S.R. Kivett, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting and Councilmember Hale conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES Salt Lake and said Salt Lake City was one of the highest for prop- #1. Police Chaplain Bob erty taxes. He said the property Blackhurst gave the invocation. tax level had significant bearing on the city' s ability to attract #2. The Council led the business. He said even growth Pledge of Allegiance. plans for the Northwest Quadrant would not be a panacea. #3. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Whitehead He said Salt Lake couldn't seconded to approve the minutes of count on economic growth alone or the Salt Lake City Council for the the elimination of services to regular meeting held Tuesday, May solve the problems. He offered 1, 1990, which motion carried, all the help of the Utah Tax Payers members voted aye. Association to determine long-term (M 90-1) solutions. COMMENTS Councilmember Whitehead said he appreciated this attitude from #1. Howard Stevenson, repre- the Utah Tax Payers Association. senting the Utah Tax Payers Asso- Councilmember Kirk asked how they ciation, expressed his concern could establish this dialogue. about the crisis which existed Mr. Stevenson suggested that the with Salt Lake City' s ability to Council and Mayor appoint members meet service demands with the from the community to form a stagnant revenue base. He said "think tank" and talk about cre- the Mayor' s budget addressed this ative solutions to the problems issue and presented sound solu- and different ways to provide tions which helped Salt Lake City services. He said the Utah Tax compete for economic growth. Payers Association could coordi- nate finding experts to serve on However, he suggested that the committee and they themselves the property tax increase could be could serve on the committee. counterproductive for economic growth. He referred to a chart The Mayor said in his budget comparing 10 cities competing with he had suggested forming such a 90-151 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIl, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 committee and said he wanted this amending Section 5.48.050 and to happen as soon as possible. Chapter 5. 60, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to numismatic and #2. Oscar Bourg, 376 East bullion dealers. 700 South, said he submitted a (0 90-21) letter to the Council in November suggesting ways to improve vacant #3. RE: Approving the re- properties. He said over the past appointment of Bonnie Sucec to the five years he had tried to work Salt Lake Art Design Board. with the city to make laws fair (I 90-4) and equitable in regards to the building codes. He said he wanted #4. RE: Approving the re- to establish a communication link appointment of Ronald Weber to the with the city and expressed his Board of Appeals and Examiners. concerns about the building and (I 90-17) housing department. #5. RE: Approving the re- Councilmember Hale said the appointment of Ricklen Nobis to Council would take his comments the Salt Lake Arts Council. under advisement. (I 90-16) #3. Michael Green, 130 South #6. RE: Approving the re- 300 East, addressed the issue of appointment of William Prince to parking. He said he was new to the Recreation Advisory Board. the area and suggested that the (I 90-7) city could provide a booklet to new residents regarding the park- #7. RE: Adopting Resolution ing laws, which in his opinion 54 of 1990 authorizing the execu- were confusing. He said he had tion of an interlocal cooperation received tickets for various agreement between Salt Lake City violations with which he was not and Salt Lake County for improve- familiar. ments at the New Hope Multi-Cul- tural Center. The Mayor said he would talk (C 90-236) with Mr. Green directly regarding this situation. #8. RE: Adopting Resolution 55 of 1990 authorizing the execu- CONSENT AGENDA tion of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Councilmember Godfrey moved Corporation and North Salt Lake and Councilmember Hardman second- City for the provision of Animal ed to approve the consent agenda, Control Services to North Salt which motion carried, all members Lake City. voted aye. (C 90-235) #1. RE: Adopting Ordinance 30 NEW BUSINESS of 1990 repealing Section 11.40.- 010, Salt Lake City Code, relating #1. RE: Receive public to fortune telling and similar comment at the general fund budget activities. hearing set for May 15, 1990, at (0 90-18) 6: 15 p.m. and consider adopting an ordinance enacting Sections 3.40. - #2. RE: Adopting Ordinance 31 010, 3.40.020 and 3.40.030 of the of 1990 enacting Chapter 5.47 and Salt Lake City Code, relating to 90-152 PROCE DINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CAP UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 payment in lieu of taxes for city City Code, shifting the responsi- property assets used by the water, bility for storm drainage from the sewer and garbage enterprise Department of Public Works to the funds. Department of Public Utilities. ACTION: Without objection ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Hale referred this Councilmember Hale referred this to the scheduled public hearing. to the scheduled public hearing. (0 90-25) (0 90-23) #2. RE: Receive public #5. RE: A nonadvertised comment at the general fund budget public hearing on May 15, 1990, at hearing set for May 15, 1990, at 6: 50 p.m. to receive public com- 6: 15 p.m. and consider adopting an ment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 5.04.- ordinance closing a portion of 070A, of the Salt Lake City Code, Post Office Place pursuant to relating to business revenue Petition #400-790-90. license fees Sections 6.08. 110A and 6. 16.030 relating to beer and ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey liquor consumption regulatory moved and Councilmember Kirk license fees. seconded to set the date, which motion carried, all members voted ACTION: Without objection aye. Councilmember Hale referred this (P 90-138) to the scheduled public hearing. (0 90-22) UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS #3. RE: Receive public #1. RE: Consider adopting a comment at the general fund budget corrected ordinance closing a hearing set for May 15, 1990, at portion and vacating a portion of 6: 15 p.m. and consider adopting an an alley adjacent to 2185 South ordinance amending Subparagraph B 900 East, pursuant to Petition No. and adding a new Subparagraph G, 400-756-89 . to Section 9.08.030 relating to garbage pickup charges; changing ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey the State Code reference in Sec- moved and Councilmember Kirk tion 9 .08.030E to reflect the seconded to adopt a corrected current state law for indigent Ordinance 5 of 1990, which motion abatement of taxes; and revising carried, all members voted aye. Section 9 .08.070 relating to (P 89-379) refuse container specifications, Salt Lake City Code. #2. RE: Consider adopting an ordinance extending the limits ACTION: Without objection of Salt Lake City to include the Councilmember Hale referred this "OKOA Annexation"; zoning the to the scheduled public hearing. annexed area Commercial "C-3A" by (0 90-24) amending the use district map of Section 21. 14.020; amending the #4. RE: Receive public Salt Lake City Council District comment at the general fund budget and School Precinct Boundaries hearing set for May 15, 1990, at Map; amending the Liquor District 6:15 p.m. and consider adopting an Map of Section 6.08. 120; and ordinance amending Sections 2.08. - specifying conditions for the 100 and 2.08. 110 of the Salt Lake annexation. 90-153 PROCEIE. INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey provide for any joint use or joint moved and Councilmember Whitehead access to or through the vacated seconded to adopt Ordinance 32 of alley, and allowing such access 1990, which motion carried, all from the west end of the alley, members voted aye. excluding access to the last 58 (P 89-347) feet, more or less, at the east end adjacent to Mr. Thomas' s #3. RE: Consider adopting a property; and request that the resolution conditionally accepting City Attorney' s Office prepare the a bid for and authorizing execu- necessary agreements, which motion tion of a contract with Utah Power carried, all members voted aye. and Light Company for operating, patrolling and maintaining street DISCUSSION: Alan McCandless, lighting within Salt Lake City, planning and zoning staff, out- Utah, Lighting District No. 1 (The lined the area on a map. He said "District" ) . six single-family homes abutted the alley and except for one twin ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey home, the remainder of the lots in moved and Councilmember Whitehead the 12th Avenue subdivision were seconded to adopt Resolution 56 of vacant. He said the current 1990, which motion carried, all zoning was Residential "R-2" . members voted aye. He said after review, various DISCUSSION: Cindy Gust- city departments recommended that Jenson, Council Executive Direc- the entire alley be vacated, which tor, said one bid was received was the intent of the petition. He which was from Utah Power and said the city' s position was to Light. She said the bid amount vacate the alley or to proceed was $158, 208.48 for a three-year with improvements and leave it period. open for public ingress and (Q 90-2) egress. PUBLIC HEARINGS He said most of the abutting property owners did not express a #1. RE: A public hearing at strong opinion either way about 6:20 p.m. to receive comments and the alley, except one property consider adopting an ordinance owner (Mr. Tirrell) who wanted his vacating a portion of an east-west half the alley if it was vacated. alley between K and L Streets, and He said Mr. Tirrell owned four of llth and 12th Avenues pursuant to the vacant parcels and wanted to Petition #400-764-89. add the alley to his property. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey He said the development moved and Councilmember Hardman coordination team reviewed this seconded to close the public request and the alley was bonded hearing, which motion carried, all as part of the 12th Avenue subdi- members voted aye. vision. He said the options were to vacate the alley with half Councilmember Whitehead moved going to adjacent property owners and Councilmember Kirk seconded to and having no access, vacate the adopt Ordinance 35 of 1990 vacat- alley with right-of-way agree- ing the entire alley, requiring ments between the property owners agreements between the abutting to allow ingress and egress, or property owners as necessary to leave the alley open and improve 90-154 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITP, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 it with curb, gutter, black top, Councilmember Godfrey asked etc. if property owners needed access to garages. Mr. Thomas said they Councilmember Godfrey asked wanted access to their back yards about the option to vacate only but didn't need the alley for half the alley. Mr. McCandless access to their garages. He said suggested the eastern portion he spoke with the other property could be vacated with the western owners and had sent a registered portion remaining open for access. letter to each of them. He said the only owner which possibly Councilmember Godfrey asked opposed was Galen Tirrell. Mr. if keeping the western half open Thomas said he tried to devise a would solve access problems for way which would be a win-win several of the property owners. situation for all property owners Mr. McCandless said the same thing so the contractor' s bond would not could be accomplished by vacating be used to improve the alley. the entire alley and having the owners sign access agreements. Councilmember Pace asked Mr. Thomas what he wanted to accom- Councilmember Hardman said plish with his half of the alley. the alley would be vacated as a Mr. Thomas said he planned to public right of way and would construct a garage, which would become a private right of way, and fit better using the extra 7. 5 asked if the alley would physical- feet which the alley would pro- ly be closed. He said he didn' t vide. He said this would also see an advantage of doing this. make a permanent abutment to Councilmember Godfrey said if the through traffic. Council vacated the alley it would stop public use. He said the Liz Davis, 723 llth Avenue, owners could either move their said she wanted to continue to use fences back or could put a gate the alley for access to the back across the entrance of the alley. of her property. She said she agreed with the suggestion of David Thomas, petitioner, closing half the alley to elimi- said he didn't want this alley to nate the thoroughfare. become a thoroughfare and he wanted to vacate the alley so he John DeLaney, on behalf of could use his portion for a ga- Bridget Smith at 717 llth Avenue, rage. He said the neighbors said major access to the back of agreed to vacating the alley and the established properties on llth signed the petition except for one Avenue would be impossible without property owner, Mr. Ludlow, who the use of the alley. He suggest- didn't object but didn't want to ed that the city vacate the alley sign the petition. He asked the but create an easement so the Council to vacate the alley with property owners could agree to necessary access agreements be- ingress and egress. He said Ms. tween the property owners. He Smith wanted access to her back said he wanted to vacate the alley yard through the alley. on the east end which had not been accessible for 12 years and said Councilmember Pace indicated access could remain from the west that people didn't seem to oppose end if that' s what the owners having the east end of the alley wanted. vacated (abutting Mr. Thomas's property) , but there was concern 90-155 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 about how the Council would deal of the property by 7. 5 feet. with the remainder of the alley. Councilmember Whitehead agreed Councilmember Pace pointed that this seemed to be the case. out that access could be limited if the owners on the north wanted Hal Ludlow, 558 K Street, to add their half to their proper- said he didn't want to acquire his ty and the owners on the south half of the alley. He said he wanted to use the alley for ac- opposed owning the property and cess. then having to maintain it. He didn't oppose Mr. Thomas' s plan. Councilmember Kirk asked if there was a recommendation from Galen Tirrell, owner of the the community council. Council- abutting vacant lots, said he member Pace said there was no supported vacating the alley and discussion about this issue at the dividing the property among the community council meeting. owners. He said he didn't see a need for through traffic. He said Councilmember Whitehead said if the property was developed, he he wanted to vacate the alley and would have to pay to improve the let the property owners decide how alley and he opposed this. Mr. to use the property. Tirrell said if the west end of the alley remained open for access Councilmember Hale reiterated by the property owners, there two options: Vacate the alley would probably have to be a turn- with half going to each abutting around. He said a portion of his owner, or vacate the alley and property would have to be used for require the property owners to this, which he thought was unfair. sign agreements regarding the use of the alley. Councilmember Whitehead asked if the property owners would have Roger Cutler, city attorney, to improve the alley if the city suggested that the Council consid- vacated it and provided an ease- er the ordinance which contained a ment. Allen Johnson, director of condition requiring agreements planning and zoning, said if the between the abutting property alley was vacated it would revert owners as to the use of the vacat- to private ownership and the city ed alley. He said if the property would not cash the bond. owners could not reach an agree- ment, then the alley would not be Councilmember Pace asked Mr. vacated and the ordinance would Tirrell if he would incorporate not be published. He said his his half of the alley into the office could assist with drafting buildable portion of his property. the agreements if that was the Mr. Tirrell said he would. Council' s desire, although another party would be required to obtain Councilmember Godfrey re- the necessary signatures. ferred to the undeveloped property and asked if there would be room Mr. Thomas offered to hire an to construct garages after the attorney to draft the easement alley was vacated. Mr. Johnson agreements. said vacating the alley would not (P 90-85) prevent constructing garages on those two properties. He said the #2. RE: A public hearing at vacation would increase the width 6:30 p.m. to receive comments and 90-156 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 consider adopting an ordinance with all city departments involved enacting Section 21. 10.090 provid- in the process to find out how ing for the waiver of fees for much it cost. He then listed those alley vacations in residential figures: zoning districts. • Planning Administration - $30.00 ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey Attorney - $45.00 moved and Councilmember Kirk Engineering - $80.00 seconded to close the public Fire - $113.00 hearing, which motion carried, all Planning Division - $160.00 members voted aye. Public Utilities - $40.00 Real Property - $50.00 Councilmember Godfrey moved Recorder - $165.00 and Councilmember Whitehead sec- Transportation - $51 .00 onded to approve in concept an ordinance waiving processing fees He said this totalled almost for petitions requesting alley $750.00. vacations in residential zoning He suggested that the Council districts when 80% of the abutting add language to the ordinance property owners have signed the specifying that if 80% of the petition; for a period of six abutting property owners signed a months from the effective date of petition requesting an alley the ordinance no fees would be vacation in a residential zone, no collected; after six months from filing fee or advertising would be the effective date of the ordi- charged. He said the city wanted nance, petitioners submitting new to reduce overhead and let the requests would pay the public petitioner do more of the work. hearing advertising fee but not He also asked the Council to the city's petition fee; petitions establish an application process in the process prior to the end of whereby the petitioner would be the six-month grace period would responsible for providing all the not be subject to the fees, which information required to evaluate motion carried, all members voted and process the request. Staff aye. would still review and verify the accuracy of information but their DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, time would be reduced significant- director of planning and zoning, ly. explained the current city policy regarding alley vacations. He Councilmember Pace asked what said they supported alley vaca- happened to the assessed value of tions as long as the vacation property once the alley was vacat- didn't create new problems or ed. Mr. Johnson said the owner compound existing problems, i.e. , would pay taxes on the additional create dead ends, restrict the use footage. of the alley for emergency vehi- cles, or remove needed access for Councilmember Whitehead asked abutting property owners. He also why Mr. Johnson didn't want dead- said if 100% of the abutting end alleys. Mr. Johnson said that property owners signed the peti- in emergency situations, rescue tion then the city waived the vehicles could be trapped by filing fee. another car and it was difficult to back the equipment out of a He said in researching this dead end. issue the planning staff consulted 90-157 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council vacating the alley. Executive Director, said if the Council wanted to consider the Councilmember Godfrey asked "80%" suggestion, they could adopt why the curb cut had to be re- the concept with a time limit and moved. Mr. Johnson explained that then she would work with the it constituted a parking place on attorneys office to get the appro- public property. He said in some priate ordinance. cases people would use these areas to store recreational vehicles. Councilmember Horrocks asked In other situations the curb cut how many months it would take to collected debris as storm water vacate all the alleys. Mr. ran down the gutter. Johnson said this was an ongoing issue and the ordinance, until Councilmember Pace asked why repealed, would exclude residen- Councilmember Godfrey wanted a tial alley vacation petitions from six-month "free" period. Mr. a filing fee. Godfrey said the "free" period would give people the incentive to Councilmember Godfrey said close alleys and the "80%" re- if 100% of the abutting property quirement would cause people to owners didn't sign the petition, talk to their neighbors and solve then the hearing had to be adver- problems before the issue reached tised four times which cost about the Council. This way issues $114.00. He said he didn't oppose could be resolved quickly. the "80%" suggestion but he wanted a time limit on waiving advertis- Councilmember Whitehead said ing costs. He suggested a six- that at some future date he wanted month "free" period and said he to continue discussion regarding wanted the ordinance to reflect the issue of curb cuts. that after this period, the peti- tioner would pay the cost of No one from the audience advertising. addressed this issue when Councilmember Hale called for Councilmember Whitehead asked public comment. if city policy still required (P 90-86) construction of a curb once an alley was vacated. Mr. Johnson #3. RE: A public hearing at said that was the policy if an 6:40 p.m. to receive public com- alley was totally discontinued for ment and consider adopting an access. He said they required the ordinance amending Section 21.76. - curb cut to be removed and the 080 of the Salt Lake City Code, parking strip to be planted with relating to airport zoning and sod. He said if there were ease- height regulations. ments established as part of the vacation then the curb cut and ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey drive approach remained. moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to close the public Councilmember Whitehead hearing, which motion carried, all expressed concern that the city members voted aye. would mandate curb reconstruction and require the neighborhood to Councilmember Godfrey moved pay for it. He said he didn't and Councilmember Hardman seconded think the curb cut should have to to adopt Ordinance 33 of 1990, be removed as a condition of which motion carried, all members 90-158 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 voted aye. #4. RE: A public hearing at 6: 50 p.m. to receive public com- DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, ment and consider adopting an director of planning, said the ordinance adopting Chapter 18.92 zoning ordinance contained a enacting the Uniform Code for section dealing with height limi- Building Conservation with certain tations around the airport. He amendments. said he received a request from Louis Miller, director of air- ACTION: Councilmember White- ports, to bring the zoning ordi- head moved and Councilmember nance into compliance with Federal Godfrey seconded to close the Aviation Regulations, Part 77, public hearing, which motion dealing with the glide path around carried, all members voted aye. the runways. Councilmember Whitehead moved He said the current ordinance and Councilmember Kirk seconded to required a 40 to 1 slope which adopt Ordinance 34 of 1990, which meant that for every 40 feet from motion carried, all members voted the end of the runway, the air- aye. craft had to be up 1 foot. He said this regulated the height of DISCUSSION: Roger Evans, buildings around the airport. director of building and housing, Under the new proposal the glide said the Uniform Code for Building slope would be much steeper and Conservation was published nation- would change to 20 to 1 so the ally about four years ago. He aircraft would approach at a much said this document had been steeper glide angle. discussed by the Planning Commis- sion, the Historic Landmarks He said this change would be Committee, the Housing Advisory consistent with the Federal Avia- and Appeals Board, and the Board tion Regulations. He said the of Appeals and Examiners. He said Planning Commission heard this all these boards approved the issue and recommended approval. code. Councilmember Whitehead asked He said this code would the purpose of the change. Louis provide implementation tools for Miller, director of airport, said developers and architects working this change would accommodate with existing buildings going relocating Utah Power and Light through change of use. He said power lines north of the airport. they had used this code for the In reference to construction of a last three years with the Board of new runway, he said without the Appeals in addressing renovations change they would have to move the of existing buildings in the power lines about four miles downtown area. further north. He reiterated that this change would comply with No one from the audience federal regulations. addressed this issue when Councilmember Hale called for No one from the audience public comments. addressed this issue when (0 90-17) Councilmember Hale called for public comments. *NOTE: The next two hearings were (0 90-5) considered together since the issues were related and the time 90-159 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 for the scheduled hearings had and it was at one of those meet- passed. ings that this group decided to form a task force to review all #5. RE: A public hearing at the issues involved in recognition 7:00 p.m. to receive public com- and notification. She said the ment and consider adopting an Mayor and community affairs staff ordinance amending Title 2 of the assisted in this process. Salt Lake City Code by adding a new Chapter 2.60.010, and related She said the committee devel- sections dealing with recognition oped an outlined of issues around of neighborhood based organiza- recognition and notification and tions. the outlines were then drafted into ordinance form. The communi- #6. RE: A public hearing at ty council chairs and SLACC offic- 7: 10 p.m. to receive public com- ers voted to support the two ment and consider adopting an drafts and the chair of SLACC had ordinance amending Title 2 of the met with the Council in a Commit- Salt Lake City Code by adding a tee of the Whole meeting. She new Chapter 2. 62.010, and related said after a lengthy process they sections, dealing with notifica- were now at the point of having tion of certain actions to recog- the public hearing before the nized or registered organizations. Council. She said there was one amendment proposed by the Adminis- ACTION: Councilmember Kirk tration. moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public Stan Penfold, chair of SLACC, hearing, which motion carried, all reviewed the two ordinances. In members voted aye. regards to the recognition ordi- nance he said it recognized the Councilmember Hardman moved existing process for neighbor- and Councilmember Pace seconded to hoods to communicate with the refer the two ordinances back to city. He said he hoped to in- the committee that drafted them in crease citizen participation and order to consider the public input awareness, and increase support of which was received at the hearing, community councils and neighbor- i.e. , legal standing, affirmative hood-based organizations by offi- action, etc. , which motion car- cially recognizing the process. ried, all members voted aye. He said it was vital for neighbor- hoods to become involved and this DISCUSSION: Stephanie Peter- ordinance formalized the process son, office of community affairs, of participation. said these ordinances were the result of a petition from the Regarding notification, he Salt Lake Association of Community said this ordinance would require Councils. She said the intent was the city to notify neighborhood- to have the existing process of based organizations of pending citizen participation officially actions which would affect their recognized and provide for an area. In order for neighborhood early notification process regard- organizations to participate in ing city actions. the city process, he said it was critical that they be aware of She said the Mayor had guar- pending proposals. He said the terly meetings with community ordinance required that Planning council chairs and SLACC officers, Commission and Board of Adjustment 90-160 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 agendas be mailed to neighborhood- Penfold said this ordinance would based organizations requesting require the city to notify the those mailings and that they also community councils so there was a be notified of proposed condi- method for people to participate tional use hearings. He said this in the process of reviewing a was designed to improve communica- proposal. tion between the city and the neighborhood-based organizations Mr. Whitehead asked why the by allowing adequate time for community councils couldn' t just neighborhoods to evaluate propos- be on a mailing list. Mr. Penfold als in their area. said past experience showed that the notification process was not Councilmember Kirk asked if consistent. The ordinance would organizations would receive noti- require the city to allow the fication without requesting it. neighborhood the opportunity to Mr. Penfold said current city review proposals. policy was that organizations would only receive agendas by Ms. Peterson said the ordi- request. He said if an organiza- nance also included a clause tion did not request notification allowing a person to request a 4- then they would not receive agen- week delay in the Planning Commis- das. sion if the community council didn't have a chance to review a He said there was no way for proposal. the city to know which organiza- tions existed unless they request- The following people support- ed mailings. He said organiza- ed the ordinances: tions requesting to be put on the mailing list would receive all Hermoine Jex, 272 Wall Planning Commission and Board of Tony Reiter, 842 E. 500 So. Adjustment agendas, plus copies of Larry Livingston, 165 A St. applications for conditional use Rick Reese, 965 Fairview permits within 600 feet of the Jerry Miller, 322 So. 1000 E. neighborhood. Ms. Peterson said Brigitta Wray, 718 Northview notification would automatically Ernest Dixon, 77 C St. be sent to each recognized orga- Fae Nichols, 120 MacArthur nization. Other groups would have Bruce Boyes, 754 E. Roosevelt to request to be put on the mail- Janet Geyser, 4715 Mile High ing list. Kim Anderson, 768 N. Redwood Paula Julander, 1467 Penrose Councilmember Whitehead asked if the intent of the ordinance was Hermoine Jex suggested adding to establish the mailing list. two paragraphs on page three of Mr. Penfold said it was to give the recognition ordinance, which organizations the opportunity to would be paragraphs D and E: D) be on the mailing list plus it Any new council being formed shall required the city to notify spe- not encroach on any other estab- cific organizations if there was lished council boundaries unless a an issue pending in their neigh- joint agreement is made between borhood. any councils affected by such action, and shall so record with Councilmember Whitehead asked the city the results of the agree- why they needed an ordinance to ment. E) Any existing estab- establish a mailing list. Mr. lished council or councils having 90-161 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 any unresolved boundary differenc- Salt Lake City Council. es shall come to an agreement by January of 1991, and shall record In regards to challenging a with the city the results of the Board of Adjustment or Planning agreement. Commission decision and suing, he said this was a legal issue that She said these additions the courts would determine. He would clarify that people needed said not every citizen could to work together. She also re- challenge every action of a par- ferred to a boundary map which the ticular board. They would have to Council had and said she didn't have some particularized relation- think it was sufficient. She said ship to the dispute. He said the it wasn't the map which was put court had the right to make the together by the SLACC councils, evaluation as to whether or not and said there needed to be a map someone had a relationship to an which SLACC approved and all the issue and could sue. existing councils agreed to. He said the ordinance would Tony Reiter brought up the provide more of an opportunity to issue of "legal standing. " He establish a relationship because suggested that these ordinances the groups would be recognized. would give official recognition to But it would not guarantee stand- the neighborhood groups so they ing on all issues. In regards to could have some standing on is- including stronger language in the sues. In regards to geographical- ordinance to vest standing, he ly-based groups, he said having said the courts would probably them organized in this way would consider this but it still would include everyone. not automatically guarantee stand- ing to either sue or appeal an Councilmember Godfrey asked issue. He also said stronger if the ordinances gave the groups wording to that effect caused him legal standing. Mr. Reiter said concern for several reasons in- he wasn't sure if they did or cluding the potential increase in didn' t but he said the ordinances lawsuits. would help make their position stronger. Councilmember Kirk said she was concerned about Ms. Jex's Councilmember Hardman said he suggested additions and asked Mr. drafted a letter to the city Reiter his opinion. She said she attorney asking if the recognition understood that any group who ordinance would confer any stand- wanted to organize and deal with a ing upon neighborhood councils in specific issue could do so even if appellate cases to the district they were within another district. court. He said he hadn't yet Mr. Reiter concurred with Mrs. received a written statement but Kirk and said he wanted to include asked Roger Cutler, city attorney, everyone. Councilmember Godfrey to respond. also said he was uncomfortable with Ms. Jex' s suggestions. Mr. Cutler said the ordinance was designed to allow any not-for- Mr. Cutler said the purpose profit group to receive notices. of the ordinance was to recognize It also recognized geographically- the community councils as listed based community councils as having on the map and the Council would a unique relationship with the have to approve any boundary 90-162 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY', UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 changes. He said other organiza- Ernest Dixon suggested that tions could overlap as long as the Council pass the ordinances they formed a nonprofit status and and modify them later if neces- met the requirements of the sary. He reiterated that the ordinance. He suggested that Ms. notification ordinance was impera- Jex' s amendments were inconsistent tive and was a way to get more with the present philosophy. people involved. Fae Nichols suggested that it was an indi- Councilmember Hale read Kim vidual 's responsibility to make Anderson's comments which encour- sure they were represented and aged the Council to vote in favor notified. She said the ordinances of the ordinances and stated that would not exclude anyone and said early notification was essential all citizens were welcome to the for residents to have knowledge of community council meetings. issues in the neighborhoods. He said well-informed citizens made Bruce Boyes said the ordi- well-informed voters. nances didn't preclude citizens from becoming a part of the mail- Larry Livingston suggested ing list but clarified the noti- that these ordinances would be fication process and formalized helpful because they would provide participation in city government. indemnification. He said people Janet Geyser said she had helped were suing citizen groups as a way organize community councils and to intimidate them. He agreed said they were another way to that the ordinances would lend process information. She said the weight to the argument that a involvement of citizen groups neighborhood had "standing" in the helped provide information to the appeal process. decision makers. She also said the indemnification clause would Rick Reese said the existing help deter frivolous lawsuits. system was powerful and effec- She said she thought the decision tive, and anyone could become in- makers needed to know who the volved. He said this system was community councils were and said an effective way to facilitate community councils could diffuse a any citizen or entity that wanted lot of problems at the neighbor- to work with neighborhoods on hood level. issues. He also said the process facilitated the neighborhoods in The following people opposed working with the City Council and the ordinances: accessing city government. Wyllis Dorman, 634 E. 700 So. Jerry Miller cited specific Paul Wharton, 436 E. 8th So. incidences in which the community Robert Archuleta, 978 council was involved and had won Cheyenne on issues affecting the neighbor- Ethel Hale, 436 E. 8th So. hood. Brigitta Wray said that as Sister Jo Marie Arredondo, neighborhoods faced encroachment 27 C Street by developers, the community Karen Silver, 764 So. 200 W. councils could work on these issues and keep the neighborhoods Wyllis Dorman said if the strong. She said a neighborhood ordinances passed in there present was stronger as a group than as form they would turn SLACC into a individuals trying to resolve powerful lobbying tool for a small issues. percentage of Salt Lake City's 90-163 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 citizens organized around estab- and Community Development Block lished geographic areas. She said Grant funds; whose local and city- this group didn't represent in its wide boards were not duly elected membership the ethnic or racial by a standard election procedure diversity of Salt Lake City, its or appointed by the Mayor; and disabled citizens, or members of whose membership makeup negated established issue oriented, city- the rule of one person/one vote wide citizen organizations. since the geographic-based coun- cils and/or associations had She then asked several ques- disproportionate representation. tions: 1) Why did Salt Lake City want to extend official recogni- Paul Wharton asked why the tion to geographically-based process needed to be formalized if community councils, neighborhood people were already receiving councils and associations, and the notification. He also said the Salt Lake Association of Community notification seemed to involve Councils rather than to acknowl- only zoning issues and he suggest- edge the important contributions ed there were other issues that of all city-wide and/or neighbor- the citizens needed to be con- hood community citizen organiza- cerned about. He pointed out that tions. according to the ordinance, fail- ure to give notice did not affect 2) How did Salt Lake City the validity of the act or give differentiate between community rise to any private action, so he councils, and neighborhood coun- asked what the binding effect was cils and associations, and why did if there were no consequences. the language in both ordinances vacillate between recognition of He said he didn't know this neighborhood-based versus communi- proposal was being considered and ty-based organizations. asked who had participated in the process to develop the ordinances. 3) Why was there no affirma- He said he lived in an area with a tive action policy requirement in neighborhood council and he hadn't the proposed ordinances for such been informed of this issue. In organizations to be officially reference to geographically-based recognized. groups, he said he thought the Council ' s concern should be how to 4) Why did the city feel the get citizens to participate. He need to create another layer of said he believed this was a gov- bureaucracy to separate the citi- ernment of people and not places. zens from government input and information. Robert Archuleta said citi- zens needed to have a bigger 5) Why did the city want to impact on the decision-making create a political battle ground process within the City Council. for neighborhoods versus city-wide He said he supported the idea of minority, disabled, and/or issue- having more citizen input but he oriented organizations. said he didn't support the pro- posed recognition policy. Mr. 6) Was it constitutional for Archuleta said many people had not Salt Lake City to designate one been informed that these ordinanc- citizens group as the officially es were being drafted and he said recognized advisory organization, many citizens didn't get notified and provide them with paid staff of issues unless they belonged to 90-164 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 one of the recognized groups. Sister Jo Marie Arredondo expressed her concern with the He said he represented the lack of affirmative action in the Utah Hispanic Association and committee that drafted the ordi- would inform them of these ordi- nances. nances. He said they had not taken a position because they were Councilmember Hardman said he not aware of the ordinances. He supported the ordinances, but said they found that traditionally said the Council had received an in this state, in the last 10 amendment to the notification years, minorities had been left ordinance and said he had a out of many things. He said they question regarding the legal were making an effort to become a standing issue. He asked Mr. part of issues and said SLACC had Penfold his opinion regarding the done a good job but many people administration' s amendment. did not belong to that group. He said there were other groups that Mr. Penfold said he personal- would like favored status. ly supported the amendment but was reluctant to speak on behalf Councilmember Pace said she of the community council chairs. thought the notification ordinance He said he preferred to have an would be a big step in the dissem- opportunity to present the amend- ination of information. ment to them. He also said he didn't think the issue of "stand- Ethel Hale said she didn't ing" was completely resolved and know what purpose these ordinances he wanted to pursue whether or not would serve. She also said people the ordinance dealt with that were left out since the ordinances issue. He said he was advised by addressed organizations. She said the planning department that they the ordinances would set up bu- may want to incorporate into the reaucratic barriers and said the ordinance notification about Council form of government had conditional uses and special been organized for geographical exceptions that go before the representation. She suggested Board of Adjustment. He said he that the Councilmembers were would feel more comfortable re- responsible to provide the commu- solving these issues. nication in their districts. She stressed that she didn't want the Councilmember Whitehead said ordinances to take away the free- he was concerned with the provi- dom to assemble because a group in sion allowing a 4-week delay on an area was already organized. issues pending community council review. He said the community Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council councils met only once a month and Executive Director, read comments he didn' t want the ordinance to from Karen Silver. She said Ms. create a situation that would Silver suggested that on page 3 of delay every issue because a commu- the notification ordinance, the nity council hadn't reviewed it. Council delete 2. 62.030(D) regard- Councilmember Hardman said the ing failure to give notice, since administrative amendment addressed it negated the process of notifi- that situation. cation. Ms. Silver also suggested that in lines 2 and 3 in 2. 62. - Mr. Penfold said it was 040(A) the Council delete the currently an informal policy of words, "of which. . .given notice. " the Planning Commission to refer 90-165 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 conditional uses and zoning chang- es to the community councils for discussion and input. He reiter- ated that the ordinances formal- ized the current procedure. He expressed concern that the Board of Adjustment didn't follow the same procedure since they also dealt with conditional uses. He said he didn't anticipate that the ordinance would cause delays and said it dealt strictly with zon- ing-related issues. (0 90-20) The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. COUNCI CHAIR 40r/ car/ G �'�...- C T RtE S ORDER 90-166 p;fir m - Ii d-er'Jle (,aa - -4.Liorb m I . 17 y ' .a61 A#nclo t-em) SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL �,JtJ� ' w AGENDA I`� l n A f �1/� i CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 11„0` _.., enc. (00 N{,ryl-- 451 SOUTH STATE STREET 7/1 1 ` ddendurc k,51} o I ce Racy ►�G Tuesday, May 8, 1990 C�IU 6:00 p.m. CA(en( c2 /14. t 6r-5_ A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County mki— Building, 451 South State CwCeitcl' 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. Ordinance: Fortune-telling Consider adopting an ordinance repealing Section 11 .40.010, Salt Lake City Code, relating to fortune-telling and similar activities. (0 90-18) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 2. Ordinance: Numismatic and Bullion Dealers Consider adopting an ordinance enacting Chapter 5.47 and amending Section 5.48.050 and Chapter 5.60, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to numismatic and bullion Dealers. (0 90-21) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 3. Board Appointment : Salt Lake Art Design Board Consider approving the reappointment of Bonnie Sucec to the Salt Lake Art Design Board. (I 90-4) Staff recommendation: Approve. 4. Board Appointment: Board of Appeals and Examiners Consider approving the reappointment of Ronald Weber to the Board of Appeals and Examiners. (I 90-17) Staff recommendation: Approve. 5. Board Appointment: Salt Lake Arts Council Consider approving the reappointment of Ricklen Nobis to the Salt Lake Arts Council . (I 90-16) Staff recommendation: Approve. 6. Board Appointment : Recreation Advisory Board Consider approving the reappointment of William Prince to the Recreation Advisory Board. (I 90-7) Staff recommendation: Approve. 7. Resolution: Interlocal Agreement / New Hope Multi-Cultural Center Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for improvements at the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center. (C 90-236) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 8. Resolution: Interlocal Agreement / Animal Control Services Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and North Salt Lake City for the provision of Animal Control Services to North Salt Lake City. (C 90-235) Staff recommendation: Adopt. E. NEW BUSINESS: Ordinance: Payment in Lieu of Taxes Q Receive public comment at the General Fund hearing set for May 15, ` ?, 1990 at 6: 15 p.m. and consider adopting an ordinance enacting Sections 3.40.010, 3.40.020 and 3.40.030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Payment in Lieu of taxes for City property (J assets used by the water, sewer and garbage enterprise funds. (0 90-25) Staff recommendation: Refer to public hearing. 2. Ordinance: Business Revenue License Fees Receive public comment at the General Fund hearing set for May 15, 1990 at 6: 15 p.m. and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 5.04.070A, of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Business Revenue License Fees Sections 6.08. 110A and 6. 16.030 relating to beer and liquor consumption regulatory license fees. (0 90-22) Staff recommendation: Refer to public hearing. 3. Ordinance: Garbage Pickup Charges Receive public comment at the General Fund hearing set for May 15, 1990 at 6: 15 p.m. and consider adopting an ordinance amending Subparagraph B. and adding a new Subparagraph G, to Section 9.08.030 relating to garbage pickup charges; changing the State Code reference in Section 9.08.030E to reflect the current state law for indigent abatement of taxes; and revising Section 9.08.070 relating to refuse container specifications, Salt Lake City Code. (0 90-24) Staff recommendation: Refer to public hearing. 4. Ordinance: Storm Drainage Receive public comment at the General Fund hearing set for May 15, 1990 at 6: 15 p.m. and consider adopting an ordinance amending Sections 2.08. 100 and 2.08. 110 of the Salt Lake City Code, shifting the responsibility for storm drainage from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Public Utilities. (0 90-23) Staff recommendation: Refer to public hearing. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Alley Closure & Vacation / Ricks and Browns Consider adopting a corrected ordinance closing a portion and vacating a portion of an alley adjacent to 2185 South 900 East , pursuant to Petition No. 400-756-89. (P 89-379) (P C Staff recommendation: Adopt. 2. Ordinance: OKOA Annexation Consider adopting an ordinance extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the "OKOA Annexation" ; zoning the annexed area / commercial "C-3A" by amending the use district map of Section 21 . 14.020; amending the Salt Lake City Council District and School Precinct Boundaries Map; amending the Liquor District Map of l � Section 6.08. 120; and specifying conditions for the annexation. \-� (P 89-34+7) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 3. Resolution: Street Lighting Special Improvement District #1 Consider adopting a resolution conditionally accepting a bid for and authorizing execution of a contract with Utah Power and Light Company for operating, patrolling and maintaining street lighting within Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. 1 (The "District") . ' (ei Ic;C +0 4 5.tac - ei. Staff recommendation: Adopt. ; i b 6 ) c)O. C, C-(K G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: . 6:20 p.m. � Q- Alley Vacation Petition # 400-764 / David Thomas Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating 1, 6.0 a portion of an East-West alley between K and L Streets, and 11th J Yt and 12th Avenues pursuant to Petition #400-764-89. (P 90-8 ) MC �l(�(� taff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 2. 6:30 p.m. Ordinance: Alley Vacation Fee Waiver �_ Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting 0\0\ Section 21 . 10.090 providing for the waiver of fees for alley J�W) vacations in residential zoning districts. (P 90-86) * I fl_ a Lk 11C- Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. t 35, U000 f Q kola ( co*- . 1t haz 1 b do, <I )( 50, ( '( S ctu *o f 114 64) anc(Dream so `f p 1 I,Jha.eue Cuncap± t' 6:40 p.m. Airport Zoning and Height Regulations Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section,2.16.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations. 4‘(\\OCt did- OC) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 4. 6:50 p.m. Ordinance: Uniform Code Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adopting Chapter 18.92 enacting the Uniform Code for Building Conservation with certain amendments. (0 90-17) ,____ pa i-G, Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt . I(. 90Slt� 7:00 p.m.Ordinance: SLACC Recognition Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance (15 amending Title 2 of the Salt Lake City Code by adding a new Chapter 2.60.010, and related sections dealing with recognition of neighborhood based organizations. (0 90-20) 1.9 Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. y 7: 10 p.m. 4:A l v` VI- Ordinance: SLACC Notification Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance � �� amending Title 2 of the Salt Lake City Code by adding a new �` Chapter 2.62.010, and related sections, dealing with notification - of certain actions to recognized or registered organizations. (0 90-21) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. i H. ADJOURNMENT. * FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. DATED: May 4, 1990 BY: C Y RECORDER STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 4th day of May, 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. ITY RECORDER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of May, 1990. c,C44 Notary Public residing in the State of Utah My CommissitAiI .WiC ; ary Public 44. OMMAA DOOMMO 1 it Sett G tah 84 i i 1 i my Commission Expires !I flay 1,1993 \ CIMa of Ulan APPROVAL: = - (.; ( 'Thil?P' EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADDENDUM SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, May 8, 1990 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: C. COMMENTS: D. CONSENT E. NEW BUSINESS 1 . Ordinance: Street Closure Petition # 400-790-90 Set date to hold a non-advertised hearing on May 15, 1990 at 6:50 p.m. to receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of Post Office Place pursuant to Petition # 400-790-90. (P 90-138) Staff recommendation: Set date. F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: May 7, 1990 BY: CHIEF DEPU C Y CORDER STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 7th day of May, 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. / w je 41110 ..i�.�. CHIEF DEPUTY C .t' RECORDER Subscribed - • sworn to before me this 7th day of May, 1990. otary Public '" rin the State of Utah MY ci•ss14an—Exaires.1----'-j , 461 So.t St.Fan Salt Ldae G CM ty.Utah M 1 - " 4 My Commission Expires -4 AUgUst 1.19n4 4 a � Sib ci Utah APPROVAL: EXECU IVE DIRECTO MIKE ZUHL SAL1 L KE CITY COR O ION LEE KING ,4TFRIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEV£_i_OPMEH T 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 70: Salt Lake City Council May 4, 1990 Re: Petition No. 400-790-90 submitted by Post Office Place Associates Recommendation: That the City Council hold a non-advertised public hearing on May 15, 1990 at 6:50 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-790-90 submitted by Post Office Place Associates. The petitioners are requesting to close the portion of Post Office Place right-of-way which the Odd Fellows building is located upon. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The front posts and pillars of the Odd Fellows building at 39/41 Post Office Place encroaches upon City property approximately 32 square feet. The building was constructed in 1891. The Odd fellow Building is a historically significant building and is listed on the national register. Considerable amounts of money have been spent in recent years to renovate the building and make it commercially viable. The Planning Commission has reviewed and has recommended approval of this petition with the following stipulation: The vaults that presently exist under the sidewalk remain in City ownership and continue to be leased to the building owners. The Planning Commission suggested that the petitioner execute a preservation easement on the property with the Utah Heritage Foundation, this could provide tax credits for the developer. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: i�u%.-L.// B. Z / I terim Director SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 ( Closing a portion of Post Office Place pursuant to Petition No. 400-790-90 ) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION OF POST OFFICE PLACE PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-790-90. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public street described below is not necessary for use by the public as a street and that closure of said street will not be adverse to the general public ' s interest nor divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of Post Office Place,which is the subject of Petition No. 400-790-90 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, CLOSED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public street, with the title remaining with the City until subsequent sale for market value: Said street is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is North 0°01 ' 10" West along the Lot line 132.00 feet and South 89 °58 ' 27" goo West along the South line of Post Office Place 0.30 � A feet from the Southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 51, Plat "A" , Salt Lake City Survey; thence North 1,,11 0°01 ' 33" West 2 . 00 feet; thence North 89 °58 ' 27" East 50. 50 feet; thence South 0°01 ' 33" East 2 . 00 feet; thence South 89 ° 58 ' 27" West 50. 50 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 100. 9 square feet. SECTION 2 . The petitioner shall obtain and pay for an appraisal by a City approved appraiser. The City shall retain ownership in the vaults which exist under the sidewalk and the City may agree to enter into a lease of those vaults. SECTION 3. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS . The above closure is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the condition of Section 3 has been met. IF the condition has not been met within one year the Mayor may extend the time by an additional year. If the condition has not been met within any extension this ordinance shall be null and void and shall not be published. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON -2- it/ ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor ' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) BILL NO. OF 1990 Published: BRB: rc -3- ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP SALT i CITY. CORPORATIONPALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET A p r 11 6 1990 ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAI-i 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 Mike Zuhl, Acting Director Community and Economic Development BUILDING Dear Mike: Please find attached Petition 400-790 by Shawn C. Ferrin for Post Office Place Associates requesting Salt Lake City close a portion of Post Office Place. At their regular meeting on April 5, 1990 the Salt Lake City Planning Coilullission reviewed the petition, received public comment, and recommended conditional approval of this request to the City Council. At the conclusion of their deliberations, the Planning Commission determined the following findings of fact: * the historical intent of the street closure is evident by the construction of the Odd Fellows Building upon the portion of the street proposed for closure; * the public will receive benefits from the continued use of the Odd Fellows Building which is listed upon the National and State Historical Register; The Planning Commission recommends the portion of the street at 39/41 West Post Office Place, beneath the above ground portion of the Odd Fellows Building, be closed and sold for fair market value with the following stipulations; The vaults that presently exist under the sidewalk remain in City ownership and continue to be leased to the building owners. The petitioner is requested to execute a preservation easement on the property with the Utah Heritage Foundation. A preservation easement could provide tax credits For the developer. Ri c4J411y . Allen C:' Johnso AICP Planning Direct r ACJ:DD attachments QUIT CLAIM DEED SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, "GRANTOR", hereby quit claims to POST OFFICE PLACE ASSOCIATES a Utah General Partnership, "GRANTEE", for the sum of TEN AND NO/100ths DOLLARS ($10.00) , and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City's interest in a parcel of land described below, which forms a part of the public right-of-way abutting the Grantee's property. The City vacated said right-of-way by Action of Ordinance No. , which was published on or about • . Said parcel is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is North 0°01'10" West along the Lot line 132.00 feet and South 89°58'27" West along the South line of Post office Place 0.30 feet from the Southwest corner of Lot $, Block 51, Plat "A", Salt Lake City Survey; thence North 0 01'33" West 2.00 feet; thence North 89°58'27" East 50.5;0 feet; thence South 00 01'33" East2.00 feet; then South 89 58'27" West 50.50 feet to theoi.nt.:'of beginning. Contains 0:9 squar-e---feet------ -- - SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on, in, under or over the confines of the above described property. SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of obtaining, altering, replacing, removing, repairing or rerouting said utilities and all of them. SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. WITNESS the hand of said Grantor this day of , 1990. MAYOR Attest: CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION 400-790-89 BY POST OFFICE PLACE ASSOCIATES SHAWN C. FERRIN, ATTORNEY OVERVIEW This is a petition by POST OFFICE PLACE ASSOCIATES requesting Salt Lake City vacate a portion of Post Office Place which runs west from Main Street to West Temple. BACKGROUND The location is in a Commercial C-4 zoning district. The front posts and pillars of the Odd Fellows building encroach onto City property complicating financing of the building. The owners currently lease the encroached property from the City as well as an underground vault beneath the sidewalk. The square footage of property vacated is 32 square feet. The building is located at 39/41 Post Office Place. ANALYSIS This request has boon reviewed by the "one stop" coitunittcc. Salt Lake City Transportation and Engineering Departments both approve of this request. The Development Coordination Team has also reviewed and approved the request. The building has existed on the site for nearly 100 years ( constructed in 1891 ) with no significant impacts upon pedestrian traffic. The Odd Fellows Building is a historically significant building that is listed on the national register. Considerable amounts of money have been spent in recent years to renovate the building and make it commercially viable. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends this petition be approved due to the fact that the vacation of this portion of Post Office Place will not significantly impair the function of the street. The closure and sale of the property to insure the preservation of a historical building is consistent the Downtown Master Plan and City Policy. The Planning Conudssion should recommend to the City Council that this portion of Post Office Place is surplus land and should be closed subject to the following conditions. 1. Only the portion under the building be sold, the vaults under the sidewalk should continue to be in City ownership and leased to the building owners. 2. The property be appraised and sold at fair market value. Doug Dansie March 13, 1990 Hansen Jones & Leta (a professional corporation) Scott R.Carpenter Attorneys at Law Valley Tower Building Robert C. Delahunty 50 West Broadway, Sixth Floor Shawn C.Ferrin P.C. Box 510290 Stuart A.Fredman Salt Lake City, Utah 84151-0290 J.Gordon Hansen (street zip code 84101-2018) Whitney K. Hubert February 22, 1990 Cary D.Jones Telephone (801) 532-7520 David E.Leta Telecopier (801) 364-7699 Jim F.Lundberg Blake D.Miller HAND DELIVERED 40)°"atg44 DUPLICATE ORIGINALS 44 4 �e Mayor Palmer DePaulis PRECEI 44VED SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PRoPERTY y Room 306 / Salt Lake City, Utah `'O` q,� s8L99�£ Ms. Linda Cordova Real Property Agent Finance Department SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 South State Street Room 305 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Application/Petition to Purchase Real Property Dear Mayor DePaulis and Ms. Cordova: This letter shall serve as an application/petition on behalf of our client, Post Office Place Associates, a Utah limited partnership ("POPA"), to purchase a small strip of real property from Salt Lake City Corporation ("SLCC"). OVERVIEW POPA is the owner of a commercial building commonly known as the Oddfellows Building located at 39 West Post Office Place, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Building"), and the parking lot adjacent to the west side of the Building (the "Parking Lot"). A portion of the Building's facade and entryway encroach upon SLCC's property (the "Encroachment Property"). POPA currently leases the Encroachment Property as well as an underground utility vault from SLCC. POPA now desires to eliminate the encroachment by purchasing the Encroachment Property from SLCC. THE PROPERTY I have enclosed a survey of the Building and the Parking Lot (the "Survey"). Highlighted in red on the Survey is the Encroachment Property. In the event SLCC would rather sell a more uniform strip of land, POPA is willing to purchase the real property I • Mayor Palmer DePaulis Ms. Linda Cordova February 22, 1990 Page 2 have outlined in green on the survey (the "Expanded Encroachment Property"). I have asked our surveyor to prepare a legal description of the Encroachment Property and the Expanded Encroachment Property and will deliver those to you as soon as I have received them. ESTIMATED VALUE I have also enclosed a copy of the land valuation section of an appraisal recently prepared on the Building and Parking Lot (the "Appraisal"). I have not included a complete copy of the Appraisal because it is over 150 pages; however, if you would like a complete copy, I will gladly deliver one. The Appraisal states that the land value is $20 per square foot. Based upon the Appraisal and the square footage of the Encroachment Property and the Expanded Encroachment Property (we have estimated the square footage based upon the survey, the actual square footage will be set forth on the legal descriptions), we believe the properties have the following approximate values: Approximate Property Size Total Value Encroachment Property 32 sq. ft. $640.00 Expanded Encroachment 100 sq. ft. $2,000.00 Property Obviously, the total value of the properties should be discounted to reflect that the properties have little or no public value or use. CONCLUSION As I have indicated to Ms. Cordova, POPA is in the process of refinancing the Building and the Parking Lot. Our lender has informed us that it will not close the refinancing until POPA has acquired the Encroachment Property; therefore, POPA is hopeful. that a decision regarding the sale can be made as quickly as possible. Please contact me if I may provide you with any further information regarding this matter. Sincerely, <� e Shawn C. Ferrin SCF/mg Enclosures 110. 00' ___ j EEASE AGREEMENT A !SALT LAKE cur r CORP. FOUND PLUG IN SIDEWALK 10/07/86. 14334567 1 7 o ON 2. 0' OFFSET PAINTED MARRS OM SWAGE BOCK 5829. PAGE 2272 / rdj r (OPPOSITE NE CUR PARCE '; IMDICATIMO (ADERCROLOID L / ') TELEPHONE CABLE Al; _ _ - - - - i.ni - ---0.E,y:7•APPROX• UNITS o77 - fi, i ,; -NO ®Oj' 10'W 0. 22 - - - S89 '58'27'W 110. 00 ai - - UG ELECTRICAL VALET - - _ - - - -�i 50. 00 L - _10'= 5'> 1 )1 ,' N89 9581 27'E ___ _' ,S89 '58'27'W. , N89 °52' W 1. 02 • / / / / ' /STREET ADDRESS: / ,c ---- _-_ _ - ;•,/ 39 POST OFFICE PLACE:! .. -- N0 .36'E 28. 97 O M / , /I �— N PARCEL 4 V / / / s ITO E LIME Of BUILDINGI - -- PARCEL 2 --- -� —,/ /` j," PARCEL 1 "� -•A w / / ' =-. 0 N0 °11 'E 21. 76 L_ - . / / o / C v - a• ' 3-STORY ,' ' o • BRICK BUILDING 404• ,E / , i / , �mv ��a — c NO 'O1 ` kl 24. 82 .--, Fi▪cil A ; L' -�'j ,' IEAS EAST LINE OFE OF F PAING RCEL 4 / / i — - /;' . .--N0 '20'W 23. 73 ASPHAL T . /' A. PARKING — h / / /' / / / / --- (31 SPACES) / ' ,• / / ' / / , ,/ /' NO '27' W 19. 03 - /- / . / --- BUILDING CORNER . — / i Ll'! I 1 IS PARCEL CORNER •, Z ,,. S89 '52'E 0. 90 FOUND REBAR/CAP i .¢N0 .01 ' 10'W 13. 52 S894 58'2 7'W 1 ' • ALS SE Ca CONC PAL L 50. 00 '4 1®' • —'50. 08 0•,YK . i P P 6 ---FOUND REBAR/CAP ME SERGE CONC. pra I N8 9°58'27'E 110. 00 \ ' `e S' N 11 \ POINT OF BEGINNING (COMPOSITE) - SW CORNER LOT 8. BLOCK 51 PLAT °A'. SLC SURVEY (ALSO SE COR. LOT 3) I (FOUND PLUG IN CONCRETE) I - I I I C SCH UCH ERT &ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS February 22, 1990 Job No. 2164 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS ODD FELLOWS BUILDING 39 POST OFFICE PLACE SALT LAKE CITY UTAH G 7.4a � OVERALL CGS Beginning at a point which is N0°01 ' 10"W along the Lot line 132. 00 feet and S89° 58 ' 27"W along the South line of Post Office Place 0.30 feet from the Southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 51 , Plat "A" , Salt Lake City Survey ; thence NO°01 ' 33"W 2.00 feet; thence N89° 58 ' 27"E 50. 50 feet ; thence S0°01 ' 33"E 2.00 feet; thence S89° 58' 27"W 50 . 50 feet to the point of beginning . Contains 100 . 9 square feet . WEST Beginning at a point which is N0°01 ' 10"W along the Lot line 132.00 feet and S89°58' 27"W along the South line of Post Office Place 0.30 feet from the Southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 51 , Plat "A" , Salt Lake City Survey ; thence NO°01 ' 33"W 0.80 feet; thence N89° 58 ' 27"E 2. 50 feet ; thence S0°01 ' 33"E 0.80 feet; thence S89°58' 27"W 2 . 50 feet to the point of beginning . Contains 2.0 square feet . MIDDLE Beginning at a point which is NO°01 ' 10"W along the Lot line 132.00 feet and N89° 58 ' 27"E along the South line of Post Office Place 17.60 feet from the Southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 51 , Plat "A" , Salt Lake City Survey ; thence N0°01 ' 33"W 2.00 feet; thence N89° 58' 27"E 14.70 feet; thence S0°01 ' 33"E 2.00 feet; thence S89° 58' 27"W 14 .70 feet to the point of beginning . Contains 29. 4 square feet. EAST Beginning at a point which is N0°01 ' 10"W along the Lot line 132.00 feet and N89°58' 27"E along the South line of Post Office Place 47.70 feet from the Southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 51 , Plat "A" , Salt Lake City Survey ; thence NO°01 ' 33"W 0.50 feet; thence N89° 58 ' 27"E 2. 50 feet; thence SO°01 ' 33"E 0. 50 feet; thence S89°58' 27"W 2 . 50 feet to the point of beginning . Contains 1 .25 square feet . 5330 SOUTH 900 EAST, SUITE 120 • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84117 • (801]266-1118 FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA HAM ILTON Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR ROOM 345 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PROPERTY (801) 535-7133 February 26, 1990 Allen C. Johnson, Planning Director Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 SUBJECT: PETITION NO. 500-138 - REQUEST TO PURCHASE A 51'HIP OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 39 WEST POST OFFICE PLACE. Attn: Doug Wheelwright Post Office Place Associates (POPA) has had a right-of-way encroachment lease with the City since 1984 for a subsurface utility vault, structural encroachment of the building and private lighting. They recently renewed the 5-year agreement without any problems. During a refinancing of the property, the lender refused to close the transaction unless POPA acquired the encroached property. The property owners recognize that the area which involves the vault beneath the sidewalk cannot be purchased. The request, however, is to purchase a strip of the right-of-way measuring approximately 50' x 2' , where the building facade and entry-way currently encroach. (The building is on the National Historical Registery) . The owners are quite anxious to resolve this matter so they can complete their financing package. Please have the request processed through the DCT review and provide any comments or recommendations to me by March 2, 1990. Thank you for your assistance. Should you have any questions, please call me at 535-6308. Sincerely, ,44224/16/Z/4$6,11(------ Linda Cordova Property Manager LC/mt Attachment (map) Johnson.POPA PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 1, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, 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 Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting. Council Chair Alan Hardman Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item E-4 called the meeting to order and concerned the appointment of Lee said the only item on the agenda King to the Housing Authority was the Executive Director's Board. She recommended that the briefing. He said Councilmember Council suspend and approve the Hale would conduct the meeting appointment because currently the tonight. board did not have enough members to constitute a quorum and conduct Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council business. Councilmember Pace Executive Director, introduced asked if it was common for a city Anne Pinckney, Policy/Budget employee to serve on a city board. Analyst recently hired for the Ms. Gust-Jenson said it was not Council office, and asked Ms. very common but that someone from Pinckney to tell the Council about Community and Economic Development her background. Ms. Pinckney said had served on this Board in the she had worked in Washington, past because it related directly California, and Maryland prior to to city issues. She indicated her move to Utah and she was glad that Mr. King would be taking to be working with Salt Lake City Craig Peterson' s place. and enjoyed her position. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Ms. Pinckney had Councilmember Horrocks said been working in California during he thought the Council should Proposition 13 which could be suspend and approve the appoint- helpful to the Council at some ment. Chairman Hardman asked the future time. Council if they agreed with this recommendation. The Council Ms. Gust-Jenson asked if agreed to suspend and approve the Councilmember Hale would be read- nomination. ing the "Be Kind To Animals Week" resolution. Councilmember Hardman Ms. Gust-Jenson said Item G-1 said it would be Councilmember was the CDBG Public Hearing and Hale who would read the resolu- asked if the Council wanted her to tion. time comments because of the expected number of requests. Ms. Gust-Jenson said an Councilmember Hardman said the addendum to the agenda had been timer should be used. done because the date listed on the agenda to adopt the tentative Ms. Gust-Jenson said the CDAC budgets had been listed as May 1, Committee ' s presentation should be 1990, and it was actually May 15, given some extra time because the 1990. Mayor had not approved all of 90-138 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 their recommendations and they may from the microphone button. Ms. want to explain their recommenda- Gust-Jenson said they would be tions in more detail. further away and would need to Councilmember Pace asked who would reach a little to their microphone be making the presentation. Ms. button. Gust-Jenson said she assumed the Chair of the CDAC Committee would Councilmember Hardman asked make the presentation. if a citizen would be coming to discuss the Sugarhouse Shopko Ms. Gust-Jenson said the City situation. Ms. Gust-Jenson said had mailed a letter to HUD to he would be present and his name appeal their decision to disallow was Mark Diana. She said he was the city' s use of urban forestry concerned that the Texaco station grant money to spray trees. She on 1300 East and approximately said the city had been using some 2400 South was being displaced of these funds to spray trees and because of the Shopko develop- HUD had originally approved this ment. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Mr. use; now they were not agreeing to Diana had contacted the Mayor at this arrangement. home the previous night so the Mayor should be aware of the Councilmember Horrocks asked situation. how long the budget presentation from the Mayor should be. Ms. Councilmember Kirk said she Gust-Jenson said it would take had a few RDA items to address about twenty minutes. when Ms. Gust-Jenson had finished her briefing and the scheduling Councilmember Hale asked when questions had been answered. he should announce that public hearing speaking cards were avail- Ms. Gust-Jenson said these able for individuals wanting to were the only items she had and make a presentation to the Coun- asked Ms . Shepherd to address the cil. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that Council with her scheduling ques- should be done after he read the tions. Ms. Shepherd said she resolution. She added that most needed to confirm the attendance of the speakers knew the procedure of the Council to three events. and would get the card from Mr. She asked Councilmembers Hale and Snow when they arrived. Horrocks if they would be attend- ing the Mayor' s Neighborhood Councilmember Hale said the Conference on Saturday, May the chairs in the Council Chamber had 5th. Councilmember Hale indicated been moved to place the Council- he could attend the dinner but he members directly in front of their would be late to the conference. microphones because of complaints Ms. Gust-Jenson said that a reser- that they were not being heard. vation would be made for him to attend the conference and he could Councilmember Hardman asked come when he was able. if the speaker lights were working Councilmember Horrocks indicated correctly. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that he would not be able to the electricians had been in the attend. previous day and they indicted the lights were working correctly. Ms . Shepherd asked the Coun- cil if they would be attending the Councilmember Hale asked if dinner at the Mayor' s Neighborhood the Council would be further away Conference. Councilmembers, Pace, 90-139 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 Hardman, Godfrey, Kirk and Hale if August 8 or 9 would work with indicated they would attend the their schedules. The Council dinner. Councilmembers Whitehead agreed that either of these dates and Horrocks indicated they would would work, but indicated a pref- not attend the dinner. erence for August 8. Ms. Shepherd said that Ev Councilmember Godfrey asked Gray from the Chamber of Commerce why the picnic was being held so had requested the names of the late in the year when several Councilmembers who would be at- years ago it had been held in tending the Downtown Retail Mer- July. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that chants Association luncheon. funds were not available one year Councilmember Godfrey asked if and the picnic had to be moved to this was an important event. Ms. the next budget year to cover the Gust-Jenson said Ms. Gray had been expenses so this had created the requesting for several months that change in time. the Council attend. Councilmembers Pace, Horrocks, Hardman and Hale Councilmember Pace said that indicated they would attend. Memory Grove might be a-- good place to hold the picnic next year Ms. Shepherd asked if the because renovations were being Council would be attending the completed this year to restore the Salt Palace Center Expansion park to good condition. breakfast or lunch discussion. Councilmembers Pace and Kirk said Ms. Shepherd said these were they would attend the breakfast. the only items she had. Ms. Gust-Jenson and Councilmember Horrocks said they would attend Councilmbmber Kirk said she the luncheon. had a few RDA scheduling questions to ask. She said that a Block 57 Ms. Shepherd asked the Coun- meeting had been scheduled for May cil in which park they wanted to 9 at 2:00 and that Councilmembers hold the annual Thank You Picnic Whitehead, Pace and Hardman would and said it should be in District need to attend if they could. Six this year. Councilmember Kirk Councilmember Kirk said the rest said she didn' t think the parks in of the Council would need to come her district were large enough for to the meeting at 4: 00. Council- this picnic. Councilmember members Whitehead, Pace and Hardman indicated that he didn't Hardman indicated they could know it was held in particular attend the 2:00 meeting. districts. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Councilmember Kirk asked if they tried to circulate the area Councilmembers Horrocks, Godfrey, where the picnic was held so all and Hale could come at 4:00. They of the districts had a chance to indicated they could attend the participate. She asked if the 4:00 meeting. Council would prefer to hold it in a west side park since the last Councilmember Kirk said that two picnics had been on the east Dick Turpin wanted to schedule a side. The Council agreed that it pre-briefing with Babcock Pace to would be held at a west side park. discuss Block 57 in more detail on May 9 at 12:00 noon and asked if Ms. Gust-Jenson said the date any of the .Councilmembers would be of the picnic would need to be interested in attending. established and asked the Council Councilmember Horrocks said he 90-140 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 would like to attend and Councilmember Hardman indicated that he might be able to attend. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that he would not be able to attend. Ms. Gust-Jenson asked the Council if the meetings on the 3rd and the 5th of July could be moved to July 17th and 19th because of the holiday. Councilmember Kirk said she would rather not move the meetings. Councilmember Godfrey asked if only the meeting on the 5th could be rescheduled. Ms. Gust-Jenson said it could be moved or the Council could choose not to have that meeting. The Council decided that they would like to cancel the meeting. Ms. Gust- Jenson said she would verify that this would not conflict with scheduled items before the meeting was cancelled. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Wasatch Front Regional Council had made themselves available to brief the Council on the 1-15 State Street plan. She asked the Coun- cil to let her know if they wanted individual meetings or if they preferred to have them scheduled for a Committee of the Whole meeting. She said with the schedule being busy it would be easier for the individual meet- ings. The Council agreed to establish individual briefings as needed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. 90-141 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, May 1, 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 S.R. Kivett, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting and Councilmember Hale conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES behalf of Vern Madson' s Texaco station at 2300 South 1300 East, #1. Police Chaplain Ferdinand said the Shopko enterprise was Johnson gave the invocation. going to take over this property and Mr. Madson wanted to know the #2. The Council led the city's position regarding his Pledge of Allegiance. relocation. #3. Councilmember Godfrey Mayor DePaulis said he talked moved and Councilmember Hardman to Mr. Madson and told him the seconded to approve the minutes of city would be glad to meet with the Salt Lake City Council for the Jim McGuire from Clark Financial, regular meetings held Tuesday, the project developer, to look April 17, 1990, Thursday, April into the transactions. He said 19, 1990, and Thursday, April 26, Mr. Madson was the lessee and not 1990, which motion carried, all the owner, and said the property members voted aye. owner was working on a deal with (M 90-1) Clark Financial regarding this property, which he understood #4. The Mayor and Council would be used for a restaurant. considered a resolution concerning He pointed out that the transac- animal week. Councilmember Hale tion was between the developer and read the resolution which recog- the owner, and the city was only nized the week of May 6, 1990, as working with the developer on the "Be Kind to Animals" week. planned unit development. He said he told Mr. Madson he would answer Councilmember Godfrey moved any of his questions. and Councilmember Whitehead sec- onded to adopt Resolution 52 of The Mayor said Mr. Madson 1990, which motion carried, all made an offer to purchase the members voted aye. property which was weighed against (R 90-1) other offers, but Mr. Madson' s offer was not accepted. He said COMMENTS this was a sensitive situation for the city to be involved with since #1. Mark Diana, speaking on it was between the developer and 90-142 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 land owners. But he said he was agreement between Salt Lake City willing to give information to Mr. and Salt Lake County for improve- Madson in order to clarify the ments at First Step House. situation. (C 90-222) Mr. Diana said Mr. Madson NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS appreciated any help and stressed that this was a moral issue and #1. RE: Mayor' s recommended not a legal issue. He said Mr. budget for Fiscal Year 1990-91. Madson had his business at that location for 22 years which pro- ACTION: No action required. vided a much needed service for the area. DISCUSSION: Mayor DePaulis presented his budget message. He Councilmember Hale said he said the city' s financial picture represented that district and had had improved but the increase in an overview of the situation. He revenue was minimal. He said said the Council would take this revenue from property taxes was under advisement. flat, franchise fees -were down, and the legislature passed a bill CONSENT AGENDA which moved up the redistribution of sales tax revenue to communi- Councilmember Godfrey moved ties throughout the state. He and Councilmember Kirk seconded said the state had either limited, to approve the consent agenda, capped, or taken away the revenue which motion carried, all members which the city generated. voted aye. He said this year the depart- #1. RE: Adopting Ordinance ments submitted budget requests 29 of 1990 adding Sections 2. 59 . - which totalled more than $10 010, 2. 59 .020, 2. 59 .030, 2. 59.040, million over last year ' s budget . 2. 59.050, and 2. 59 .060 to the Salt The requests included additional Lake City Code relating to subpoe- police officers, additional fire nas. fighters, funds for expanded road (0 90-19) maintenance and new road develop- ment, money to plant more trees #2. RE: Approving the and treat diseased trees, and a appointment of Jim Webb to the fair wage package for employees. Magna Mosquito Abatement District. He said he denied each request (I 90-18) except for the additional police officers. #3. RE: Approving the appointment of Fred Sanford to the He said Salt Lake City had Golf Advisory Board. been targeted by drug lords and (I 90-5) warring gang factions that wanted to control the community' s drug #4. RE: Approving the trade. He said Salt Lake City appointment of Cindy White to the needed to respond to this problem Tracy Aviary Advisory Board. and he said he was proposing a (I 90-14) $2. 1 million property tax increase to hire new police officers. He #5. RE: Adopting Resolution said hiring the officers would 51 of 1990 authorizing the execu- meet the city' s immediate police tion of an interlocal cooperation needs but in order to promote 90-143 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 future growth, enhance economic policy. stability and improve the quality of life, he said revenues had to In conclusion the Mayor said grow. He proposed several policy Salt Lake City' s citizens wanted initiatives: and expected to live in a dynamic livable city with an environment First, create a city task free of pollution, noise, and force to review the city' s devel- crime, with good housing and well opment ordinances and develop a maintained streets, a vibrant long-term economic plan for the downtown, green and peaceful city which would target businesses parks, clean air and plentiful and industries that would provide water, and a plan for their fu- opportunities for growth. ture. He said this year's budget would solve Salt Lake City' s Second, lower the city' s current problems and provide a sales tax to serve as an economic plan to support a growing dynamic stimulus since items purchased in city. the city would be subject to a (B 90-1 ) reduced tax. #2. RE: A resolution adopt- Third, reduce water and sewer ing the tentative budgets, includ- connection fees in order to stimu- ing the tentative budget for the late and attract new growth in the library fund, for the Fiscal Year Northwest Quadrant. beginning July 1, 1990, and ending June 30, 1991, and setting the Fourth, initiate a program to date for Tuesday, May 15, 1990, at effectively communicate the desir- 6:15 p.m. to hold a hearing to ability of living and doing busi- receive public comment. ness in Salt Lake City. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey Fifth, immediately begin to moved and Councilmember Kirk assess those areas that might want seconded to adopt Resolution 53 of to annex to Salt Lake City. 1990 and refer the tentative budgets to the Committee of the Sixth, examine ways to in- Whole, which motion carried, all crease revenues such as ( 1 ) ensure members voted aye. that tax exempt institutions pay (B 90-1, B 90-2) their fair share for services, (2 ) ensure that commuters pay their #3. RE: An ordinance re- fair share for day time services, pealing Section 11 .40.010, Salt (3 ) develop alternatives to cur- Lake City Code, relating to for- rent formulas used to distribute tune telling and similar activi- revenue to local government, (4 ) ties. continue to implement user fees, ( 5 ) maximize limited resources by ACTION: Without objection, using the benefit of pub- Councilmember Hale referred this lic/private partnerships. to the consent agenda. (0 90-18) Finally, continue to accel- erate downtown planning and rede- #4. RE: The appointment of velopment efforts, form a downtown Lee King to the Housing Authority. alliance committee, rewrite and reconstitute zoning codes, and ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey implement a comprehensive housing moved and Councilmember Pace 90-144 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 seconded to suspend the rules and of Ricklen Nobis to the Salt Lake approve the appointment on first Arts Council. reading, which motion carried, all members voted aye. ACTION: Without objection, (I 90-19 ) Councilmember Hale referred this to the consent agenda. #5. RE: An ordinance enact- (I 90-16) ing Chapter 5.47 and amending Section 5.48.050 and Chapter 5. 60, #11. RE: The reappointment Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to of William Prince to the Recrea- numismatic and bullion dealers. tion Advisory Board. ACTION: Without objection, ACTION: Without objection, Councilmember Hale referred this Councilmember Hale referred this to the consent agenda. to the consent agenda. (0 90-21 ) (I 90-7) #6. RE: The appointment of PUBLIC HEARINGS Kimball Young to the Recreation Advisory Board. #1. RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to receive comments ACTION: Without objection, concerning Mayor DePaulis ' recom- Councilmember Hale referred this mendations for 16th Year Community to the Committee of the Whole. Development Block Grant funding. (I 90-7) ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey #7. RE: The appointment of moved and Councilmember Whitehead Celia Scharman to the Recreation seconded to close the public Advisory Board. hearing and refer this to the Committee of the Whole, which ACTION: Without objection, motion carried, all members voted Councilmember Hale referred this aye. to the Committee of the Whole. (I 90-7) DISCUSSION: Jim Jensen, director of the Salt Lake Boys and #8. RE: The reappointment Girls Club, supported $32, 000 for of Bonnie Sucec to the Salt Lake the Capitol West Boys and Girls Art Design Board. Club. He said CDBG funding spe- cifically addressed high risk and ACTION: Without objection, early intervention programs. Councilmember Hale referred this to the consent agenda. Wyllis Dorman, 634 East 700 (I 90-4) South, supported more CDBG funding for income eligible areas, which #9. RE: The reappointment were low to moderate incomes. She of Ronald Weber to the Board of suggested that some funding was Appeals and Examiners. used for projects which did not benefit low income areas. ACTION: Without objection, Councilmember Hale referred this Kathy Sheaffer, director of to the consent agenda. Neighborhood Housing Services, ( I 90-17) supported funding for the Neigh- borhood Housing Services programs, #10. RE: The reappointment which included the revolving loan 90-145 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 fund and the security lock pro- Nancy Saxton, East Central gram. Community Council, supported funding for the block redesigns. Christine Chalkley, Urban She said there were many strug- Forestry Board, supported $60,000 gling inner blocks which needed to plant trees in CDBG neighbor- street repairs. She said many hoods. She said trees continued people worked hard to renovate to provide the city with cooler their homes but more people would temperatures, cleaner air, appro- leave if the inner blocks were not priate noise control measures, and maintained. a greener infrastructure. Shirley Chase, Fellowship Frank Pignanelli, vice chair Foundation, said this service of the Capitol Hill Community provided a place of support for Council, supported $250, 000 for recovering alcoholics and drug improvements at 700 North between users. She said to date they had 300 and 400 West. He asked the been self supporting but recently Council to review item #7 on the due to zoning department restric- urban amenities list which should tions they were forced-to relocate be on the housing list since it many groups. She said they pro- met CDC guidelines. He said posed a new location and asked for Capitol Hill was ready with a CDC support. She asked for funding proposal which was to rehabil- closer to their original request. itate Block 150 next to the Child- ren' s Museum. Councilmember Hardman asked if they had a buyer for their Jane Edwards, executive current building. Ms. Chase said director of the YWCA, supported they didn' t and were in an awkward $29, 000 for the YWCA to continue position to sell the property. renovating heating, cooling, and She said there was a notice on the lighting systems. She said their deed from the zoning department programs served about 12,000 that conditions would have to be people annually. met. She said the building had been off and on the market for the Mary Allen, Housing Outreach last two years. She said the Rental Program, supported funding building was built 30 years ago for HORP which kept people off the for Fellowship Foundation and at street and helped people relocate. that time they were accepted in the area but because of zoning Virginia Walton, Community changes they were now a condition- Action Program, supported funding al use. for the Westside Food Pantry. She said from July 1989 to March of Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council 1990 the food pantry served 2, 345 Executive Director, said the food orders which served 4, 714 conditional use allowed a certain household members. She said they number of meetings per week and also made referrals to other food now they required more meetings programs. She said the northwest during the week. Ms. Chase said center served many transient and the problem was due to asphalt homeless people, and the westside which now had been removed and center served mainly single-parent replaced with lawn. families and referrals from the social service office. Patrick Poulin, executive director of Traveler' s Aid Soci- 90-146 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 ety, said during the past year hours which was important to they served over 320 families and recovering people. She said placed a number of those back into community service was performed at the community. He said they were the facility by those with alcohol presently renovating a new women' s and drug related crimes. She said shelter and he asked for support. 50-60 people attended each of the various meetings which were held Richard Winders, executive during the week. She referred to director of the Community Services the Mayor' s comments regarding Council, supported $13, 000 for drug and alcohol problems and said emergency home repair. He said this facility provided a place for their operation assisted with those in need. small repairs such as a leaking sinks, painting, or porch repairs. Wyllis Dorman, 634 E. 700 So. , supported funding the Troy Jack W. , 260 East 3900 South, Laundry project. She said this said he was a member of the Fel- project would preserve two histor- lowship Hall and asked if there ical structures and provide facil- were conditions attached to the ities for arts and other multi- CDBG funding. Stephanie Loker, cultural activities. capital planning, said the plan would have to follow HUD guide- Roger Borgenicht, Assist lines. She said part of the plan Inc. , supported funding for the was that the group would have to Emergency Home Repair and Assist. relocate. Mr. W. was concerned He said the Emergency Home Repair that they would have to move from program provided emergency repairs their present location. for people whose income was less than 40% of the median in the Chris Anderson, P.O. Box 812, area. He said in the last 10 supported Fellowship Foundation months they had done 302 repairs and said people used the facility in Salt Lake City at an average because they were in a crisis cost of $450.00 per repair. He situation. He said being addicted said the average income of the to drugs and alcohol was debili- households assisted was $550.00 tating and affected income, way of per month and 65% of the house- life, and family. He said many of holds had a head of household who the people who used the facility was over 62 years old. He said were impoverished and Fellowship 30% of the households had a handi- Hall was a haven for those so they capped individual. He said the could again become productive. goal of the program was to keep very low income people in their Marvin Chambers, 4163 S. homes with safe and healthy condi- Bluejay, supported Fellowship tions, and prevent further deteri- Foundation and said he was a oration or abandonment. productive tax paying citizen today because of the support he Stephen Goldsmith, 325 West received at Fellowship Hall. Pierpont Avenue, supported fund- ing to develop six more housing Lee Beers, 3440 S. 500 E. , units in the Artspace project. He supported Fellowship Foundation said several of the housing units and said this service saved the in the west downtown area needed a city a lot of money by keeping critical mass of people in order people out of jail and prison. to survive. He said hopefully She said the facility was open 24 they could make this area attrac- 90-147 PROCEEDINGS Oh THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LSE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 tive enough to support a grocery ing for the Fellowship Foundation. store. After all those who had Steve Blackman, New Hope registered to speak were finished, Center, supported $15, 000 for the Councilmember Hale asked if there New Hope building renovation. He were any others interested in said they served about 6, 500 speaking. No one else from the people. audience addressed this issue. (T 90-14) Pam Joklik, Children' s Muse- um, supported funding for the Museum to improve the upper space. The meeting adjourned at 7: 55 She said the museum needed the p.m. space for workshops and travelling exhibits. She said the Jason Exhibit was currently at the Museum and they had to move part COUNCIL CHAIR of the displays in order to accom- modate this exhibit. She said 60% of their funding was raised through admissions, and large CITY RECORDER corporations had donated to the vitality of the facility. She said they had many visitors from other states and said it was the only Children' s Museum between Denver and San Francisco. Jacque Conkling, Children' s Museum, supported funding for the Museum. She said they were pro- jecting over 90, 000 visitors this year. She said many schools visited the museum on field trips, and said they wanted to increase their services through a latchkey program and educational programs. She said they were the only museum in the west with the Jason project which would teach children through demonstration that science was exciting. Mary Perry, Children' s Muse- um, supported funding for the Museum. She said their mission was to extend opportunities to the children of Utah that otherwise wouldn' t be provided. She said they were a source of educational and cultural opportunities. There were five people who did not speak but supported fund- 90-148 ri PALMER DEPAULIS '....� 1 ' 114�:% 1-�Mall j MAYOR !' : . OFFICE OF THE MAYOR = ; CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING"" 451 SOUTH,,STATE;STREET, ROOM 306 SALT CAKE'CITY UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7704 April 20 , 1990 TO : Salt Lake City Council RE : Ordinance 11 . 40 . 010 , Relating to Fortune-telling and Similar Activities Recommendation : That the City Council repeal section 11 .40 .010 of the Salt Lake City Code. Availability of Funds : Not applicable . Discussion : After a review of 22 .40 .010 Salt Lake City Code , Greg Hawkins , Assistant City Attorney , has indicated this ordinance probably violates free speech as the Supreme Court currently defines . Also , the crime of fraud is covered under other sections within the City Code . Submitted by : /;444.(A__ /41--( /1/L4 Mayor PD/RBC : jf Enc . d DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Repeal of Section 11 .40.010) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 11.40.010, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO FORTUNETELLING AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 11.40.010, Salt Lake City Code, relating to Fortunetelling and similar activities, be, and the same hereby is, REPEALED. [11.40.010 Fortune It is unlawful for any person to engage in or carry on the business, profess en or occupation e-f fortune-telling, phrenology, ing, or any other mean3 of foretelling future events, or to engage in or carry en such activity, whether , profession or occupation. ] SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER :,tom Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR - ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990. Published: .4+ snip rA‘ 1_o' �1 [��,► PO rI.ON1 ROGER F. CUTLER ..� fl . mZs� �� v.n ���.� ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS • DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LARRY V. SPEND LOVE BRUCE R. BAIRDRD CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA Cm PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 CECELIA M. ESPEN07A GLEN A. COOK FAX 801 ( ) 535-7640 JANICE L. FROST April 6, 1990 RECE" n MEMORANDUM APR 11 199° TO: Alan Hardman, Chairman MAYOR'S flFFICE City Council FROM: Larry V. Spendlove / Ir Assistant City Attorney RE: Ordinance Pertaining to Numismatic and Bullion Dealers Subject and Recommendation: Attached are 17 draft copies and one final copy of a proposed ordinance which would modify certain sections of the City Code and enact a new chapter pertaining to numismatic and bullion dealers. Request is made herewith that this ordinance be submitted to the City Council for its consideration and enactment. Funding: No addit' ds are required. Numismatic and bullion dealers will continue to be licensed and to pay the same regulatory fees as previously required. There should be no financial impact from the passage of this ordinance. Background and Discussion: This ordinance is submitted in parttat—cemp- ±ance with a recently resolved lawsuit against. the City. Under the existing ordinances numismatic and bullion dealers are included in the chapter governing secondhand and junk dealers. That chapter requires that all secondhand merchandise be held for a minimum of 30 days after coming into the dealer' s possession, and contains other detailed regulatory requirements. The 30-day-hold provisions and other requirements s - r Alan Hardman April 6, 1990 Page -2- y are generally helpful in controlling trafficking in stolen merchandise. However, due to the absence of identifying markings on most coins, especially bullion coins, the value of the 30-day-hold and other regulatory requirements in identifying potentially stolen coins is very limited. In addition, the extreme volatility of the coin market makes these regulations very burdensome up l-ert:— The proposed ordinance would enact a new chapter specifically governing numismatic and ✓ bullion dealers and providing regulations adapted to their particular operations. Legislative Document: Attached ordinance. Contact Person: Larry V. Spendlove, Assistant City Attorney, 535-7788. LVS:rc DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. OF 1989 (Pertaining to Numismatic and Bullion Dealers) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 5.47 AND AMENDING SECTION 5.48.050 AND CHAPTER 5. 60, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO NUMISMATIC AND BULLION DEALERS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 5.48.050, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to pawn brokers, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.48.050 Exemption from other regulations. A pawnbroker licensed under the provisions of this chapter shall be exempt from the licensing regulations of Section 5.47 .020 of this code, or its successor, pertaining to numismatic and bullion dealers, and Section 5. 60.020 of this code, or its successor, pertaining to secondhand dealers, secondhand precious metal and/or precious gem dealers, [and numismatic dcalcrs, ] which right shall be included under the pawnbroker' s license. A pawnbroker engag[ing]ed in said businesses shall comply with all other ordinances pertaining to such businesses. SECTION 2. That Section 5.60.010 A, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to antique dealers, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: A. "Antique dealer" means any person engaging in the business of purchasing, bartering, exchanging or selling old or archaic items which are indicative of an older culture, excluding numismatic item(s) , bullion item(s) , and precious metals and/or precious gems. Any dealer who receives antique items that contain precious metals and/or precious gems must also obtain a secondhand precious metal and/or precious gem dealer' s license. Any dealer who receives numismatic and/or bullion items must also obtain a numismatic and/or bullion dealer's license. SECTION 3. That Section 5.60.010 C, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to numismatic dealers, be, and the same hereby is, repealed. SECTION 4. That Section 5. 60.010 F, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.60.010 Definitions. F. "Secondhand precious metal and/or precious gem dealer" means any person engaging in the business of purchasing, bartering, exchanging or selling in any form: 1.. Secondhand gold, silver, platinum or other precious metals, or secondhand articles containing any of such metals, but not including coins, currency, or bullion as defined and governed by Chapter 5.47 herein, or its successors; or 2. Secondhand precious gems or any secondhand articles containing any precious gems. SECTION 5. That Section 5.60.020, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: U -2- 5.60.20 License-Required. It is unlawful for any person to operate as a secondhand dealer, secondhand precious metal and/or precious gem dealer, junk dealer, junk collector is is r-] or an antique dealer without first obtaining a license to do so. SECTION 6. That Section 5. 60.030, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.60.030 License-Fee. The license fee for each of the businesses defined in this chapter shall be as follows: A. Antique dealer, seventy-five dollars: B. General secondhand dealer, seventy-five dollars: [C. Numismatic dealer, one hundred dollars: ] [D. Secondhand Sunk ee-leeter, sixty dollars: ] [E. Secondhand j-unk dealer, two hundred forty dollars: ] [F. Secondhand precious metal and/or precious gem dealer, C. Secondhand junk collector, sixty dollars: D. Secondhand junk dealer, two hundred forty dollars: E. Secondhand precious metal and/or precious gem dealer, one hundred dollars. SECTION 7. That Section 5. 60.050 A, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.60.050 Record keeping requirements. A. It is unlawful for any person licensed by this chapter to fail to keep upon the licensed premises a substantial and -3- well-bound book in which such person shall enter in the English language at the time of receiving any goods, including those on consignment [and including , an facc valuc] ; 1. An accurate account and description of each item received, including but not limited to all names, numbers and other identifying marks and including all indications of ownership thereon: 2. The amount of money paid or value of property traded: 3. The date, both day and hour of receiving such items: 4. The name, address and description of the person making the transaction: 5. A numerical identifier obtained from identifi- cation containing a photograph of the person making the transaction. The person presenting the identification must be the same person whose photograph appears upon the identification: 6. The date of sale, disposal or scrapping of the item shall be added when the item is sold, scrapped or otherwise disposed of. SECTION 8. That Section 5.60.060, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: -4- A 5.60.060 Records-Method of entry-Access for inspection. All entries shall be made with non-erasable ink in a legible manner. The city police department shall also be permitted to have access, during business hours, to Lam-] the premises licensed under this chapter for the purpose of the inspection of ] said records. SECTION 9 . That Section 5. 60.100, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.60.100 Equivalent alternative methods of regulation. A. Whenever a person regulated under this chapter alleges that specified requirements of this chapter are impracticable or excessively burdensome as applied to such person, he/she may file with the [ upervisor.] mayor a written petition setting forth such allegations and presenting suggested methods of regulation of such person by the city in lieu of enforcement of the specified requirements of this chapter so objected to. chief of police and the city license supervisor shall recommend to the mayor either approval or denial of the alternative he decision as to shall be made by the mayor, subject to final approval by the city council ] The mayor may either approve or deny the proposed alternative methods of regulation proposed by the petitioner or may approve other alternative methods of regulation. Upon -5- `s approval by the mayor, such alternative regulation(s) shall be as obligatory upon the petitioner as if such had been specific requirements set forth in this chapter, the violation of any of which alternate regulations shall be a misdemeanor. B. * * * SECTION 10. That Chapter 5.47, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 5.47 NUMISMATIC AND BULLION DEALERS Sections: 5.47.010 Definitions. 5.47.020 License-Required. 5.47.030 License-Fee 5.47.040 Record keeping requirements. 5.47.050 Records-Copies to police department. 5.47.060 Equivalent alternative methods of regulation. 5.47.070 Hours of business. 5.47.080 Furnishing of false information. 5.47.090 Dealing with certain persons prohibited. 5.47. 100 Items with altered identification numbers. 5.47. 110 Liability for acts of employees. 5.47.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter the following words shall have a meaning as defined in this section: A. "Coins" means pieces of metal money issued by any government as legal tender in the country of origin and includes commemorative coins, mint sets and proof sets, but does not include items manufactured primarily for transfer as bullion including, but not limited to, Kruggerands, Maple Leafs and Austrian Coronas. "Coin" refers to a single piece of money as defined in this paragraph. -6- B. "Currency" means paper money or money of a material other than metal which was originally printed, minted or manufactured as legal tender in the country of origin and includes commemorative currency. C. "Bullion" means items of or containing gold, silver, platinum or palladium in any form or shape including, but not limited to, bars, ingots or medallions which 1. are gold or silver coins originally minted or manufactured as legal tender in their country of origin, but which, because of their physical condition, have little or no numismatic value and which are bought, sold, bartered or exchanged based on the value of the gold or silver they contain and are commonly known as "junk silver" or "junk gold; " or 2. carry a hallmark which (a) identifies the manufacturer; (b) states the degree or percentage of purity; and (c) states the weight of the item; and 3. are of a purity at or exceeding eighty percent, i.e. , the item is composed of or contains eighty parts of gold, silver, platinum and/or palladium to twenty parts of other metal(s) . Bullion does not include sterling silver flatware or utensils and does not include jewelry containing gold, silver, platinum or palladium. -7- (.,, 0 D. "Numismatic dealer" means any person who engages in the business of purchasing, selling, bartering or exchanging coins or currency. E. "Bullion dealer" means any person who engages in the business of purchasing, selling, bartering or exchanging bullion. 5.47.020 License-Required. It is unlawful for any person to operate as a numismatic dealer and/or bullion dealer without first obtaining a license to do so. 5.47.030 License-Fee. The license fee for a numismatic dealer and/or bullion dealer shall be One Hundred Dollars. 5.47.040 Record keeping requirements. A. It is unlawful for any person licensed by this chapter to fail to keep upon the licensed premises a substantial and well-bound book, in which such person shall enter in the English language at the time of receiving any goods, - including those on consignment, and including coins, currency, or bullion: 1. An accurate account and description of each item received, including but not limited to all names, numbers and other identifying marks, and including all indications of ownership thereon; except that bullion coins may be described in bulk by identifying the number of coins, their metallic composition, their denomination, and their face value; -8- 2. The amount of money paid or value of property traded; 3 . The date, both day and hour, of receiving such items; 4. The name, address and description of the person making the transaction; 5. A numerical identifier obtained from identifi- cation containing a photograph of the person making the transaction. The person presenting the identification must be the same person whose photograph appears upon the identification; B. The description required by subsections A. 1 . and A.4. above shall include such further information or description or identification marks as may be required by the city police department in bulletins given to licensees from time to time. C. Each licensee shall also keep a separate record which shall be sent to the police department and which shall be cross- referenced to the book referred to in subsections A and B of this section, and which shall contain, in addition to the requirements of such subsections: 1 . A certificate, accompanied by the signature of the person delivering said item( s) that he/she has the legal right to sell said item(s ) ; 2. A legible signature of the person receiving the item at time of transaction of each item; -9- (7, 3. No entries on any record shall be erased, obliterated or defaced; all entries shall be made with non- erasable ink in a legible manner; and the receiving licensee shall keep the record available during business hours for inspection by any police officer. D. The records required to be maintained by this chapter shall be maintained by the business for a period of two years from the date of the transaction. 5.47.050 Records-Copies to police department. It is unlawful for any person licensed by this chapter to fail to submit a copy of all entries required to be maintained by this chapter to the city police department upon request by such agency. 5.47.060 Equivalent alternative methods of regulation. A. Whenever a person regulated under this chapter alleges that specified requirements of this chapter are impracticable or excessively burdensome as applied to such person, he/she may file with the mayor a written petition setting forth such allegations and presenting suggested methods of regulation of such person by the city in lieu of enforcement of the specified requirements of this chapter so objected to. The mayor may either approve or deny the proposed alternative methods of regulation proposed by the petitioner or may approve other alternative methods of regulation. Upon approval by the mayor, such alternative regulation(s) shall be as obligatory upon the petitioner as if such had been specific requirements set forth -10- • in this chapter, the violation of any of which alternate regulations shall be a misdemeanor. B. The standard for approval of any such alternative regulation( s ) shall be that they are equivalent to the require- ments of this chapter which they would supplant, in meeting the objectives which underlie this chapter; namely, inhibiting theft and trafficking of stolen merchandise and providing adequate opportunity for examination by the police of transactions governed by this chapter. 5.47.070 Hours of business. It is unlawful for any person licensed pursuant to this chapter to keep his or her place of business open for trade before the hour of seven a.m. or after seven p.m. ; provided, however, that on Saturday of each week, and on days preceding legal holidays, and the last fifteen days of December of each year, it shall be lawful for such licensees to keep his or her place( s ) of business open until eleven p.m. 5.47.080 Furnishing of false information. It is unlawful for any person to wilfully give the licensee or his or her agents or employees false or misleading information which the licensee is required by this chapter to obtain from such person. 5.47.090 Dealing with certain persons prohibited. It is unlawful for any person licensed pursuant to this chapter, or any employee of any person licensed pursuant to this chapter, to receive any items from a person who is under -11- • . • en eighteen years of age, or who is either intoxicated or obviously mentally deficient. 5.47.100 Items with altered identification numbers. No business licensed pursuant to this chapter shall receive any item which has obviously had the manufacturer' s serial number or an owner's personal identification mark altered, defaced or obviously mutilated or removed. 5.47.110 Liability for acts of employees. The holder of a license under this chapter is strictly liable for any and all acts of his or her own employees and for any violation by them of any provisions of this chapter. SECTION 11. That Section 5.16.360, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.16.360 Equivalent alternative methods of regulation. A. Whenever a person regulated under this chapter alleges that specified requirements of this chapter are impracticable or excessively burdensome as applied to such person, he/she may file with the [city license supervisor] mayor a written petition setting forth such allegations and presenting suggested methods of regulation of such person by the city in lieu of enforcement of the specified requirements of this chapter so objected to. the mayor either approval er denial of the alternative regulations proposed by the petitioner. The decision as to -12- I city council. ] The mayor may either approve or deny the proposed alternative methods of regulation proposed by the petitioner or may approve other alternative methods of regulation. Upon approval by the mayor, such alternative regulation(s ) shall be as obligatory upon the petitioner as if such had been specific requirements set forth in this chapter, the violation of any of which alternate regulations shall be a misdemeanor. B. * * * SECTION 12 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passes 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. By MAYOR -13- :de) ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990. Published: LVS:rc • -14- 07 LEE KING SA T r r a G TY(G;OP ' IIm Nf DIRECTOR �esr COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Capital Planning and Programming CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7902 April 16 , 1990 TO: Alan G. Hardman, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND SALT LAKE COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE NEW HOPE MULTI-CULTURAL CENTER RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council execute the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for improvements at the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center. FUNDING: Salt Lake City will contribute $16,000 from 1989-90 CDBG funds that have already been allocated by the City Council for the project and Salt Lake County will contribute $20, 000 from its CDBG funding. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The New Hope Multi-Cultural Center functions as a community center for Asians; it is located at 1102 West 400 North, Salt Lake City, Utah. The CDBG funds allocated to this project are for the purpose of rehabilitating the building. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have agreed that the City will be lead agency and that the County will contribute its funding to the City. The City will disburse, audit and monitor the project. CONTACT PERSON: Bob Gore, 535-7122 . Sincerely, Lee Kin 71 4 T? Director RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953 , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : An agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for improvements at the New Hope Multi- Cultural Center--a community center for Asians located at 1102 West 400 North, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By ATTEST: Xvitoyiai ail Lao m raw 04, 13 fforneis wee CITY RECORDER �' Salt Lake County , Contract No . INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT between SALT LAKE COUNTY and SALT LAKE CITY for CONTRIBUTION TO A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - NEW HOPE MULTI-CULTURAL CENTER THIS AGREEMENT is entered into and shall be effective as of January 1 , 1990 , by and between Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah ( the County) , and Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah ( the City) . RECITAL S : A. The Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 , as amended ( the Act) , provides for the financial participation of the federal government in various state and local government housing and community development activities and programs which are administered by the U. S . Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ; B . The Act specifies that its primary objectives include the improvement and development of local urban and metropolitan communities by providing financial assistance to them under a block grant program (CDBG) for the conduct and administration of housing and community development activities and projects as contemplated under the Act ( the CDBG Program) : C. The City and the County ( the Parties) are each qualified under the Act and under separate entitlements to receive and do receive CDBG funds from HUD by annual grant agreements to conduct various community development projects under that Program; D. The Parties have mutual interests in assisting in the construction and other improvement of certain property and facilities located in the City and known as the New Hope Multi-Cultural Center (the Center) and have determined that such construction and improvement is in the public interest and qualifies as a project under the HUD rules and regulations for which CDBG Program funds may be expended (the Project) ; E. The Parties in conjunction with the Center have decided that it is desirable to have the Project accomplished as a cooperative effort between them but that the City should be the lead agency and responsible for the actual construction and installation of the Project as may be provided in an agreement between the City and the Center and that the County should participate only to the extent of contributing to the costs thereof from its CDBG funds ; and F. Under the various provisions of Utah law governing contracting by governmental entities and by virtue of the specific authority granted therefor by the Interlocal Cooperation Act , Utah Code Annotated, §11-13-1 , et seq . , 1953 as amended, any two or more political subdivisions of the state may enter into agreements with one another for joint or -2- cooperative action and may contract with each other to perform any governmental service , activity or undertaking which each political subdivision entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform; THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises , representations and other provisions contained herein, the Parties agree as follows : 1 . Under a CDBG Project agreement between the City and the Center , the City shall be responsible for the actual conduct of the Project to be performed at the Center located at 1102 West 400 North, Salt Lake City, Utah. The improvements to be constructed have been designated as a City Project under its CDBG Program and is identified by the name of the property to be improved and by the assignment of a City Project number as follows : (a) New Hope Multi-Cultural Center - Project No . 3N14 . The Project is described with more particularity in the plans and specifications and other contract documents for the Project which are on file at the offices of the City ' s Engineering Division and which are incorporated herein by this reference thereto . 2 . It is estimated that the total cost of the Project to be contributed by the Parties and to be paid out of 14th CDBG Program Year funds is $36 , 000 . Of that total the County will contribute $20 , 000 and the City will contribute $16 , 000 . As the lead agency, the City will bill the County not more -3- often than one time per month for payment of the County ' s proportionate share of the costs incurred on the Project during the previous month or since the last billing by the City for the Project . The cumulative total amount of all billings , however, shall not exceed the amount shown above as the County' s share . The City shall specify in the bill the Project name, number , total costs incurred to date and the County' s share of the Project costs . The County agrees to pay the billed amounts to the City in a timely manner, which amounts are hereby fixed for this Project for contribution by the County at a ceiling not-to-exceed $20 , 000 unless changed by a written amendment of this agreement . It is understood that the City has or will enter into a separate agreement with the Center regarding the conduct of the Project and the City' s obligation toward the financing of the Project . Under that agreement , the Center ' s responsibilities toward the financing and conduct of the Project will also be set forth and the County' s participation will be limited as provided herein . In addition, the parties acknowledge that , by this agreement , the County incurs no responsibility or additional liability for the conduct of the Project or for the operation, maintenance, construction or repair of the Project or otherwise. 3 . The County represents that its ability to participate in and contribute financially to the Project is based upon the County ' s general powers , as provided by law, to mR provide for assist in the care, maintenance and relief of -4- the indigent sick or dependent poor persons and may provide social services for County residents on a county-wide basis . 4 . The Project will be using CDBG Program funds , and therefore, the Parties agree to comply, as appropriate, with the provisions of the Act and all applicable rules and regulations , circulars , guidelines , directives and other requirements of the departments and offices of the federal government that pertain to the conduct of Community Development projects and activities . 5 . In the conduct of the Project , the City will provide for all necessary professional services , administration, contracting and supervision and will cause all contractors to provide the required payment and performance bonds and general liability insurance and to have the bonds and insurance structured and conditioned so that the Parties are protected from any and all liability for liens , claims , or damages of any kind or nature arising out of the performance of the Project . 6 . This agreement shall not have a specific period of performance but shall terminate at any time upon the mutual written consent of the Parties or when the Project has been completed and all payments have been made as required by this Agreement , as it may be amended or supplemented . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this agreement to be duly executed by their authorized officers on the dates indicated as follows : Salt Lake City, , 1990 ; Salt Lake County, , 1990 . -5- SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By PALMER A. DePAULIS, Mayor FINANCE APPROVAL Funds Not Needed ATTEST : F-nds Available Ccmvac t City Recorder ATTORNEY APPROVAL (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LAKE COUNTY By D. MICHAEL STEWART, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: H . DIXON HINDLEY Salt Lake County Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake County Attorney' s Office By Deputy County Attorney Date : — ? 6 (L722+) -6- ' � 0 KAREN SUZUKI-HASHIMOTO '° 2 r^` `.1MOM© i PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR FRANK ERASER DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES MAYOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND PATRICIA CAMPBELL, C.C.P. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMPENSATION 8 BENEFITS MANAGER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 BRENDA R. HANCOCK TRAINING.EMPLOYMENT&COMPLIANCE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MANAGER TELEPHONE (801) 535-7900 Honorable Alan Hardman, Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: RESOLUTION FOR AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY & NORTH SALT LAKE TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Recommendation: That you approve and authorize the Mayor via Resolution, to execute an Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake. Funding Applicability: North Salt Lake will reimburse Salt Lake City in accordance with the fee schedules set forth on page one of the Agreement. It has been estimated by the Director of Animal Control that this agreement will yield the City $10 , 000 a year in revenue in exchange for services rendered. Discussion: Salt Lake City' s Division of Animal Control was approached by North Salt Lake to have their animal control problems housed by Salt Lake City' s facility. Apparently, it was not as convenient for North Salt Lake, or its residents to obtain the services needed from Davis County. Therefore they opted to approach Salt Lake City due to the close proximity and a previous working relationship. If you have any further questions please contact Joe Reno. Sincerely Kare Suzuk ' ashimoto Director pr 1 ANIMAL SHELTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT APR , 199;! CAHT1L P:�.�lN NG PROGRKWWNG THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into in duplicate this 3"4 day of , 1990 by and between Salt Lake City, ' a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, hereinafter referred to as "SLC" and North Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, with its principal place of business at North Salt Lake, Utah, hereinafter referred to as "NSL" ; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, SLC has constructed and maintains an Animal Control facility for the temporary housing of all domestic animals and also for their dispostion; and WHEREAS, SLC is willing to make available the { Animal Control facility to NSL; (Title 11 Chapter 13, Utah Code Unannotated) and WHEREAS, NSL desires to contract with SLC for use of the Animal Control facility upon the terms and conditions set forth hereafter; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained hereafter, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 . This contract shall commence on the 15th day of February, 1990, and continue through and including the 31st day of December, 1990, and continue in effect each year thereafter until terminated by either SLC or NSL giving three ( 3) months written notice of its intention to terminate this Agreement. 2 . SLC agrees to make available to NSL the Animal Shelter and all of its facilities for the retention and disposition of animals found or located within NSL for the following charges : I . SMALL ANIMALS DOGS CATS (A) Record Keeping $ 2 . 00 $ 2 .00 (B) Daily Boarding Rate 3 .00 2 . 00 (C) Euthanasia Fee & Disposal Only 3 . 00 2 . 00 (D) Dead on Arrival-Disposal Only 2 . 00 1 .00 II . LARGE ANIMALS (A) Impound 25 . 00 (B) Daily Board 5 . 00 WILDLIFE, FEES NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF INCIDENT. NEGLECT OR CRUELTY CASES BEING HELD FOR OWNER PROSECUTION OR POLICE IMPOUND ARE CHARGED AS IN IB OR IIB DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT BE LARGE OR SMALL ANIMAL. -2- 3 . SLC agrees to maintain its Animal Shelter in a humane manner and keep said premises in a sanitary condition at all times and further that it will use humane methods of care and euthanasia when necessary for any animal coming under its jurisdiction. 4 . SLC agrees to keep all books and records in such form and manner as the NSL Auditor shall reasonably specify and further agrees that said books shall be open for examination by NSL at all reasonable times . 5 . All records created or received by SLC in accordance with this Agreement shall be NSL records . 6 . SLC will invoice NSL monthly as charges accrue and NSL will render payment within thirty (30) days after its receipt of each said invoice. 7 . City agrees that all monies collected from animals redeemed by owners or sold for research will be credited to the account of NSL from which it came. 8 . This Agreement does not contemplate any separate legal entity to provide for its administration. It shall be administered by the governing bodies of both parties hereto. 9 . NSL shall be responsible for transporting animals to the shelter. 10 . This agreement may be amended, in writing by the parties . 11 . NSL agrees to hold SLC harmless for any and all causes of action arising from the performance of this agreement which are not as a result of gross negligence or acts not contemplated by the scope of this Agreement. DATED this 3 day of Apt-It 1990 . AT $T: /-Nicr.vi( CITY REC RDER NORTH SALT LAKE MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR APPROVED: ATTORNEY FOR SLC ATTORNEY FOR NSL North Salt Lake City Council Meeting Minutes April 3 , 1990 Page Five C) Proposed Animal Control Agreement w/Salt Lake City Mr. Wood passed out a copy of the proposed Animal Shelter Interlocal Agreement with Salt Lake City. This agreement has been reviewed by Salt Lake City and has been modified to include their concerns . Councilmember Schaefermeyer suggested that the title of the document be called the "Animal Shelter Interlocal Agreement" and recommended that paragraph 11 be amended as worded by the City Attorney. A motion was made by Councilmember Schaefermeyer and seconded by Councilmember Berven to approve this interlocal agreement and to authorize the Mayor to sign it. The motion passed unanimously. D) Golf Course Discussion Collin Wood reported that the Cannon property was seriously being considered for the new Davis County Golf Course. A golf course architect has been consulted by the County and he is very impressed with the property. Water seems to be a question as it would take about 1 million gallons per day for irrigation. This issue will need to be looked at closer to determine the feasibility of the site. VII . STAFF REPORTS : A) MAYOR Mayor Simmons presented his report at this time because of a commitment making it necessary to leave the meeting early. 1 ) Planning Commission Terms of Service The Mayor explained that under the old ordinances, the terms for the Commissioners were for a period of three terms , or nine years -- however, under the new zoning ordinance this was eliminated. He noted that the State statute leaves this decision up to the municipalities . The Council considered this issue and agreed six years should be the maximum. The City Attorney recommended that this be incorporated into the ordinance. The Mayor felt there would be some exception to the six years in cases where new Commissioners would be required to fill an unexpired term of their predecessor. Councilmember Bervin made the resolution to amend the North Salt Lake ordinances to indicate the Planning Commission members serve two consecutive three-year terms, plus the unexpired term, if any. The resolution was seconded by Councilmember Schaefermeyer. A vote was taken and the resolution passed unanimously. 2 ) City Cleanup The Mayor informed the members that City cleanup would begin next week . He felt very concerned with the amount of refuge appearing on the streets, mentioning that it is supposed to be boxed, sacked, or bundled, and not to exceed 60 pounds (or one pick-up RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND NORTH SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, Title 11 Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953 as amended allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. That it does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and North Salt Lake City for the Provision of Animal Control Services to North Salt Lake City. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER SWA:rc 010/9._. . SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Payment in lieu of taxes for City property assets used by the water, sewer and garbage enterprise funds . ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTIONS 3 . 40 . 010, 3 . 40 . 020 AND 3 . 40 . 030 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR CITY PROPERTY ASSETS USED BY THE WATER, SEWER AND GARBAGE ENTERPRISE FUNDS . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Sections 3 . 40 . 010, 3 . 40 . 020 and 3 . 40 . 030 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to payment in lieu of taxes for city property assets used by the water, sewer and garbage enterprise funds , be, and the same hereby are, enacted as follows : Text to follow. 2:Z SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Increasing Business Revenue and Beer and Liquor Consumption Regulatory License Fees) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5 . 04 .070A, OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO BUSINESS REVENUE LICENSE FEES SECTIONS 6 . 08. 110A AND 6 . 16 . 030 RELATING TO AND BEER AND LIQUOR CONSUMPTION REGULATORY LICENSE FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . The Section 5 . 04 . 070A of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to business revenue license fees, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 5.04.070 License fees levied. A. Fees for Businesses Located in the City. There is hereby levied upon the business of every person engaged in business in the city at a place of business within the city, an annual license fee of [oixty] sixty-five dollars per place of business, plus an additional fee of six dollars for each and every employee, exceeding one, engaged in the operation of said business , based upon the number of employees defined in Section 5 . 04 . 010 or its successor. SECTION 2 . That Section 6 . 08 . 110 .A, Salt Lake City Code, relating to beer regulatory license fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6.08.110 Fees. A. Applications provided for in this chapter shall be accompanied by the fees provided in this section, which fees shall be deposited in the city treasury if the license is granted, and returned to the applicant if denied: 1 . For Class A retail licenses, the fee is to be assessed, according to the annual gross receipts of the store applying for license according to the following schedule: Gross Receipts License Fee Under $250, 000 . 00 [$60. 00] $100 . 00 $250, 000 .00 to $500,000. 00 [$120.00]$200 .00 Over $500, 000 . 00 [$240 . 00]$300 .00 2. For a Class B retail license, the fee is [two hundred forty] three hundred dollars per year of any part thereof; 3 . For initial application and issuance of a Class C retail license, one thousand eight hundred dollars for the first year of operation or any part thereof; 4 . For renewal of a Class C retail license, [three hundred oixty] four hundred dollars per year or any part thereof; 5 . For a Class E beer retail license, two hundred forty dollars per year or any part thereof; or 6 . For a seasonal license, sixty dollars per month or any part thereof; 7 . For each additional dispensing point for beer at the same premises where an initial Class B or Class C retail license has been obtained, the fee shall be [ninety] one hundred seventy five dollars . For each additional dispensing point for beer at a hotel where an initial Class A retail license has been obtained, the fee shall be ten dollars . -2- SECTION 3. That Section 6 . 16 .030, Salt Lake City Code, relating to liquor consumption regulatory fees be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 6.16.030 License-Fee. The license fee for a liquor consumption license shall be [ccvcnty-fivc] one hundred seventy-five dollars per year, or any part thereof, which shall be deposited in the city treasury if the license is granted and returned to the applicant if the license is denied. SECTION 4 . 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 LVS:ap -3- A;4, ry Z,3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Amending subparagraph B and adding a new subparagraph G to Section 9 . 08 . 030 relating to Garbage pickup charges; changing the State Code reference in Section 9 . 08 .030E to reflect the current State law for Indigent Abatement of Taxes ; and revising Section 9 . 08 . 070 relating to Refuse container specifications ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH B. AND ADDING A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH G TO SECTION 9 . 08 . 030 RELATING TO GARBAGE PICKUP CHARGES; CHANGING THE STATE CODE REFERENCE IN SECTION 9 . 08 . 030E TO REFLECT THE CURRENT STATE LAW FOR INDIGENT ABATEMENT OF TAXES; AND REVISING SECTION 9 . 08 . 070 RELATING TO REF 6E CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS, SALT LAKE CITY CODE. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Subparagraph B of Section 9 . 08 . 030 , Salt Lake City Code, relating to Garbage pickup charges, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows : 9.08.030 Residential collections. * * * A. Owner Responsible for Charges. * * * B. Garbage Pickup Charges. Monthly charges for garbage pickup service provided by the city, whether from a single family dwelling unit, duplex family dwelling unit, or from a triplex family dwelling unit or other units approved by the director of public works , are five dollars and twenty five cents for each can, and shall be based on the number [arid type of dwelling unit] of automated containers from which garbage is collected. [ , as follows: ] . Additional automated garbage cans can be obtained for five dollars and twenty-five cents each, plus a delivery fee of ten dollars each. [ 1 . Single family dwelling unit, four dollars; 2 . Duplex family dwelling unit, eight dollars; 4 . Additional garbage cans for minimum of six months, each, two dollars . ] C. Billing. * * * D. Deposits Required from Nonowners. * * * SECTION 2 . That subsection E of Section 9 . 08 . 030, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: E. Abatement. Those owners, each year, granted indigent abatement for taxes on their dwelling by Salt Lake County under Section [59 . 7 . 2, ] 59-2-1106, et seq. , Utah Code Annotated, or its successor ordinance, shall be granted a fifty percent annual abatement of the above garbage pickup charges . F. Enterprise Fund. * * * SECTION 3 . That a new subparagraph G to Section 9 . 08 . 030 , Salt Lake City Code, relating to Vacancies, be, and the same hereby is, added to read as follows : G. Vacancies. In the event a residence being served is vacant and the owner is trying to sell it, or it is or will be vacant because of an extended vacation of the occupant, the owner may apply to the public works director in writing for termination -2- of garbage service for a specified period. The city container(s ) will be picked up and returned pursuant to the owner' s request upon payment of a ten dollar service fee. If said service fee is paid, no garbage collection fee shall be charged during the period of vacancy. SECTION 4 . That Section 9 . 08 . 070, Salt Lake City Code, relating to Refuse container specifications, be, and the same hereby is, revised to read as follows : 9.08.070 Refuse container specifications. A. This section shall apply only to collections made by the city or a private contractor working for the city. [Unless provided by the city, refuse containers shall be provided by the owner, tenant, lessee or occupant of any residence. ] In the event any container that does not conform to the provisions of this section is set out for collection, the collector shall have the authority to deny collection services for such container. Any container not meeting the requirements of this section will be tagged by the collector, and shall not be used again, but shall promptly be replaced by the user thereof . B. Containers must meet the following specifications: [1 _R. e le eont'ainers fer v.....__.., Co, ,ection a. Must be metal, plastic or rubber, tapercd construction, equipped with suitable handles , tight— fitting covers and be leakproof; b. Must be in good condition and not have any ragged or sharp cdge3, or any other defect liable to -3- hamper er injure the person collecting the contents thercef; c. Shall have a capacity of not more than thirty gallons and shall weigh not more than aeventy five pounds, including container and contents, when act out for collection; d. The City shall not be responsible for normal wear and tear of containers nor for any damage or breakage to rubber or plastic containers; e. The following ahall not be considercd reusable containers: G. I . cans, washtubs, cut down drums, cardboard canisters, buckets, ba3kets and trash compactor buckets; ;and, if used, shall be tagged and if used again, shall be removed. 2 . Nonreusable Containers for Manual Collection. a. Pla3tic bags must be two mil thick or greater, have a maximum capacity of thirty gallons , and weigh not more than fifty pound3 when fillcd. However, if such plastic bags are uscd only for leaves, such bags may be a minimum of 1 . 5 mil in thickness; b. Pasteboard boxes must have a maximum capacity of four cubic feet, weigh not more than fifty pounds when filled, and be dry at the- time of and tied in a bundle for disposal in accordance with aubacction D3 below; -4- c . Wooden boxes, barrelo aftet other similar fillcd; d. Nonreuaable containers shall be considered refuse and be rcmoved for disposal along with their contents . [ • Collcction. in bundles which shall not excccd eighteen inches in more than forty pounds . Empty boxes shall be ticd in bundles less than four feet square and weigh less than forty pounds . 4-. Automatedeentainers 1 . [a-]Automated containers shall be made available by the city, and shall be made from durable plastic with a close fitting lid and shall be designed for collection by automated refuse collection vehicles . These containers shall be of such durability that they will be warranted for a minimum of five years of normal use. 2 . [ ]Damage to such container caused by hot ashes, clinkers , hot oil or any other material or substance that cuts, melts or ignites the container or other materials shall be paid for by the owner. -5- 3 . [e-]No rocks, dirt or concrete shall be placed in automated containers . 4 . [d-]Residences using automated containers shall place all material to be collected within the container or containers No cans, boxes, barrels or bundled refuse other than that contained in the automated containers shall be collected. There is no limit on the number of automated containers that may be obtained form the city and then placed out for collection. 5 . [e ]The first automated container shall be supplied without charge. Other than the uniform refuse collection fee imposed to all eligible city residences , additional containers shall be suppled upon request at such additional charge as set forth elsewhere in this title. SECTION 5 . This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -6- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No . OF 1990 Published: RLM:rc -7- LI II F SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Shift responsibility for storm drainage Public Works to Public Utilities . ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2 .08. 100 AND 2 .08. 110 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Sections 2 . 08 . 100 and 2. 08 .110 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the Department of Public Utilities and the Department of Public Works, be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows : 2.08.100 Department of Public Utilities. A. * * * 1 . * * * 2 . * * * 3 . The collection treatment, and disposal of all wastewater (sanitary sewage) , storm water and flood waters generated within the cityL [or it3 designatcd a-ervicc areas . ] including the facilities necessary therefor. B. * * * C. Enterprise Funds. The water and the sewer divisions of the department of public utilities shall be separate enterprise funds . The collection, accounting and expenditure of each shall be in accordance with existing fiscal policies of the City. Storm sewer and flood control shall be part of and financed by the sewer enterprise fund until an ordinance can be prepared and enacted providing for fees for drainage and flood control service. 2.08.100 Department of public works. A. * * * 1. * * * 2. The operation and maintenance of streets, parkways, sidewalks , except storm sewers, storm water and flood water control, [drainways, ] traffic-control devices, street lighting and similar public ways and facilities; 3. * * * 4 . * * * 5 . Maintenance and repair of all ditches, flumes, culverts [and drains ] or irrigation systems operated within city streets or rights-of-way. B. City Engineer. * * * SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 1991 . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON -2- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc -3- _ MIKE ZUHL SALT'LA,KE CITY' S i 1'. GORPO IO LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR - DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOIvt 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council April 25, 1990 Re: Ordinance No. 5 of 1990 - Petition No. 400-756 submitted by Ricks and Brown Architects Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the proposed corrected Ordinance No. 5. The ordinance vacates a portion of an alley adjacent to 2185 South 900 East Street which was submitted by Ricks and Brown Architects - Petition No. 400-756-89. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: A public hearing was held on January 16, 1990 at which time the ordinance was adopted. The County Recorder's Office discovered an error in the property description during the recording process. The error has been corrected and the corrected ordinance is ready to be adopted. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has approved and prepared the corrected ordinance. Submitted by: (757 M CHAEL B. Z Interim Director Community & Economic .Development lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 5 OF 1990 (Closing a portion and vacating a portion of an alley adjacent to 2185 South 900 East pursuant to Petition No. 400-756-89 ) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION AND VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY ADJACENT TO 2185 SOUTH 900 EAST PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-756-89 . WHEREAS , the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that closure and vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public ' s interest nor will partial closure divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of the alley adjacent to 2185 South 900 East, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-756-89 , and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is , VACATED AND CLOSED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley, with the title to the closed portion remaining with the City until subsequent sale for market value at a price fixed by a City approved MAI appraiser with the appraisal cost paid by petitioner. Said alley is more particularly described as follows: Closure Portion Commencing at the northwest corner of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Lot 22 of Block 1 of said subdivision; thence along the north line of Lot 22 east 142 . 5 + feet to the northeast corner of said lot to the point of beginning; thence south 221 + feet to the southeast corner of Lot 30 of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition subdivision; thence east 10 + feet to the center line of the alleyway; thence north 221 + feet along said alleyway center line; thence west 10 + feet to the point of beginning . Vacation Portion Commencing at the northwest corner of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Lot 22 of Block 1 of said subdivision; thence along an Q-1 ;•'io extended north line of Lot 22 east 162 . 5 + feet to the northwest corner of Lot 13 of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition f, subdivision to the point of beginning; thence south 221 + feet to the southwest corner of Lot 21 of Block 1 of said subdivision; thence west 10 + feet to the center line of the alleyway; thence north 221 + feet along said center line; thence east 10 + feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS . The above closure and vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities , including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure and vacation is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties . The north six ( 6 ) feet of the full width of the alley, including the closed and the vacated portions, shall also be SUBJECT To a condition which shall be included in the deeds of transfer, running with the land for the mutual benefit of the -2- properties adjoining the alley, prohibiting the construction of any structure or other condition on the north six ( 6 ) feet which would interfere with the use of that six ( 6 ) feet for ingress and egress . SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 16th day of January, 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on January 16 , 1990 . Mayor' s action: 1/16/90 Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. 5 of 1990 Published: January 24, 1990 . -3- SALT, CITY CORPORATION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP - - -E .:..._.r .,_i. PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH ST AT E STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 MEMORANDUM Pry . . TO: LuAnn Fawcett FROM: Everett L. Joyce DATE: April 4 , 1990 RE: Corrected legal descriptions for Petition 400-756-89 to close alley east of Printer ' s Inc. at 2185 So. 900 East Street. Closure Portion Commencing at the northwest corner of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Lot 22 of Block 1 of said subdivision; thence along the north line of Lot 22 east. 142. 5 + feet to the northeast corner of said lot to the point of beginning; thence south 221 + feet to the southeast corner of Lot 30 of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition subdivision; thence east 10 + feet to the center line of the alleyway; thence north 221 + feet along said alleyway center line; thence west 10 + feet to the point of beginning. Vacation Portion Commencing at the northwest corner of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition subdivision; thence south to the northwest corner of Lot 22 of Block 1 of said subdivision; thence along an extended north line of Lot 22 east 162. 5 + feet to the northwest corner of Lot 13 of Block 1 of Fairmount Springs Addition subdivision to the point of beginning; thence south 221 + feet to the southwest corner of Lot 21 of Block 1 of said subdivision; thence west 10 + feet to the center line of the alleyway; thence north 221 + feet along said center line; thence east 10 + feet to the point of beginning. • '` f _ .. '-Y s ,.La.., .�{E .as�,��sitt`�nw"tr_?-s. ....._..._..,..-...•_ee...�.+w'so-ASrs..•. .d: .: .. ._. 0 90- P 89- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 5 of 1990 ( Closing a portion and vacating a portion of an alley adjacent to 2185 South 900 East pursuant to Petition No. 400-756-89 ) AN ORDINANCE CLOSING A PORTION AND VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY ADJACENT TO 2185 SOUTH 900 EAST PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-756-89 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that closure and vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public' s interest nor will partial closure divest the City of title to the property without subsequent documents of transfer. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That a portion of the alley adjacent to 2185 South 900 East, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-756-89 , and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, VACATED AND CLOSED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley, with the title to the closed portion remaining with the City until subsequent sale for market value at a price fixed by a City approved MAI appraiser a with the appraisal cost paid by petitioner. 01 Said alley is more particularly described as follows: Q0 C!t a• C� rn J.. 1MP0 � 4877732 TgNT \ ... • • 4877731 y '° • ®ffice No • a. 6195-1509 a. • o r w � of County Recorde °r • .o ,- rn Salt Lake County, Utah r �? : : •• 'o •� t• • quenl! • .0 :G� :`< C �metimer of the treatment o • : :trJ .-0 c� :p al the transaction ° nature which f rrrst�merrtd errors I up • : : : • i O x ,_ tr ansac ion the purpose for y rmPar'r the u et- ;et- ;d "" interested called are noted which it was alydi[y �' H. I •O r49£Nthe and the attention execute : :d o •T disclosesntron of the fiy �• allethe .!n ezamlrlatro 54 O. fo!lowr»8; n °l THIS partres 2-5-9p �OCU- o • :� :w o •:o x- • The ". i .. • • R co attached contained • � : G `• C"' hed Closi o wined in the ci �' ��—' Ordinance nb & •o �, w • appear to Baca tlnb °a • c* �, •c�41so, the be in • 1, c , , tied Properties error, o :0 : � .. •H. Serve to a Government need to : : : . o Y PO1nts °n rec°rdor other w : : : :� ' P office in this • :o :'o Therefore, • 0 a b re if Proper not Co ec �? • • :o : N ° V� 4.. as property tax notice corrected, the r • : : o co Previously s will remain z assessed. 10 ekg a• �6—z0-12 : : : : :� : ° rn . .o a. t'" • • . � .� o I. • co •`< •w + c-• • • • • o • co • • • .:1 tR (D ▪ CD .O cC (11▪ , t • • • F• i., i • z �, ,tea 0 : : : : : • �o ▪ ;• :I '-'� • • • O .moo -c '� Q .CI U•� r--� G. h-.• • 0 C- I.:i • '— 1 �,+_,f� onry /'f;UA1f'.��.lr•vt non .� b .V'1 : M •:X.i�r °> UIj d4llrCrl-r;s °n Ihuald Cr ran' Ir'c�r``'frle d, ad the rcc ur"7PUr[ance, U CnhrrR+rirr+ !ri [hrd ruNri r •o ▪ : • : °C G� 3(r r d dUC4 pJ['rr[ r --1 2°. ds eanRul be' atlrry e( nay -< ' • f1009 • Portion closed: .] . commencing at the southeast corner of 900 East Street and Elm Avenue; thence 90 feet south along the East go �� `\\ line of 900 East Street; thence east 142. 5 feet along the north line of Lot 22 of Fairmount Springs ',j (1-Yj�" Addition subdivision for the point of beginning; 4,' /" thence south 221 feet; thence east 10 feet to the center line of the alley; thence north 221 feet along said center line; thence west 10 feet to the point of beginning. Portion vacated: Commencing at the southeast corner of 900 East Street and Elm Avenue; thence 90 feet south along the East (.jo line of 900 East Street; thence east 162. 5 feet to 1'14 �1c� T ., the northwest corner of Lot 13 not Fairmount Springs �' IV «_ Addition subdivision to the point of beginning; thence south 221 feet; thence west 10 feet to the center line of the alley; thence north 221 feet along said center line; thence east 10 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above closure and vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of- way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said closure and vacation is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties . The north six ( 6) feet of the full width of the o 0 I � alley, including the closed and the vacated portions, shall also r CD be SUBJECT TO a condition which shall be included in the deeds of co a• transfer, running with the land for the mutual benefit of the Cl't properties adjoining the alley, prohibiting the construction of h~.` -2- any structure or other condition on the north six ( 6 ) feet which would interfere with the use of that six ( 6) feet for ingress and egress. SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 16th day of January ' 1990. CUltA"1 Ninimc,f, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ( '/6 TV"/ 1III Cr Y T smitted to the Mayor on January 16, 1990 Mayor' s action: 1/16/90 Approved Vetoed. it-gf.44.4t/,‘• 4 e L MAYOR ATTEST: / CI Y EC ER CI (SEAL) C1� Bill No. 5 of 1990 Published: January 24, 1990 f.. 1C+n BRB.rc PV -3- bF* r ep Q,�_CIE( "LPN ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP .ro w®J �iSa'�► Ia� 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 May 4, 1990 Ms. Cindy Gust-Jensen Executive Director Salt Lake City Council BUILDING Re: Ordinance No. of 1989, OKOA Annexation and Zoning Dear Ms. Gust-Jensen: Attached please find the final ordinance for the OKOA annexation and zoning pursuant to Petition No. 400-569-87 which is now ready for adoption by the City Council. This matter was considered and approved by the City Council after a public hearing held November 7, 1989. The approval was pending a resolution of a change in the annexation boundary to include two additional parcels and submittal of a revised annexation plat and annexation agreement. These issues have now been resolved and the necessary documents and plats have been received and checked and found to be acceptable to appropriate city staff. It is requested that the ordinance be adopted by the City Council as soon as possible pursuant to the Council's actions on November 7, 1989. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me. Thank you for your assistance in expediting the scheduling of this matter. Sincerely, Dougla L. Wheelwright Supervisor, Development Coordination Team SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (OKOA Annexation and Zoning pursuant to Petition No. 400-569-87 ) AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY TO INCLUDE THE "OKOA ANNEXATION" ; ZONING THE ANNEXED AREA COMMERCIAL "C-3A" BY AMENDING THE USE DISTRICT MAP OF SECTION 21 . 14 . 020; AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT AND SCHOOL PRECINCT BOUNDARIES MAP; AMENDING THE LIQUOR DISTRICT MAP OF SECTION 6 . 08 . 120; AND SPECIFYING CONDITIONS FOR THE ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, Petition No. 400-569-87 was filed together with a plat showing the tract of land to be annexed (hereafter known as the "OKOA" Annexation" ) and requesting annexation; 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; and WHEREAS, the petitioners have caused an accurate plat of the area to be annexed to be made and certified to by a competent surveyor and approved by the City Engineer, to be filed with the City Recorder; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 10th day of October, 1989 , passed Resolution No. 120 of 1989 , accepting the petition for purposes of review and hearings; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, after examining the petition and having the petition reviewed by the various departments of the City, considered the annexation petition at a publicly advertised hearing held November 7, 1989 , and after finding that the proposed annexation was consistent and in keeping with the City' s Master Annexation Policy Declaration, the Council voted by a unanimous vote of all its members present in favor of the annexation; and WHEREAS, no objection has been filed to Policy Declaration as provided by law; and WHEREAS , the proposed annexation is conditional, on the performance of an annexation agreement which is contemporaneously adopted and incorporated by reference . 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 tract of land in Salt Lake County, Utah: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 2 , Block 27 , Ten Acre Plat "A" , Big Field Survey, said point being N 89° 45 ' 30" E along the monument line 31 . 83 feet and N 0° 14 ' 30" W 32 . 87 feet from the Salt Lake City Monument in the cK� intersection of 3300 South and 1100 East Streets; thence N 2(.01 0° 04 ' 23" E 360 . 09 feet along the West line of said Lot 2, 5-4-1° to the right bank of the Lower Cottonwood Canal, thence }Q-3/3 along said bank S 54° 28 ' 58" E 46 . 64 feet and S 50° 17 ' 58" E 118 . 65 feet and S 64° 45 ' 58" E 76 . 84 feet and S 56° 48 ' 58" E 62 . 99 feet and S 42° 46 ' 58" E 66 . 31 feet; thence N 47° 14 ' 02" E 18 . 66 feet; thence S 54° 43 ' 40" E 93 . 56 feet; thence S 60° 12 ' 38" E 91 . 20 feet; thence S 0° 07 ' 48" E 53 . 58 feet to the South line of said Lot 2 ; thence S 89° 52 ' 12" W along said South line 466 . 32 feet to the point of beginning containing 2 . 01 acres . SECTION 2 . Zoning. Be it further ordained that the property above-described in Section 1 be zoned Commercial "C-3A" , and the Use District Map of Section 21 . 14 . 020 be amended by the addition of the property in such classification . -2- SECTION 3 . City Council Map. The "Salt Lake City Council District Boundary Map" is hereby amended to include the annexed parcel in Council District 7 as specified on such map. SECTION 4 . General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the annexed tract of land is henceforth within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City Corporation and all ordinances , jurisdictions, rules and 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 ways of said tract shall be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of Salt Lake City in that regard. The monuments of the City Engineer shall henceforth be taken as the standards of location and distances of the tract . SECTION 5 . Conditions Subsequent and Annexation Agreement. The OKOA Annexation is granted upon condition that petitioners have entered into an annexation agreement providing for certain dedications and the construction of certain improvements . No permits or approvals shall be granted, nor services provided, unless petitioners are in compliance with the terms of the annexation agreement . SECTION 6 . Liquor District. This property shall be considered as being with District A for the purposes of liquor license location requirements of Section 6 . 08 . 120 and Official Map #19372 . SECTION 7 . Filings and Notice. Upon the passage of this Ordinance, the City Recorder shall forward this Ordinance and -3- the annexation agreement to the Mayor for acceptance . After the Mayor' s signature upon the annexation agreement and plat, this Ordinance may thereafter become effective upon publication . After the Mayor' s signature, a copy of the plat or map of the annexation, together with certified copies of the annexation agreement and this Ordinance, shall be recorded with the County Recorder of Salt Lake County. The City Recorder is further directed to provide notice to the State Tax Commission pursuant to Section 11-21-1, Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 8 . Publication and Effect Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:ap -4- °IA CRAIG E. PETERSON wciiIYc CLU tl � N{ DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council September 20, 1989 Re: Resolution Accepting the OKOA Annexation - Petition No. 400-569-89 Recommendation: That the City Council accept the attached resolution for review for the OKOA Annexation - Petition No. 400-569-89 submitted by William D. Holyoakon behalf of the owners. The petitioners are requesting that property located on the northeast corner of 3300 South and 1100 East be annexed into Salt Lake City for the purposes of developing a new commercial retail uses. It is further recommended that the City Council set a public hearing date on November 7, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. for said petition. Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of this annexation request with the following conditions: 1. Approximately 8 feet of the petitioners' property along 3300 South Street shall be dedicated to Salt Lake County to widen the public right-of-way to 40 feet from centerline; 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements shall be constructed within the public right-of-way and the parking strip be landscaped with grass and trees and maintained with a sprinkler system along 3300 South Street and 1100 East street according to Salt Lake City Engineering specifications at the time of development or redevelopment. Improvement cost will be borne by the developer and/or property owner; 3. The property to be annexed shall be zoned Commercial "C-3A" and contain an extension of the Brickyard Liquor District "A" and 3300 South Street between 1100 East and 1300 East Streets designated as a major street. 4. The "Barbara Jensen" building, which is proposed for a rehabilitation, and its associated parking, shall be annexed as "nonconforming" to Salt Lake City zoning standards with respect to landscaped setback only. However, this portion of the development project shall be upgraded to the following standards. A five-foot landscaped setback from the property line shall be provided in the area immediately fronting the west facade of the building along 1100 East Street; The landscaping and public sidewalk shall be protected with a six inch high back curb; The parking lot design shall conform to Salt Lake City standards. The remainder of the site shall conform to Salt Lake City site design standards when new development is constructed. 5. An Annexation Plat shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor meeting all Salt Lake City standards for such a document. This area is identified as a desired annexation in the Salt Lake City Master Annexation Policy and is support in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary resolution and is attached for your action. Submitted by: ICHAEL B. ZUHL Acting Director Community and Economic Development ALLEN C. JOHNSON. AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS W IL LI AI�1 T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN CES.GN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRET RICHARD J. HOWA ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN September 18, 1989 Mr. Mike Zuhl, Acting Director Community and Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Petition 400-569 Dear Craig: Attached please find Petition 400-569 submitted by William D. Holyoak on behalf of the property owners of six parcels of land located on the northeast corner of 3300 South and 1100 East Streets requesting annexation to Salt Lake City for the purposes of developing the site. The property is contiguous to the City boundary along the south property line of the "Brickyard Plaza". Mr. Richard Gushman proposes to redevelop the 1.81 acres of property to new commercial retail uses. The proposed site plan is still being developed and refined. The 1979 Salt Lake City Master Annexation Policy Declaration identifies this area as a desired annexation area to Salt Lake City. Additional policy support for annexation is contained in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The objectives of the City's Master Plan are to improve the neighborhood convenience commercial uses along 3300 South Street. New development will provide an improved urban design including landscaped building setbacks, proper off-street parking with identified access, and improved curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Also attached is a copy of the Salt Lake City Amendment to Area 5 (Brickyard Area) of the Master Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment 5-C as it pertains to this annexation proposal. Cn Thursday November 12, 1987, the Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the petition and recommends approval of the annexation request in concurrence with the conditions recommended by the Planning Staff. These conditions include: Petition 400-569 Page 2 1. Approximately 8 feet of the petitioners' property along 3300 South Street shall be dedicated to Salt Lake County to widen the public right-of-way to 40 feet from centerline; 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements shall be constructed within the public right-of-way and the parking strip be landscaped with grass and trees and maintained with a sprinkler system along 3300 South Street and 1100 East Street according to Salt Lake City Engineering specifications at the time of development or redevelopment. Improvement cost will be borne by the developer and/or property owner; 3. The property to be annexed shall be zoned Commercial "C-3A" and contain an extension of the Brickyard Liquor District "A" with 3300 South Street between 1100 East and 1300 East Streets designated as a major street. 4. The "Barbara Jensen" building, which is proposed for rehabilitation, and its associated parking, shall be annexed as "nonconforming" to Salt Lake City zoning standards with respect to landscaped setback only. However, this portion of the development project shall be upgraded to the following standards: * A five-foot landscaped setback from the property line shall be provided in the area immediately fronting the west facade of the building along 1100 East Street; * The landscaping and public sidewalk shall be protected with a six inch high back curb. * The parking lot design shall conform to Salt Lake City standards. The remainder of the site shall conform to Salt Lake City site design standards when new development is constructed. 5. An Annexation Plat shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor meeting all Salt Lake City standards for such a document. An Annexation Plat Map is prepared and addresses items 1 and 5. An Annexation Agreement has been prepared to address the conditions of the annexation. Both drafts are attached. Petition 400-569 Page 3 It is the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that the City Council hold the required public hearing and that the City approve this annexation petition with conditions. Respectfully, ✓ Allen C. Jo on, AICP Planning Dir for ACJ:GRH attachments RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 (Accepting the OKOA Annexation Petition No. 400-569-87 for review by the City Council ) A Resolution accepting the OKOA Annexation Petition No. 400-569-87 for purposes of City Council review. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has received Petition No. 400-569- 87 requesting the annexation of unincorporated territory contiguous to Salt Lake City' s southern boundary and the Brickyard Shopping Center area known as the "OKOA Annexation" ; and WHEREAS, the signatures of the petition appear to constitute a majority of the owners of real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all the real property as shown by the last assessment role; and WHEREAS, petitioners have submitted a map of the territory proposed for annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory within the petition is contiguous to the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and lies within Study Area No. 5 projected for municipal expansion by Salt Lake City' s Master Policy Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that it does hereby: 1 . Accept Petition No . 400-569-87 for annexation of land designated as the "OKOA Annex" for the purposes of considering said annexation for the expansion of the City' s municipal limits by way of reviewing: The existing Master Policy Declarations regarding Study Area No. 5 previously adopted by the City, and the proposed amendment thereto specifically relating to the OKOA Annexation. For purposes of review, the petition and proposed amendment shall be scheduled and processed concurrently. 2 . Direct the City Recorder to set a public hearing before the City Council to review the proposed annexation petition, the proposed zoning classification of Commercial "C-3A" as recommended by the Planning Commission, and adoption of Amendment 5C to the Master Policy Declaration for Study Area No. 5 as it relates to this specific annexation proposal; and to provide newspaper and mail notice to petitioners, landowners within the proposed annexation, and affected entities as required by law. Be it further resolved that nothing hereunder shall be construed to vest petitioners with rights to require annexation of said property; to bind the City Council to finally approve the petitioners ' annexation; to vest the petitioners with rights to develop under any particular zoning, subdivision or site development ordinance; or to require Salt Lake City to exercise jurisdiction over the area until such time as a decision to annex and extend the corporate limits has been made and all annexation foinialities and documentation have been completed, including the preparation of the final plat according to City Engineer specifications , appropriate ordinances, annexation agreements and other documents verifying the sufficiency of the petition. -2- Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 198 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -3- A \ NEXA - I- 10 \ L_. /6\ T 'OK 0A INC ANNEX TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH AN ANNEX TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, OF PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK 27, TEN ACRE PLAT " A" , BIG FIELD SURVEY. PARCEL DESCRIPTION: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2, BLOCK 27, TEN ACRE PLAT " A" , BIG FIELD SURVEY, SAID POINT BEING N 89' 45' 30" E ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE 31 .83 FEET AND N 0' 14' 30" W 32.87 FEET FROM THE SALT LAKE CITY MONUMENT IN THE INTERSECTION OF 3300 SOUTH AND 1 100 EAST STREETS; THENCE N 0' 04' 23" E 360.09 FEET ALONG 1 HE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, TO THE RIGHT BANK OF THE LOWER COTTONWOOD CANAL; THENCE ALONG SAID BANK S 54' 28' 58" E 46.64 FEET AND S 50' 17' 58" E 118.65 FEET AND S 64' 45' 58" E 76.84 FEET AND S 56' 48' 58" E 62.99 FEET AND S 42' 46' 58" E 176.47 FEET; THENCE N 89' 46' 48" W 64.06 FEET; THENCE S 0' 13' 12" V' 60.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE S 89' 52' 12" W 307.5 ) FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 1 .81 ACRES. 1 SALT LAKE CITY AMENDMENT TO AREA 5 BRICKYARD AREA of the MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLAKATION AMENDMENT 5-C SALT LAKE CITY AMENDMENT TO MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION ANENEMENT 5C Petitioned Sub-part of Area 5--Brickyard Area Cashman Annexation November 1987 Prepared by Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning Division Department of Development Services CONTENTS Topic Page - 5C Introduction 1 5C.1 Area Considered for Annexation 1 5C.2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics 1 5C.3 Property Value 2 5C.4 Comparison of Cost of Government Services 2 5C.5 Water 2 5C.6 Sewer 2 5C.7 Fire 2 5C.8 Police 3 5C.9 Planning and Zoning 3 5C.10 Refuse and Garbage Collection and Disposal 3 5C.11 Streets and Highways 4 ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES Topic Page Map of Proposed Annexation Area 5 Table 1: Comparison of City and County Tax Rates 6 Tntroduction The following information is provided to satisfy requirements of the Utah Boundary Commission Act of 1979 as set forth in Section 10-2-401 through 10-2-423 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. In harmony with the intent of the act, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration in 1979. The petitioned area is a sub-part of Area 5--Brickyard Area as defined in that Declaration. This report updates and amends the Master Annexation Policy Declaration with respect to the petitioned area. 5C.1 Area Considered for Annexation The map on page 5 depicts the proposed annexation area. It includes unincorporated land contiguous to Salt Lake City's southern boundary east of 1100 East Street to the existing city limit line and north of 3300 South Street legally described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 27, Ten Acre Plat "A", Big Field Survey, said point being N89*45'30"E along the monument line 31.83 feet and NO*14'30"W 32.87 feet from the Salt Lake City Monument in the intersection of 3300 South and 1100 East Streets; thence NO*04'23"E 360.09 feet along the West line of said Lot 2, to the right bank of the Lower Cottonwood Canal; thence along said bank S54*28158"E 46.64 feet and S50*17'58"E 118.65 foot and S64*45158"E 76.84 foot andS56*48'58"E 62.99 feet and S42*46'58"E 176.47 feet; thence N89*46'48"W 64.06 feet; thence SO*13 '12"W 60.00 feet to the South line of said Lot 2; thence S89*52' 12"W 307.50 feet along said Scth line to the eoint of beginning. Contains i.61 acres. 5C.2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics The proposed annexation area is 1.81 acres of commercial land presently with vacant and occupied commercial buildings and a vacant lot. The proposed redevelopment is a retail commercial center on 1.81 acres of land fronting on 3300 South and 1100 East Streets. 1 5C.3 Property Value The proposed annexation area lies exclusively within Salt Lake County Tax District 17A. Market value of the property, compiled from the 1987 tax rolls in the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor's office, is $1,249,970. 5C.4 Comparison of the Cost of Government Servic' Table 1 of page 6 compares the present tax rate with the post-annexation tax rate. Tax District 17A (unincorporated area) has a 1987 tax rate of .0183970. If the area is annexed, it will become a part of Tax District 13B with a 1987 tax rate of .0201020, or a .0017050 rate increase. 5C.5 Water The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department currently provides water service to the proposed annexation area. 5C.6 Sewer The Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary District Number 1 currently provides sewer service to the proposed annexation area. 5C.7 Fire Protection The annexation area is within the service area of the Salt Lake City Fire Department's Station Company No.3 at 1085 Simpson Avenue. The Department has sufficient equipment to provide fire protection service and emergency medical service to the annexation area. 2 5C.8 Police Presently the area receives law enforcement services from the Salt Lake County Sheriff's office. The proposed annexation area will receive law enforcement services at the same level as currently provided to other city areas with similar population, business, and transportation densities. 5C.9 Planning and Zoning The subject property is adjacent to the Sugar House Community. In the community master plan, this area is identified as a potential annexation area. The master plan recommends that land use for this area be neighborhood convenience retail commercial. The plan also recommends urban design guidelines as specific development objectives. For this area the guideline is: " improve the neighborhood convenience commercial strip along 3300 South Street with landscaped building setbacks, proper off-street parking with identified access, and improved curb, gutter and sidewalk". The proposed annexation area will be zoned to city standards concurrent with the annexation. 5C.10 Refuse and Garbage Collection and Disposal Salt Lake Cit.,/ provides waste ool].ecton service to one, two, and three unit residential structures only. All others, including commercial and industrial uses, must contract privately for such service. Upon annexation, the City Public Works Department will assume responsibility for waste collection in accordance with the above mentioned policy. Therefore, the proposed commercial development will need to contract for solid waste disposal services and there will be no impact on city garbage collection services. 3 5C.11 Streets and Highways This annexation will not include 3300 South Street right-of-way or the 1100 East Street right-of-way. However, new curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements will be required, as a part of the redevelopment process, along 93300 South Street and portions of the 1100 East Street frontage. These improvements will be required to meet the standards set by Salt Lake City's Department of Public Works. Street services will continue to be provided by the county in the same manner they are currently providing. Street maintenance, street lighting, parking enforcement, installation and maintenance of traffic signals, signs and pavement markings will continue to be provided by the county. 4 CONTARTSON OF CITY AND CIXJNTY TAX RATES IN TAXING JURISDICTIONS AND SERVICE DISTRICTS WITHIN STUDY AREA 5 FOR 1987 Service Departments Tax Rates County City Tax District: '17A 13B Salt Lake County .0029210 .0029210 Salt Lake City ---- .0043700 Salt Lake County Government Immunity .0000330 .0000330 Salt Lake County Bond .0005040 .0005040 Salt Lake County Flood Control .0003440 .0003440 Salt Lake County Municipal Type Service Dist. .0021000 Salt Lake City School District .0080240 Granite School District .0090400 Salt Lake County Library .0007250 Salt Lake City Library .0007900 Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary District .0014690 .0014690 Salt Lake City Metropolitan Water District ---- .0003860 Central Utah Water Conservancy .0004000 .0004000 Salt Lake City-County Health Dept. .0002520 .0002520 Ha_rs r Planetarium Fund .0000400 0IC340C South Salt Lake County Mosquito Abatement Dist. .0000320 .0000320 Tax Administration Levy .0005370 .0005370 'lOfAL TAX RATE .0183970 .0201020 i4, 946C 6 BD6464 (PE) Salt Lake City, Utah e2 May 8, 1990 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held on Tuesday, the 8th day of May, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 p.m. , at the regular meeting place of the City Council at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Alan Hardman Chair Nancy Pace Vice Chair Roselyn N. Kirk Councilmember L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember Don C. Hale Councilmember Ronald Whitehead Councilmember Also present: Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: A Notice to Contractors calling for bids for operating, patrolling and maintaining street lights in the District was published in the Deseret News, a newspaper having general circulation in the City, at least one time at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date specified in such notice for the receipt of bids. An affidavit of publication is on file or will be obtained by the City Recorder. The only bid submitted was reopened at this council meeting. The City Council determined that Utah Power & Light Co. was the only bidder for the operation, patrolling and maintenance of street lighting as specified in the engineering specifications for the street lighting improvements set out in the Notice of Intention. Thereupon, Councilmember introduced the following resolution in writing and Councilmember moved to adopt the resolution: BD6464 (PF) 2 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING A BID FOR AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. FOR OPERATING, PATROLLING AND MAINTAINING STREET LIGHTING WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1 (THE "DISTRICT" ) . BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, that the bid of Utah Power & Light Co. in the amount of $ the lowest and best bid for the operating, patrolling and maintaining of street lighting in the District and such is hereby conditionally accepted. The City Engineer is requested to verify the accuracy of the bid amount, the compliance of the bid with specifications and the qualification of the bidder to perform the specified contract functions. Upon approval of the City Engineer, the Mayor and City Recorder are authorized to execute the Contract between Salt Lake City and Utah Power & Light Co. , which Contract may include work in addition to the operation and maintenance of lighting within the District. The source of payments to Utah Power & Light Co. under the Contract shall be from assessments to property owners within the District. Assessments shall be levied at or near the beginning of each year of service. BD6464 (PF) 3 The resolution was seconded by Councilmember and was adopted by vote of the City Council as follows: AYE: NAY: Thereupon the motion was approved by the City Council and made a matter of record by the City Recorder. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 8th day of May, 1990. Chair ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD6464 (P£) 4 After the transaction of other business not pertinent to the foregoing matter, the meeting was on motion duly made, seconded and carried, adjourned. Chair ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD6464 (PF) 5 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss, COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings had by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at its meeting held on the 8th day of May, 1990, insofar as the same relates to the awarding of the contract for Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. 1 as the same appears of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said City this 8th day of May, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) 131/6464 (Pr) 6 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I , Kathryn Marshall, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Issuer" ) , do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council of Salt Lake City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2 ) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the May 8, 1990, public meeting held by the City Council as follows: (a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be posted at the principal offices at the City and County Building, Salt Lake City, Utah on May , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be delivered to the Deseret News on May , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. BD6464 (PF) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this 8th day of May, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD6464 (PE) 8 SCHEDULE "A" NOTICE OF MEETING BD6464 (Ps) 9 r - MIKE ZUHL Sl 1111'S LAKE CITY CORPORATION! LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DERUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council March 20, 1990 RE: Petition.No. 400-764 submitted by David Thomas Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-764 submitted by David K. Thomas. The petitioner is requesting that the alley located between "K" and "L" and between llth Avenue and 12th Avenue be vacated. Availability of Flnzds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The appropriate City Departments have reviewed this request and recommend that the entire alley be vacated. The abutting property owners are not in agreement as to how the alley should be vacated, therefore, we have prepared two ordinances. One ordinance vacates the alley and requires the property owners to enter into agreements allowing joint use or joint access to the alley. The other ordinance vacates the alley with the alley being divided equally among the property owners. Cne other option has been discussed which would have provided access to half of the alley with the other being vacated, this option is not recommended by the departments reviewing this petition. As part of the 12th Avenue Subdivision a bond exists guaranteeing the future construction of grading, paving and driveway approach improvements for this alley. The bond funds will be held until a decision is made on the requested vacation or until the improvements are installed to City specifications. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinances and they are attached for your action. S mitted by: CHAEL B. Z I terim Director • C:C*•:10 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ' of 1990 (Vacating a Portion of an East-West Alley Between K and L Streets and 11th and 12th Avenues pursuant to Petition No. 400-764-89 ) AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EAST-WEST ALLEY BETWEEN K AND L STREETS AND 11TH AND 12TH AVENUES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-764-89 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City's interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public' s interest. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of an east-west alley between K and L Streets and llth and 12th Avenues, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-764-89 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, vacated and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley. Said alley is more particularly. described as follows: , Begin at the northwest corner of lot 16, Block 166, VIC Salt Lake City Survey Plat D, and running thence 'east INyo 330 feet, thence north 15 feet, thence west 330 feet, thence south 15 feet to the point of beginning. J..ba%b` SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-4ay and easements of all public utilities- of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities , including the City' s water and sewer facilities , and all of them. Said vacation is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties . SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR -2- • ATTEST: itir) CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) BILL NO. OF 19 Published: BRB:ap -3- kF SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Vacating a Portion of an East-West Alley Between K and L Streets and 11th and 12th Avenues pursuant to Petition No. 400-764-89 ) AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN EAST-WEST ALLEY BETWEEN K AND L STREETS AND 11TH AND 12TH AVENUES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-764-89 . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City' s interest in the public all described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public ' s interest. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That a portion of an east-west alley between K and L Streets and llth and 12th Avenues, which is the subject of Petition No . 400-764-89 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, vacated and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley. Said alley is more particularly described as follows : , Begin at the northwest corner of lot 16 , Block 166 , Salt Lake City Survey Plat D, and running thence east -5/4/40 330 feet, thence north 15 feet, thence west 330 feet, thence south 15 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City' s water and sewer • facilities, and all of them. Said closure is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties SECTION 3 . CONDITIONS. This ordinance shall be conditioned upon proof acceptable to the City that the abutting property owners have entered into such agreements as necessary to provide for any joint use or joint access to or through the vacated alley. SECTION 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this ordinance until the condition required by Section 3 has been met. If the condition has not been met within one year the May may grant an additional one year extension. If the condition fails to be met within the time allowed, this ordinance shall be null and void and not be published. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 19 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- • Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) BILL NO . OF 19 Published: BRB:ap -3- • n. . • • ROGER F. CUTLER SALT LAKE.ti 1�1:1' (O` RPORAT,. nssmru+i ArroaH¢rs att nTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W.ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTYUfYATTOFlNEY -CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LA 6RUCE RP BA ROVE CHERYL D.LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M.NAKAMURA OTY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA FAX (801) 535-7640 GLEN A. COOK JANICE L. FROST MEMORANDUM TO: LuAnn Fawcett Community & Economic Development FROM: Bruce Baird Assistant City Attorney 15C �, DATE: February 22, 1990 RE: Thomas Petition No. 400-764-89 Pursuant to discussions which you and I have had with Cindy Gust-Jensen I have drafted two ordinances concerning the above petition. The first is a simple alley vacation. The second conditions the effectiveness of the alley vacation upon proof to the City that all of the abutting property owners have agreed to whatever type of joint use agreement they want. Obviously, the first draft is easier to handle. If you have any questions, please let me know. BRB:ap 'Net ,110 ALLEN C.JOHNSON,AICP SALT'LAKE.�,,,�CITY'. m .,RPO.RATION, 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 February 12, 1990 Michael Zuhl Chief of Staff Director of Community and Economic Development 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT RE: David Thomas Petition 400-764 to close alley. Dear Michael, Attached is petition number 400-764 from Mr. David Thomas requesting the vacation of an entire east-west alley located in the Avenues. The location of the alley is on block 166 of Salt Lake City Survey Plat D. The alley runs east and west from K to L street in the mid-block. The block is situated between 11th and 12th Avenues. The current zoning is R-2. Various City departments have been notified of the petitioners request and have responded. Transportation - is in favor of a full alley vacation, and not in favor of a partial vacation. Fire - supports a full alley vacation and does not support a partial vacation. Engineering - recommends approval. Real Property - recommends approval. Public Utilities - recommends approval. Planning - recommends approval of an entire alley vacation. • In meeting with Mr. Thomas, it_was indicated the intent of the petition is for the vacation of the entire alley. The City's %:) position is to either 1 ) close the entire alley or 2 ) proceed with the construction of improvements to the entire alleyway as originally provided for in the re-subdivision of the Block, known as the 12th Avenue Subdivision. It should be noted that there are differing viewpoints of the abutting property owners concerning the alley closure. As can be determined, the abutting property owners have expressed one of the three following options, 1 ) To close the entire alley and to build a structure on the east portion of the alley, and to allow private access to K street only, 2 ) Property owners on 11th Avenue agree.to the alley being closed, but wish to keep a maintenance access to the rear of their yards from the west as aright of way. This option would require deeds and easements for . each of the properties. 3 ) Mr. Tirrell wishes to close the entire alley. but does not wish to allow a right of way access across his portion of the alley. The Development Coordination team has indicated that the 12th Avenue Subdivision included a bond guaranteeing the future construction of grading, paving, and driveway approach improvements for this alley. These bond funds will be held until a decision is made on the requested vacation or until the improvements are installed to City specifications. The legal description for the alley is as follows: • -" Begin at the. southwest corner of lot 17, Block 166. - ' Salt Lake City Survey •Plat D, and running thence east 330 feet, thence south 15 feet, thence west 330 feet, thence north 15 feet to the point of beginning. j. From the viewpoint of the city, it is desirable to close the entire alley and ownership and have the maintenance turned over to the adjacent property owners. The petition should be presented to the City Council for an advertised (once a week for four weeks ) public hearing and final determination.. Sincerely. . • Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planni�ngD ector • 41, PETITION 400-764 THOMAS ALLEY VACATION POLL OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS 1. GALEN TIRRELL ( 756-7460 ) Galen resides in Alpine, UT and owns tour of the six lots in the new 12th Avenue subdivision. He is in favor of closing the alleyway and would fence half of the alleyway. Not in favor of providing access to the street . ( 12/6/89, 1/19/90 ) • 2 . SHARLENE & VIRGIL HAYES ( 261-5392, 262-5752 ) Trying to sell property as .quickly as possible. Has no strong feelings one way or the other if the alley is vacated. Wants the least costly alternative. Mr . Hayes signed the petition originally to help Mr. Thomas with his building plans. ( 12/5/89 ) 3. HAL LUDLOW ( 355-2098 ) Mr . Ludlow dows not have strong feelings one way or the other to close the alley. Prefers the least costly alternative to him. Concerned that he would assume responsibility for the alley right of way. Prefers to see the alley improved and to have his lot remain the same as it presently is. ( 11/22/8c), 11/24/89 ) 4 . JEFFREY ( JAY ) HARROW ( 363-4806 ) Unable to contact owner 5. ENOCH & BRIDGET SMITH ( 355-8707, 364-8477 ) Mr. Smith does not have a preference one way or the other to close or leave the alley open. Mentioned that he would like some sort of access to the rear yard for maintenance. A dirt access as it now exists is acceptable. ( 11/29/89 ) 6. MCKEAN-DAVIS PARTNERSHIP ( 582-3750 ) Spoke to Merrill Davis. Merril) said he would like to retain an ' ., _ .,.,17) access through the back of his property, but is not set on any particular alternative. ( 11/2$/89 ) 7. MARTAIN CARAVATTI ( 364-6287 ) Currently does not have an access to the rear of his property, nor does he use the alleyway. In favor of closing and vacating, though is not of stron opinion one way or the other. Said he does not plan to use the .Y.l1 'J in the future. 8. DAVID THOMAS ( 53O-5005 ) ( Petitioner ) - ;., ! . I I {woRu"AKi - IARC .I. W ) L r��CRFLt. 4 L. I tti I TI,caet.0 ►any6's T, m—. I. .� ,�.... Z. 7t AI My PrrTho;) I 3. -I. 5. 6. fi. 8. I Lvuzo ) )-Mtge,,/ Melt! h'K•E•' ' CA 1 di41111 r1-:oi145 . C-3Jr c �g PC) (70 q) ' (.7/ ) (723) (7z 1) (737) I + s I 44r i i / r Fir iJ�. ., ;;1 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST. SUITE 201 JOSEPH R. AND O SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E- PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (801) 535-6630 CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER OcLober 4 , 1989 Allen G. McCandless Planning & Zoning 4th Floor - City Hall RE: Petition 4400-7G4 - Alley Vacation Dear Allen: The Division of Transportation ' s site review comments and recommendations are as follows : (1) We recommend denial of parLi.al aH.ey vacation in that it creates a dead end on a very narrow public way and adds additional hazard and hardship to emergency services . (2) We strongly support full alley vacation, but require approval by all abutting property owners and coordination with utility easements . Sincerely, t-t-ht& Scott R. Vaterlaus Traffic Engineer I SRV/lh cc: Steve Meyer Barry Walsh file • gr7) SALT'LAila @T s r CORPORATION FIRE DEPARTMENT PETER O. PEDERSON 305 EAST 200 SOUTH CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTI.IENT SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 799.4101 October 18, 1989 Allen McCandless Planning and Zoning Commission 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Ut 84111 • Re: Petition #400-764 Dear Allen: It would appear to me from the present petition that we would be vacating only part of this alley and that we would be creating a serious dead-end situation. The only way the fire department could grant this petition is for the entire alley to be vacated, use stopped and accesses blocked. Sincerely, 19 • Ra mfiinaker Fi . e Code Enforcement Supervisor RH/js ( `. _ SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PALMER DEPAULIS City Engineering Division MAX G. PETERSO. . P.E. MAYOR 444 SOUTH STATE STREET CITY ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7871 • TO: ALLEN G. McCANDLESS, • ENVIRONMENTAL PLANEE FROM: HARRY EWING, ENGINEERING / DATE: OCTOBER 16 , 1989 SUBJECT: PETITION 400-764 This department has reviewed petition 400-764 requesting the City vacate the East-West alley on block 166 Survey Plat D, located north of 1lth Avenue running between "K" to "L" Street . The alley north and south entering from 12th Avenue was vacated July 26 , 1955 bill No. 56. We would like to recommend approval of this petition and will process the changes in our records upon notification from your office. HE:cp cc: Max G. Peterson Vault • a SALT'LAM CIF)T GORPORATION; FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA HAMILTON Purchasing and Property Management Division PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR • ROOM 345 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PROPERTY (801) 535-7133 October 16, 1989 • • TO: Allen G. McCandless Environmental Planner FROM: Linda Cordova p' Property Manager SUBJECT: PETITION NO. 400-764 ALLEY VACATION, EAST-WEST ALLEY CN BLOCK 166, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, PLAT "D" Property Management has no objection to the alley vacation based on single family residential development. Any multifamily development abutting the alley should be considered commercial and treated as an alley closure rather than vacation. LC/Mt McCandless.Alley.Vac. LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. SUPERINTENDENT SALT' i . ,S GUY( ;ORPORATION� WATER SUPPLY 3 WATERWORKS ,••,e�a� ur,,�„�,�, ,..r.-l& `-,pY�y �v�„m or�� E.TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAUL.S JAMES M. LEWIS.CPA. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN. PE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER TO: • JANICE JARDINE PLANNING & ZONING• FROM: E. T. DOXEY WATER RECLAMATION SUPERINTENDENT DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1989 SUBJECT: PETITION NO. 400-764/EAST-WEST ALLEY ON BLOCK 166 S. L.C. SURVEY PLAT"D" 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 • •. THE REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE • 244 WEST 400 SOUTH 'asp; SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84101 801-530-5005 Doug Wheelwright Planning and Zoning 451 South State Street #406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 January 20 , 1990 Dear Doug: As per our conversation with you and Allen McCandless , I have mailed a certified letter to each owner, abutting the alley between "K" and "L" streets and between llth and 12th Avenue. Copies of these letters are enclosed. Please make formal application to the city council for "closure" of the alley concerned. ( lf the closure is approved) , please have the necessary legal papers drawn up, which allows for the right of way, as outlined in the petition signed by the owners in July of 1989 . My thanks to you and Allen for the time spent with me personally. Your personable attitude and understanding was appreciated by myself. Thank you. Sincerely, avid omas Service in Real Estate Since 1950 Management, Sales, Leasing and Rentals Homes, Apartments. Office. Warehouse, Storage Units, etc. • January 19, 1990 • Galen Tirrell "K" Street • hl� Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Dear Galen: This letter is being written to inform you and update you on the alley closure connecting our properties. It is my understanding that the city is prepared to do the following: 1. Based upon the petition signed by all residents, except for Mr. Ludlow who is not opposed to the petition, the city is • prepared to bring this matter before the city council for a closure action. If the closure is approved, then the city legal department will issue deeds giving title to us as owners. Also included in the deed, will he a right of way from "R" street through to the owner of 729 llth Avenue, Martin Caravati. Becnuse Mr. Ludlow did not sign the petition it is my understanding that the city will do one of two things. They will deed the property to him, and nllow for the right of way. Or the property will remain in the ownership of the city, which will nllow those concerned to use it as n right of way. If there is not opposition from us as owners, then the closure will proceed ns outlined above. It is my wish and I hope yours, that the city will close the alley es per our petition. The deeds giving ownership will allow the right of wny necessary for those located in the center of the block, and control its use by us. 2. If the city does not approve the petition, then a contractor's bond of $20,000 dollnrs, which is being held, will be used for improvements. In other words, an inviting "street" alley will be made, which will be accessible, not only by ourselves, but also, kids, prowlers, sightseers, etc. , 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for as long as the property remains a dedicated alley. I hope we as residents con realize the negative impact choice two would have upon our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our homes and rear yards. We ns a neighborhood have one of two choices, an access • controlled by us for our own private use or a thoroughfare • through our backyards. I hope choice one is the wise and accepted choice of the neighborhood. • Thank You, avid E. Thomas 73 7 //b/ 3t'4/-- 2103 -,v $ �,„ P• 879 550 293 : (• 1:11:U50 1 Q Q i' 3jftt1+;'r4X0���ii.i'Y�.: Mr,t,• : •„mot' - \_� —_ G S3 11.1 CC 41JolgAi • . • . . Q - • • • THE REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE • 244 WEST 400 SOUTH• r; SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84101 801-530-5005 Mayor Palmer DePaulis - 5Fp 15 City-County Building Salt Lake 'City, Utah MAYORS Ur„=._ September 13, 1989 Honorable Mr. DePaulis : We place before your consideration a petition to close the alley on the Dunford Subdvision, Block 166, Plate "D" . Enclosed is a • true. and exact copy fnr your records of that petition . The petition has been signed by all owners except for the resident at 558 K Street, a Mr. Hal Ludlow. However, it . should be noted that he is at the west end and a closure would not affect him. • We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, and look forward to an immediate response to this petition. Any questions or requests for further information may be directed to me at 530-5005 . Sincerely, • • David E . Thomas 737 llth Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah Service in Real Estate Since 1950 .Management, Sales, Leasing and Rentals Homes, Apartments, Office, Warehouse, Storage Units, etc. • A PETITION TO CLOSE THE ALLEY /'6 ON THE DUNFORD SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 108 /, e& As a consideration and a condition of our signing the closure of the alley abutting our properties , we the owners agree to the following concerning the alley and the alley only: /66 Upon closure of the alley on the Dunford subdivision Block 1-08, we agree to the following: P,(,11E 'DD" 1 . That that part of the alley abutting lots 7, 8, and 9 , totalling from the east of L Street going west , 99 linear feet , be divided equally into a northerly half belonging to the owner of lot 6, and a southerly half, belonging to the respective owners of lots 7 , 8, and 9. 2 . That that part of the alley abutting lots 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , and 16 on the south, and lot 17 and the westerly 66 feet of lot 6 on the north, be left open as a right-of- way as it is presently. 3 . That this is binding upon all present and future owners of the concerned properties . Signed and dated / / f / Owner of lot 7 and part of lot 8, known as 7•3 7 /fIc' ; ,n ., f Ap.lt ',• and dated I ., I i Owner of part of lot 8, all of lot 9, and-part of lot 10 , known as 12 i t' ;(�< �`mov , _ D_ and dated " 211 cq Owner of part of lot 10 , all of lot 11 and part of lot 12 , know;i as \ 1 (.5 (S a -/r tWn_q. c -(roP r, / , -page 2- _Rfl 6:c.:-VE„ ,.......) and dated 7/// ) ci Owner of part of lot •12,, and part of lot 13, known as 7/'7 t:- // ' /A.% , •curt,rvJ Cji-tiqkk7i) .� ) and dated 7/ / S 8�(�_. ( wner of pa of lot 13 all of lot 14 and part of slot 15, known as 7OC1 j j'P► i;e - and dated Owner of part of lot 15 and all of lot 16, known as _ 0 Thi l':1--4-1(_____ and dated 7 ate- 6'7 Owner -of all of ---T"Fl, knownJ as 64, a� 4°1-s 1J,faandl 6 k a-4-"4 •(/e/i ...— (" -%- - and dated V/....,-/ -7 Owner of all of lot 6, known as X� / i ... ... 7-his is, a Iri.cf a, ici. c xac - Cop tredk etm: ttzt,' (Lic es: s(� (L-f Fxyo ties: (1/(/j ✓1.2 r z.=O a C7 C>N°C;\,.. ........:9... . tl 1 1 1 Y._ ;x • - / ?:_'7 2 t. - -__—_..1 4.0 ..a n_1 . '6 s L t----- 5 i -'°� ,O 16_ ALL c1: V 1 . DUN. .c 'S ki . I 1 .� 31 � i2 $ a a 1 V; , !' I n u P n • • // Th` AVE.8 ... • u. w. n• 41,1 ' 1 I 1 • I 1 1 1 n �{ 8 5 i 2 1 . \\ DRo Po sec . g:2°°' Al Q/Ez2V JE 57J/E4 Q/454COGV AN AMENDED FLAT OF LOTS /-6, /7-22, arid VACATED 20ft ALLEY DUNFORD'S SUBDIVISION IRIS PLAT IS MADE SOLELY FOR I -� OF BLOCK /66, FLAT "D" SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY PURPOSE Of ASSISTING IN LOU' THE LAHO.AHO THE COMPANY AS • AUGUST, /966 MO LIABILITY FOR VARIATIONS.IS • J. ••9 / 2 / h AVENUE E N U E ;ANY.WITH AN A�Tllkl SURVEY. ,• • .. M1-..,. 0. I 21 I 1— 1 1; ,Cj ! .' '-' \•.• i i , A 7 „.__ .,..., , ,), ,.,,,, . „.:o + 3 > ,, CZ I • ' '14/SJ r_,,i� D \�_✓[ifd I it Ire�.,- Z V •.4 SS:" ii .�� ..1 ..,j 4. c,ir> > IY �.< it, Jrl rnr!I,,L I` \: J I :ac - ._.--_.—_3.?,. J I -----iJ f.,;_---- .Yl 1 r✓ J'":ri'1J'a 1�L 1 e ,/ .;�O.O 'Zee-4,t ‘' It $( ,' I I I ` /1 ; 1 �� �, ,a I l I I f I �;!.; )1,11',r�' `o � Q\ • .�.vl I : 1 .'II` 1 '41...w— ., ,'i 0 1tLl11/I/CKJ Petition N0 :it ,,-----..-- 10.8(gIN .'....,-..:!... .!;",.. 4;,,; •• I 1 By David E. Thomas a ;: i. '.1.;„. SEP1 :(?)••i CITY PLA ,�: "r�,.. I i permission to close the! ZONING C '' ':.'%?' Requesting ! •. : :; .. 1 , alley ,on,. the Dunford Subdivision •- I Block 166 - Plate "D" ;;- ,r'' F is•fie'! •.i1 .' • I i i i i. . ••' It 1 ., , II •.. + 'II • • ,'�. • ? I i a' i ► t ...•;.r .: I ''� •�a �• : • L.., ::{': • • • I •,fit l'i•+�• Ii tV.I �:.'' Dale Filed September 20, 1989 I ' %'y4f:; •�M • S. I { } 6 ., �.1 e - t ,: • I ; Address 737-11th Avenue I ••••11,.... 1 O ,;,) ',f"sl >! NOTICE OF HFARJN SALT LAKE CITY CC NCIL Salt Lake City is currently reviewing petition number 400-764 by David Thomas requesting the vacation of an entire east-west alley located in the Avenues. The location of the alley is on block 166 of Salt Lake City Survey Plat D. The alley runs east and west from K to L Street in the mid-block and between llth and 12th Avenues. As part of their consideration the City Council is holding a public hearing. During this hearing information will be presented during the hearing relating to the petitioners request. Anyone desiring to address the Council relating to this request will be given the opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: May 8, 1990 TIME: 6:20 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Room 315 Salt Lake City and County Bldg. 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah Please share this information with your neighbors who may be interested. If you have a question relating to this proposal, please attend the meeting or call Allen McCandless during the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. office hours at 535- 7757. I • • rb� ►c�.✓.1. -'-?r Z�� 1;� cG` .:�rkt •\ ;'. .: S� 'S r�. +r�-4 � N'+ L • / -i w C ti4- � t "' J: i •'W ;Y}: . �ti � '4 . . ' ' -n...• op ,1 - \` . "` i �...' - RAJ .F •> 1 1.'.4kl:.i,�v s 0••:.; 2 �• if1 \ O • CI of �.J�,,.+7 .` '. _•�- 4� r' O �• 71 ..• _ ,.err .. .d..-y. _ :. _V • .ate t- -}•� F+' �,,„ - {�• t.•A•• `••- F ...-•i ii rit �,` . ' — -emu • `�.7�. +R.• �: (4,,.• :.,_.:„...�'., :•.• ."''�'` '�`•- 1 •`�►.•►:. . t i • }7��( ram•% !i �._,, s' t• "`.r .•.' 1'=C 1 t� ....,. ,..s.,„ •?'•It. r_:'+Je�L.'- .. ( j_•.• . i'!^ :,; ..: ,y Si a-!... - .� i• - • - y - iZ`."-..T .. ..„.•., .1 r-•-..-..";'- vow. 4r 1 • �_\•l! .���yC{` ".. ie�.tT+ :a�' �'7u.,7 s. _, Sa' z' y.r.,n„�:..•',-t- •��{.,, �'.dl „x ,.ig;A: :_- ` "e �2, x, f `a . ... ^` Hr .*:„.. a r •z< •,, , L:"t :.+o r.w '-1'1r••�-✓.-.. 9. ......i .w5., ....,n'" .. ,k „.` ..... _ ...... , .y..w�... .N.'o.L.•a.vwt..,i- ,ate ... .v 7. . e- s /' woC Off ` 9Si/ ,C^` . - r.`. w'1-•..ice•._. — •``A .r. (A`) _ 1• • . o -r'•l . 02p —. \4 .r `y. • :' 1. - a,:k.t J • .j_ _ rr ' .` i:1.•"--."•., .... • A Q '-y.. __1. �-• _ - - .. - G 1 Q• l- •+�" !1 i fit': • •r• T.. '': _s.•. -`•:�•• .' •-:- • . ' •t♦' •• •2-� J�' '.* i• t` ^ ; ,o • • II ••i• ..,.y-..' ,a p.. illi . '..r, - r.4L I./ AIA !� r .. tea. :. 1 �Z.)�.��•{�+ �..• . . 11 .::.•r :i ;`K::.f • ...._......... 7/ . • Li..........L . I.•�-,j{err 1 .: h. ... •a; i 7.'4 ' 4: ... ...„ • s f .;C.R ,tip_ . ._,.,,Ar .... ,..,,,,:„E.L...— •. I • • • ..�; � �' •ly~• - 'fig. I t :� / _ �i — 880.' .f1► -;."` : 1 f. • 11 '1 • [.� 14i l • Jeffrey J F, Jae B Harrow Brigitta Wray 709 East 11th Ave 718 Northvicw Circle Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Inger P. Ludlow �l �r r 558 North K Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 loch L E Nathan R Smith /17 East llth Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 V I Ca-- £ SLi/KLENC HAyES McKean-Davis Partnershin 2166 South Wellington Street 5S '2-S Souk qoo Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 5 urTF 3io Sr L- LRu� C"r� UT YH/7 E. Martin Caravati z 1 729 East llth Avenue '� / \ Salt Lake City, Utah 8410.E L\ L:k1 Aj • �l� / � David E & Kay D Thomas 737 East llth Avenue � 43' Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 -��1 L- t-.t c_ 1�i \1� \ 90\ -;:/// Greg M. Larsen O� 1010 North Hillfield RD. #1 �� ,`Layton, Utah 84041 Clissold Investement Co. 1500 South Foothill Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 THE EIGHT COMMUNITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS 1 F-1 `-7 1 --� ,----1---1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 Ll 1 �, LJ1 I ~ 1 L�r 1 I �. -i CAPITOL HILL f Q INORTHWEST COALITION az AVENUES 1 4 I L 700 North 600 North 11 T •I m 1 -� �� .nn • In Um.l. N Ca �— 1-S0 , 100$culn I 1 L £ h i 3Qvt3 S L__- 4 # W � WEST SALT LAKE - 000 Soudl to . S..,nIEf Are / 900 South H _ 3/ CENTRAL Z IEASTBENCH 1 « r-l-71- „Calltarllla AY South 1 . r N , __Laza____—UV— N 1 L_ - _ 2100 South _ _ �--� ^�_�- - eA- SaRh _� SUGARHOUSE e 1 : i 3 L 1 1 ' 1 lS 1 1 _ BRICKYARD STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALLEY VACATION FEE WAIVER May 8, 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: This item is a legislative action recommended by the City Council last fall. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City owns a number of alleys. These alleys have outlived their usefulness, and the City has had the policy of vacating the alleys whenever possible, and turning the property over to the abutting property owners. To facilitate this, the City Council passed a resolution in 1982 waiving fees for alley vacations for a specified period of time. The time period was extended three times, for a time extending through June 30, 1985. It was then extended through June 30, 1986, but only for those petitions involving existing residential areas with 100 percent support from property owners. The $35 advertising fee was not waived under this circumstance. Further background information is included in the October 10 memo from me to the Council, which is attached. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION: While it is in the City's interest to relinquish the responsibility for alleyways, there is a cost to the City to conduct the process. In many cases, neighbors have been successful in contacting :all property owners except one or two. Particularly when residents are low income, Councilmembers have expressed concern that it is unfortunate that the $100 fee is required even though only one or two signatures can't be obtained. Rather than opening the door totally and waiving fees for all requested alley vacations, I recommend waiving the filing fee for only those alley vacations for which neighbors can obtain the consent of 80 percent or more of the property owners. This should address the problem of neighborhoods unable to get 100 percent of the signatures, while still encouraging the citizens to contact as many neighbors as possible. To simply waive the fee for all alley vacations could create a tremendous work load and cost to the City departments. Because newspaper advertising is required by law and requires an actual cash outlay by the City, I recommend that the advertising fee of $35 be charged, even if the $100 filing fee is waived. In summary, under this recommendation, the residents of neighborhood would have to pay nothing if they could get 100 percent of the signatures, since no advertising would then be required. They would need to pay $35 for advertising if they could get 80 percent of the signatures. If the Council agrees with this idea, a motion to approve it in concept would be in order. We could then have the ordinance revised and placed on your consent agenda in the very near future. If you do not support this idea, you can either select one of the three ordinances provided by the Attorneys Office, or simply elect not to support any of the proposals. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that we approve in concept adopting an ordinance waiving the petition filing fee but not the advertising fee on alley vacation requests for which the signatures of at least 80 percent of the property owners have been obtained. _r 1 SCAMA AN r Qj ll $IBM l i OFFICE-OF THE;CITY-COUNCIL SUITE 300, CITY HALL' r' 324 SOUTH STATE STREET,;,.m'' SALTLAKE_CITY -UTAH`8419 1 535-7600 October 10, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CYNDY GUST-JENSON V RE: LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEM POLICY A discussion regarding the use of Legislative Action items for vacating alleys is set for Thursday, October 12. You'll recall the discussion was requested at your September 5 Council meeting. While the staff has no recommendation on this, I am attempting in this memo to provide some information to facilitate your discussion. A. Attached for your information is the following: 1. A copy of the Council's informal policy on Legislative/Executive Branch Communication. 2. A copy of the Council's informal policy on Legislative Action items. 3. A copy of the City ordinance relating to petition fees. 4. A copy of the Resolution passed in 1982 which provided for a fee waiver. 5. Copies of the Resolutions which extend the time period for the fee waiver. B. You may wish to be aware of the following information as you prepare for your discussion: 1. A check of the fiscal year 1988-89 revenues indicates Community and Economic Development collected $2,300 from petition filing fees. Alley closure and vacation requests generated $700 and rezoning requests generated $1,600. 2. Allen Johnson indicates staff work for each alley vacation request takes between 8 and 30 staff hours. Simple alley vacations where all property owners agree take about eight hours in staff time. Where there is controversy involved, it can take up to 25 or 30 hours of staff time. 3. The $100 filing fee is waived when the Council requests an alley vacation, since the City's practice is not to charge the petition fee to other. City Departments and the Council. In addition to the $100 fee being waived, the $35 advertising fee is also waived. 4. Resolution number 80 of 1982 was extended three times, for a time period extending through June 30, 1985. It was then extended through June 30, 1986, but only for those petitions involving existing residential areas with 100 percent support from property owners. The $35 advertising fee was not waived under this circumstance. This 100 percent signature waiver provision expired June 30, 1986 but due to misunderstanding in the Administration, the deadline has not been adhered to. Now that the expiration of this provision has been brought to their attention, they may be writing to you to request that this option be continued. 5. Roger Cutler did express concern about the policy as it exists, since waiving the fee for one group and not another could create an equal protection problem for the City. = As indicated in discussion item number 4 below, if the Council wishes to maintain the existing policy in concept, you may wish to request input from the Attorneys Office as to any modifications that need to be made to ensure there are no potential legal problems with the policy. C. Based upon the discussion at your September 5 meeting, it appears the questions to be considered by the Council include: 1. Should the Council consider establishing by ordinance a period of time during which no fee would be charged to citizens who request alleys be vacated. 2. Should the Council consider establishing by ordinance a waiver for those citizen groups who have the consent of 100 percent of the abutting property owners? 3. Should the current policies and ordinance be maintained (The $100 petition fee and the $35 advertising fee to be waived when Council Members request action through the Legislative Action mechanism)? 4. If the current practice is to remain unchanged, should the Council policy be amended to stipulate that the wording of any Legislative Action Item should state that the fee will be waived, i.e. vacate xyz alley and waive the filing fee. Note: This was mentioned at the September 5 meeting. 5. If the current practice as it relates to the Council is to remain unchanged, should the Council request an opinion from the Attorney's Office to determine if any steps need to be taken to ensure there are no equal protection problems, i.e. add criteria? Depending on what action the Council takes, you may wish to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Council 's informal policy to clarify for the benefit future Councils what is agreed upon now . A draft could then be distributed to Council Members for further review and discussion as necessary. Ae mega) LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMUNICATION: POLICY: It is the informal policy of the Salt Lake City Council to conform to the guidelines for inter-governmental communication as set forth in the letter from Mayor Palmer DePaulis dated February 10, 1988. The intent of the guidelines is to provide the Council access to information and provide administrative assistance in resolving problems, yet minimize unintended influence of Council Members over administrative matters. PROCEDURE: 1. Minor Matters: When the information or action requested is of a minor matter, requiring minimal staff time or information available to the general public, the Council Member or staff will direct the request to the affected Department Head. • 2�. Significant Matters: When the information or action requested is of a significant matter, requiring considerable staff time or deals with a sensitive issue, the Council, as a whole, will submit the request in writing, signed by the Council Chairperson, to the Mayor. RESPONSIBILITIES: Council Members: It is the responsibility of the Council Member requesting the information or action to contact the impacted Department Head or to route the request through the Chairperson of the Council for submission to the Mayor. Council Chairperson: It is the responsibility of the Council Chairperson to receive requests for significant actions from Members of the City Council and present them to the rest of the Council. If the Council, by majority opinion, chooses to forward the request to the Mayor, the Chairperson will sign the letter requesting the information or action. Council Executive Director: Through interaction with the Council Members and the Administration the Executive Director is responsible for tracking the requests forwarded to the Departments and the Mayor's Office. The Executive Director will advise the Council Members on whether or not a request constitutes a minor or a significant matter, and will act as a contact person on any and all issues for the Members and the Administration. The Executive Director is also responsible for drafting correspondence requesting information or action and for follow-up on the same. IV - 2 M WO -0 LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEMS POLICY: It is the informal policy of the Council that Members may initiate legislation, rather than always being in the position of reacting to proposals from the administration. This policy is usually applied to land use and zoning issues which require review or development by the administration (e.g. , Planning Commission), but may be applied in other areas as well. PROCEDURE: Council Members wishing to initiate legislation should talk to the Executive Director about the goal of the legislation and how the Council Member would like to achieve that goal. The Executive Director will see that a Legislative Action Item is prepared and put on the agenda as expeditiously as possible. A Legislative Action Item requires a majority vote of the Council in a regularly scheduled meeting to refer the Item to the administration for development and review. I - 14 21.08.010 �-�: 21.08.030 Petition—Filing fee and 21.08.040 Petition—Referral to planning publication charge. commission. 21.08.040 Petition—Referral to planning Such petition, together with any protests commission. thereto, shall be referred to the planning and 21.08.050 Amending ordinances—Notice zoning commission for consideration and rec- of hearing. ommendation. The planning and zoning com- 21.08.060 Variance from submitted plans mission shall return such petition together with prohibited. its recommendation to the city council no later than thirty days after referral to it. (Prior code § 51-30-4) 21.08.010 City council powers to change zoning. 21.08.050 Amending ordinances—Notice of It is lawful for the city council from time to hearing. time as necessity may arise to change or modify . Before any ordinance shall be passed by the any regulation or restrictions with respect to zon- city council which makes any change or amend- ing or building or uses of land. (Prior code § ment to the zoning ordinance codified in this title, a public hearing shall be held by the city 51-30-1) council, of which notice shall be given to the public by at least one publication in a newspaper 21.08.020 Initiation of changes by petition. of general circulation within the city at Ieast fif- In each instance where any person shall desire teen days prior to such public hearing. (Prior to have such change made,petition shall be made code § 51-30-5) to the city council definitely setting out such request and particularizing the change desired. 21.08.060 Variance from submitted plans (Prior code § 51-30-2) prohibited. No material change in or departure from the text or maps as certified by the planning and 21.08.030 Petition—Filing fee and zoning commission shall be made after the pub- publication charge. lic hearing unless such change or departure shall At the time the petition is filed requesting be first resubmitted to the planning and zoning change with respect to zoning or building or uses commission for its consideration and recom- of land, as contemplated by this chapter, there mendation. (Prior code§ 51-30-6) shall be paid to the city treasurer a filing fee, as specified in Section 21.10.030, or its successor. Should a public hearing be required by law or Chapter 21.10 otherwise upon the change so petitioned for, the FEE SCHEDULE party petitioning shall pay to the city treasurer the additional fee as specified in Section Sections: 21.10.040, or its successor, for the purpose of 21.10.010 Purpose, imposition and defraying the cost of advertising such public collection of fees. hearing. The city recorder shall notify the peti- 21.10.020 Applications to board of tioner of such charge for advertising and shall not adjustment. proceed with the advertising until such charge 21.10.030 Zone changes. has been paid. (Prior code § 51-30-3) 21.10.040 City council hearings. 825 (Salt Lake City 1-88) 21.10.010 21.10.050 Requiring historical landmark 9. Other conditional uses 100.00 d1t. .. "`' committee approval. (Ord. 50-86 § 1 (part), 1986: prior code § - 21.10.060 Subdivision review. 51-34-1(1)) _r 21.10.070 Site development permit. 21.10.080 Condominium projects. 21.10.030 Zone changes. Fee for application to the planning 21.10.010 Purpose, imposition and collection commission for change of zoning of fees. (Section 21.08.030 or its successor) $100.00 To reimburse the city for planning services, (Ord. 50-86 § 1 (part), 1986: prior code § reviews and inspections, and to defray the city's 51-34-1(2)(a)) expenses involved with preparation, mailing and publication of notices, etc., fees are hereby 21.10.040 City council hearings. Fee for application to the planning 1�`�� imposed on the activities set out in this chapter. �Q 0\e'A which shall be charged by the city as specified in commission for public hearings scheduled before the city council this title and collected by the city treasurer. (Ord. 50-86§ 1 (part). 1986: prior code§ 51-34-1(part)) (due before date is set) (Section 21.08.030, or its successor) $100.00 (Ord. 50-86 § 1 (part), 1986: prior code 21.10.020 Applications to board of 51-34-1(2)(b)) § adjustment. Fees for applications to the board of adjust- 21.10.050 Requiring historical landmark ment(Section 21.06.050,or its successor)shall be committee approval. as follows: Fees for application to the planning commis- • . sion requiring historical landmark committee A. Request for variance $ 50.00 approval (Section 21.34.200. or its successor): B. Additions to nonconforming • single-family dwelling 30.00 A. New construction plans in his- C. Applications involving special toric district or upon landmark exceptions or conditional uses: site: 1. Parking lots in residential dis- 1. Single-family dwelling or tricts 100.00 duplex $ 25.00 `• 2. Group homes 100.00 2. Multiple-unit residential build- 3. Private recreational facilities 100.00 ings of three or more units, per 4. Public utilities in residential dis- unit 25.00 tricts 100.00 3. Nonresidential buildings . . . . 300.00 • 5. Planned unit development: 4. Demolition permit per primary a. Basic fee 200.00 building 100.00 b. Additional per-unit cost, 1-10 B. Remodeling N/A • units 25.00 (Amended during 1/88 supplement;Ord.50-86§ c. Additional per-unit cost for 1 (part), 1986: prior code § 51-34-1(2)(c)) each unit in excess of 10 10.00 6. Mobile home parks 200.00 21.10.060 Subdivision review. 7. Office in buildings on city, state Fees for application to the planning commis- or national registry 300.00 sion for subdivision review (Title 20 of the Salt 8. Fence heights 50.00 Lake City Code): \:_. (Salt Lake City 1-88) 826 , , IR_ RESOLUTION NO. 80 of 1942 Pr ilaohrno-1- 6) • , _ • ( Po. cy encouraging neighborhood petition` to vacate alleys - and 5 fee waiver qualifications) . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City -is concerned • about the deterioration, neglect, end adverse impac. of those. alleys 'presently dedicated fur public purposes in residential' neighborhoods where the alleys seldom now serve the purposes for • which they were originally intended; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to reaffirm and protect the . City's interest in its public streets, alleys or highways which have been dedicated for public purposes; but WHEREAS, ,the City Council has determined it is in the best interests of the City to encourage and vacate alleys in resi • - `F dential neighborhoods wherever the. alleys are not needed, where 4 V .8-, Vcation is practical, and shall eliminate adverse impacts; and Mbere abutting property owners join in' such vacation petitions; - f and • • WHEREAS, the City CoimcAi would like to encourage neighbor- hoods to' prepare and subsit. heighborhood-supported petitions V.s ', .: proposing practical soiuikiofis for .vacating`uhneetse-, y, alley ways K-- i to eliminate adverse impacts. upon'-the ns ighborhoods i and , .'i. �x-_+F *1tRBAA, ti T'_# ipliwtn i support, the City Coulieil is willing tox pravid an' incentive of waiving fees already . ' -aiaoviated. ti1 th 'the: process of reviewing and considering vacation ' }petiitiona' i�itta<d ,by- neighborhoods 'defiling solely with the i , Vacation .of all*yrtays` tot"'a period to extend until June 30, 19$3. . If • .,'ll�ii, lR FORE, RE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt _.,7,' LIkE-'.Cityi,13tsh1 S t` • 1. .''i'hat he city .Council ;of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby • reaf r! 4. Y 10tten`'and policies contained within Reeolutiox1 $9 of r197* 3, " - the .fo�°iWCity Commission of salt Lake 3 city+. _ %t , --,t '-'da_y of Ilayi 1978. This R.sE 1u# $ 1 l qy, 'process, and factors requiring ioll1 -IF '', .' + ;_ ;,ref to vacate the City's n _i _ .1 isd[+`. x.?. '- _ '4f: '. .�K'.rx.Y.Y. .x o� 'w.7°N . _._ E}h': - interests in public streets, alleys or higfiwa, . 2. That to T.ovide an incentive to enco a 'neighborhood- supported 9 9 supported petitions to alley vacation, the :ity Council -f Sa' t Lake City, Utah hereby adopts a special fee waiver policy. It is hereby resolved that all petitions requesting tha ,acation of a: leys in residential neighborhoods filed on or before June 30, 1983, shall qualify for a special waiver- of the filing fees ( $100) , but will not Ipply to a waiver of advertising fees which • may be imposed, should a public hearing be required during the review process. (This waiver extends only to those petitions solely involving the vacation of alleyways in residential neighborhoods and shall not apply to any other petitions involving the vacation of alleys within commercial areas nor the vacation and/or closure of streets, etc. ) All filing or other - related fees involved with the process of consiiering a petition or request for vacation and/or closure of. public ways, Streets, 4. or thoroughfares, including filing, , ad+•ertisin;, deed A- preparation, etc. , shall remain in' full effect for petitions which do not qualify for the waiver. Said fees will also be • applicable to any petitions that are not completed and filed with. the City on or before June 30, 1982 . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, t; thin 7th day r. f 3Pt.1r , 1982. • . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL z,,, "11111416 n nnes eck, hairman A'A,,,t_skL`,!� e 3.'-e2 mot, ..+1 /% /,flail - `, r_ r _, h n 'ii1e *ad Qrant .abey ..s., 4 ei.,,, ,L,,,_„, , , . ,,. almer aul is ce carer :4. lY f 40 i . ..i,- 1. - /+'�/'T/'� �" A Y $ war ar er ti� El . . • ' . ' . . . 'ATTEST: — • - • / 1 . , „ ( . . . •`)Transm i tted to Mayor on Septaather7. 8 2 --- • Mayor 's Action: . • , ; i . ..,*•i /, • ...e.i .' . -; .ATTEST: ' ... ' . • • • . . - (_. /1;,- . ....... of . • • .: 1 • C , • . -. - :I • . • . . ,..,.. • ••.-', . ( SEAL ) . .. . . . • • :s.;„.--.T • . . _. • . •...-_,. • • .• „..... ...- . =:- . - . = , :..,,,,f-ki:,,,,,..7-.. • • - . -•.,••-,,. ..,-,......:•.- • • . w-, -,..:....„,„ • . . _ , "tf--•!. . - t. . . --- . . .4- . . .. :-•• ' - ,r,_ ,. • ':••••., I-41,54-•ri-' • . I ••-e C;; •11:‘•.:**-• . . . - ., . - It':0,-.''-.,•:i. i',' •6r.f.---,z. • . . . , • • . _ .,- ' - •• •,-.- • z i 1 . • -,•! f•..f-t ,--'..,,: • • , . • . • . ':'. ., 4. r, ,. '.. , , pitGclhav'i s a3 f2-( RESOLUTION NO. 55 OF 1983 (Amending Resolution No. 80 of 1982 by extending deadline for waiver of fee for filing alley vacation petitions. ) WHEREAS, The City Council of Salt Lake City on September 7, 1982 passed Resolution No. 80 of 1982 to encourage neighborhoods to prepare and submit neighborhood-supported petitions proposing practical solutions for vacating unnecessary alley ways; and WHEREAS, a number of unnecessary alley ways have been vacated under the terms of Resolution No. 80 of 1982; and WHEREAS, residents are still expressing interest in alley vacations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City wishes to accom- modate residents preparing petitions for vacating unnecessary alley ways; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 80 of 1982 provided an incentive for alley vacation through a special fee waiver policy effective through June 30, 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. That the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, does herr:by reaffirm the resolution and policies contained within Resolution No. 80 of 1982. 2. That the City Council of Salt Lake City does hereby extend the special fee waiver policy through September 1, 1983. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 7th day of June, 1983. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL BY rant Mabey, Chai man 4:)-Lt.= 0 Ronald J. itehead Sy.ne ,R. nn c a 44 almer DePaulis Alice earer ef4,10Aiee°'44E)- 6--.026.A__— I4ne M. Davis Edward W. Parker Transmitted to Mayor on June 7, 1983 Mayor's Action: June 7, 1983 May ATTEST: City ecor R 82-18 RESOLUTION NO. 87 OF 1983 (Amending Resolution No. 55 of 1983 by extending deadline for waiver of fee for filing alley vacation petitions. ) WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City on September 7, 1982 passed Resolution No. 80 of 1982 to encourage neighborhoods to prepare and submit neighborhood-supported petitions proposing practical solutions for vacating unnecessary alley ways; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 80 of 1982 provided an incentive for alley vacation through a special fee waiver policy effective through June 30, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 55 of 1983 extending the deadline for waiver of fees associated with alley vacations through September 1, 1983; and WHEREAS, residents are still expressing interest in alley vacations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City wishes to accom- modate residents preparing petitions for vacating unnecessary alley ways; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . That the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, does hereby reaffirm the policies contained in Resolution No. 80 of 1982 and Resolution No. 55 of 1983. 2. That the City Council of Salt Lake City does hereby extend the special fee waiver policy through June 30, 1984. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this 18th day of October, 1983. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By / ran Mabe `t rma y� ►Y ATTEST: 41.0) CITY/RECORDER 82 R-18 kEt R 84-1 RESOLUTION NO. 96 OF 1984 (Amending Resolution No. 87 of 1983 by extending deadline for waiver of fee for filing alley vacation petitions.) WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City on September 7, 1982 passed Resolution No. 80 of 1982 to encourage neighborhoods to prepare and submit neighborhood-supported petitions proposing practical solutions for vacating unnecessary alley ways; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 80 of 1982 provided an incentive for alley vacation through a special fee waiver policy effective through June 30, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 55 of 1983 and Resolution No. 87 of 1983 extending the deadline for waiver of fees associated with alley vacations through June 30, 1984; and WHEREAS, residents are still expressing interest in alley vacations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City wishes to accom- modate residents preparing petitions for vacating unnecessary alley ways; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. That the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah does hereby reaffirm the policies contained in Resolution No. 80 of 1982, Resolution No. 55 of 1983, and Resolution No. 87 of 1983. 2. That the City Council of Salt Lake City does hereby extend the special fee waiver policy through June 30, 1985. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of September, 1984. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By ✓\ i,CJ�,�,�. 1• Ronald J. itehead, Chairman • � ATTEST: 7fr)1(1) 4:6-1141.7 Ka hry-n. I arshall, City Recorder ($'B A L) Resolution 96 of 1984 R 85-1 R. 85-9 RESOLUTION NO. 126 of 1985 (AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96 OF 1985 BY EXTENDING WAIVER OF FILING FEE FOR CERTAIN ALLEY VACATION PETITIONS ) WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City on September 7, 1982, passed Resolution No. 80 of 1982 to encourage preparation and submission of neighborhood supported petitions proposing practical solutions for vacating unnecessary alleyways ; and WHEREAS, as part of said Resolution, the Council agreed , as an incentive , to waive filing fees for vacation petitions through June 30, 1983, which period has been extended to June 30, 1985, by Resolution Nos. 55 and 87 of 1983, and No. 96 of 1984 ; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to continue to encourage vacation of alleys where it is appropriate , but desires to limit its financial incentive and subsidy to those petitions involving residential neighborhoods which bear the unanimous support of abutting property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that the policy waiving filing of petitions seeking vacation or closure of alleys or portions thereof shall be extended to June 30, 1986, but only for those petitions involving existing residential areas which bear the written consent of 100% of the abutting property owners of record. BY • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 1st day of October , 1985. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: TY RECORDER rc10 -2- MIKE ZUHL SALE :1 . aITYP lJ,flYO Dale Ii,r �1 LEE KING +r.s v-a.:m .cab.— �- .a`a- w� vr�,.sv�®.ava�w�-3i INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council March 20, 1990 Re: Petition No. 400-778 Legislative Action Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Legislative Action to waive the fee for alley vacations in residential areas. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The City is supportive of alley vacations. We realize that many alleys in the City are not maintained, are a haven for illegal activities and are dumping grounds for garbage. It has been the City's informal policy to waive the fee for any request that has the signatures of 100% of the abutting property owners and we still support that policy as the best solution. By requiring the $100.00 filing fee it is an incentive for the owners to contact their neighbors and discuss all options together, this of course does make the City's job easier. There are some occasions where a property owner cannot be contacted or for some reason will not sign the petition. However, if there is no incentive to contact your neighbors, will requests come in where no other neighbor has been contacted and their first contact with the alley vacation idea is a notice from Salt Lake City inviting them to the public hearing. This will add to the length of the public hearings because it will be the owners first opportunity to moot and discuss this issue. We are also recommending that a new application form be adopted that would make the petitioner responsible to provide information required to evaluate and process the request. This form is similar to the one we require on street name changes. It will still be necessary for the staff to review and verify the accuracy of the information provided, however, staff time should be reduced significantly. . - 11 Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared three ordinances 1) waives the fee for residential alley requests 2) waives the fee for residential alley requests on a temporary basis and 3) waives the fees for alley requests who have 100% of the abutting property owners signatures. mitted by: CHAEL B. Z Interim Direct lf/ ROGER F. CUTLER Sll� ' • �3 CITY"CORPORATLON CITY ATTORNEY ~ `~��.rw �• „d gr.sa's�y ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS LAW DEPARTMENT RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED GREG R. HAWKINS OEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LARRY V. SPENDLOVE CHERYL D. LUKE BRUCE R. BAIRD 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA FAX (801) 535-7640 GLEN A. COOK JANICE L. FROST MEMORANDUM TO: LuAnn Fawcett Development Services FROM: Bruce R. Baird , � r Assistant City Attorney pi DATE: March 8, 1990 RE: Residential Alley Vacations We already had two versions of the ordinance waiving residential alley vacation fees . One was a temporary one for a time to be specified and the other was permanent. This third version is a permanent waiver only in the event of 100% consent. If you want, or the Council wants , I can add this 100% requirement to the temporary ordinance. I have stamped all three ordinances so the Council can take their pick. If you have any questions , just let me know. BRB:ap SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Adding Section 21 . 10 . 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 .10 .090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows : 21.10.090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts where 100 % consent of the abutting property owners has been obtained shall not be required to pay any filing fees or advertising fees for the petition. SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:ap -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Adding Section 21 . 10 .090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 . 10 . 090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows: 21. 10.090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts shall not be required to pay any filing fees or advertising fees for the petition. SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,_ Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -2- • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Adding Section 21 . 10 . 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 . 10. 090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows: 21.10.090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts shall not be required to pay any filing fees or advertising fees for the petition. The fee waiver provided by this section shall be in effect only from , 19 to 19 . SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect -- immediately upon` its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc rh DApirivtT SAfIi' CITY' a @R ®61�tl, L�� PALMER DEPAULIS ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP ern-1*d caK.vm• 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 February 28, 1990 Mike Zhul, Director Community & Economic Development City & County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-778 - Legislative Action, Alley Fee Waiver in Residential Zones Dear Mike: Attached please find Petition 400-778 a Legislative Action from the City Council requesting that the Planning Commission review an ordinance providing for the waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential areas. It has been City policy to vacate alleys whenever such vacations would not create new problems or compound existing ones; such as: creating dead end situations which restrict or cause hazards for emergency vehicle access, or removing needed access for abutting property owners. It has also been an informal policy that if the person submitting the alley vacation request has the signatures of 100% of the abutting property owners on the petition the filing fee is waived. Alley vacation requests require the involvement of many City Departments. Through the review process of this Legislative Action several City departments have been requested to provide an approximate cost for reviewing alley vacation requests and also 'to provide comments on waiving the fee for alley vacation requests in residential zones. The departments who have provided comments have expressed concern at the loss of revenue (as small as it is) to cover the cost of time and personnel for reviewing and dealing with alley vacation requests. As you can see from the attached cost sheet, the present $100.00 filing fee does not come close to covering the City's cost in handling such requests. Page 2 Mike Zhul February 28, 1990 Re: Petition 400-778 - Legislative Action, Alley Fee Waiver in Residential Zones Based on these comments and in keeping with established City policy, I would recommend the following: - add to the proposed ordinance language which will cover the condition that if 100% of the abutting property owners sign the petition requesting an alley vacation in a residential zone, no filing fee or advertising fee will be charged; - establish an application process where the petitioner will be responsible for providing the information required to evaluate and process the request (see attached form) . It will still be necessary for staff to review and verify the accuracy of the information provided for such requests, however, staff time should be reduced significantly. If you need additional information, please contact me. Sincerel , ,/T AlleC. ohnson, AICP Pla in Director ACJ:jj ALLEY VACTION PETITION REVIEW PROCESS COSTS COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - administration and petition preparation $ 40.00 ATTORNEY - ordinance preparation and clerical work $ 45.00 ENGINEERING - research, correspondence and data base change $ 80.00 FIRE - administration and field check $113.00 PLANNING - administration, coordination of review process, $160.00 Planning Commission and City Council meetings (approximately 8 hrs. @ $20.00/hr. ) PUBLIC UTILITIES -' administration and clerical $ 40.00 REAL PROPERTY - administration and research $ 50.00 RECORDER - ordinance, notice and staff time $165.00 TRANSPORTATION - administration and field check $ 51.00 TOTAL $744. 0 RESIDENTIAL ALLEY VACATION REQUEST APPLICATION RDA Date: / / Petitioner's Name: Petitioner's Address: Zip Petitioner's Phone: Property Owner's Name (if different from above) : Property Address (if different from above) : Zip Please submit the following information with this application: 1. Identify the reasons why the alley should be vacated. 2. Submit with this application signatures of the abutting property owners who support this alley vacation request. 3. A legal description of the alley vacation area. 4. A copy of the appropriate Salt Lake County Ownership Map ("Sidwell") including aerial photo and property line overlay. Outline on this map the alley or segment of alley requested to be vacated with a colored marker. Indicate on the "Sidwell" map with a colored dot those properties supporting this request. These maps are available from the Salt Lake County Recorder, Room N1600, 2001 South State Strcct, Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1051, Phone: (801) 468-3391. WHERE TO FILE Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development Room 418 City and County Building 451 South State Strcct Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 535-7777 FILING rr $100.00 SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER DATE • - e ALLEY VAC.ATICN/CLOSURE REQUEST Sr GENERAL MR ORMATI N An alley vacation/Closure is a process where Salt Lake City officially ends the right of the public to unrestricted access to the alley, and allows the City to then dispose of it's real property interest to the abutting property owners subject to various conditions and fees. Generally, an alley vaction is for areas with residential zoning and the • request comes from the residential property owner(s) . If an alley vaction request is approved, property transfers are generally made at no cost to abutting property owners by the City Recorder's office recording with the County Recorder the City ordinance vacating the alley. An alley closure is for an areas with commercial zoning and the request comes from the commercial property owner(s) . If an alley closure request is approved, property is offered for sale at fair market value to the abutting property owners. The property owner(s) are responsible for obtaining a property appraisal and for recording the property dccd with the County Recorder. City departmental review for Alley vacation/closure requests include Community and Economic Development, City Attorney, Public Works, Finance, Public Utilities and Fire. SAIjr I AG1TY Gy RP®;RAT;IO�T" DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 LINDA HAMILTON SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAYOR (801) 535-7676 MEMORANDUM TO: Janice Jardine, Planning and Zoning FROM: Linda Hamilton, Director of Finance ;! DATE: December 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Waiving Alley Vacation Foe The Department of Finance would like to express concern over the proposed ordinance waiving the $100 alley vacation fee, even though the waiver is for residential areas only. While the intent of the legislation may be well meaning, it should be pointed out that the current fee does not cover the current cost of processing vacation petitions. The Finance Department Property Management Division incurs costs of $50 on routine petitions alone. Transportation, Engineering, Planning and Zoning and Fire Department must also review and process such petitions, and obviously incur similar costs. The concept of charging foes for services is most appropriately used when those who pay the fcc directly and nearly exclusively benefit from the services provided. Petitioners are the direct beneficiaries of alley vacations. Property is typically deeded to them and thereby increases the value of the petitioners' private property. Waiving the current fcc of $100 (which is likely insufficient to cover processing costs) will simply require a subsidy of other general fund tax revenues for the direct and exclusive benefit of petitioners. • la&9 SAL?' r 'c GIT�Y1'CUM° ,ION; FINANCE DEPARTMENT LINDA HAMILTON Purchasing and Property Management Division PALM ER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR ROOM 345 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 PROPERTY (801) 535-7133 December 15, 1989 • TO: Janice Jardine Planning FROM: Linda Cordova U" Property Manager REF: ALLEY VACATION FEE WAIVER When Property Management receives requests to review petitions, we will always tour the site and research plat maps and County and/or City records before submitting our recommendation. If it does not require a great deal of research, our time and costs would run an average of 3-4 hours or $48.00 - $52.00 to process. If it requires extensive research it may take another two hours to process. It isn't economically feasible for departments to spend a great deal of time researching and processing the petitions if we re not going to require a fee. Therefore, consideration should be given as to how to reduce the review process if the fee is going to be waived. I hope this is helpful in making the decision. LC/mt Jardine.Waiver RECORDER'S OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS REGARDING ALLEY VACATIONS Notice of Hearing: $113.00 Ordinance: 21 . 00 Staff Time: Publishing 3 .05 15 min. @ $12. 18/hr. Council Meetings 7. 27 average 30 min. @ $14. 54/hr. Minutes 14. 54 average 60 min. @ $14 . 54/hr. Send Notice of Hearing 1 . 91 15 min. @ $7 . 63/hr. Prepare and Index File 3. 64 15 min. @ $14. 54/hr. TOTAL $164. 41 Figures are based on averages . JOSEPH R. ANDERSON S m LUU,�;,�� ,,CITY G�,ORPORATIONs TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 201 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6630 December 15, 1989 Janice Jardine Planning & Zoning City Hall RE: Petition No. 400-778 - Alley Vacation Fee Waiver Dear Janice: The Division of Transportation is not in favor of the petition for the waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential areas. There are costs involved to the city when an alley vacation is processed. For alley vacation, approval is required of abutting property owners . The fee could be minimal if all affected property owners would participate in the cost. The fee may prevent people without unanimous support of abutting property owners from filing. The procedure for an alley vacation review by the Division of Transportation is as follows: Receive vacation request and assign investigation. Perform field inspection and assess transportation impact. Coordinate and write division response. Follow up outcome and file field review if requested. The petition review requires approximately two hours administrative time and one hour field work at an appropriate' cost of $51. 00 . Sincerely, J4I id11-14 ' Scott R. Vaterlaus Traffic Engineer I SRV/lh cc: Tim Harpst Steve Meyer" Barry Walsh ! 6 ;-,U9 PALMER DEPAULIS SAL •q GITYr GORP 3 RATION` �_�,� �� ��� 9 �.� `�� ., ,.d.� nd.�.� MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR 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: CHERYL SLAYMAKER, ENGINEERING DATE: DECEMBER 21 , 1989 SUBJECT: WAIVING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS This department has reviewed Petition #400-778 requesting an ordinance providing for thr waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts . This department recommends approval adopting this ordinance as a public service and in the best interest of the City. Please find listed below estimated costs from this department for processing alley vacations . Research 2 hours = $40 . 00 Correspondence 1 hour = $20 . 00 Data Base Charges 1 hour = $20 . 00 If you have any questions , please call me at 535-6247. CS : cp cc : Vault SALT LAKE CITY FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU TO: Janice Jardine Planning Commission E J FROM: Blaine Collins 1 Plan Review/Inspector . RE: Alley vacation petition costs DATE: December 15, 1989 The break down of costs involving fire department personal required to evaluate an alley vacation petition. 1 F.P.B. inspector 1 hour $50.00 1 Engine crew/with one captain and three firefighters 1/4 hour $62.50 Total $112.50 • • LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. SALT'LA\ P 0 RATIONS SUPERINTENDENT .wkaanvs WATER SUPPLY S WATERWORKS 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 S 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: DECEMBER 19, 1989 SUBJECT: ALLEY VACATIONN FEE WAVIER 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 q3 MIKE ZUHL SAL J_/AKE CITY CORPORATION LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council March 20, 1990 Re: Zoning Amendment - Airport Chapter Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 8, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss the Airport's request to amend Section 21.76.080 and 21.76.120 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to airport zoning and height restrictions. Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Background and Discussion: This amendment will bring the height limitation slope ratios for two runway approach zones into compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. This change will allow a steeper approach slope which allows a higher height limit closer to the runway. Basically the modification would be: Section 21.76.080 - "Utility runway visual approach zone" slope ratio from a 40" horizontal to 20' horizontal while the 1' vertical remaining the same. Section 21.76.120 - "precision instrument runway approach zone" slope ratio from a 100' horizontal to 50' horizontal while the 1' vertical remains the same. The Planning Commission has reviewed this amendment and recommends approval. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Su mitted by: M L B. Za terim Director lf/ SALT`LAKF CITY CORPORATION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP - - - PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STRELT ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 March 16, 1990 TELEPHONE 535-7757 Mike Zuhl , Director Community and Economic Development City and County Building Salt Lake City , UT 84111 Re : Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Airport Chapter Dear Mike : Attached please find copies of an ordinance amending Sec . 21. 76 . 080 and 21 . 76 . 120 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to airport zoning and height regulations . This amendment to the zoning ordinance will bring the height limitation slope ratios for two runway approach zones into compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. Simply put, this change will allow a steeper approach slope which allows a higher height limit closer to the runway. Basically , the modification would change : A. Sec . 21 . 76 . 080 - "utility runway visual approach zone" slope ratio from a 40 ' horizontal to 20 ' horizontal while the 1 ' vertical remains the same . B. Sec . 21 . 76 . 120 - "precision instrument runway approach zone" slope ratio from a 100 ' horizontal to 50 ' horizontal while the 1 ' vertical remains the same . The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment at their regular meeting , March 15, 1990 , I'he Commission voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text modification to Sec . 21 . 76 . 080 and Sec . 21 . 76. 120 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with airport zoning and height regulations . Sinc idly, Alleen"C. ohnson , AICP Planning Di rector SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AIRPORT AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR ZONING TEXT MODIFICATION OVERVIEW and BACKGROUND Thisis a requesi fro s: rall Cily Autherity amend Sec. 21 . 7(, . 0O0 and n . :). ! 76. 120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance which ! fl ! aLn' loH rpor t zoning and height regulations. ANALYSIS This amendment Lc) thn ' NJ lrinu the height limitation slope raLic.,:. 1 r L- , un; ay anprflach /ones, inte compliance wiih Tede! alfeiI 0 onl Tilatir,nn 10a- 1 77 . Simply put, this change will - steeper apploach s ! ,--)pe which alloY a higher height !. i ':1111 H Basically, the rrodificl ten ..seuld change: A. Sec. 21 , 76 . 000 visual approach zone" slope ratio from (-1 40 1.:,rizonial 10 20 horizontal while the 1 " vertical remains the n0:- 0. B. Sec. 21 . 7(). 120 "p1 (` ii-ini ! nfcrit !airway approach zone" slope L- tiO He a leO ' huri /oalal to hnti70otal while the I vertical FeTains RECOMMENDATION Staff tecommends rr,com7.:end to the City Council appreval 1_ irepnsed 1 (,y1 ;-.,edilication to Sec. 21 . 76. 080 and Sec. 21 . 7C) . lhe /dHn (adinance which deals with airport Z011ig(1 rind haid,h1 Janice N. Jardine [larch, 1990 EFFECT OF SLOPE RATIO CHANGE HEIGHT UMITATION NEW RATIO . EMSTING RATIO - . . DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY vAKF Cif BOARD Elaine B. Weis, Chair PALMER A. DEPAULIS, Mayor Curtis E.Ackerlind,Jr. • J.Alan Blodgett • Don A.Mackey - ti LOUIS E. MILLER Eddie P. Mayne • Joseph Rosenblatt Director of Airports Patrick A. Shea • Thomas K. Welch ' tAJ January 29, 1990 Alan Hardman, Chairperson and Salt Lake City Council City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Chairperson Hardman and Council Members: Subject: An ordinance amending Section 21 .76.080 and 21 . 176. 120 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations. Fiscal Impact: None Discussion: Salt Lake City Code currently defines visual approach zone slopes in a forty foot horizontal for each one foot vertical ratio. This height limitation slope is not consistent with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, which provides for a twenty to one slope ratio. Although runway visual approaches are currently consistent with FAR 77, the requested ordinance change is to have City Code conform with federal requirements. Recommendation: It is respectfully requested that the Council approve the Ordinance amending Section 21.76.080, Salt Lake City Code, and thereby authorizing Mayor signature. Respect , lly submitted, 2 G ouis E. Miller Fnclosure Salt Lake City Airport Authority • ANMF Box 22084, Salt Lake City. Utah 84122• (801) 575-2400•Telefax: (301) 575-2679 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.76 .080 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 .76 . 080 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations, be, and the same is hereby amended as follows: 21.76.080 Utility runway visual approach zone-Height limitation. The height limitation in a utility runway visual approach zone slopes upward [forty] twenty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of fie thousand feet along the extended runway centerline. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on 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:ap �, 4 - .� m. i / .. -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 76 . 080 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 76 . 080 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations , be, and the same is hereby amended as follows : 21 .76 . 080 Utility runway visual approach zone-Height limitation. The height limitation in a utility runway visual approach zone slopes upward twenty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of fie thousand feet along the extended runway centerline. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect on 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:a p -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 .76 .120 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 .76 . 120 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations, be, and the same is hereby amended as follows: 21.76.120 Precision instrument runway approach zone- Height limitation. The height limitation in a precision runway approach zone slopes upward [one hundred] fifty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of ten thousand feet along the extended runway centerline; and thence slopes upward forty feet horizontally for each foot vertically to an additional distance of forty thousand feet along the extended runway centerline . SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect on 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:ap -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1990 (Airport Zoning and Height Regulations ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 76 . 120 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO AIRPORT ZONING AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah : SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 76 . 120 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to airport zoning and height regulations , be, and the same is hereby amended as follows : 21 .76 . 120 Precision instrument runway approach zone- Height limitation. The height limitation in a precision runway approach zone slopes upward fifty feet horizontally for each foot vertically, beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface, and extends to a horizontal distance of ten thousand feet along the extended runway centerline; and thence slopes upward forty feet horizontally for each foot vertically to an additional distance of forty thousand feet along the extended runway centerline . SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect on 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: ap -2-