Loading...
11/20/1990 - Minutes (2) • • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Briefing Session on Tuesday, November 20, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale The following Council Member was absent: Wayne Horrocks Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting. Councilmember Hardman called inspected the buildings to some the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. degree. He said the City had handled the Salt Palace and a REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR couple of the other facilities. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Councilmember Pace asked about Council Director, said there would Item D-2 allowing the return of be no invocation tonight. radio Channel No. 3 to the city. She asked how a mistake could be She said Rick Thrasher of Utah made to give a radio frequency Economic Development Corporation away and about federal regulations (UEDC) would be at the Council for licensing a frequency. Chief Meeting to present a glass etching Sargent said there were federal to the Mayor and City Council regulations. Chief Sargent said Members regarding the Fortune there was no one to blame for the Magazine. mistake. He said the city was trying to come to some agreement Ms. Gust-Jenson said on the with the county. Councilmember Consent Agenda there were two Pace asked if it was difficult for items relating to the Fire the county to obtain another Department. She said Chief Sargent frequency. Chief Sargent said it was present if the Council had any was possible to obtain another questions on items D-1 or D-2. frequency. Councilmember Kirk asked if this was governed by the Councilmember Hardman said the FCC. Chief Sargent said it was. He city did not charge the county for said it was the city's channel, inspections to county-owned but over a period of years it had facilities located within Salt evolved into a situation where the Lake City limits. Chief Sargent city's channel had become the said these facilities were county's primary dispatch protected by the city. He said the frequency. agreement would give the inspections to the Fire Marshall Councilmember Pace asked if to enforce. Councilmember Hardman this was costing the city asked if the city had inspected anything. Chief Sargent said it the buildings in the past. Chief was not. He said the county had to Sargent said the city had reapply for a new frequency. 90-354 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 Councilmember Pace asked if in the Hardman said the owners of a house interim the county would continue at 18 South 435 East wanted to to use Channel 3. Chief Sargent tear down the house and plant a said the city would receive garden. He said the ordinance Channel 3 soon. He said the county called for relandscaping with sod had some other channels they could and sprinklers. He said these use. people tore down the house to plant a garden. Councilmember Ms. Gust-Jenson said in Item Hardman said the ordinance did not E-1 there was an error in the allow someone to make two date. She said a motion needed to properties into one. He asked if be made to change the date to the ordinance being considered December 11, 1990, at 6:50 p.m. allowed this to be done. She said Dick Fox was present Brent Wilde, Planning and to answer any questions on Item F- Zoning, said he did not think the 1, the Utah Municipal Finance ordinance addressed it in those Cooperative resolution. terms. Councilmember Hardman said he did not want to adopt the She said Item G-1, the ordinance if it did not allow for demolition ordinance, Salt Lake some alternate landscaping other Area Community Councils (SLACC) than sod or sprinklers. Mr. Wilde had recommended earmarking the said the old ordinance had three revenue from the demolition components; (1) a sprinkling permits warehouse and preservation system plan, (2) a landscaping fund. She said the Finance theme of one type or another, and Department was opposed to this (3) a bond to ensure maintenance. because each department would like Councilmember Hardman said the new to have their revenue earmarked. ordinance did not mention this Councilmember Godfrey suggested issue. Mr. Wilde said it did not. the Council listen to the information presented at the Councilmember Hardman said the public hearing. He said if the city wanted to encourage open information got too complicated, space and was too restrictive with he might make a motion to table sod and sprinklers. Councilmember the ordinance until the staff had Pace said the ordinance said an a chance to look the item over and approved landscape plan. respond back to the Council. Councilmember Hardman said it specifically mentioned sod and Ms. Gust-Jenson said the sprinklers. He asked if people demolition hearing had been could get around the landscaping continued so there would be no ordinance by buying the house next briefing. Councilmember Godfrey door, going to the county to make said if Roger Evans, Director of the two lots into one, fencing Building and Housing, was going to around the other house, and then be present, everyone needed to saying they owned the two lots. hear his briefing. Mr. Wright said the city did not want to demolish a home until it Lee King, Community and had gone through the system. Economic Development, said some Councilmember Hardman wanted the people wanted the city to enforce ordinance to allow for open space. the ordinance as it was going to be passed and some wanted the old Councilmember Godfrey said ordinance to apply. Councilmember the Council had to discuss this 90-355 • i PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 ordinance in a Committee of the p.m. the Geographic Information Whole Meeting. System (GIS) would give a presentation to the Council. She Ms. Gust-Jenson said that said GIS would set up the Everett Joyce, from Planning and equipment across the street at the Zoning, was present to answer any Engineering Department and questions on G-2 and G-3, barbed everyone interested was invited. wire fences and handicapped uses. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Ms. Gust-Jenson said she had Council had been asked to come up some other announcements. She said with someone to greet thirty there would be a Committee of the Soviet students for ten to fifteen Whole following the Regular minutes on Monday, December 3rd at Council meeting. She said one item 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. She said it on the Committee of the Whole was to inform them of city agenda was the Olympic bid book government and to answer any which would be presented by Robin questions they might have. Wagge and Michael D. Gallivan. Councilmember Pace said she could meet at 10:30 a.m. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Ms. Wagge had asked her if the Council would The meeting adjourned at 5:30 like a briefing on the Olympics p.m. every two weeks. Councilmember Whitehead said he thought once a month would be appropriate for the first three or four months and then more often as the Olympics got closer. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Ms. Wagge would keep the members informed of other things. The Council Members said they wanted monthly meetings. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Legislative Reception was next Tuesday at 5:30. She said there would be light refreshments and tours of the building. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the December 4, 1990, Regular Council meeting had been cancelled because of the Leagues of Cities and Towns. She said only two Council Members would be out of town that night and asked the Council if they still wanted to cancel the meeting. The Council Members wanted to cancel it. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Committee of the Whole on December 6, 1990, would be a big meeting. She said on December 6th at 4:00 90-356 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Regular Session on Tuesday, November 20, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale The following Council Member was absent: Wayne Horrocks Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and Councilmember Kirk conducted the meeting. #1. There was no invocation resident industries that while the given. city had some challenges, Salt Lake City was a good place to be. #2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance. He said last week when the UEDC Board met, he asked for their #3. Councilmember Godfrey approval on a resolution moved and Councilmember Hardman commending Salt Lake City for the seconded to approve the minutes of support given to the UEDC. He read the Salt Lake City Council for the the resolution. Mr. Thrasher regular meeting held Tuesday, presented an award to Mayor November 13, 1990, which motion DePaulis and each Council Member. carried, all members present voted He said some of the thanks should aye. also go to two staff members; Lynn (M 90-1) Zimmerman and Jill Remington. He presented them with an award also. #4. A presentation by Rick He explained the results of the Thrasher, Utah Economic September 30 employment graph. Development Corporation (UEDC) (Copy of graph attached.) regarding the recent Fortune Magazine article. He said Salt Lake County was ahead of a trend established Rick Thrasher said Salt Lake earlier in the decade and what the City and the entire metropolitan UEDC thought could happen. He said area was judged by Fortune the County was at 375.6 thousand Magazine to represent the best employees as of September 30, business climate in the country. 1990. He said if national and He said at least forty people were international economies held up directly involved in meeting with and interest rates did not go to the author and the photographer of high, at the current rate UEDC the article. He said this article would reach the five year goal of had brought Salt Lake City a lot 44,000 jobs in 3 1/2 to 4 years. of publicity and more opportunities in terms of Councilmember Godfrey asked attracting business. He said it what kind of reaction the city would also convince some of the could expect from the article. Mr. 90-357 PROCIRINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 Thrasher said the article had not #1. RE: Adopting Resolution increased the number of clients, 113 of 1990, authorizing the but had given the city a degree of approval of an Interlocal credibility. Councilmember Pace Cooperation Agreement between Salt asked if the number of inquiries Lake City Corporation and Salt had increased. Mr. Thrasher said Lake County providing for Salt they had not, but it had opened Lake City to perform fire more doors in terms of trying to inspections on County owned generate more clients. facilities within Salt Lake City's boundaries. COMMENTS (C 90-665) Faye Nichols, Chairperson for #2. RE: Adopting Resolution the People's Freeway Community 114 of 1990, authorizing the Council, said last Wednesday the approval of an Interlocal Community Council met with several Cooperation Agreement between Salt of the merchants on State Street. Lake City Corporation and Salt She said they presented the Lake County allowing for the proposed State Street Master Plan. return to the City of radio She said the owners were concerned Channel No. 3 and allowing for the about social problems and wanted sole licensing on that frequency these problems corrected before by the City. the city laid any new sidewalks. (C 90-708) She asked what direction the Community Council should take to #3. RE: Adopting Resolution solve this problem. 115 of 1990, authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Mayor Depaulis said the Cooperation Agreement between Salt merchants were talking about 900 Lake City Corporation and the Utah South and State Street by the Fred Department of Transportation Meyer Store. He said there were regarding the terms and conditions some taverns in the area which had under which an exchange of snow posed problems in the past. He removal will be accomplished. said the Police Department had (C 90-676) worked on an enforcement issue there. Mayor DePaulis said this #4. RE: Setting a date for problem should come before the December 11, 1990, at 6:40 p.m. to city. He said the city had hold a public hearing to discuss monitored some other concerns for Budget Amendment No. 2. the merchants in the area. He said (0 90-48) he would take the information and have the city staff give him some #5. RE: Adopting Ordinance 92 direction on how to solve this OF 1990, amending certain sections problem. He said the city could of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing meet with the merchants. with contracting for professional services. CONSENT AGENDA (0 90-48) ACTION: Councilmember Hale NEW BUSINESS moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the Consent #1. RE: Setting date of Agenda, which motion carried, all December 18, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. to members present voted aye. accept public comment and consider adopting a petition requesting 90-358 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 that Salt Lake City change the Councilmember Godfrey moved liquor district at 5151 West Wiley and Councilmember Hardman seconded Post Way from District C to to refer the demolition ordinance District A and extend the major to the Committee of the Whole, street map designations for liquor which motion carried, all members licenses to include Wiley Post present voted aye. Way. DISCUSSION: Ethel Hale, 436 ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey East 800 South, said a moved and Councilmember Pace neighborhood should be a group of seconded to set the date of the people working together to create public hearing for December 11, an environment which was healthy, 1990, at 6:50 p.m. which motion safe, and congenial. She said carried, all members present voted vacant houses were occupied by aye. homeless people and animals. She (P 90-407) said she wanted to see homeless people live in these homes the UNFINISHED BUSINESS right way; with heat, electricity, and running water. #1 RE: Adopting a resolution of the City Council of Salt Lake Paul Warton, 436 East 800 City, Utah consenting to and South, said his understanding of approving the execution of a the proposal was it gave power to Financing Agreement dated December "unknown persons". He said these 5, 1990, by and between the persons were not elected in any Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake meaningful sense of the word and City and the Utah Municipal they were responsible to no one Finance Cooperative (MFA); but themselves to postpone the authorizing the taking of all demolition of a building. He said other actions necessary to the the postponement did not achieve consummation of the transactions much. He said it was an invitation contemplated by the resolution; to wild animals and homeless and related matters. people. He said it was his understanding the City Council ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey could not prohibit the demolition moved and Councilmember Hardman of a building. seconded to adopt Resolution 112 of 1990, which motion carried, all Councilmember Godfrey asked members present voted aye. who "unknown persons" were. Mr. (Q 90-7) Warton said it was the Neighborhood Community Council PUBLIC HEARINGS persons. Councilmember Godfrey said Stan Penfold who was the Salt #1. A public hearing at 6:20 Lake Area Community Council Chair p.m. to receive public comment and Person was present and could help consider adopting an ordinance Mr. Warton understand the process amending Chapter 64 of Title 18 of elections for the Community dealing with demolition of Councils. buildings. Ron Love, 1073 East 600 ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey South, said he appreciated the moved and Councilmember Whitehead delay given to the Salt Lake Area seconded to close the public Community Council (SLACC) a month hearing, which motion carried, all ago. He said the city had chosen members present voted aye. 90-359 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 to look into the demolition there were a lot of boarded up process through SLACC. He said it houses. She said people who lived had been discussed with Roger in these neighborhoods were Evans from Building and Housing concerned when someone came in and the residents. He said Mr. with a plan to build new housing. Penfold was going to address a She said they could tear down number of things dealing with the anything they wanted including demolition ordinance. He said historical buildings. She said if demolition was the final stage for someone wanted to tear down a buildings and SLACC wanted to house that was unsightly and no ensure that there were activities longer viable, they had to go and interests which would help to through a long process to demolish preserve the housing stock in Salt a house. Lake City. She said boarded up housing Mr. Love said the SLACC Board did not make a neighborhood. She felt the fees were not said the city could not have significant. He said the fees economic development in the city could be set for the lose of a if the city saved every building particular structure. He said if which was no longer viable. She the fees were for processing said bigger houses should be built paperwork, the size of the so families could move back into building should not be a factor the city. She said if the city and the cost should be the same. wanted to revitalize they should Mr. Love said the appeal blend the old with the new. process seemed to be missing from the new ordinance and people Lois Brown, 310 South 300 needed this process. East, said she was concerned about the new ordinance draft. She said Stan Penfold, Salt Lake Area the draft had not been discussed Community Council Chair, said the in the Community Council. She said notification process was new for there were some omissions. Ms. everyone. He read from the Summary Brown said in the old ordinance it of Changes recommended by SLACC speaks of the right of appeal and Board to the City Council on the enforcement exceptions. She said philosophy, fees, blight, the new ordinance did not fulfill notification, and penalty for the all the processes of the old demolition ordinance. (attached) ordinance. She said an appeal He said SLACC recommended adoption process was needed. of the ordinance with the changes and were looking for the Kelly Kim, MacKay Kim, Inc. possibility of a review process. 937 West Quail Avenue, said he He said one concern was that there operated a business in Salt Lake was not adequate process for City. He said to obtain a public input into the demolition demolition permit, the process was process. long and tedious. He said a person had to run from one place to Willis Dorman, 634 East 700 another. He said if a person came South, said as a resident of to Salt Lake City and went through Central City she was confused when the demolition process, they would the city talked about demolition, go somewhere else to open up a economic development and business or build a new home. He revitalizing the City. She said said he questioned how well the she lived in a neighborhood where Neighborhood Councils worked 90-360 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 because when it came time to have Evans would discuss this. He said the papers signed for a it was not in the ordinance. He demolition, the Chairman was gone said the only time it went through or on vacation. the Community Council was when there was a waiver on the Mr. Kim said there had to be landscaping. a better way to go through the process. He said the demolition Brigitta Wray, Greater process for housing and commercial Avenues Community Council, said buildings needed to be a separate she was one of the people who had issue. He said the city needed to worked on the recommendations for look at the housing and decide the demolition ordinance. She said what was viable and what was not she wanted to see an endorsement worth keeping. He asked who wanted of the recommendations. She said to move into a neighborhood that if there was a house of historical was all boarded up. value, the Landmarks Committee would call and say there was a Councilmember Godfrey asked house scheduled for demolition. what specific elements made the She said the Landmarks Committee process cumbersome. Mr. Kim said would recommend whether the house the most cumbersome element was to should be saved or demolished. She get the Community Council's said a few days ago she received a approval and sometimes there were letter for a demolition of a problems inside the city offices. certain address and the people Councilmember Pace asked Mr. Kim wanted to waive the landscaping. to be more specific. He said the process of getting each item She said she had not heard of cleared was cumbersome. He said the demolition and had five days there was no format to follow. to respond to the letter. She said a lot of houses scheduled for Councilmember Kirk asked how demolition where demolished. She long it took to get a permit. Mr. said she wanted to see some Kim said in some cases it had separation of the commercial and taken him three to four weeks. He housing stock in the ordinance. said it was frustrating. Councilmember Whitehead asked how Bruce Plank, 125 L Street, long it took in other cities. Mr. said he wanted to speak in favor Kim said it took approximately of the demolition ordinance. He three days. Councilmember Pace said it was important to think said maybe Salt Lake City was about boarded up buildings and how sending another message. She said to deal with them. He said to maybe the city cared more than simply say the city should other cities and wanted to be demolish a building because it was careful about what was being easier than boarding it up was destroyed. He said the city had wrong. He said the city needed to grouped housing and commercial commit some money to housing. He property together. He said the said the answer to tearing down differently zoned properties houses because they had fallen needed to be defined. apart was to set aside some money Councilmember Pace asked if to preserve housing stock. someone could cite from the ordinance the section on the He said he did not mind Community Council process. waiting three or four weeks for a Councilmember Godfrey said Roger demolition permit. He said the 90-361 411 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 city should have a policy against He said the process slowed demolition. He said there needed down when people appealed the to be additional resources landscaping provisions. He said available that gave people more this appeal went through Building options instead of just and Housing and was reviewed on a demolishing the building or case by case basis. He said all boarding it up. He said the residential appeals were sent to demolition ordinance was a good the Chairperson of the Community idea. He said the city should have Council and then to the Mayor's an ordinance that takes a strong Office. He said if the demolition position against demolition. He was granted favorable, a permit said the city needed to prevent was issued, but if it was not vacant lots and boarded up granted favorable approval by the buildings. Mayor's Office or the Chairperson of the Community Council, the city Sue Hardy said in many other rejected it and required the cities when housing stock was person go by the ordinance. demolished, there were ramifications against the person Mr. Evans commented on the doing the demolishing; such as, letter from SLACC. He said (1) the supplying the funds to replenish philosophy should not be placed in the housing the person had a city ordinance. (2) The fees had demolished. She said the city to be approved by the Finance should make sure the demolition Department. He said he did not ordinances were not so easily have a problem if the fees were tampered with. She said she paid into a revolving housing endorsed the ordinance. preservation fund. (3) Blight. He agreed with SLACC on this. He said Councilmember Pace said this blight should be taken out. He ordinance had not been made said the building official should cumbersome intentionally. She said only have the latitude if there there was a reason behind was damage from earthquake or everything that was in the fire. (4) Notification process. He ordinance. said he did not have a problem extending notification to 45 days. Roger Evans, Building and (5) Penalty. He said all Housing, said the appeal process demolition violations were Class B was very specific. He said it had misdemeanors. He said the been set up by a city ordinance demolition ordinance was a and the Abatement of Dangerous complicated issue. He said Salt Buildings. He said the ordinance Lake City had a very effective was reviewed by the Housing boarding enforcement ordinance. Advisory and Appeals Board and was given a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Whitehead said He said under the current he agreed with some of the ordinance the permit process for a comments made tonight, but said demolition permit was (1) the there were still some questions person must have a reuse plan and that needed to be asked. He said a permit that had been filed and some of the lots were so small, it fees paid to the city for did not encourage people to move replacement for the use of the back into the city. He said things property or (2) the person must needed to be done to encourage have a landscaping plan and a families to come back. bond. 90-362 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 Councilmember Pace said this prior to that there was no was an ordinance for all ordinance allowing barbed wire demolitions and yet it was heavily fences in the city. He said there biased towards residential. She were approximately 400 properties said maybe there should be some with barbed wire fences. Mr. Joyce text which specifically dealt with said there had been an increased the commercial properties. She demand because of the change in said if the city was considering social conditions and the fees for buildings in excess of protection of property. He said 32,000 feet, the building was out the petition went to the Planning of the residential market. Commission and they had recommended adoption of the Councilmember Hale said as ordinance. the hearing proceeded he became confused. He said there were many He said the ordinance things that had to be done before required a building permit be a permit was issued and after obtained and it only allowed going through the process, there barbed wire fencing in certain was no assurance a permit would be zones; commercial zones, "C-2", issued. He said the Council needed "C-3", "C-3A", and industrial to look at the recommendations districts "M-1", "M-2", and "M-3". from SLACC. He said there should He said it went into a zoning be some streamlining of the administrative process and there process. had to be reasons for security. He (0 90-39) said barbed wire fences were not allowed in front yard areas and #2. A public hearing at 6:30 gateway streets including p.m. to receive public comment and freeways; I-15, I-215, Beck consider adopting an ordinance Street, 2100 South, and State amending Title 21 to provide for Street. the limited conditional use of barbed wire fences in certain He said when installed on top districts subject to certain of chain link fences, there had to conditions pursuant to Petition be a minimum of six feet in No. 400-794-90. height, only three strands of barbed wire, and project out sixty ACTION: Councilmember White- degrees maximum. He said if the head moved and Councilmember Hale wire projected out on both sides seconded to close the public of the fence, it had to be cleared hearing, which motion carried, all with the abutting property owner. members present voted aye. Councilmember Whitehead asked Councilmember Whitehead moved how security reasons for the and Councilmember Pace seconded to fences were determined. Mr. Joyce adopt Ordinance 93 of 1990, which said it was based upon a high motion carried, all members value which had to be protected. present voted aye. He said, for example, in a "C-3A" zone there could be new cars in DISCUSSION: Everett Joyce, storage which had been vandalized. Building and Housing, said Councilmember Godfrey asked if it currently barbed wired fences were was determined a security reason allowed through Board of if a person had been robbed a few Adjustment approval for security times. Councilmember Pace said if reasons related to safety. He said a person's request for a fence was 90-363 PRDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE C , UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 turned down they had an appeal individual, it would be on notice process. Mr. Joyce said they would that whoever purchased the appeal to the Board of Adjustment. property could be required to (0 90-44) remove the ramp. #3. A public hearing at 6:40 Councilmember Pace asked if p.m. to receive public comment and this would be attached to the consider adopting an ordinance title. Mr. Joyce said it would be amending Chapter 80 of Title 21 with the deed. He said in more creating a special exception complex situations when an process for certain zoning individual wanted something other encroachments required to allow than a ramp with railings, such as handicapped access. a covered ramp, parking closer to access, or covered breezeways ACTION: Councilmember Hale between a house and a garage, it moved and Councilmember Whitehead was proposed in the new ordinance seconded to close the public that these would come through a hearing, which motion carried, all special exception process because members present voted aye. of a greater impact on the neighbors. He said an application Councilmember Godfrey moved fee of $50 would be required, it and Councilmember Whitehead would be advertised, and abutting seconded to adopt the No-fee property owners would be given a version of Ordinance 94 of 1990, notice and fifteen days to which motion carried, all members response to the zoning present voted aye. administrator. He said the zoning administrator could make his DISCUSSION: Everett Joyce, decision at that point or it could Building and Housing, said this be appealed by the applicant or was a special exception process the abutting property owners to which allowed handicapped or the Board of Adjustment for final disabled individuals to improve decision. access to single family and duplex (0 90-43) residential properties. He said currently the zoning ordinance had The meeting adjourned at 7:30 restrictions in set back areas. He p.m. said the rear set back, side yard, and front yard setbacks prohibited certain types of structures. He 444- '- said in the currant ordinance a COUNC L CHAIR ramp with railings would be prohibited. He said the new , ordinance allowed a person to take �f' /I , „�.L[...► out a building permit on a limited I 'Y ' DER basis to build a ramp with railings in single family units �<<.twat tttt� and duplexes. �`` .•,•••. 2-04 He said the approval through 54. i n ## 0 the zoning administrator would be ;r ►. ygte ;r, ,,�r recorded with the Salt Lake County `. " 0 ;►�rr r . ::1 A,A' Fe Ka, * Recorder' s Office. Mr. Joyce said rA • : ------,, `�a •z when the property was no longer V;Prh... .•Q�,`.� used by the handicapped atdIW 90-364 )0*.< - ? �1 `ro- j�l m v, '},I� J�Uy� �cr�+►L V.,L-ifs._) % — r (1e/ Uit(p(q5SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1,e0 c IQ(0/1 "1 `' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Ve, rll�j, ,i>. ROOM 315 0,1/- c;067 b CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING ku;-' 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ' �ukAl/ j� t 'l' 1// Tuesday, November 20, 1990 \ 0,1,4vc6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. 1. Report of the Executive Director. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: tq 1 1 . Invocation. -- nU���` - v e l tar 1a ( f(ed 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. A proval of the minutes. 4. Presentation by Rick Thrasher of UEDC regarding the recent Fortune Magazine article. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council . 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: 1 . Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the approval of an ..0,.. 5. /'^q'S Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City W" Corporation and Salt Lake County providing for Salt Lake City to perform fire inspections on County-owned facilities within Salt Lake City's boundaries. (C 90-665) tfr\ W W 0 ° ikAi Staff recommendation: Adopt. l (1 _` 2. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the approval of an �/ Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County allowing for the return to the City of radio Channel #3 and allowing for the sole licensing on that frequency by the City. (C 90-675) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 3. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation regarding the terms and conditions under which an exchange of snow removal will be accomplished. (C 90-676) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 4. Set date for December 11 , 1990 at 6:40 p.m. to hold a public hearing to discuss Budget Amendment #2. (0 90-48) Staff recommendation: Set date. 5. Consider adopting an ordinance amending certain sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with contracting for professional services. (0 90-48) Staff recommendation: Adopt. E. NEW BUSINESS: 1 . Petition No. 400-863-90 by Bob Valentine/Salt Lake Airport Hilton Set date of Dece r p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting a petition requesting that Salt Lake City change the liquor district at 5151 West Wiley Post Way from District C to District A and extend the major street map co ''±' designations for liquor licenses to include Wiley Post Way. �'' (P 90-407) ` ` " Staff recommendation: Set date. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Resolution: Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative Consider adopting a resolution of the City Council of Salt Lake t (D\ /n() City, Utah consenting to and approving the execution of a LiFinancing Agreement dated December 5, 1990, by and between the 19‘' 9i ' � ' Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Utah Municipal \1 Finance Cooperative ("MFA") ; authorizing the taking of all other / ` actions necessary to the consummation of the transactions (�/, contemplated by the resolution; and related matters. (R 90-3) \O Staff recommendation: Adopt. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:20 p.m. 1 . Ordinance: Demolition of Buildings Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 614 of Title 18 dealing with demolition of buildings.}-(0 90-39) r i'iiViii,J- 0 ads Staffy � �r_ecommend tion.zAg Adopt, ear rki, ' )05 D�� IVIkD p�v°� ede IC ! ' fo_ SLACC WWI P roce 6:3 445 J" ""'rv, r cite w-, !n pvu . DOrdinance: Barbed Wire Fences - Petition No. 1400-7914-90 Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 21 to provide for the limited conditional use of barbed wire fences in certain districts subject to certain conditions pursuant to Petition No. 400-794-90. (0 90-1414) °1 d Staff recommendation: Adopt. 7, 6:40 p.m. �/ 3 Ordinance: Handicapped Uses • Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 80 of Title 21 creating a special exception process for certain zoning encroachments required to allow handicapped access. (0 90-43) — S 6 r Ca lf►fii'4 _ Staff recommendation: Adopt. 6 e,/ brainunCf H. ADJOURNMENT. 03) '\I '0iti) . Of (�� 61' 0 6'''''P\ ff FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED ,411.4 - 4 CONCERNING ANY ITE4 ON THIS AGENDA. DATED: November 16, 1990 BY: RECORDE STATE OF UT COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 16th day of November, 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. CITY RECORDER 4ryPubiidingin d and sworn to before me this 16th day of November, 1990. Nota the State of Utah W.ssion ECglreSJ—," 4, e+w itwtkr I ' x 451 Ss.Stale St.Rm41S I R Salt Lake CIQ,Utah 84102' August 1.My coy lon Exp es 3 Pt.;..-rl1,•:ph APPROVAL: EXE UT E DIRE OR OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 AGENDA POSTED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1990 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: Tuesday, November 20, 1990 TIME: 6:45, or immediately following the Official Council Meeting PLACE: City Council Conference Room City & County Building, Room 325 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 1) The Council will receive a briefing from the Council Staff regarding Draft Labor Protocol and Labor Policies, which have been developed as a result of the Council's summer retreat discussion on this topic. 2) The Council will receive a briefing from the City Attorney's Office regarding Collective Bargaining Protocol. cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl , Emilie Charles, Roger Cutler, Kathryn Marshall, Department Heads, Press, SLACC MEMORANDUM DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1990 TO: CITY COUNCIL 4V FROM: ALAN HARDMAN, CHAIR RE: PROPOSED LABOR POLICIES AND PROTOCOL The attached City Council Labor Protocol and the City Council Policy Guidelines are scheduled for discussion at our Committee of the Whole meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday November 20th. These policy guidelines and the protocol statement have been drafted to reflect the Council 's discussions at this summers Council retreat and subsequent meetings and discussions with staff from Human Resources , the City Attorney's Office and the Mayor 's Office . As a result of these reviews , the original document has been divided into two (2) separate documents . The Policy Guidelines contain specific policies related to labor relations upon which the Council desires to express it 's position . It is structured so that it can be updated , changed or revised according so that it will not become outdated and will reflect the Councils current positions . The Protocol Statement which is proposed as a statement to be issued jointly with the Mayor which we want to come to agreement on , so that we can define the conventions or process we will follow throughout the collective bargaining process . In this statement , we are outlining specific steps which we will be following throughout the year . DRAFT #4 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY November 17, 1990 Effective Date: January 1 , 1991 Subject : CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOL GUIDELINES ON LABOR RELATIONS Distribution: Mayor , Human Resource Director, City Attorney, City Council Re-Evaluation Date: December 1 , 1991 Alan Hardman, Chair, City Council Palmer DePaulis, Mayor I. LABOR PROTOCOL It is the intent of the City Council to define a standard protocol which the City Council will follow in the City's collective bargaining process. II. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE The purpose of this statement of protocol is to document the way in which the City Council communicates its concerns with the Mayor and his staff and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council 's role during the City's collective bargaining process. III. DEFINITIONS Certified Employee Organization A bargaining unit established under the Collective Bargaining Resolution Section 7 that is authorized to represent employees in the negotiations process. Executive Session Closed door meeting of the City Council, without the right of the public to be present, pursuant to the provisions of the Open Meeting Act. Memorandum of Understanding Is the jointly prepared, written agreement of the representatives of the City and the Certified Employee Organization which constitutes a mutual recommendation jointly submitted to the Mayor by May 20th of each year . The memorandum of understanding or MOU is not binding upon the parties until a majority of the members of the certified employee organization has ratified it by a majority vote and until the City Council has approved it by majority vote, enacted the necessary ordinances or other changes required to implement it by general legislation and appropriated the necessary funds required to implement the full provisions of the MOU. Negotiation The performance by the duly authorized management representatives of the administration and the duly authorized representatives of a certified employee organization of their mutual obligation to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith (within a reasonable length of time in order to freely exchange information, opinions and proposals on matters properly the subject of bargaining) with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. This includes the mutual obligation to execute a written document incorporating. any agreement reached. Nonunion, unrepresented employees Groups of employees not represented by a certified employee organization such as the employees in the 300 professional/paraprofessional series. Terms and conditions of employment Wages, salaries, working conditions, hours or benefits, except as specifically modified. IV. PROTOCOL GUIDELINES 1. Winter Mayor/Council Retreat At the appropriate time in each fiscal year after January 15th (during the annual Mayor/Council Budget retreat in February) the City Council will meet with the Mayor to be briefed on the projections of revenue which may be available to fund compensation packages reached with each of the employee groups (including non-represented groups) . 2. Submission, Evaluation and Review of Proposals (a) The Mayor and his chief negotiators will proceed with their responsibilities in the collective bargaining process to develop proposed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the authorized employee representatives as specified in Executive Order #4.04. 100 ( 1983) and in Resolution #41 1984. Between January 15th and April 1 , executive sessions of the City Council will be scheduled at appropriate times during the collective \ , ) bargaining process to provide an opportunity for the City's negotiators / Mayor to apprise the City Council of the proposals made by the certified employee organizations. \ea, (b) Mutual Agreement *)%5t) ( �` It is understood that the City's representatives have the authorityvto agree to any combination of wages and benefits with the employee representatives, as long as the total costs associated with those wages and benefits is consiste. - with any projections of anticipated revenues which had been mutual , eed to.I ,� \ ,r,.\\AP ,k° • tk.:*)-6 0 \pk) 0), • - :`.: - ,Y- �,\ac\ 3. Ratification of Proposed Memorandums of Understanding and Agreements with Union and unrepresented Employee Groups The proposed contracts will be submitted to the City Council no later than May 20th or one week before the Council is scheduled to adopt the City's Operating and Capital Budgets. If agreements have not been reached and/or contracts are not available by the date stated above, the City Attorney's Office will prepare salary ordinances and forward them to the City Council office so that they can be considered for adoption on the same date that the City Council is scheduled to adopt the Operating and Capital Budgets. PROS -Would give City's negotiators clearer fiscal guidelines. -Would help to reduce "end runs" by groups of employees/labor groups at the end of the collective bargaining process when the Council is trying to adopt the budget. -Would allow for more efficient and effective use of time of the Mayor and his staff and Council and their staff time during the collective bargaining process. -Would improve the effectiveness of communications between the Mayor and the Council. -Would preserve the City Council 's role in ratifying the MOUs, appropriating funds. CONS -Would require earlier agreement on part of Mayor and Council -Would require earlier budget projections by Mayor's staff -Might require last minute adjustments for any unappropriated monies .'fter the contract negotiations are finished, depending on the fiscal conditio of the city at the particular time . r' tiL U /- V r �� �� \f--,.„ L Y slJ " . ,� %) / v \,, , DRAFT #4 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY November 17, 1990 Effective Date: January 1 , 1991 Subject : CITY COUNCIL POLICIES ON LABOR RELATIONS Distribution: Mayor, Human Resource Director, City Attorney Re-Evaluation Date: December 1, 1991 Alan Hardman, Chair, City Council I. POLICY It is the intent of the City Council to document specific policies related to labor relations which the City Council supports . It is also the intent of the City Council to review these policies each year in December. II. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE The purpose of this policy is to provide a forum for the City Council to express it's position on specific terms and conditions of employment which are listed in Section IV. CITY COUNCIL'S POLICIES ON LABOR RELATIONS. III. DEFINITIONS Certified Employee Organization A bargaining unit established under the Collective Bargaining Resolution Section 7 that is authorized to represent employees in the negotiations process. Executive Sessions Closed door meeting of the City Council , without the right of the public to be present, pursuant to the provisions of the Open Meeting Act. Memorandum of Understanding Is the jointly prepared, written agreement of the representatives of the City and the certified employee organization which constitutes a mutual recommendation jointly submitted to the Mayor by May 20th of each year. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) is not binding upon the parties until: a majority of the members of the certified employee organization has ratified it by a majority vote; the City Council has approved it by majority vote ; enacted the necessary ordinances or other changes required to implement it by general legislation; and appropriated the necessary funds required to implement the full provisions of the MOU. Negotiation The performance by the duly authorized management representatives of the administration and the duly authorized representatives of a certified employee organization of their mutual obligation to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith (within a reasonable length of time in order to freely exchange information, opinions and proposals on matters properly the subject of bargaining) with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. This includes the mutual obligation to execute a written document incorporating any agreement reached. Nonunion, unrepresented employees Groups of employees not represented by a certified employee organization such as the employees in the "300" professional/paraprofessional series. Terms and conditions of employment Wages, salaries, working conditions, hours or benefits, except as specific lly modified. ) �� (\ ) IV. CITY COUNCIL LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES 6u�-\;� L � �J (A) Indicators of Financial Condition /eA43 The City Council supports the preparation of various Indicators of financial condition to determine trends in both environmental factors outside of the City government (i.e. cost-of-living index) and in financial factors internal to the City (i.e. revenues, expenditures, debt structure, etc. ) . The City Council further encourages the preparation of these indicators on an annual basis with presentation and discussion focussed on them during the Mayor's Jc) Winter Retreat. r 5tc�(C`�{ �, Nxo 1, G 6q,C(z�,ri � (B) Length of contracts U:;C�' �` �' ?`�'� 0- V, The City Council supports the adoption of staggered contracts/agreements so that not all of the contracts/agreements with employee groups are being U�V renegotiated each year. pro -Spreads negotiation workload among fiscal years -Allows for more pre-planning and costing of various types of potential and actual impacts con -Some groups may feel left behind for benefits negotiated with others first -May experience disparities or inconsistencies in the salary plans among employee groups caused by unusual circumstances i.e. . severe financial crisis Ne (C) Multi-year contracts �° b The City Council supports the adoption of multi-year contracts/agreements so that they may remain in effect for more than one fiscal year. pro -Allows for more pre-planning on both sides -Allows for more accurate, complete impact analysis -Provides more security for employees in event of unforeseen revenue shortfall -Allows more flexibility to phase in new or expensive changes in wages or/and benefits con -In the event of unforeseen revenue shortfalls, may preclude City from preceding with new programs or require cutbacks in existing programs to meet existing contract obligations (D) Fringe Benefits The City Council supports the total costing of all fringe benefits including the estimating the cost of such things as to ensure that a true total compensation cost is considered during the City's\ negotiation process. �9� `� o ��Dr A a-a pro �" p� \v\ p' -Is consistent with City budget policy of preparing financial forecasts at the beginning of planning for the budget of each new fiscal year. con -Increases all costs associated with preparation for negotiations -May lengthen collective bargaining process A '�/ -Requires comprehensive, accurate, timely data \ah 1\.(:. , (E) City Residence Incentive Payment 0(17? The City Council supports the concept of a incentive payment for City (p employees who reside within the City limits. 41,�(F) Pay - for - Performance System .-c 4" b� e c? The City Council supports the implementation of a pay-for-performance system for all City employees. \:§Z S ii-z,V . ‘c)f)NO)S-e' \qe) /7- ...'N---------- rr k fvP:r--a' 153 1 v n X‘\r-) W' • . i'4 . ..) \v- (04- Nc%, -4, I J i ,i_ Nii4) .> \e ,„. . ,„,,,.'.„,„:f . w- ,r ..f ,:,7 :z51. 4 ,itF R f S i.e,z"'�F'i T. . r¢ 4 :::,/ -'" --- .. _ .. .. i. . ]... .`} I r,}.(.1 ..,.:Y i1 . ! r[ r.. ;;.�i':.{A. "',1n.nY�.r rr ..i..r .�f�TINr . ,•. . .:. ... ('3 ROGER F. CUTLER Sw�J1 4 1 arty w , . .1 f 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 CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 JANICE L. FROST FAX 801 535-7640 MARSHA ATKIN ( ) NICHOLAS D'ALESANDRO JUDITH L.C. WEST November 16 , 1990 Salt Lake City Council 304 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Mayor Palmer DePaulis 306 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Collective Bargaining Protocol Dear Councilmembers and Mayor: At the Council retreat, I made a suggestion that some of the difficulties and concerns of the Council regarding collective bargaining could be mitigated by the adoption of a protocol concerning the bargaining process ; communicating between the Mayor and Council; and delineating negotiating objectives . Several drafts were attempted by Council staff ; however, they did not appear to reflect what I thought would be most helpful . Therefore, I have prepared (at Cindy Jensen' s request) a quick draft of the concepts I had in mind. This draft has been rapidly crafted today to meet a deadline for Council packet distribution. I do not consider it to be a final or perfect conceptualization; however, I hope it will be appropriate for purposes of a discussion draft. Would you please review its contents in order that we can discuss whether it is a conceptually viable idea. Please advise me of modifications that would better meet the objectives of improving the City' s negotiating posture with the unions . Since R ER CUTLER City Attorney RFC:cc Enclosure cc: Karen Suzuki-Hashimoto Frank Nakamura LABOR BARGAINING PROTOCOL WHEREAS, the City has established a labor policy of Collective Bargaining with certain groups of its employees; and WHEREAS, that policy has been memorialized in a Resolution passed by the City Council as Resolution No. 41 of 1984 and may, hereafter, be adopted as a City Ordinance, which writings delineate, among other relevant matters , bargaining processes , impasse resolution mechanisms and the functions and duties of the Executive and Legislative branches of government in regards to collective bargaining; and WHEREAS, each branch of City government desires to preserve and respect their separate functions, but each desires cooperative interaction in the bargaining process to minimize misunderstandings and delays which may prejudice rather than foster desired labor harmony; and WHEREAS, the Council and Mayor desire the labor bargaining process to be fair and deliberative, yet, conducted in a timely manner that comports with orderly budget development; and WHEREAS, in mutual respect for their separate but equal roles in City governance, they desire to memorialize a protocol to facilitate the orderly and meaningful interaction in this volatile area of labor bargaining; NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and City Council mutually agree to the following procedural protocol : 1 . February Consultation. The Mayor and Council will meet in executive session, as a closed meeting under the Utah Open Meetings Act, at the Council retreat in February of each year. Among the matters presented and discussed will be the following: (a) The Mayor or his/her designee will brief the Council on revenue projections for the coming City fiscal year; this presentation will specifically address funds that are projected to be available for employee compensation; (b) The Mayor will orally outline, in summary form, the expected labor issues for the coming bargaining year and anticipated compensation demands by City employees . The Mayor will discuss Executive negotiating objectives; (c) The Council may orally provide the Mayor any labor and compensation issues it desires to be considered in the negotiating process and to be included in the employee compensation package; and (d) The Council will orally provide the Mayor a tentative commitment concerning what it would be 3.3 / willing to fund for an employee compensation and benefit program for the next City fiscal year. 2 . Negotiations Within Joint Understandings . The ur Mayor will undertake negotiations with the Certified \ vJ Bargaining Units , consistent with Citylaw, and timelyseek g 9 , to reach an agreement within the oral tentative financial T' v� commitments given by the Council; provided that if no such \P i funding commitments or objections are given by the Council , \�N'' the Mayor will still negotiate in order to reach an ,.0 U '; agreement with the Certified Bargaining Units . In these rt� negotiations, the Mayor will give due consideration to each `";" of the other stated Council negotiating objectives . However, the parties mutually acknowledge their separate roles and responsibilities under the City' s optional form of government and that neither is legally bound by these understandings or positions . 3 . Complete Negotiations by May 20th; Cost Disclosure . 0 � The Mayor will use his/her best efforts to complete all negotiations with --the Certified Bargaining Units orr o �0 before May 20th of that year and forward these agreements to the Council for ratification, consistent with City law. L' ' If the proposed agreements exceed the tentative Council , fundin e Mayor sha Inc ude wi 1 the Vj4fli, 1e3 agreement: (a) transmittal , (b) an estimate of the aggregate of the agreement; (c ) a written identification of any deviations ; and (d) identify and specify the cost of each deviation . If the compensation package negotiated is at or under those tentatively approved by the Council, the Mayor shall state the estimated total cost of the compensation package . Any cost disclosure need not include need of non-cash en s or benefits suc vaca i , eave es an the like. 4 . Periodic Council Briefing During Negotiations; Modifications of Council Positions . As negotiations proceed towards agreement or impasse, the Mayor shall periodically �� � \j" keep the Council appraised of their status and of areas of likely impasse. l l�� Should modifications in the Council ' s tentative fundin for a negotiating position occur, the parties shall meet as soon as practicable and seek to arrive at a mutually 0 acceptable negotiating position for the City. Either party -JI to this protocol may calendar and call a meeting for this J/(,r purpose, upon reasonable notice and at mutually convenient times . 5 . Council Initiated Compensation Ordinances . In the event agreements with the certified bargaining units of the City are not completed and presented to the Council by May 20th, or the impasse date prescribed in City law, the Council reserves the right to set compensation and employee benefits by ordinance. The City Attorney will prepare the necessary legislation to implement a compensation package, as directed by the Council; this employee compensation package will become effective on the first day of the applicable fiscal year. 6 . Termination. Either party to this protocol may terming on 30 days p DATED this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RFC:cc -3- PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as Committee of the Whole, on Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale The following Council Member was absent: Wayne Horrocks Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting. Councilmember Hardman called Jerry Stanger was interviewed the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. prior to his appointment on the Salt Lake Arts Council. He said he BOARD APPOINTMENT INTERVIEWS had worked for an advertising agency as an accounting executive. Ann Berman was interviewed He said prior to that time he prior to her appointment to the worked as a volunteer for the Salt Lake Arts Council. She said March of Dimes. He said he had her background came from literary been a volunteer for the Salt Lake art. She said she loved books and Arts Council. came from a family of musicians. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ms. Berman said she liked to create and by working in the Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive library and with the public, she Director for the Council, said had gained a broad perspective of Councilmember Horrocks was home things. Councilmember Hale asked with walking pneumonia and would Ms. Berman about the Sierra Club. be back to work soon. She said it was the oldest and largest conservation organization She said Item E-1 was the and was started in the early ordinance on professional 1900' s. She first had contact with services. She said Larry Failner the club as a young girl. She said from the Finance Department, was early experiences with this Club present if the Council had any gave her an interest in the questions. Councilmember Godfrey outdoors. asked why the ordinance had been referred to the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hale asked Ms. Ms. Gust-Jenson said any item Berman about "Celebration of the which was not urgent was referred Books. " She said it was a program to the Consent Agenda. sponsored by the library and it included four separate programs Councilmember Pace said on dealing with books; paper making, Page 2, 3.28.060B there were no book binding, the writers, and sentences just asteriks. Mr. editors and publishers. Failner said the paragraphs indicated by the asteriks were items pertinent to the main 90-344 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 paragraph. He said under the old meet. She said one item cancelled ordinance the City required the on the original Committee of the Public Works Director and the Whole agenda was a briefing Director of Community and Economic Councilmember Whitehead had Development or a designee sit in requested relating to Westpointe on every selection committee for Park. She said Councilmember professional services. He said Whitehead would be out of town so this was not practical so it had this item had been moved to been changed so the department December 6th. Councilmember Kirk head or designee who was asked why the issue on the labor responsible for the professional protocol had been delayed. Ms. services would sit on the Gust-Jenson said after it had been committee. He said then it would reviewed with the Attorney's be subject to review by the office, Roger Cutler, City appropriate procurement official. Attorney had some questions so it would be delayed. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Items F-1 & F-2 would be pulled. She said Ms. Gust-Jenson said the they were ordinances the Council Fortune Magazine luncheon was had adopted with changes. She said tomorrow. She said if any of the the changes had been made and the Council Members wanted to go the way the Council ' s motions read, Council Office would call in the the ordinances had been adopted. morning to make reservations. She said Item G-1 was on beer She said on the last Council and liquor consumption fees. She calendar the RDA meeting was said Lee King, Community and deleted for November 26th because Economic Development, was present the meeting on November 15th was to answer any questions. Ms. Gust- to replace it. She said the RDA Jenson said several phone calls meeting was again scheduled for had been received and most of them Monday, November 26th. were favorable. She said Mr. King had letters of support from two She said former Councilmember associations and verbal support Sydney Fonnesbeck was home from expressed from the other the hospital. She said the associations. She said the Council Office was going to send a department mailed out about 600 fruit basket. She said it would be notices. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the $4.00 a person and would be sent tavern owners, the private clubs, in the morning. and the restaurant association had been very supportive from the The meeting adjourned at 5:20 beginning, but they had not given p.m. written support. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Thursday at 4:00 p.m. the Council would meet as the RDA and at 5:00 p.m. there would be an official RDA meeting to pass a motion relating to bonds. She said then an official Council Meeting would be held to approve the bond. She said after the Regular Council Meeting the Committee of the Whole would 90-345 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale The following Council Member was absent: Wayne Horrocks Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and Councilmember Kirk conducted the meeting. #1. There was no invocation Salt Lake City to support this given. project and let the soldiers know we care. Councilmember Godfrey #2. The Council led the said maybe the City could do a Pledge of Allegiance. joint resolution and use the Mayor' s Office to publicize it in #3. Councilmember Godfrey Salt Lake City. moved and Councilmember Hale seconded to approve the minutes of Mayor Depaulis said in the the Salt Lake City Council for the past campaigns like "Mothers regular meeting held Tuesday, Against Drunk Driving, " had a November 6, 1990, which motion local sponsor and the sponsor carried, all members present voted provided the ribbons. He said then aye. they came to the City for a (M 90-1) proclamation designating a certain time frame for support of the COMMENTS campaign. He said the City then sent the proclamation to the Mrs. Mailer, who resides in media. He said the sponsor got a Morton Meadows, said since the radio station to do on-the-air holidays were approaching she public service announcements would like the help of the Mayor promoting the campaign and where to see if a small yellow ribbon the people could get ribbons. could be put on cars in honor of the soldiers in Saudi Arabia. Mayor DePaulis said the City Councilmember Hardman asked Ms. would do a proclamation for Ms. Mailer who she had contacted. She Mailer if she would be willing to said she had a list of everyone do the rest. He said if a sponsor she had contacted. could not be found, the City would still send the proclamation out to Councilmember Pace asked Ms. the press. Mailer what she was asking for. Ms. Mailer said she just wanted Ann Burnett, Representative someone to help her get started for Tree Utah, said she wanted to with this project. Councilmember alert the City to a major tree Whitehead said Ms. Mailer wanted planting ceremony. She said it was 90-346 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 Saturday, November 17, at 9:00 UNFINISHED BUSINESS a.m. and they would be meeting at the Midway Town Hall. She said it Items No. 's 1 and 2 were was to rejuvenate the 2,970 acres pulled. that burned in Wasatch Mountain State Park in August. She said the NEW BUSINESS fire burned a major portion of watershed area which affected #1. RE: Consider approving an portions of Salt Lake County, Salt ordinance amending certain Lake City, Utah, and Wasatch sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 Counties. dealing with contracting for professional services. She said this was a volunteer effort to augment the Federal, ACTION: Without objection State, and local efforts to try Councilmember Kirk referred the and prevent flooding, minimize ordinance to the Consent Agenda, soil erosion, and protect Deer which motion carried, all members Creek Reservoir. She said they had present voted aye. received wide-spread county (0 90-48) support along the Wasatch Front from high schools, the PUBLIC HEARINGS universities, etc. She wanted to extend an invitation to the Salt #1. A public hearing at 6:20 Lake City Council to join in this p.m. to receive public comment and effort. consider adopting an ordinance amending beer and liquor CONSENT AGENDA consumption fees. ACTION: Councilmember Hale ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Pace seconded to approve the Consent seconded to close the public Agenda, which motion carried, all hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. members present voted aye. #1. RE: Approving the Councilmember Godfrey moved appointment of Ann Berman to the and Councilmember Hale seconded to Salt Lake Arts Council. adopt Ordinance 89 of 1990, which (I 90-16) motion carried, all members present voted aye, except #2. RE: Approving the Councilmember Pace who voted nay. appointment of Jerry Stanger to the Salt Lake Arts Council. DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, (I 90-16) Licensing Department, said earlier this year the business licensing #3. RE: Approving the department determined there was a appointment of Perrin Love to the fee discrepancy between private Salt Lake Arts Council. clubs and similar operations such (I 90-16) as taverns and restaurants serving beer and alcoholic beverages. He #4. RE: Approving the said for over twenty years the appointment of Lynn M. Hilton to private clubs had paid $300 fees the Urban Forestry Board. while the taverns and restaurants (I 90-15) had been subject to ongoing changes in regulatory fees in the 90-347 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 city. He said a fee assessment Association representing the notice was sent out to all private private clubs, the License club owners last May. He said Beverage Association, representing these fee schedules were similar the taverns, and the Utah to that which had applied to Restaurant Association. Mr. Bridge restaurants and Class C taverns. said the meetings with these associations and officers was to Mr. Bridge said the private brief them on the results of the clubs, in response to the study and to receive their input assessment notice, said they and recommendations. Mr. Bridge wanted the Licensing Department to said they had disseminated a copy explain the fee schedule. He said of the fee schedule and a notice the clubs felt they did not have of this meeting to approximately an adequate opportunity to respond 600 different licensed to the notice for fee assessment. establishments. He said the taverns expected the City to have equity with the He said the Class C tavern private clubs in terms of fees. He license fee had been reduced for a said the City agreed to hold the new entrant into the City from license assessment in abeyance $1, 800 to $550. He said they until a study for the fees for on- consolidated the fees for premise beer and liquor amusement devices and all other consumption was conducted. categories including billiards and pool tables, card room tables, He said the City established public dance, and live musical an evaluation committee comprised entertainment into one fee of $35. of the following City departments; He said they also consolidated the the Police, Fire, Building and food, beverage, and cigarette Housing, Zoning, Finance, vending machine fee to a $10 fee. Information Management Services, These were previously $16. He said the Attorney' s Office, and these fees covered all applicable Business Licensing. He said the regulatory costs for these items. objectives for this task force Mr. Bridge said in addition to study were to evaluate the this, there was a per chair fee regulatory costs and expenses for which had been changed to a per each participating department and occupancy fee. He said the per to determine a fee schedule which chair fee had previously been reflected the actual cost of $5.00 for each chair in an regulating this industry. He said establishment that had on premise they wanted an ordinance that food and beverage service. He said could be applied to all they had reduced this to a $2.00 businesses. He said they wanted a per occupant fee to cover all of fee schedule that would be fair the general and administrative and equitable to all participants. expenses not included in the regulatory items. He said this He said the City was change went along with the 1988 confident this had been study done by the Finance and accomplished. He said after the Treasurer' s Department in which fee study was completed, a draft they recommended this fee be of the proposed fee schedule was reduced to $2.00. He said this copied, and sent to the various conformed more closely to the City associations and industry ordinance with respect to a per representatives. He said they met occupant fee rather than a per with the Utah Hospitality chair fee. He said other areas 90-348 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 addressed were outdoor seating and Howard Jones, Veterans of banquet facilities which were not Foreign Wars (VFW) , said his Club used in the daily operation of the was in a different class because business. He said a fee schedule they were a community service had been reduced to a 50C per organization. He said they were occupant fee for these items. not in the bar business. He said they were in the business to He said they recommended support the post home and the passage of this proposed community service organizations. regulatory fee schedule as a fair He said he had been associated and equitable fee assessment for with the VFW for ten years and was the on-premise beer and liquor familiar with the community consumption industry. services the VFW was involved with; the Voice of Democracy, Ron Morgan, President of the College Scholarship Program for Utah Restaurant Association, said High School students, bicycle within the City limits they safety program for elementary represented approximately 350 school children, Child restaurants. He said they had Identification program for reviewed this issue very carefully preschoolers, Sub for Santa, etc. with the Business Licensing He said they also provided free Department. He said for a number Thanksgiving dinners to the of years the restaurants had paid indigent and disadvantaged people. a much higher fee than many others. He said the proposed He said all the extra ordinance would be fair to all of receipts from the bar operation go the businesses. He said the City to a relief fund used for the would not be losing money or benefit of distressed veterans. subsidizing the industry business Mr. Jones said they should not be licenses. He said the restaurants in the same class as private for- would pay their share. profit businesses. He said there should be a separate classifi- Peggy Rose, private club cation for service organizations owner, said she had been a tavern and the new license fees were owner for several years and had punitive and could tax the service just gone private. She was organization out of business. He concerned the new ordinance would said these license fees had a require her to pay the "new" fees potential of increasing their again because she had changed to a licensing cost 1000%. private club. Mr. Bridge said if she was approved for private club Councilmember Godfrey asked status she would pay the new fee what category the VFW Club was in. schedule. Mr. Jones said it was classified "Class B private club. " Councilmember Pace said she Councilmember Whitehead asked what thought Ms. Rose' s question was fees had changed. He said it whether she would pay the "new" looked like the fees had come fee or the "renewal" fee. Mr. down. Councilmember Whitehead Bridge said the renewal was coming asked Mr. Jones what they had been up in November, so if the new paying. Mr. Jones said they had ordinance was in effect at this been paying a $300 regulatory fee. time, the assessment would be from Councilmember Godfrey said the new the new ordinance. proposed ordinance would make them pay $400 as opposed to $300. 90-349 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 Mr. Jones said there was a Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. whole list of fees they would have Jones what their new fee would be. to pay; liquor consumption, Mr. Jones said the worst case beer/liquor dispensing points, would be $3, 180. Councilmember seasonal beer, wholesale beer, Godfrey asked Mr. Bridge if this amusement devices, billiards, was a realistic figure. dancing, food, beverage, and cigarette vending. Councilmember Councilmember Hardman asked Godfrey said some of the things if Mr. Bridge thought the $3000 Mr. Jones had talked about such as amount was an exorbitant amount amusement devices went from $50 to for the VFW Club. Mr. Bridge said $35 each. He said billiards went the Club had figured live musical from $50 to $35 each. entertainment at $1820. Mr. Bridge said there was a once a year Councilmember Godfrey asked charge of $35 for live musical Mr. Jones to tell the Council entertainment. which of the fees would affect the VFW Club. Mr. Jones said Class B Councilmember Pace said most Private Club would go to $400, of the other businesses had gross liquor consumption, $125, sales which far exceed that of the beer/liquor dispensing points, VFW Club. Councilmember Hardman $50. Councilmember Godfrey said said there was the question of all of these items had dropped in whether not-for-profit organ- price. Mr. Jones said any drop in izations should be exempt or not. fees would raise the cost of the He asked Mr. Bridge if this was club because these things had included in the discussion when never applied before. the new schedule was discussed. Mr. Bridge said it was in the City Mr. Bridge said private clubs ordinance that the nonprofit or with the nonprofit status that had charitable organizations that had an internal revenue status of 501 the proper internal revenue C 3 designation had previously designation did not pay a revenue been exempt from the basic license fee and the per employee business revenue license of $70 fee, but they did pay regulatory and a per employee fee of $6 per fees. employee. He said they paid a traditional $300 fee only. Mr. Fred Diana, previous Bridge said the whole purpose of executive director of Utah License this study was to assess the Beverage Association for the actual cost of regulating the taverns throughout the State of City's regulatory fees. He said Utah, said the tavern owners had this was the actual cost of the not realized the private clubs did City to regulate this particular not pay any fees. He said he type of business. attended a number of meetings discussing this ordinance. He said private clubs would Throughout the entire discussion, still be exempt from the business we emphasized to the Mayor's revenue license and the per Office, the Business Licensing employee charge. He said they were Department, and the City subject to the other sources for Attorney's Office that his regulatory license fees. association agreed with and liked Councilmember Godfrey said the services which were provided. previously these organizations had He said the Business Licensing just paid a flat fee of $300. Department looked into every one 90-350 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 of Utah License Beverage Councilmember Whitehead asked Association' s problems and took how much money went back into the into consideration their community in one year. Mr. Meeker recommendations. He said the said last year the Club made ordinance in front of the Council $28,000 profit and $27, 600 went was a fair and equitable statement back into the community. Mr. as to the Business Licensing Meeker said they still had to pay function that should be imposed for the Board of Health and the upon the private clubs, taverns, food inspectors to come in. restaurants, etc. He recommended the Council adopt the ordinance. Holly Bannerman, said her club leased vending machines. Mr. Mr. VanCommen, tavern owner, Bridge said if her club did not said he already paid the State a receive a profit from the vending $750 liquor license fee that beer machines, then the vending machine bars had not paid in the past on owners paid the regulatory fee. top of the City license. He said She asked if the vending machine the increase took his license from profits were shared did the $300 to $1200 a year. company who leased the vending Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. machines and also her club pay the VanCommen what he had been paying regulatory fees. Mr. Bridge said Salt Lake City. Mr. VanCommen said if the Club was there for the he had been paying a fee of $300 convenience of the customers and per year for a Class B private was not taking a profit from the club license. Councilmember vending machines, then the club Godfrey said this was a fee to did not pay a fee. He said the regulate the business and in many City ordinance presently required instances the charges had dropped all vending machine companies to because the City was over charging provide the City with an inventory people to regulate the businesses. and a list of all the machines and Mr. VanCommen said he had to pay their placement. He said the City the Board of Health to come in and then issued a sticker so the inspect his premises. He said this inspectors know the machines are was also a separate fee. actually under the fee schedule and regulatory agreement with Salt Steve Meeker, member of Lake City. Veteran of Foreign Wars, said the veterans service organization and Ms. Bannerman asked if some of the other service pinball machines were amusement organizations had not been devices. Mr. Bridge said they considered by the restaurant were. He said to be fair the City association. He said every summer was trying to assess similar fees at Derks Field, an American Legion for similar use; no matter how the Baseball tournament was held. He facility was designated. said this did not cost the State anything. He said the American Councilmember Hale said it Legion spent $50, 000 to $60, 000 to seemed the Licensing Department hold this event. He asked the City had changed the $5.00 per chair to consider a special condition charge to $2.00 per occupant. He for service organizations, said Licensing had a formula they used according to the square He said the VFW was a true footage rather than per chair. He nonprofit Club because the money asked if there was a 10 ' X 10 ' was sent back out to the community restaurant and there were 50 and the indigent. 90-351 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 chairs in it, how would it compare and 25% greater than the per chair with the new formula that was used count. per square foot. Mr. Bridge said in the meetings with the industry Councilmember Hale asked how and association officials they had many community service clubs were agreed that the measurements of involved in this regulatory fee the facilities the City would not ordinance. Mr. Bridge said there include any kitchen areas, service were approximately six within the areas behind the bars, restrooms, Salt Lake City limits. Mr. Bridge hallways, and office space. He said there were sixteen different said these would all be figured licensing agencies in the valley with the employee charge. and each city corporation and the County all license separately. He Mr. Bridge said there was a said at least five or six of these different factor applied to dining were charging different fees other and drinking areas; square footage than the $300 fee Salt Lake City divided by 15. The factor for a charged to private Clubs. He said dance floor was square footage many of them were charging divided by 7. He said they took additional licensing fees as well individual booths at 24 inches per as regulatory fees and this was person and individual seats and one of the other reasons for stools one per person. He said assessing similar fees for similar this was how occupancy was uses. measured. He said Building and Housing did a thirty business Councilmember Whitehead asked survey and found that seating if anyone was interested in doing runs about 80% of occupancy. He something different for the six said this would be about one fifth community services groups. more in occupancy than they would Councilmember Godfrey said the have been previously paying for problem had always been with chairs in their facility. regulation. He said the City should be in a position to charge Councilmember Hale said under what it costs to regulate the old ordinance if you had a something. restaurant with twenty chairs you would pay $100. He said under the He said he did not think the new ordinance if you had a City could be in a position to be restaurant with twenty chairs you subsidizing service organizations. would only pay $40. He said this Councilmember Pace said she had a was a substantial reduction. Mr. difficult time because this was an Bridge said they would probably entirely different category and pay $50. Councilmember Hale said the Council was talking hard by square footage it would costs. She said they would be actually come to more than $2.00 underwriting someone else's per chair. Mr. Bridge said it charity. She said it meant the would be slightly more. He said City would get less in the way of the City had received the first return benefits from them in the batch of inspections from the Fire community because the City took Department and some of those were the money up front. less than the per chair count and (0 90-46) some were more. He said the initial survey done by Building and Housing showed the per occupancy fee to be between 20% 90-352 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 90-353 r p\\ DENNIS M.SARGENT VC CET mama CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT1.1 "+E1 FIRE DEPARTMENT 315 EAST 205 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 October 26, 1990 Alan Hardman Chairperson Salt Lake City Council City and County Building, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Sir: Please find the enclosed Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Corporation. This agreement provides provisions for Salt Lake City to perform fire inspections on County owned facilities within Salt Lake City's boundaries and outlines procedures for correcting any violations found during the inspections. Salt Lake City Fire Department has the responsibility for the fire protection service for these buildings and is therefore supportive of this agreement. Sincerely, Dennis M. Sargent Chief of Fire Department DMS:mc Enclosure RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the form and substance of the attached agreement as follows: An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement providing for the inspections of County-owned facilities within the corporation limits of Salt Lake City. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:rc COUNTY CO'2TRA^T tO. !"F1-3 7 5-C- • ' RESOLUTION NO. ///`- DATE A72 /D /1,?Vl� A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- SIONERS OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION. 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 Board of County Commissioners of Salt Lake County, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement providing for the inspections of County-owned facilities within the corporation limits of Salt Lake City 2. The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement attached hereto is hereby accepted and approved by the Salt Lake County Board of Commissioners and the Chairman is hereby authorized to execute said agreement for and on behalf of Salt Lake County and to act in accordance with its terns. APPROVED and ADOPTED this /0 day of T , 1990. SALT E COUN ATTEST: By Ch irman Board of County Commissioners Sa t`L ce Cou Clerk romamowxmom R1065/ on wmwn.M•a'0' Ju — 14 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND SALT LAKE CITY REGARDING THE INSPECTIONS OF COUNTY-OWNED FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY 74 THIS AGREEMENT is made this /i day of , 1990, by and between SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate , and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "County, " and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "City. " RECITALS A. The County owns numerous buildings and facilities which are located within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. B. Pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the State of Utah as the building code for all political subdivisions of the State of Utah, said buildings need to be inspected annually. C. Salt Lake City recognizes its jurisdiction over said buildings and facilities inasmuch as they are located within the City' s corporate boundaries. D. The City recognizes the need for said inspections and agrees to perform the same based upon the terms and conditions set forth hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the mutual terms and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows : 1. The City agrees to inspect annually all buildings and facilities owned by Salt Lake County which are located within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City. Said buildings and facilities shall be inspected by fire prevention officers of the City' s fire department and not company officers . 2 . Notice of violations of the Uniform Building Code found during said annual inspections shall be directed in written form to the Salt Lake County Fire Marshall, who shall refer the notice of violations to appropriate County divisions for correction. 3 . In the event a serious life safety violation is found by the City' s inspectors, a member of the Salt Lake County Fire Prevention Bureau shall be notified immediately in order to assist in remedying the violation. Blocked exits and blocked exit doors, and similar life safety violations shall be handled immediately on site by the City inspectors . Notice of all other violations found by the City inspectors shall be given to the County' s Fire Marshall and the County shall be given a reasonable time in which to make the necessary corrections. 4 . The City agrees to check County-owned buildings and facilities for conformance with the terms of the Uniform Building Code which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: -2- i A. Blocked or obstructed exits . B. Improper locks on required exit doors. C. Locked or chained required exits . D. Obstructed corridors . E. Properly functioning exit lights . F. State inspection tags on fire extinguishers . G. Properly operating fire alarm systems . H. Improper storage of any type of flammable or hazardous material . I . Remodeling with proper permits . J. Sprinkler systems . K. General housekeeping and proper storage in mechanical and electrical rooms. 5 . Following the inspection of each County-owned building or facility, a letter from the Salt Lake City Fire Prevention Bureau shall be submitted stating that the inspection is complete and any violation forms from the building or facility shall be attached and submitted to the Salt Lake County Fire Marshall. 6 . The City agrees that it is the responsibility of the City to perform the inspections described herein under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and recognizes that fire jurisdiction over said buildings rests with the City. 7 . The parties agree that the foregoing inspections shall be made without cost or charge to the County and that any and all repairs required by said inspections shall be at the sole expense of the County. -3- . 8 . This document contains the entire agreement between the parties . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement effective the date first written above. SALT L KE COUNTY ATTEST: By T/ k ?) juill Chairman Board of County Commissioners a t L ke C u ty Clef SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ATTEST: By Mayor Apppovto MS TO PC City Recorder s.R 1^.810 Cwnev Iro"gr'a oKwe 6.1 v� 4�• ..�-' Ors I -4- STATE OF UTAH ) . ss . County of Salt Lake ) On the / 0 day of , 1990, personally appeared before me D. Michael Stewart and H. Dixon Hindley, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Clerk of Salt Lake County, respectively, and that the within and foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of Salt Lake County by authority of the BoardofCoaunty C s ers at a regular meetingheld on the / D � d y of , 1990, and the said D. Michael Stewart and H. Dixon Hindley duly acknowledged that Salt Lake County executed the same and that the seal affixed is the seal of said county. NOTARY PURL I y Residing at ' 1 - My Commission Expires : UUEZ • r STATE OF UTAH ) ss . County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1990, personally appeared before me PALMER A. DEPAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Recorder, respectively, of Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at My Commission Expires : R1065/1-5 -5- DENNIS M. SARGENT filth ;,r` r��(`Q� VA wk ,� D,e dialgi CHIEF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT 799-4101 FIRE DEPARTMENT 315 EAST 200 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 October 26, 1990 Alan Hardman Chairperson Salt Lake City Council City and County Building, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Sir: Please find the enclosed Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Corporation. This agreement allows for the return to the City of this Deparment' s radio Channnel #3 and for the sole licensing on that frequency by the City. Sincerely, Dennis M. Sargent Chief of Fire Department DMS:mc Enclosure RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the form and substance of the attached agreement as follows: An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement providing for the reassignment of Fire Channel 3 to Salt Lake City Corporation. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: 6 CITY RECORDER BRB:rc • COUNTY CONTRACT NO. VC( RESOLUTION NO. ///�J� !fj DATEd1-71 / //94, CJ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- SIONERS OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION. 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 Board of County Commissioners of Salt Lake County, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement providing for the reassignment of Fire Channel 3 to Salt Lake City. 2 . The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement attached hereto is hereby accepted and approved by the Salt Lake County Board of Commissioners and the Chairman is hereby authorized to execute said agreement for and on behalf of Salt Lake County and to act in accordance with its term / APPROVED and ADOPTED this / day of , 1990 . SALT E COUNTY ATTEST: c- By Chairman Board of County Commissioners Salt L ke Cou Clerk R1064 4 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND SALT LAKE CITY THIS AGR EMENT is en ed into and shall be effective as of the / day of , 1990, by and between SALT 1 LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah. RECITALS A. Prior to 1988, the City was the sole licensee of Fire Channel 3 at 154 .340 MHZ . B. For some time prior to 1988, the City, pursuant to contract, was providing dispatch services for the Salt Lake County Fire Department and had designated Fire Channel 3 as the dispatch channel for Salt Lake County Fire. In 1988, Salt Lake County became a joint licensee of Fire Channel 3 with Salt Lake City. . C. Salt Lake County no longer requires the services of Salt Lake City in providing dispatch services and desires to resolve the joint use of Fire Channel 3 . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the following mutual promises and conditions, the parties agree as follows : 1. The County shall execute any and all documents necessary to reassign Fire Channel 3 to Salt Lake City. 2 . Upon execution of this agreement, the County shall terminate its use of Fire Channel 3 at 154 .340 MHZ. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement effective the day and year first written above. SALT LAKE COUNTY ATTEST: By hairman Board of County Commi sioners Salt ake o my Cler SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ATTEST: By Mayor APPROVS0 FOAM City Recorder TO caw s �. Akorngh • r` .'•,'; ' ay Caw Qe9uM c4un`V ri r, /'iDag -2- e , STATE OF UTAH ) : ss . County of Salt Lake ) On the J(1 day of �r ; , 1990, personally appeared before me D. Michael Stewart and H. Dixon Hindley, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Clerk of Salt Lake County, respectively, and that the within and foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of Salt Lake County by authority of the Board of ounty C li��ers at a regular meeting held on the /O fday of (C/ , 1990 , and the said D. Michael Stewart and H. Dixon Hindley duly acknowledged that Salt Lake County executed the same and that the seal affixed is the seal of said county. NOTARY PUBLI Residing at My Commission Expires : STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 1990, personally appeared before me PALMER A. DEPAULIS and KATHRYN MARSHALL, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Recorder, respectively, of Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at My Commission Expires : R1064/1-3 -3- *b3 !RP N� SALT' G�ITY�COO °., JOSEPH R. ANDERSON �� ���.r�� DUANE E. FULLER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CRAIG POSSELLI Street Maintenance Division PARVIZ ROKHVA 850 SOUTH 300 WEST GREG RICHARDS ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6999 MEMO TO: Salt Lake City Council THRU: Joseph R. Anderson, Public Works Director FROM: Craig Posselli, Assistant Street Superintendent DATE: October 29, 1990 SUBJECT: Agreement with State of Utah and Salt Lake City Corporation • The Salt Lake City Public Works Department requests that the City Council approve this cooperative agreement for snow removal with the State of Utah. This cooperative agreement states that the Utah Department of Transportation provide snow removal on a city owned road and Salt Lake City Corporation provide snow removal service on certain state awned roads (the actual exchange requires that UDOT to remove snow from the city frontage road fran 7200 West to Morton Salt Company while Salt Lake City Corporation will remove snow from State Street, North Temple to 400 South and the Utah State Fairgrounds. ) Since the location of the city frontage road makes it extremely difficult for the Public Works Department to provide a timely snow removal service and funds are not needed for this exchange it is recamiended the city council approve this cooperative agreement. A cooperative agreement for snow removal service has been in existence for the past ten yPars. CP:ly cc: Joseph R. Anderson Duane Fuller file CONTRACT ROUTING FORM . . et [ . REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: DATE: Public Works/Street Maintenance 12/19/89 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT: Craig Posselli SUBJECT: snow removal SIGNATURE: YES NO Number of Executed Documents Required: 6 Insurance Required X Expected Contract Completion Date: 6/30/94 Insurance Attached D3 -C'i 9Z � 3 ( FINANCE COMMENTS: Account Number: /27, ATTORNEY COMMENTS: C n . r,. 0 1'' OF ICE RECORDER COMMENTS: J` c0 L� C)l) � ; sECC€ L C\ ,`��' ,1 QCT 1: 1990 nv_ • my RECORDER �1 \v returned to on (contact or dept. ) (date) RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND Utah Department of Transportation WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C .A. , 1963, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services ; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : A cooperative agreement providing for snow removal by UDOT from a City-owned road and snow removal by Salt Lake City Corporation from certain State roads . 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 CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 'APPROVED A5 TO FORM Salk Lake City Attorney's Office CITY RECORDER Deli LVS :ap ( r M-91-07 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 9th day of October, 1990 by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as UDOT, and the duly authorized officers of SALT LAKE CITY, a public corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as the "Local Authority' , is to set out the terms and conditions under which an exchange of snow removal will be accomplished. UDOT with its regular forces shall remove snow and sand the following Local Authority road as part of the routine snow removal of I-80: Frontage Road from 7200 West to Morton Salt Company The Local Authority, in exchange for the above, with its regular forces shall remove snow and sand the following State roads according to UDOT standards: SR-89 (State Street) from North Temple to 400 South SR-297 (Utah State Fair Grounds) (see attached map for State Roads in Fairgrounds Complex) This Agreement expires June 30, 1995. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed under thier respective names as of the day and year first herein above written. SALT LA ' CITY DD APPROVED BY: By: S T� UTAH D kRTMENT F TRANSPORTATION Title MAYOR By: -c Dis rict Director C F!'NlaNCE APR 0015R r.,0 i,r-wi,,;eai�i 000038 ;,iw:4i'.,-�t.^ �- attach. , .,a -5 2D . -..-„Ni--71' is ' T i'Y . 1 J'1'.-111 $ 1'f1 r1'L • 155 No. 1000 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 8'1116 11,onc 533-5850 i •-Nosrml EN RANCS HORSE ARENAS • \ RQCE77L4CK-ARENA GATE 7 HORSES ` ' ' t C t C C t PA R K!N G b 4ol GRANDSTAND Li p-ii,WAREHoU5l MAJOR ENTERTAINMENT �Mo I -__ _�. arei e-s---� NORTH EN RAC _ it-6 J r �� .—J�—r, } CAFE INFORMATION^ in! rtTAt (1 ( Iv�t . 1111 ill: 11 1: 33 COW..�E` J ibit:• . � ..` s . •r i ..S � Jr--t O I , .4 J, E :� i.„....,.....„......,...;.„...1I � I♦jL;E RRE5TM !1 +I I {I .1 1� `"c1 i1.�i411� 0 4 \, hr /►, • . Rooms) 1 � . Ala 1.0 ry: .f.4424 num 7 , �\ MIDWAY ' MID WAY ,�' "�;'' ,--.,\,\. _ .:.,'.Er*�.r.. SANDSIAfJD /� 1. l UM I � SHOWS GATE I E,nw cs \\ N►R' S1ioW V W �o: .. �;t flyI .xi ••_..`� O • �• �\ ' t PTTRfWCE -FI iu` W �',. ® ' OFFICE 1n . . .. . \:\. 1 sr K. o A . . . .. GATE 6 FDON�Sgi M r �«, (� , v) . 36tu �Ih� 1 ',• -4`,' ':'. , INFORMATION �:a COMMERCIAL ,L� Fl Booru d FINE ARTS ,� EXHi6IT5 13 •' . ;, ';:,: •,_.4:- S''��a BLDG. [MFTS•PNOTOGRAP1 fI{ 5 f"lSHFi FLOWERS i '- ::.. 0 ;111 l�CI44SLToIZEN GtiAME �r I 0 1' t Ir 1. W .'. -GIANT i. r ns 7 z SaIVE Roo c( 16 17 ' I9 COMMERCIAL i PARKING ! SHEEP P ;� 22 1a z' EXIIISITS J�� � � NEI 3�I Z If luo� N PoulTf lwimm I c�` i`` ry�Nrs ,/ pI PIGET . , w � � '0 d` . I ♦ ` '.1 . 24 �r� �. IO - . A t Vv?L_R. .9i. . . h CATTLE CATTLE CATTLE LITAIIKMEl v x ' 1 � � .I.I • 10 6 _161IF .�^ IHDiAN EXHIBITS • 9 8 Exkis TS7 4., Ca I E P NT, SOUTH ' SoulH� `' G►7 F.3 J WEST ENTRANCE ENTRANCE GATES NORTH TEMPLE ST. GATES} CO; 7t7e....v: TRW !I: ^ ' ` � � NOV 21990 .V4 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL LINDA HAMILTON � `ex wit II 1 PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAYOR _ FINANCE DEPARTMENT Policy and Budget Division 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 248 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-7810 November 1, 1990 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: BUDGET AMENDMENT #2 - PUBLIC HEARING Recommendation: That on November 20, 1990 the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on December 11, 1990 to discuss Budget Amendment #2. Discussion and Background: We will transmit the amendment packets to the Council office on December 4, 1990, one week prior to the scheduled public hearing date. Additionally, a briefing session will be held with the Council on December 6 to discuss the amendment. Legislative Action: The City Attorney' s office will prepare the necessary ordinance. Submitted by: Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/SF: lc Enclosure cc: Scott Bond Emilie Charles Steve Fawcett Lee King ' t LINDA AMILT OF NANO ,T ' 1—l'a� ITI "���I �I.r� PI PALMER DEPAULIS MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6426 October 31, 1990 Salt Lake City Council Attn: Mr. Allen Hardman Chairperson City & County Bldg. , Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3.28.050, 3.28.060, 3.28.090 AND 3 .28.100, PERTAINING TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Dear Mr. Hardman: As we continue to refine the City centralized contracting process, the need for amendments to the above referenced sections of City Code has become apparent. The purpose of the proposed amendments to Sections 3.28.050 and 3.28.060 will be to enable departments to designate persons with applicable expertise to serve on selection committees and advisory review committees for selection of providers of professional services. At the present time, departments are mandatorily required to occupy the time of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Development Services, even though the professional services may not fall within their respective fields of expertise. The amendments provide for appropriate review of selection committee designees prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals by the appropriate procurement official. The amendment to Section 3 .28.090 identifies specific exceptions to provisions of this chapter for certain professional services where the need for confiden- tiality or proven legal expertise are overriding factors in selecting the provider of professional consultation. The amendment to Section 3.28.100 is a cosmetic change necessary to reflect the fact that the Mayor has the power to designate other City officers to award certain contracts. Mr. Allen Hardman • October 31, 1990 Page Two The City Attorney has prepared a blue draft copy for ease of review by the City Council in each instance. If the Council is in agreement with the proposed amendments, the attorney has also attached a final copy which has been approved as to form and is ready for passage by the Council. If you have any questions related to these matters, we will be happy to provide further explanation upon request. Respectfully, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/GLF/cb Attachments cc: Bruce Baird G. L. Failner Tom Jewkes Russ Pack Max Peterson { • l �4:. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Amending Sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with contracting for professional services) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 28 OF TITLE 3 DEALING WITH CONTRACTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that certain sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with the contracting for professional services need to be amended to clarify and make the contracting provisions more efficient; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 3.28. 050 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.050 Selection committee. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C. * * * D. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals, screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services, in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. E. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other than architect, engineer or construction related planning services, if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning services . SECTION 2. That Section 3 .28 .060 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.060 Advisory review committee. * * * A. * * * B. [The d_-=-t or of the department of public work3 and designees; and] For architect, engineering or construction related planning services, the director of the department of public works and the director of development services or their respective designees . For all other professional services, two members chosen by the department head from outside the department with familiarity and experience in the professional service area outlined in the request for proposals . C. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals, screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services, -2- • in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. D. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other than architect, engineer or construction related planning services, if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning service. SECTION 3 . That Section 3 . 28 . 090 be amended to read as follows : 3.28 .090 Exceptions to chapter provisions. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C. * * * D. Contractual obligations or applicable grant provisions, which preclude any or all of these procedures . [The mayor, with auce, mey also wive achy or all of these rcquirements for specific contracts . ] E. Contracts for expert witnesses, advisors or outside counsel for the city attorney' s office; F. Contracts for special investigatory or similar services for the police department where confidentiality is necessary if approved by the mayor upon recommendation from the chief procurement officer. -3- G. The mayor, with cause specified in writing , may also waive any or all of these requirements for specific contracts. SECTION 4'. That Section 3.28.100 be amended to read as follows: 3.28.100 Contract review and award. All awards for professional service contracts, including those involving fees under ten thousand dollars shall be made as designated by the mayor, upon recommendation of the responsible department head and after such contracts have been reviewed and approved, as to form, by the city engineer, or the chief procurement officer and city attorney, or his/her designee. However, no contract shall be valid or binding on the city until the applicable formalities provided in city ordinance and state law have been completed. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -4- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990 . Published: BRB:rc -5- • a Fit<�' SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Amending Sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with contracting for professional services ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 28 OF TITLE 3 DEALING WITH CONTRACTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES . WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that certain sections of Chapter 28 of Title 3 dealing with the contracting for professional services need to be amended to clarify and make the contracting provisions more efficient; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 3 . 28 . 050 be amended to read as follows : 3.28.050 Selection committee. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C . * * * D. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals, screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services, in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. E. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other than architect, engineer or construction related planning services , if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning services . SECTION 2 . That Section 3 . 28 . 060 be amended to read as follows : 3.28 . 060 Advisory review committee. * * * A. * * * B. For architect, engineering or construction related planning services , the director of the department of public works and the director of development services or their respective designees . For all other professional services , two members chosen by the department head from outside the department with familiarity and experience in the professional service area outlined in the request for proposals . C. The membership of the committee shall be submitted to the chief procurement officer for approval prior to solicitation of competitive sealed proposals , screening or interviews with prospective providers except when the solicitation is for architect, engineer or construction related planning services, in which case the membership of the committee shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. -2- D. The chief procurement officer may appoint a staff member from the purchasing and property management division to the selection committee for professional services other than architect, engineer or construction related planning services , if the chief procurement officer deems such an appointment appropriate. The city engineer shall designate a member from the city engineering division to all selection committees for architect, engineer or construction related planning service. SECTION 3 . That Section 3 . 28 . 090 be amended to read as follows : 3.28 . 090 Exceptions to chapter provisions. * * * A. * * * B. * * * C. * * * D. Contractual obligations or applicable grant provisions , which preclude any or all of these procedures . E. Contracts for expert witnesses, advisors or outside counsel for the city attorney' s office; F. Contracts for special investigatory or similar services for the police department where confidentiality is necessary if approved by the mayor upon recommendation from the chief procurement officer. G. The mayor, with cause specified in writing, may also waive any or all of these requirements for specific contracts . SECTION 4 . That Section 3 . 28 . 100 be amended to read as follows : -3- LC 3 . 28.100 Contract review and award. All awards for professional service contracts, including those involving fees under ten thousand dollars shall be made as designated by the mayor, upon recommendation of the responsible department head and after such contracts have been reviewed and approved, as to form, by the city engineer, or the chief procurement officer and city attorney, or his/her designee. However, no contract shall be valid or binding on the city until the applicable formalities provided in city ordinance and state law have been completed. SECTION 5 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective 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 -4- • r-TA ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990 . Published: BRB:rc -5- t • II.1 1. - • . j1 MIKE ZUHL SALTLAKE- 3.1 �O Om 1O 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 November 16, 1990 RE: Petition No. 400-863-90 submitted by Bob Valentine, General Manager of the Salt Lake Airport Hilton Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on December 18, 1990 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-863-90 submitted by the Salt Lake Airport Hilton. The petitioners are requesting that Salt Lake City change the liquor district at 5151 West Wiley Post Way from District C to District A and extend the major street map designations for liquor licenses to include Wiley Post Way. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: In the past, the Salt Lake Airport Hilton operated a private club know as "M.R. Ducks" but had allowed the license to expire. They have been granted approval by the State Liquor Commission to once again operate a private club in the hotel provided that approval be given by the City for a business license. The petitioners have submitted this request because they are unable under the present requirements to obtain a business license. The present liquor District C specifics that establishments must be located 2,000 feet apart and be located on a major street as defined by the official map. Woody's Wharf is located only 275 feet from the proposed private club at the Airport Hilton and Wiley Post Way is not defined as a major street on the official map. The District A allows for no more than two establishments to be located on any lineal block. A lineal block is defined as both sides of a major street between two intersecting major streets. The intent of District A is to halt the proliferation of liquor establishments in one concentrated area. The area is presently zoned "M-TA" for light manufacturing. The surrounding areas is a planned business park environment with related parking and there are no schools, churches or parks in the immediate area. The Planning Coilullission has reviewed this request and has recommended that the Salt Lake International Center be reclassified from District C to a District A for liquor licenses and that the following streets be classified as major streets on the official map: Wiley Post Way, Wiley Post Road, Amelia Earhart Drive, 5600 West, Wright Brothers Drive and Harold Gatty Drive. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office is preparing the ordinance and it will be fowarded to you prior to the hearing date for your review. bmitted by: MICHAEL B. UHL Interim Di ect• ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP SALT' LADE CITY CORPORATION PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR �'� COMMISSION MEMBERS WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION LYNN BECKSTEAD SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission DAN BETHEL AND URBAN DESIGN CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL RICHARD J. HOWA SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 RALPH P. NEILSON November 16, 1990 TELEPHONE 535-7757 GEORGE NICOLATUS VICKI PALACIOS JOHN M. SCHUMANN Mr. Mike Zuhl, Interim Director Department of Community and Economic Development 451 So. State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition #400-863 -- Salt Lake Airport Hilton Dear Mike: Attached please find Petition #400-863 by Mr. Bob Valentine on behalf of Salt Lake Airport Hilton at 5151 West Wiley Post Way, requesting Salt Lake City change the License Ordinance 6.08.120 from District C to District A and extend major street designations to accommodate a private club. Salt Lake City Code Section 6.08.120 outlines criteria and location restrictions for liquor establishments. There are three districts; A, B, and C which identify geographical location criteria for liquor establishments. Salt Lake Airport Hilton is located in District C which specifies that establishments must be located 2,000 feet apart and be located on a major street. The Hotel was denied a business license to operate a private club because it is not located on a major street and is within 275 feet of Woody's Warf, another private club. The petition requests a change to District A which allows two establishments per lineal block and the extension of designated streets in the International Center. When this request is granted, a business license for the private club can be issued. At its regular meeting on November 15, 1990 the Planning Commission reviewed this petition and voted to recommend Lo the Mayor that Section 6.08.120 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended to reclassify the Salt Lake International Center from District C to District A and that the following streets be classified as major streets on the official map: Wiley Post Way, Wiley Post Road, Amelia Earhart Drive, 5600 West, Wright Brothers Drive, and Harold Catty Drive. Sincerely, Allen C. Johnson, 'AICP Planning Director :attachment SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING Cl7MUSSICN STAFF REPORT PLTITICN 400-863 OVERVIEW Petition 400-863 is a request from Mr. Bob Valentine, General Manager of the Salt Lake Airport Hilton, requesting a change in the liquor district at 5151 West Wiley Post Way (Salt Lake International Center) from District C to District A and extending the major street map designation for liquor licenses to include Wiley Post Way. Initially, this petition was routed through the Business License office. After review by the Business License office it was determined that due to the potential land use impacts which would be created by a change in districts, this issue required examination and review by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND Salt Lake City Code Section 6.08120 defines the criteria and location restrictions for liquor establishments. There are three districts; A, B and C. Woody's Wharf and the proposed private club for the Airport Hilton are located in District C. District C specifies that establishments must be located 2,000 feet apart and be located on a major street as defined by the official map. The two establishments are located only 275 feet apart and Wiley Post Way is not defined as a major street on the official map. However, the current M-lA zone for the Salt Lake International Center will allow private clubs. District A, which is the requested district, allows for no more than two establishments to be located on any lineal block. A lineal block is defined as both sides of a major street between two intersecting major streets. The intent of District A is to halt the proliferation of liquor establishments in one concentrated area. SALT LACE CITY INTERNATIONAL CENTER Herald Getty I IF Dnve i p4 Amelia b Eeraert Drive Wiley Peet 4, we,ir Yeed! 1-00 Naikakesi0 Caree..t Hajr Streets 5603 Vest The Salt Lake Airport Hilton operated for many years with a private club known as "M.R. Ducks". Approval has been given by the State Liquor Conunission to once again operate a private club in the hotel provided that approval be given by the City for a business license. A business license cannot be issued at this time because of the restrictions imposed by District C. The applicant is requesting that the district designation be changed to District A and that Wiley Post Way be added to the official map. When this is accomplished, a business license to operate a private club in the Airport Hilton can be granted. ANALYSIS The Salt Lake City Airport Hilton is located in the Salt Lake International Center at 4151 West Wiley Post Way. The area is zoned M-lA light manufacturing with 15-foot setbacks. The surrounding land uses are a planned business park environment with related parking. There are no schools, churches, or parks in the immediate area. The Salt Lake Airport Hilton has requested a business license to operate a private club in the hotel for the consumption of liquor. An existing private club known as "Woody's Wharf" is located next to the hotel at 5225 West Wiley Post Way. In order for the hotel to obtain a business license for the private club and for "Woody's Wharf" to be in conformance with the city's liquor ordinance, a change in liquor district designation and the addition of Wiley Post Way on the official map is necessary. The applicant's request would conform to the goals and policies for the area Master Plan in providing services and amenities for a Master Planned Conununity that serves as a gateway to the city. The requested change from District C to District A would allow more flexibility of liquor locations in the International Center while keeping the area from becoming a heavily concentrated area for liquor outlets. RECOMMENDATICN It is recommended that the Salt Lake International Center be reclassified from District C to District A for liquor licenses and that the following streets be classified as major streets on the official map: Wiley Post Way, Amelia Earhart Drive, 5600 West, Wright Brothers Drive and Harold Gatty Drive. 71 Drive Harold GattU ri r f Ameliao far-hart Fa Drive o E v . . . E a Wiley =) Part 2'r Way I.. Garth Limburg, AICP November 9, 1990 56ca vest F. "T7 Proposed Major Streets ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP SAL1'. 7`tAlwE M1 �;CITY CORPORATION' PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION LYNN BECKSTEAD SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission DAN BETHEL AND URBAN DESIGN CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL RICHARD J. HOWA SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 RALPH P. NEILSON TELEPHONE 535-7757 GEORGE NICOLATUS VICKI PALACIOS JOHN M. SCHUMANN November 7, 1990 To Whom It May Concern: The Salt Lake City Planning Ccmmi.ssion is currently reviewing Petition 400-863 by the Salt Lake Airport Hilton requesting Salt Lake City to change the liquor district located at the Salt Lake International Center from District "C" to District "A" . It is the intention of the Airport Hilton to establish a private club for the consumption of liquor in the hotel. As a part of the liquor districting process, the Planning Conud ssion is holding an informal public hearing. During this hearing, the Planning Staff will present information on the petitioner's request. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Conudssion concerning this request will be given the opportunity to speak. You are invited to the informal hearing: Date: November 15, 1990 Time: 5:15 p.m. Place: City & County Building 451 South State Street, Room 126 Salt Lake City, Utah Please share this information with your neighbors and direct any questions you may have concerning this matter to Garth Limburg. Sincerel',7 Allen C. ohns , AICP Plannin Dire or i . i • • Octobe, 24 Bob Eidcle. Licensing Supervisor -ity License pena, tm-n 451 South State 5'- ri,-,E' Room 215 Salt Lae Ctv- , Dear Mr . Ell - : It is my unero . tar r,u.- tr, Ju-st -R. •• a nrr,! business license for Rule ' s inr- hai ',:.,-- -: . -1'':_ ' ''' .7 (_:-. tho basis that the location for this private Hub ir: le.- ' '. -In ? ',-.' fee: ac'nr firm the existing club , and that on: ic- -., : o!, ,:-. not. on a main street . It is my t.Inder:,:tand3n ; -,,I Jn e,.',,ly ,- - -, -ai- e,-jory re,q,_, 4r-ment for avornval we.: met . We feel that q vari =,:-. - .r.':.•,)1.- - : ,f -. fl, , ,-;,, ,,(1 ;- , ----; on the fact that the Arport ' ; ' --.1.- tr. trtany yeaz had a p,-ivate club , M . R . nue-kg , and that no other ronica aLarm's have one into existence since that time . The Airport }-liton raters Primarily to people from outside the state of ':.:. ah . Ti_ese .,eople fin r_Inal: operating under a restaurant licel.. , 2nly tr r:e unsatisfactory . We have already received approval by the Liqu.DI: Commission for a Private club license with the con'r-in,,Jenoy or the approval of this business license . The 11. 1 :---.1: - .' t- ',1-, ' - ,.:a .- ed in a le-r._.e area with very few services oi amenities f - oar 2uests . this in-house amenity wout,ft he gE,?ativ :=!,2,- 1 .,- - : - - -,', , .;.F there --).re no liquor licenses available w -_.hin the statc. :7-, randy heal- ] n,..7: is of the utmost rnprrtance T. :, tire Ljrq--1 -.i .mjssion in allow-iinc us to continue pursuing ou, .- bus ' n -- :-- - re I am enclosinc,, a ,- ,: ':' -.-,-:- . - - a' -1 fee f :-..-- tha h---alin•71 and I would hope that we .1:-.),2,ld ':. ,-: ah' e - .-- -f-- ---- th: s an acenda item at your earliest possl ,--snve!-: i 'fl'::,' . A /I /4( . BCE iliAL NT-1,- L. -.--, Gen,-L-ral Manager Bw,/ jg , . , . . • • BRENT B. WILDE SALTy"-'J "'IT� �ORPO1lL�11i1O ROBERT M. BRIDGE DIRECTOR BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOP PERMITS AND LICENSING COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION PERMITS & LICENSING SERVICES DIVISION Business Licensing 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 215, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MEMORANDUM TELEPHONE 535-7717 TO: Allen Johnson, Director Planning & Zoning Division FROM: Robert M. Bridge, Supervisor Business License MTh: October 31, 1990 SUBJECT: PETITION #500-74 - APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE CLUB LICENSE FOR RULES, INC. LOCATED IN THE AIRPORT HILTON, 5151 WEST WILEY POST WAY - SALT LAKE INTERNATIONAL CENTER — Please be advised that a business license application has been filed by Bob Valentine, Manager of Rule's Inc. , for a Class "B" private club located at 5151 West Wiley Post Way, at The Salt Lake International Center. It has been determined that Rule's Inc. , is not located on a major street according to the official map #19372, and that it is 275 feet from Woody's Warf, another Class "B" private club license holder. Being located in District "C", an applicant must be 2,000 feet from another establishment. This application has been denied by Kathy Taylor, Zoning Inspector. Petition #500-74 hereby requests the Planning Commission to recommend an amendment to Section 6.08.120 of the City code extending the major street to encompass the property referred to above and to change the Class "C" District designation to a Class "A" District designation as the means of eliminating the proximity requirement as it relates to Woody's Warf. The applicant, under the signature of Bob Valentine, General Manager, has requested that such a review recommendation and ordinance change be conducted as expediently as possible pursuant to City ordinance. They have been issued one of 40 private club licenses by the State Liquor Commission and in order to maintain their license status with the State they have to demonstrate that their license petition with Salt Lake City has a high possibility of being approved within the shortest period of time possible. Page -2- This matter has been discussed with Mike Zuhl, Chief of Staff, Mayor's Office, and has been reviewed by Roger Cutler and Larry Spendlove of the City's legal staff, with the recommendation that from a city policy standpoint, and as an economic consideration the city should act expediently to accommodate the approval of this license request. Would you please arrange for a review and reconunendation of this request by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the updating of the City's office map #19372 by the City's Planning Division. cc: Bob Valentine - General Manager, Airport Hilton, 5151 Wiley Post Way Mike Zuhl - Chief of Staff - Mayor's Office Roger Cutler - City Attorney Larry Spendlove - Ass't. City Attorney Brent Wilde - Director, PeLmits & Licensing Division Bill Wright - Deputy Director, Planning Division Dave Timmerman - Special Investigations - SLC Police Dept. Craig Spangenberg - Zoning Superintendent, Building & Housing Dept. Kathy Taylor - Zoning Officer, Building & Housing Dept. BD155OO (PF) 7 I Salt Lake City, Utah November 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, met in regular session at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah on Tuesday, the 20th day of November, 1990 at p.m. The following members of the City Council were present: Present: Alan Hardman Chair Nancy Pace Vice Chair Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Don C. Hale Councilmember Roselyn N. Kirk Councilmember Ronald Whitehead Councilmember Absent: There were also present: Palmer A. Depaulis Mayor Roger F. Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the City Recorder presented to the City Council a Certificate of Compliance With Open Meeting Law with respect to this November 20, 1990 meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Thereupon, the following resolution was introduced in writing, was fully discussed, and pursuant to motion duly made by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember adopted by the following vote: YEA: NAY: The resolution is as follows: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH CONSENTING TO AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A FINANCING AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 5, 1990, BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AND THE UTAH MUNICIPAL FINANCE COOPERATIVE ("MFA") ; AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION; AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") is a municipal corporation duly created, established, organized and existing under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah and is a Member of MFA; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (the "Participating Member") is a redevelopment agency duly created, established, organized and existing under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah; and WHEREAS, the Participating Member desires to finance the costs of the acquisition of land and the construction of parking and to fund a development grant for improvements in the area of a site of a proposed sports complex arena and to provide funds for other redevelopment objectives and improvements (the "Project") by entering into a Financing Agreement dated December 5, 1990, with MFA (the "Financing Agreement") in substantially the form presented to this meeting and attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, MFA will remarket a portion of its outstanding Local Government Revenue Bonds to be designated Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative Local Government Revenue Bonds (Pooled Capital Improvement Financing Program) , Series December 5, 1990--Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (Tax Increment Revenue Obligation) (the "Bonds") to lend the proceeds thereof to the Participating Member to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, MFA may enter into financing agreements with (i) a Member of MFA or (ii) a public body established by a Member of MFA which has been authorized by such Member to enter into a financing agreement with MFA; and WHEREAS, the Participating Member is a public body established by the City which is a Member of MFA; and WHEREAS, the Participating Member desires that the City authorize it to enter into the Financing Agreement with MFA; and WHEREAS, the City desires to consent to and authorize the execution and delivery by the Participating Member of the Financing Agreement and to authorize such other actions as shall be necessary to consummate the transactions contemplated herein; and BD15500 (PF) 2 WHEREAS, since portions of the Project may constitute publicly owned buildings, facilities, structures or improvements, the City desires to consent to the financing of the Project by the Participating Member: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH: Section 1 . All actions heretofore taken not inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution by the City Council directed toward the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 2. The City Council hereby consents to and approves the execution and delivery by the Participating Member of the Financing Agreement in substantially the form presented to this meeting and attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and consents to all action necessary or reasonably required by the Participating Member to give effect to and consummate the transactions as contemplated hereby. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that those portions of the Project to be financed with proceeds borrowed by the Participating Member from MFA under the Financing Agreement which will be publicly owned will be of benefit to the C.B.D. Neighborhood Development Project Area. Therefore, pursuant to Section 17A-2-1260 of the Utah Neighborhood Development Act, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, the City Council hereby consents to the borrowing from MFA by the Participating Member as contemplated in the Financing Agreement to finance the Project. Section 4. If any provisions of this Resolution (including the exhibits attached hereto) should be held invalid, the invalidity of such provisions shall not affect any of the other provisions of this Resolution or the exhibits. Section 5. All resolutions of the City or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed as reviving any resolution, or ordinance or part thereof. Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council. BD15500 (PF) 3 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, THIS 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1990. Chair ( SEAL ) ATTEST: City Recorder BD15500 (PF) 4 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on the day of November, 1990. Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of November, 1990. Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor BD15500 (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, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City") do hereby certify: The foregoing pages numbered 1 to 5 both inclusive, are a true and complete copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City Council") , had and taken at a lawful special meeting of said City Council held at the Council's regular meeting place in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 20th of November, 1990, commencing at the hour of p.m. , as recorded in the regular official book of the proceedings of the City Council kept in my office, and said proceedings were duly had and taken as therein shown, and the meeting therein shown was duly held, and the persons therein were present as said meeting as therein shown. All members of the City Council of said City were duly notified of said meeting, pursuant to law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 20th day of November, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD15500 (PF) 6 EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Kathryn Marshall, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the November 20, 1990, public meeting held by the City as follows: (a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", to be posted at the City Council's principal offices on 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 peseret News on , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. In addition, Notice of the 1990 Annual Meeting Schedule of the Council was given, in the form attached as Schedule "B", in the manner required by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this day of , 1990. City Recorder BD15500 (PF) 7 SCHEDULE "A" AGENDA BD15500 (PF) 8 SCHEDULE "B" ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE BD15500 (PF) 9 EXHIBIT "B" FINANCING AGREEMENT [See Transcript Document No. ] BD15500 (PF) 10 liAl ROGER F.CUTLER SAT ` CRT`.0IMPOI 'S�' ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L.MONTGOMERY STEVEN W.ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R.HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY V.SPENDLOVE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING BRUCE R.BAIRD CHERYL D.LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 505 FRANK M.NAKAMURA Cr,vRosEcuTOR SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 Ass.sTANT vRosEcurORS TELEPHONE(801)535-7788 GLEN A.COOK JANICE L.FROST FAX(801)535-7840 MARSHA ATKIN MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey Boyd Building & Housing FROM: Bruce R. Baird Assistant City Attorney DATE: October 4, 1990 RE: Demolition Ordinance Based on the Council's consideration of the draft Demolition Ordinance I have made the changes which they requested. Apparently you should review this Ordinance to make sure it is still satisfactory to your department and then arrange to have it reviewed by SLACC and its members. If you have any questions, please let me know. BRB:ap SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Amending Chapter 64 of Title 18 dealing with demolishing buildings ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 64 OF TITLE 18 DEALING WITH DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has reviewed the current City code dealing with demolition of buildings and has determined that the amendments below are appropriate for the development of the City: NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That existing Chapter 18 . 64 . 010 , et seq. , attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby repealed . SECTION 2 . That Chapter 18 . 64 . 010, et seq. , be reenacted as follows : 18 . 64 . 010 Permit Required. It shall be unlawful to demolish any building or structure in the City or cause the same to be demolished without first obtaining a permit for demolition of each such building or structure from the City Building Official . 18 . 64 . 020 . Application for Permit. To obtain a permit for demolition, an applicant must submit an application in writing in a form furnished by the Building Official for that purpose. Each application shall : 1 . Identify and describe the type of work to be performed under the permit; 2 . State the address of the structure or building to be demolished; 3 . Describe the building or structure to be demolished including the type of use, type of building construction, size and square footage, number of stories and number of residential dwelling units (if applicable) ; 4 . Indicate the method and location of demolished material disposal ; 5 . Identify the approximate date of commencement and completion of demolition; 6 . Indicate if fences , barricades, scaffolds or other protections are required by any City code for the demolition and, if so, their proposed location and compliance; 7 . State whether fill material will be required to restore the site to level grade after demolition and, if required, the approximate amount of fill material ; 8 . If the building or structure to be demolished contains any dwelling units, the application should state whether any of the dwelling units are presently occupied . 18 .64. 030 Fees and Signature. A. The permit application shall be signed by the party or the party' s authorized agent requesting the permit . Signature on the permit application constitutes a certification by the signee that the information contained in the application is true and correct . -2- B. Demolition fee . The fee for a demolition permit application shall be based on the building floor area: BUILDING FLOOR AREA FEE 5 - 2000 square feet $60 . 00 2001 - 4000 square feet 70 . 00 4001 - 6000 square feet 80 . 00 6001 - 8000 square feet 110 . 00 8001 - 10, 000 square feet 120 . 00 10 , 001 - 12 , 000 square feet 150 . 00 12, 001 - 14 , 000 square feet 180 . 00 14 , 001 - 16 , 000 square feet 210 . 00 16 , 001 - 18 , 000 square feet 240 . 00 18 , 001 - 20, 000 square feet 265 . 00 20 , 001 - 22 , 000 square feet 300 . 00 22 , 001 - 24 , 000 square feet 340 . 00 24 , 001 - 26 , 000 square feet 370 . 00 26 , 001 - 28 , 000 square feet 410 . 00 28 , 001 - 30 , 000 square feet 450 . 00 30 , 001 - 32 , 000 square feet 485 . 00 For each 500 square feet over 32, 000 add an additional $10 . 00 . C. Waiver fee . Landscaping waiver requests shall also pay a fee of $170 . 00 for the cost of the landscape waiver process . D. Inspection fee . If landscaping is not required by the zoning, or if a landscaping waiver is sought pursuant to Section 18 . 64 . 070 , an additional fee for the cost of inspecting the property to determine it is kept free of weeds and junk -3- materials shall be collected in the amount of $100 . 00 . If a waiver request is denied, the $100 . 00 paid under this subsection shall be refunded . 18. 64. 040 Post-demolition Use Plan Required. No demolition permit shall be issued until one of the following requirements has been met: A. A permit for the use replacing the demolished building or structure has been issued by the Building and Housing Division; B. A landscaping plan for the site, showing the sprinkling system and planted areas, has been approved and a performance bond to assure timely and proper installation and maintenance of the landscaping has been filed with the City if a form acceptable to the City. , In the event the Building Official determines that landscaping is impracticable or unnecessary given the characteristics of the site and the neighborhood, the landscaping requirement may be waived subject to the provisions of Section 18 . 64 . 070 below; C . In the event of a natural disaster, fire or other similar event or where immediate demolition and clearing of the land is necessary to remove hazardous or blighting conditions, the building officer may waive the landscaping requirement and order immediate demolition. 18 . 64.050 Residential Demolition Comment Provisions. If the structure for which a demolition permit is sought contains residential dwelling units , the Building Official shall mail a written notice to the owners and residents of properties -4- within a six hundred foot radius from the property line of the property on which the proposed demolition work will take place as shown on the list equalized property tax assessment roll . Notice shall also be mailed to any affected neighborhood based organization recognized pursuant to Section 2 . 60 . 020 (c ) . The notice shall specify the property proposed for demolition and provide that comments may be made to the Building Official within fifteen days of the date of the notice . 18 . 64.060 Residential Structure Demolition. A. Demolition permits for structures containing residential dwelling units which are entirely vacated may be issued no sooner than twenty days from the date the required post-demolition use plan of Section 18 . 64 . 040 above is accepted. B. If any of the residential dwelling units in the structure proposed for demolition is occupied, the demolition permit may not be issued sooner than forty-five days after the required post-demolition use plan is accepted . 18 .64.070 Post-demolition Use Plan Waiver Procedure. A. If a waiver of the post-demolition use plan is sought under Section 18 . 64 . 040 (B) above, the applicant shall file with the Building Official, on a form provided therefor, a statement of any claimed hardship or other special circumstances justifying waiver of the post-demolition use plan requirements . B. The Building Official shall mail a written notice to the owners and residents of properties within a six hundred foot radius from the edge of the property on which the proposed demolition work will take place as shown on the last equalized -5- property tax assessment roll and any affected neighborhood based organization recognized pursuant to Section 2 . 60 . 020 (C ) . The notice shall state the reasons given by the applicant for waiving the post-demolition use plan and state the date, time and location of a hearing before the City' s Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. C . The chairperson of the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board shall select a panel of three examiners from the roster of members and schedule a hearing date no sooner than fifteen days from the date of the petition and no later than thirty days from the date of the petition. D. In determining whether to waive the post-demolition use landscaping requirements, the Board may consider the effects on surrounding properties , the character of the neighborhood, the Master Plan for the area, future plans for the property and similar factors . 18 . 64.080 Predemolition Salvage Permits. A. A predemolition salvage permit for other than structural demolition shall be required for the removal of doors , windows , special glass, fixtures , fittings , pipes , railings , posts, panels , boards , lumber, stones , bricks , marble, or similar materials on the exterior or interior of the building. B. A predemolition salvage permit fee shall be paid in the amount of twenty percent of the demolition fee. -6- 18.64 .090 Expiration. Permits shall expire forty-five calendar days from the date of issuance, unless a completion date allowing more time is requested and approved by the Building Official at the time of application. Demolition permits may be renewable upon request prior to expiration with approval of the Building Official for one-half of the original permit fee, provided continuous progress is being made . If a permit is allowed to expire without the prior renewal, any subsequent request for reinstatement shall be accompanied by a reinstatement fee equal to the original demolition permit fee. 18 .64.100 Qualifications to do Work. It shall be unlawful for demolition work permitted under this chapter to be performed except by: A. A subcontractor currently holding a license in good standing with the State of Utah to do wrecking and/or demolition work . B. A licensed general contractor currently holding a license in good standing with the State of Utah qualified as a general contractor, but only when the demolition is incidental and supplemental to the construction by the general contractor of a new structure on the demolition site. C . Salvage work under a predemolition salvage permit may be done without a contractor' s license provided all other conditions of this chapter are met . -7- 18.64.110 Demolitions Requirement. A. Prior to the commencement of any demolition or moving, the permittee shall plug all sewer laterals at or near sidewalk lines as staked out by the department of public utilities . No excavation shall be covered until such plugging is approved by the Department or by the Building Official . The permittee shall further insure all utility services to the structure and/or premises have been shut off and meters removed prior to commencement of demolition work. B. When the applicant indicates the demolition will require more than thirty days to complete, and where required by the Building Official for the safety of the public, the applicant shall also provide plans to fence the demolition site so that it is inaccessible to unauthorized persons in a manner acceptable to the Building Official . The Building Official may waive the fencing requirement if it is determined that fencing would be inappropriate or unnecessary to protect safety or health . C . A permit for demolition requires that all materials comprising part of the existing structure(s ) , including the foundation and footings , be removed from the site. The depression caused by the removal of such debris must be filled back and compacted to the original grade, as approved by the Building Official, with fill material excluding detrimental amounts of organic material or large dimension nonorganic material . -8- D. Permitted demolition work, including filling and leveling back to grade and removal of required pedestrian walkways and fences , must be completed within the permit period unless the Building Official finds that any part of the foundation of building or site will form an integral part of a new structure to be erected on the same site for which plans have already been approved by the building division. In such event, the Building Official may approve plans for appropriate adjustments to the completion time and may impose reasonable conditions including the posting of a bond, erection of fences , securing, or similar preventions to insure the site does not create a hazard after the demolition is completed . 18 .64. 120 Relationship to Other Ordinance. Provisions of this chapter shall be subordinate to any contrary specific provisions of Chapters 21 . 64 . 010, et seq. , dealing with demolition in the C-4 Zoning District, and Chapter 21 . 74 . 010, et seq. , dealing with demolition in historical districts . SECTION 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON -9- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:ap -10- SLACC 451 So. State Street.Room 335 c� S Wes. Z Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone(801)535-7929 F:` 00'�B J=� ' J ITV November 16, 1990 SALT LAKE ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS To: Salt Lake City Council From: Stan Penfold--SLACC Chair Subject: Summary of changes recommended by SLACC Board to the City Council on the proposed demolition ordinance. As stated in the recently adopted Housing Policy for Salt Lake City, "The City must preserve, enhance, and expand its housing stock...It is vital that the entire housing stock be safe, decent, and habitable. This includes the older buildings, which are a valuable source of affordable housing. Since making new housing construction affordable is more difficult than rehabilitating existing dwellings, the policy places particular emphasis on preserving existing housing." SLACC SUGGESTED CHANGES • #1. PHILOSOPHY-- Replace the introduction with the following. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah values its neighborhoods and their physical and social makeup, and WHEREAS, the indiscriminate and uncontrolled demolition of residential structures contributes to a loss of historical perspective, weakens the residential nature of neighborhoods, discourages residential investment in Salt Lake City, and negatively impacts such neighborhood institutions as, schools, churches, and businesses, the City Council of Salt Lake City has determined that the amendments below are appropriate for the development of the City: ... 42. FEES SLACC recommends that the following wording be inserted at 18.64.020 (B), "All fees collected from demolition permits will be earmarked for a housing preservation fund established and maintained by the Department of Community and Economic Development." • L MIKE ZUHL SALT LAKE C flr CORPORATION; LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR •n 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 October 10, 1990 Re: Proposed Ordinance on Barbed Wire Fences - Petition No. 400-794-90 submitted by Building and Housing Services. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on November 20, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-794 submitted by the Building and Housing Division. The Building Division is requesting that the ordinance dealing with barbed wire fences be amended. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Salt Lake City Ordinances currently requires that all barbed wire fences must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. With -the increased demand for barbed wire fences this has caused enforcement and Board of Adjustment backlog. The proposed ordinance will allow the staff to handle many of these cases administratively. The changes to the ordinance are as follows: 1. That a building permit will be required to install a barbed wire fence; 2. Barbed wire fences will only be permitted in C-2, C-3, C-3A, M-1, M-2 and M-3 zoning districts; 3. That barbed wire fences may only be installed for security reasons; 4. No barbed wire fences shall be allowed in the required front yard set back or along street frontage of properties fronting Gateway Streets; 5. Barbed wire fences will be designed to be a minimum of six feet high to the first barbed wire strand with a maximum of three stands of barbed wire; 6. Barbed wire fences shall not be located so as to project over public property. Slanted strands of barbed wire on top of the fence shall not slant outward more than sixty degrees from the vertical. If the fence is at or near the property line and if the strand slants slant over the adjoining property, the applicant must submit evidence that the adjoining property owner agrees to the projection over the property line. 7. The Board of Adjustment shall not have the authority to approve the use of razor wire or concertina wire. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved this proposed ordinance. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. ubmitted by: MICHAEL B. Z 1 Interim Direc. or Community and :i .nomic Development SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Amending Title 21 , Dealing with Barbed Wire Fences Pursuant to Petition No . 400-794-90 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 21 TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIMITED CONDITIONAL USE OF BARBED WIRE FENCES IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO . 400-794-90 . WHEREAS, current City ordinances prohibit barbed wire fences with only limited exceptions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission and believes that the ordinance should be modified to allow greater flexibility in permitting barbed wire fences; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Chapter 4 of Title 21 be amended by adding Section 21 . 04 . 068 to read as follows : 21 . 04. 068 Barbed wire fence. "Barbed wire fence" shall mean a fence composed in part or in whole of wire strands with projecting sharp barbs . A barbed wire fence shall not include those fences commonly known as razor wire, concertina wire or similar fences . SECTION 2 . That Section 21 . 80 . 240 be amended to read as follows : 21 .80.240 Fences and walls--Building permit required for installation. In cases where variances have been granted for any fence, wall or similar structure or any portion thereof , a building permit must be obtained prior to construction of such fence, wall or other similar structure. Building permits shall also be required for any fence containing barbed wire pursuant to Section 21 . 80 . 280 . SECTION 3 . That Section 21 . 80 . 280 be amended to read as follows : ] [ (A) . It i3 unlawful for any peraen to erect or cause to within the city. following conditions are met: ( 1 ) . The fencc i3 not in any residential district; lots or parcels of land, either- of which is occupied as a placc of reside rc- d ( 3 ) . That not to cxcccd three ( 3) 3-trand- of barbed wire may be placed upon the top of the fence not leas than six ( 6 ) feet 117-.3-th ands slanting inward at an angle of not more than sixty degrees ( GO©) from the vertical . -2- lude razor wirc, the ercction of razor wirc . 21.80 .280 Barbed wire fences. A. Barbed wire fences may be permitted in C-2, C-3 , C-3A, M-1 , M-1A, M-2 and M-3 zoning districts subject to the restrictions below. It shall be unlawful to maintain, or construct in any other zone. Razor wire, concertina wire or other similar fences shall not be permitted in any zone. B. Applications for allowance of barbed wire fences shall be made on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. The form shall state the property' s zoning and the reason that a barbed wire fence is needed . The applicant shall also provide a plan drawing of the property including all property lines , building locations and the location of the proposed fence. C. Barbed wire fences shall not be allowed in required front yard set backs nor along frontages on streets defined as Gateway streets in Salt Lake City' s adopted Urban Design Element Master Plan. D. No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet high. No more than three strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than. sixty degrees from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit evidence that the adjoining -3- property owner agrees to such a projection over the property line. E. The. Zoning Administrator may approve the building permit for a barbed wire fence if the Administrator finds that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave stations , construction sites or other similar sites or that the fence protects the property from vandalism, theft or other unauthorized entry. F. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Administrator concerning an application for a barbed wire fence may appeal the Zoning Administrator' s decision to the Board of Adjustment. SECTION 4 . 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 -4- • c>' By MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990 . Published: BRB:rc —5— SALT'LAKE!CITY`CORPORATION' ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION LYNN BECKSTEAD SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission DAN BETHEL AND URBAN DESIGN CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL J. HOWA SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 RALPH P. NEILSON TELEPHONE 535-7757 GEORGE NICOLATUS VICKI PALACIOS JOHN M. SCHUMANN TO: Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Allen C. Johnson, Planning Direct DATE: July 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Changes Allowing Barbed Wire Fences Attached please find the staff report and Planning Collullission minutes on the request to change the Zoning Ordinance allowing barbed wire fences. Please place the staff report information into ordinance draft form and refer it back to our office for Planning Commission consideration. If you have questions on this matter, please contact me. Thanks. ;ES OFFICE SALT'LAKE CITY CORPORATION; �.ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP „� -r a J •• w. PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION LYNN BECKSTEAD SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission DAN BETHEL AND URBAN DESIGN CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONALRICHARD J. HOWA SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 RALPH P. NEILSON TELEPHONE 535-7757 GEORGE NICOLATUS VICKI PALACIOS JOHN M. SCHUMANN TO: Bruce Baird , ,i/ FROM: Allen John 7A DATE: August 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Draft of Barbed Wire Ordinance At the Planning Commission meeting on July 19, 1990 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed draft of the barbed wire ordinance. The Planning Commission expressed concern at the fact that the ordinance only offers protection to people from dangerous sites. The Commission has suggested the ordinance include protection of property on the inside from those on the outside of the barbed wire fence. The Planning ComuIIission also felt Section 21.80.080(E) should read " . . .that it protects people from dangerous sites and conditions " and not just "sites" . Please get back to me with your response to this matter. r.J lG � SALT'LAKE GM" GORPORAT;ION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP .R�� ..:m. 7 y< �-� o ;,�. ew- ,<w �t 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 September 20, 1990 Mr. Michael Zuhl, Interim Director Community and Economic Development Room 218, City/County Bldg. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Transmittal of Petition 400-794 Barbed Wire Ordinance Amendment Dear Mike: Petition 400-794 requests amendment to Section 21. 80. 280 of the zoning ordinance providing for a process to allow barbed wire fences. The petiton and drafted ordinance has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance provides for a limited conditional use process for barbed wire fences within certain commercial and industrial zoning districts. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the attached ordinance modification. If you have any questions please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, William T. Wright, AICP Deputy Planning Director ACJ: ELJ Attachments r• SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the meeting held June 21, 1990 at 451 South State Street, Room 126 Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson LaVone Liddle-Gamonal, Richard J. Howa, John Schumann, Tom Ellison, Ralph Becker, Cindy Cromer and Lynn Beckstead. George Nicolatus, Ralph Neilson and Dan Bethel were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Allen Johnson, Bruce Parker and Doug Dansie. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order by Ms. Liddle-Gamonal at 5:00 p.m. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as presented at the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Becker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, June 7, 1990 subject to the word "less" being corrected to read "more" in the second to last paragraph on Page 2, Line 3. Mr. Schumann seconded the motion; all voted "Aye. " The motion passes. PETITIONS Petition No. 400-794 by Building and Housing Services. Discussion concerning changes in the Zoning Ordinance allowing barbed wire fences. Mr. Allen Johnson presented the staff report and stated that Section 21.80. 280(B) of the Zoning Ordinance gives the Board of Adjustment the authority to permit barbed wire fences. Increased demand for barbed wire fences has caused enforcement and Board of Adjustment back logs. He added that amending the Zoning Ordinance will permit the staff to handle many of these cases administratively. Mr. Johnson stated that Building and Housing Services filed this internal petition requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in order to relieve the enforcement and Board of Adjustment back log. Mr. Johnson added that the Director of Building and Housing Services, Mr. Roger Evans, estimated there are approximately 400 properties in violation of this ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve and recommend to the City Council, adoption of the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance: • ' PC MINUTES June 21, 1990 Page 2 1. Add the following definition of barbed wire: Barbed wire fence shall be defined as any fence containing barbed wire as part of its construction. Barbed wire shall not include razor wire or concertina wire which are expressly prohibited in Salt Lake City. 2. Add the following language to Section 21. 80. 240 Fences and Walls - Building Permit Required for Installation: Building permits shall also be required for any fence containing barbed wire as per Section 21. 80. 280. 3. Change Section 21.80. 280 Barbed wire Fences Prohibited to read: Section 21. 80. 280 Barbed wire Fences. A) Barbed wire fences shall only be permitted in C-2, C-3, C-3A, M-1, M-1A, M-2 and M-3 zoning districts subject to the following regulations: • a. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to approve a request for a building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is sufficiently shown by the applicant that a barbed wire fence is necessary for security reasons (that it protects people from dangerous sites such as transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other such sites deemed dangerous by the Zoning Administrator). b. Barbed wire fences shall not be allowed in required front yard set backs or along the street frontage of properties fronting Gateway Streets as defined in Salt Lake City"s Urban Design Element. c. Barbed wire fences shall be designed to be a minimum of six feet high to the first barbed wire strand. There shall be a maximum of three strands of barbed wire. If the fence is at or near the property line and the strands slant outward, away from the property, when filing the application, the applicant must submit evidence that the adjoining property owner agrees to the projection over the property line. Barbed wire fences shall not be located so as to project over public property. Slanted strands of barbed wire on top of the fence shall not slant outward more than sixty degrees from the vertical. d. The Board of Adjustment shall not have the authority to approve the use of razor wire or concertina wire. Mr. Johnson further stated that the previous text of Section 21.80. 280 should be deleted. He added that if the Planning Commission agrees with the Planning Staff's recommendation, the staff report and the minutes of this meeting will be forwarded to the Administration along with a request that these recommendations be placed in proper legal form and transmitted to the City Council for public hearing and adoption. Mr. Becker moved to recommend to the City Council the amendment to the ordinance dealing with barbed wire, subject to the staff recommendations ' PC MINUTES June 21, 1990 Page 3 including that the language previously listed in Section 21.80.280 be deleted. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion; all voted "Aye. " The motion passes. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal pointed out that this action needs ratification by a full body. AWARDS The Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission's Urban Systems Award presented to Ray Kingston and Nancy Stark for their work on the Block 57 Master Plan. Ms. Cromer presented the Urban Systems Award to Mr. Ray Kingston of FFKR Architects and to Ms. Virginia Hilton of Wallace Associates accepting the award for Ms. Nancy Stark, for their work on the Block 57 Master Plan. Ms. Cromer explained the Urban Systems Award is given to those whose efforts help the City solve its critical needs such as parking, traffic planning, infrastructure, housing, open space and socio-economic issues. Mt. .Kingston and Ms. Hilton expressed their gratitude at receiving the awards and thanked those individuals who had helped them in their efforts. Ratification of previous actions. Mr. Ellison moved to ratify the actions of the Planning Commission on Petition No. 400-794 now that a full body was present. Mr. Schumann seconded the motion; all voted "Aye. " The motion passes. PLANNING ISSUES Discussion concerning a proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance dealing with outside dining in required set back areas. Mr. Bruce ,Parker presented the staff report and stated that outside dining has been allowed and approved in required front yard areas in the past by the Board of Adjustment. It has recently been determined, however, that the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to approve this activity. If it is determined that outside dining is an appropriate activity, a specific ordinance, with approval criteria should be developed allowing this use. Mr. Parker said the Urban Design Element states that some outdoor dining may be acceptable but should be carefully controlled. Mr. Parker added that several planning issues must be considered if outside dining is deemed desirable. A discussion followed on those planning issues: 1) impact on adjoining properties, 2) parking issues, 3) hours of operation, 4) landscaping and front yard treatments, 5) set back requirements, and 6) the appropriate approval process. This discussion also included the impact outdoor dining has on adjoining businesses and the surrounding neighborhood due to parking and increased traffic. It was also noted that different regulations would be needed for the SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING CXMMTSSICN STAFF REPORT PETITION NO. 400-794 CHANCES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AI LCWI GIERVIEW Due to changing social conditions, many property owners and businesses find it necessary to secure their properties with barbed wired fences. Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinances, Section 21.80.280 (B) Barbed Wire Fences Prohibited, gives the Board of Adjustment the authority to permit barbed wire fences. Increased demand for these fences, coupled with increased enforcement, has caused enforcement and Board of Adjustment back logs. Amending the Zoning Ordinance will permit the staff to handle many of these cases administratively. BACKGROUND Staff of the Building and Housing Services Division, charged with enforcing the Zoning Ordinance, indicates there are numerous industrial and commercial sites in the City in violation of the City's barbed wire regulations. Due to the extreme number of violations and the demand for security fences, Roger Evans, the Chief Building Official, has officially petitioned the City to amend the regulations to permit property owners to install barbed wire fences. The present Zoning Ordinance gives the Board of Adjustment the authority to permit the erection of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, around transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar, publicly necessary or dangerous sites, providing the following conditions are met: 1. The fence is not in any residential district. 2. The fence is not a division fence between adjoining lots or parcels of land, either of which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. That no more than three strands of barbed wire may be placed upon the top of the fence not less than six feet high, such strands slanting inward at an angle of not more than sixty degrees from the vertical. ANALYSIS The barbed wire provisions of the Zoning Ordinance have only recently received meaningful enforcement action. The lack of past enforcement has resulted in violations existing over many years. In most cases, no one has complained about these fences. Field inspections as part of the City's licensing process and the critical review of proposed building plans, have brought many of the violations to light. This results in many of the violations being sent to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment has handled approximately ten cases involving barbed wire fences during the last twelve months. Roger Evans estimates there are approximately 400 properties presently in violation. Salt lake City is presently encouraging property owners and businesses to design their sites to reduce crime. While barbed wire fences are not the most esthetic approach to solving crime problems, they offer a reasonably efficient solution to some crime problems. RECOMMEMATICN The Planning Division proposes that the Planning Commission approve and recommend to the City Council, adoption of the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance: 1. Add the following definition of barbed wire: Barbed wire fence shall be defined as any fence containing barbed wire as part of its construction. Barbed wire shall not include razor wire or concertina wire which are expressly prohibited in Salt Lake City. 2. Add the following language to Section 21.80.240 Fences and Walls - Building Permit Required for Installation: Building permits shall also be required for any fence containing barbed wire as per Section 21.80.280. 3. Change Section 21.80.280 Barbed wire Fences Prohibited to read: Section 21.80.280 Barbed wire Fences. A) Barbed wire fences shall only be permitted in C-2, C-3, C-3A, M-1, M-lA, M-2 and M-3 zoning districts subject to the following regulations: a. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to approve a request for a building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is sufficiently shown by the applicant that a barbed wire fence is necessary for security reasons (that it protects people from dangerous sites such as transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other such sites deemed dangerous by the Zoning Administrator) . b. Barbed wire fences shall not be allowed in required front yard set backs or along the strcct frontage of properties fronting Gateway Streets as defined in Salt Lake City's Urban Design Element. c. Barbed wire fences shall be designed to be a minimum of six fcct high to the first barbed wire strand. There shall be a maximum of three strands of barbed wire. If the fence is at or near the property line and the strands slant outward, away from the property, when filing the application, the applicant must submit evidence that the adjoining property owner agrees to the projection over the property line. Barbed wire fences shall not be located so as to project over public property. Slanted strands of barbed wire on top of the fence shall not slant outward more than sixty degrccs from the vertical. d. The Board of Adjustment shall not have the authority to approve the use of razor wire or concertina wire. The previous text of Section 21.80.280 should be deleted. If the Planning Commission agrees with the Staff' recommendation, the staff report and the minutes will be forwarded to the Administration along with a request that these recommendations be placed in proper legal form and transmitted to the City Council for public hearing and adoption. Allen C. Johnson June 14, 1990 REVISED FEBRUARY 22, 1990 (2) . Areas for off-street 21 of this code, the requirement parking and off-street services; shall be met by the installation and maintenance of improvements as set (3) . Roofs of buildings, forth below: except as specified in this code; (A) . The installation of lawn, (4) . Ground-level areas with a shrubs, or a combination of shrubs , width of five ( 5) feet or less; and trees, vines, lawn or other growing ground cover or water surfaces, and (5) . A ground-level area with paved or graveled surfaces, provided a width of eight (8) feet or less, that such area shall not cover more if over seventy-five (75%) percent than ten (10%) percent of the area of the area is hard-surfaced, required to be landscaped; SEC. 21.80.190 ( 51-5-16) (B) . The installation of a PARKING STRIP USE AND LANDSCAPING: permanent sprinkling system to insure adequate maintenance; (A) . The parking strip or the area of the right-of-way located (C) . Plant materials shall be between the curbline and the private selected from among those species property line shall be completely and varieties known to thrive in the landscaped with vegetation-living Salt Lake climate; and materials such as lawn, approved ground covers and approved trees and (D) . Whenever public property is maintained by the abutting property to be landscaped, only lawn or owner. Such area shall be kept free trees, flowers or shrubs , as of all hard surfacing, including approved by the city's urban stone or aggregate, except for forester, shall be installed. approved driveway and sidewalk areas. The location and spacing of SEC. 21.80.210 (51-5-21) vegetation shall allow for adequate AIR CONDITIONERS, FANS AND HEATING access and visibility of driveways, PUMPS: intersections and signs, so as not to constitute a safety hazard. Stationary or window-mounted air conditioners, fans and heating pumps (B) . In those circumstances where are prohibited within the required it is not appropriate or desirable front yards as provided in Section to meet the above criteria, the 21.80.090, or its successor, but may planning commission, with the be allowed to project into side and approval of the mayor, may grant rear yards as provided in subsection exceptions, based on compliance with (J) of Section 21.80.110, and parking strip standards as adopted subsection (J) of Section 21.80.120, by the planning commission. Three or successor sections. (3) copies of the . current parking strip standards adopted by the SEC. 21.80.220 (51-5-22) planning commission shall be on file FENCES AND WALLS-PURPOSE OF with the official records of the REGULATIONS: planning commission. It is recognized that fences serve SEC. 21.80.200 (51-5-19) properties by providing privacy and LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: security, defining private space, and enhancing the design of When an area is required to be individual sites . It is also landscaped under the terms of Title recognized that fences affect the SALT LAKE CIS VAy:'G ORDINANCE Page 158 REVISED FEBRUARY 22, 1990 public by impacting the visual image fence, wall or similar structure, of the streetscape and the overall the height of the fence, wall or character of neighborhoods. The other similar structure shall be purpose of established fence measured from the average grade of regulations is to achieve a balance the adjoining properties, except between the private concerns for that in any instance a four-foot- privacy and site design and the high (4) fence, wall or other public concerns for enhancement of similar structure shall be allowed.' the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate SEC. 21.80.260 (51-5-25) light, air, and public safety. FENCES AND WALLS-HEIGHT LIMITS- EXCEPTIONS: SEC. 21.80.230 (51-5-23) FENCES AND WALLS-LOCATION: (A) . Fences, walls or other similar structures erected along the All fences , walls or similar property line separating two (2) structures shall be erected entirely adjacent corner lots shall be within the property lines of the allowed to extend beyond the property they are intended to serve. building setback line out to the property line at a maximum height of SEC. 21.80.240 (51-5-28) six (6) feet , provided that the FENCES AND WALLS-BUILDING PERMIT property line separating the two (2) REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION: corner lots represents the rear property line of both lots, and both In cases where variances have been structures on such lots front in granted for any fence , wall or other opposite directions, and provided similar structure or any portion that no driveways are located thereof, a building permit must be adjacent to either side of the obtained prior to construction of fence, wall or other similar such fence, wall or other similar structure. structure. lie (B) . Pillars shall be allowed to SEC_ 21.80.250 (51-5-24) extend up to eighteen (18) inches FENCES AND WALLS-HEIGHT above the allowable height of a RESTRICTIONS: fence, provided that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or No fence, wall or other similar width of no more than eighteen (18) structure shall be erected in any inches, and provided that the required front yard to a height in pillars shall have a minimum spacing excess of four (4) feet; provided, of no less than six (6) feet, however, no such fence, wall, or measured face-to-face. other similar structure shall be erected to a height in excess of SEC. 21.80.270 (51-5-25) three (3) feet if the fence, wall or FENCES AND WALLS-PERMIT TO EXCEED similar structure is within thirty HEIGHT LIMITS: (30) feet of the intersection of front property lines on any corner (A) . As empowered by Section lot. No fence, wall or other 21.06.020, or its successor, the similar structure shall be erected board of adjustment shall have the in any required side yard or authority to grant special permits required rear yard to a height in to exceed the height regulations, excess of six (6) feet. Where there provided that careful consideration is a difference in the grade of the shall be given to the established properties on either side of a character of the affected �T.T Ul"' CITY ZOUING ORDINANCE Page 159 REVISED FEBRUARY 22, 1990 __ neighborhood and streetscape, to the where it is determined that an maintenance of public and private undesirable condition exists because views, and to matters of public of the abnormal intrusion of safety, as follows: offensive levels of noise, pollution, light or other (1) . Fences, walls or other encroachments on the rights to similar structures which exceed the privacy, safety, security and allowable height limits, provided aesthetics. that such a structure is constructed of wrought iron or other approved (B) . As a condition to the material, and that the open, spatial granting of any special permit, the and nonstructural area of the fence, board shall have the authority to wall or other similar structure require special landscaping, design constitutes at least eighty (80%) features, specific types of percent of its total area; materials, and any other element which will, in its opinion, diminish (2) . Fences , walls or other the impact of the additional height similar structures which exceed the on neighboring properties, or make front yard limits within one (1) the fence, wall or other similar frontage of a corner lot, when a structure more attractive, or more private rear yard area is not in keeping with the neighborhood in otherwise attainable; which it is located. (3) . Fences, walls or other (C) . The board of adjustment may similar structures which exceed the deny any request: allowed height limits within thirty (30) feet of the intersection of (1) . That is not in keeping front property lines on any corner with the character of the lot, provided that upon neighborhood and urban design of the consideration of existing traffic- city; control devices, ,topographic conditions, street design, parking (2). That would create a strip width, and other traffic- walled-in effect in the front yard related circumstances, it has been of any property in a residential determined by the board that the district where the clear character additional height may be granted and of the neighborhood in front yard still provide for adequate safety; areas is one of open, free-flowing spaces from property to property; or (4) . Fences, walls or other similar structures incorporating (3) . where there is a driveway • ornamental features or architectural on the petitioner's property or enhancements which extend above the neighbor's property adjacent to the allowable height limits; proposed fence, wall or similar structure that presents a safety (5) . Fences, walls or other hazard. • similar structures which exceed the allowable height limits, when SEC. 21.80.280 (51-5-27) erected around schools and approved BARBED-WIRE FENCES PtOHIBITED. recreational uses which require special height considerations; (A) . It is unlawful for any person to erect or cause to be (6) . Fences, walls or other erected or to maintain any barbed similar structures which exceed the wire or similar type fences within allowable height limits, in cases the city. / • •a n.. 11 -- ^-- ...1!' r•-r' 'T1?r'] n-.rc lrn REVISED FEBRUARY 22, 1990 (B) . The board of adjustment may, however, permit the erection of a barbed-wire fence, for security reasons, around transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, if the following conditions are met: (1) . The fence is not in any residential district; (2) . The fence is not a • division fence between adjoining lots or parcels of land, either of which is occupied as a place of residence; and (3) . That not to exceed three (3) strands of barbed wire may be placed upon the top of the fence not less than six (6) feet high, such strands slanting inward at an angle of not more than sixty degrees (60) from the vertical. (C) . The term "barbed wire" shall not include razor wire, and the board shall have no authority to grant a variance for the erection of razor wire. SALT LAC CITY ZONING ORDINANCE Page 161 • ,990 • I ;,U�Sd;�ICaI • ROGER R. EVANS SAL��I E G TY GORP©RATION• HARVEY F. BOYD .r.e. �A s+s•r d a `•o al `I<Sti\vu.•_-a •sl DIRECTOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Building and Housing Services 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-6436 March 12, 1990 Mike Zuhl, Director Community & Economic Development City and County Building Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Mr. Zuhl: I respectfully request that 21.80.280 of the City Ordinance be changed to read as follows: 21.80.280 garbed-wire fences prohibited. A. It is unlawful for any person to erect or cause to be erected or to maintain any harbed wire or similar type fences within the city with the following exceptions: 1. The erection of a harbed wire fence is permitted in A-1 Agricultural, M-1, 1.1-1A, M-2, M-3, industrial and airport zoning districts with the following limitations: a. The fence is not, with the exception in the agricultural zone, not a division fence between adjoining lots which are occupied as a place of residence; and b. that not to exceed three strands of h rbed wire may be placed upon the top of a fence not less than six feet high, such strands slanting inward at an angle of not more than sixty degrees from the vertical. B. The term "barbed wire" shall not include razor wire. The intent of the ordinance change is to reduce the work load of the Board of Adjustment by allowing barbed wire fences in certain zoning districts within ' Mike Zuhl March 12, 1990 Page two --- certain limitations. Many property owners are having a hard time securing their properties from vagrants and there are hundreds of cases that- Building and Housing Services are not enforcing because we have not received a complaint. Sincerely, rfl Roger R(Evans Dire&tor RRE:rm `&-'2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION EXCEPTION PROCESS -- HANDICAPPED USES NOVEMBER 16 , 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL : Adopt a resolution providing a special exception process for handicapped uses . BACKGROUND INFORMATION : This ordinance was recommended by City Councilmember Roselyn Kirk because she was contacted by a handicapped citizen in her district who was frustrated with City requirements which made it difficult to make homes accessible to the handicapped . STAFF ANALYSIS : The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and Planning Staff achieves the purpose sought by Councilmember Kirk . Under the proposed ordinance , the zoning administrator would be authorized to grant exceptions if the plan and proposed special exception are necessary to meet the needs of the petitioner for access to the property and the proposed special exception would have no substantial adverse impact on the neighborhood or master plan . Ramp permits would not require a fee beyond the normal building permit fee . A $50 filing fee would be required of applicants for a general access exception . As staff to the Council , I recommend that the Council adopt the ordinance , but exclude the fee requirement . Enclosed in your packet and labeled number 2 under this agenda item is a draft ordinance which does not require a special fee . Although this would require the City Administration to complete an administrative process without charging a fee , my thinking is that access to one ' s home is vital . I thus recommend that no special fee be charged for modifications required to allow for handicapped uses . RECOMMENDED ACTION : Adopt the ordinance which does not require a fee . SUGGESTED MOTION : I move that we adopt the motion which provides for a special exception process for handicapped uses , without imposing a fee . in5 LIBcar SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Amending Chapter 80 of Title 21 providing a special exception process for handicapped uses ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 80 OF TITLE 21 CREATING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR CERTAIN ZONING ENCROACHMENTS REQUIRED TO ALLOW HANDICAPPED ACCESS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission on the need to allow a process for special exceptions from certain technical zoning restrictions to facilitate and ease access for handicapped individuals ; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes the following ordinance to be appropriate and in the best interests of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah :, SECTION 1 . That Sections 21 . 80 . 121 through . 127 be enacted to read as follows : 21 . 80 . 121 Handicapped access special exception. Persons with physical disabilities or handicaps for whom strict compliance with the requirements of Sections 21 . 80 . 090 through . 120 substantially impairs their ability to access their single family or duplex residential dwellings may petition for a limited special exception as specified below. 21.80 .122 Types of Special Exceptions. A. Special exceptions for uncovered access ramps with the required railings shall be issued along with the building permit . B. A "general access exception" shall be required for the construction of any other form of handicapped access including, but not limited to, covered ramps, side yard or parking area modifications or similar access modifications . 21. 80 . 123 Application. Applications for special exceptions provided herein shall be made on a form provided by the City which shall require the following information: A. A description and evidence of the nature of the handicap or disability claimed by the petitioner; B. A statement explaining why strict compliance with sections 21 . 80 . 090 through . 120 would impair the petitioner' s ability to access their single family or duplex residential dwelling; C. A site plan for the proposed special exception drawn to scale showing all buildings, property lines and the proposed encroachment into the areas specified by Sections 21 . 80 . 090- . 120 . D. In addition to the above, an applicant for a general exception permit shall provide a list of the mailing addresses for all properties abutting the petitioner' s property and those properties immediately across the street from the petitioner' s property. -2- 21.80 . 124 Fee. No special fee shall be charged for applications or permits for handicapped access except for standard building permit fees . 21.80 .125 Notice and comment. Upon receipt of the application aid—€ 11.n-gfee- for a general access exception the city shall mail notice to all affected property owners . The affected property owners may respond in writing or otherwise to the Zoning Administrator within 15 days of the date of the letter of notification. 21.80.126 Grounds for approval . After considering the application for a general access exception and any responses from affected property owners the Zoning Administrator shall approve the requested special exception if the zoning administrator finds : A. The plan and proposed special exception are necessary to meet the needs of the petitioner for access to the property; and B. The proposed special exception would have no substantial adverse impact on the neighborhood or master plan. 21 . 80 .127 Appeal to Board of Adjustment. Any party aggrieved by the Zoning Administrator' s decision may appeal that decision to the Board of Adjustment which shall consider the appeal using its regular special exception procedure . -3- 1, 21.80.128 Recorded notice. For any special exceptions granted as provided above the city shall record a notice with the Salt Lake County Recorder' s office in the record of the property that the special exception is limited in time to the occupancy and use of the property by the petitioner and the city may require the special exception encroachments to be removed when the property is no longer occupied by the petitioner . SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: I /qef CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -4- MIKE ZUHL SALT.LAKE I 0,ORPORATION# 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 October 9, 1990 Re: Proposed Ordinance providing a special exception process for handicapped use Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on November 20, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance providing a special exception process for handicapped use. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: Salt Lake City's zoning ordinance currently does not allow for handicapped access facilities and structures to be placed within in the required yard area. This proposed ordinance will accommodate access for handicapped individuals by providing a defined mechanism, the special exception process, to allow existing residential uses to be accessible and usable to persons with physical disabilities or handicaps. The special exception process will be handled through the Permits and Licensing Division with the Zoning Administrator granting the exception if the requests meets the following criteria - 1) The plan and proposed special exception are necessary to meet the needs of the petitioner for access to the property and 2) the proposed special exception would have no substantial adverse impact on the neighborhood or master plan. The filing fcc for the request would be $50.00. The appeal process will be to the Board of Adjustment. All special exceptions will be recorded with the County Recorder. Special exceptions will be limited in time to the occupancy and use of the property by the petitioner and the City may require that the special exception encroachments be removed from the property if it is no longer occupied by the handicapped individual. Legislative Document: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and it is ready for your action. Submitted by: MICHAEL B. Z Interim Dir for Community and Economic Development SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Amending Chapter 80 of Title 21 providing a special exception process for handicapped uses ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 80 OF TITLE 21 CREATING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR CERTAIN ZONING ENCROACHMENTS REQUIRED TO ALLOW HANDICAPPED ACCESS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission on the need to allow a process for special exceptions from certain technical zoning restrictions to facilitate and ease access for handicapped individuals ; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes the following ordinance to be appropriate and in the best interests of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Sections 21 . 80 . 121 through . 127 be enacted to read as follows : 21 .80 . 121 Handicapped access special exception. Persons with physical disabilities or handicaps for whom strict compliance with the requirements of Sections 21 . 80 . 090 through . 120 substantially impairs their ability to access their single family or duplex residential dwellings may petition for a limited special exception as specified below. 21 .80 . 122 Types of Special Exceptions. A. Special exceptions for uncovered access ramps with the required railings shall be issued along with the building permit . B. A "general access exception" shall be required for the construction of any other form of handicapped access including, but not limited to, covered ramps, side yard or parking area modifications or similar access modifications . 21 .80. 123 Application. Applications for special exceptions provided herein shall be made on a form provided by the City which shall require the following information: A. A description and evidence of the nature of the handicap or disability claimed by the petitioner; B. A statement explaining why strict compliance with sections 21 . 80 . 090 through . 120 would impair the petitioner' s ability to access their single family or duplex residential dwelling; C . A site plan for the proposed special exception drawn to scale showing all buildings , property lines and the proposed encroachment into the areas specified by Sections 21 . 80 . 090- . 120 . D. In addition to the above, an applicant for a general exception permit shall provide a list of the mailing addresses for all properties abutting the petitioner' s property and those properties immediately across the street from the petitioner' s property. -2- 21 . 80. 124 Fee. Applicants for a general access exception shall pay a fee of $50 when filing the application. Ramp permits shall not require a fee beyond the normal building permit fee. 21 . 80. 125 Notice and comment. Upon receipt of the application and filing fee for a general access exception the city shall mail notice to all affected property owners . The affected property owners may respond in writing or otherwise to the Zoning Administrator within 15 days of the date of the letter of notification . 21 . 80 . 126 Grounds for approval . After considering the application for a general access exception and any responses from affected property owners the Zoning Administrator shall approve the requested special exception if the zoning administrator finds : A. The plan and proposed special exception are necessary to meet the needs of the petitioner for access to the property; and B. The proposed special exception would have no substantial adverse impact on the neighborhood or master plan . 21 . 80 . 127 Appeal to Board of Adjustment. Any party aggrieved by the Zoning Administrator' s decision may appeal that decision to the Board of Adjustment which shall consider the appeal using its regular special exception procedure. -3- 21.80. 128 Recorded notice. For any special exceptions granted as provided above the city shall record a notice with the Salt Lake County Recorder' s office in the record of the property that the special exception is limited in time to the occupancy and use of the property by the petitioner and the city may require the special exception encroachments to be removed when the property is no longer occupied by the petitioner. SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON -, ATTEST: / 1/4 / CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -4- SALT'LAKE-CITY CORPORATION: ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP . ..... ... .... .... ...-,,. .. .�...., ,,..,,�� PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Everett Joyce 6 DATE: September 11, 19 0 RE: Handicapped Access Ordinance Attached is a revised copy of the proposed ordinance amendment providing a special exception process for handicapped uses. At the request of the city administration the planning staff and city attorney have revised the handicapped access ordinance. The original ordinance was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on their July 5th meeting. The basic changes that are recommended in the revised ordinance is specifically that the special exception process for uncovered ramps with railings be approved through the building permit process rather than the' zoning administrator process. These changes allow for minimal handicapped access improvements to be handled with a minimal cost and processing effort. These changes would eliminate the special exception filing fee and the requirement for notice of the abutting property owners. Uncovered access ramps approved by building permit will require application with evidence and justification of need. Uncovered ramp approvals will need to be recorded with the county. This exception is also limited to single family and duplex residential dwellings. The general access exception for all structures and facilities other that uncovered ramps will be processed by the zoning administrator as presented in the previous approved ordinance modification. The planning staff recommends to the Planning Commission that these modifications be approved and that they recommend approval of the revised ordinance to the City Council . cc: Allen Johnson • I - SALT LAKE GUY i CORPORATION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PALMER DePAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 (•IEIIORANDUN ctif TO: Lee Kind c,l I) FROM: Everett. Joyce DATE: September 24, ). 90 RE: Handicapped Access Ordinance Enclosed is the transmittal package for the handicapped access ordinance modifications. The revised handicapped access ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission on September 20th. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the modified handicapped access ordinance for approval. The Planning Commission recommended that the ' ; and" at the end of paragraph 21 . 80. 123 ( 0 ) be removed and replaced with a period. This minor ordinance modification ( ; and ) recommended by the Planning Commission has been held frog transmittal to the Attorney " s Office until after administrative review. If you have any questions please contact ire at your convenience. cc: Allen C. Johnson ~ T` SALT'•LAKE'CITY CORPORATION ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP d T •r•>.--.w. .<. a.Y- 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 September 4, 1990 Mr. Bruce Baird City Attorney 5th Floor City/County Bldg Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: Handicapped accessibility zoning ordinance modification Dear Bruce: The special exception process for handicapped uses ( 21 . 80. 121 ) proposed ordinance was forwarded to Mike Zuhl. The planning office received the handicapped access ordinance back with comments from Mike Zuhl and Lee King requesting modification. I am forwarding their concerns to you for provision within revised draft of the proposed handicapped access ordinance. The following modification issues were requested to be addressed in the revised ordinance: A special exception for uncovered ramps with railings in required yard areas that has no application fee. Such improvements would be issued by building permit. However, the approval will need to: 1. meet the recorded notice requirement; 2. meet application requirements except notice to abutting property owners, and; 3. that the plans and the proposed improvements are necessary for access and meet Uniform Building Code requirements. I have noted modifications on the draft ordinance meeting the above concerns with a permit-issued special exception process and a limited special exception process. For clarification purposes it may be necessary to completely separate the two special exception processes. Once completed I will present the final proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission prior to transmittal to the City Council. If you have any questions please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Everett L. Joyce City Planner attachments SALT LAKE'GIRO' CORPORATION: ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 July 10, 1990 Mr. Michael Zuhl, Interim Director Community and Economic Development Room 218, City/County Bldg. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Transmittal of Petition 440-001 Special Exception for Handicapped Accessibility Dear Mike: Councilwoman Roselyn Kirk identified concerns to modify the zoning ordinance to allow for improved accessibility to the homes of handicapped individuals. The Planning Commission has reviewed the handicapped access issues and the proposed ordinance modification. For persons with physical disabilities or handicaps, the modified ordinance establishes a special exception process to eliminate hardships caused when strict compliance with existing yard area restrictions would substantially impair access to the dwelling. Approval would be by the Zoning Administrator. Aggrieved parties would appeal to the Board of Adjustment. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the attached ordinance modification. If you have any questions please contact myself or Everett L. Joyce of my staff. Sincerely, Allerf C. J hnson, AICP Planning irector Staff Report to the Planning Commission for Modification of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for Handicapped Accessibility in Residential Zoning Districts Petition Number 440-001 OVERVIEW Presently the zoning ordinance of Salt Lake City does not allow for certain handicapped access facilities and structures within required yard areas. Petition No. 440-001 is a request for amendment of the zoning ordinance to accommodate access for handicapped individuals. Access improvements would be for existing homes when such improvements are precluded by present zoning yard area requirements. BACKGROUND Modification of the ordinance would provide a defined mechanism, the special exception process, to allow existing residential uses to be accessible and usable by the physically handicapped, specifically individuals with non-ambulatory disabilities. Non- ambulatory disabilities are impairments that for all practical purposes confine individuals to wheelchairs. Access to the primary building entrance by non-ambulatory individuals must be provided. And, if adequate design requirements dictate that an exception to the front, side, and or rear yard area requirements of the ordinance is necessary to provide access then the board of adjustments should be able to grant a special exception to allow any necessary facilities. ANALYSIS Areas of the zoning ordinance that restrict potential for improved handicapped accessibility are: 1. Section 21. 80. 090 Front yards - Permitted projections and driveways; 2. Section 21. 80. 100 Front yards - Parking prohibited; 3. Section 21. 80. 110 Rear yards - Permitted projections and obstructions; and 4. Section 21 . 80,. 120 Side yards - Permitted projections and obstructions. Any exception to yard area requirements for handicapped access must show need. Evidence of need should establish handicapped certification and the necessity of requested yard encroachment is for accessibility and not convenience. The property owner should provide evidence as to the impracticality of providing access that would meet ordinance requirements. Any exception to the yard area requirements of the ordinance should be restricted to residential uses and the modification of existing structures only. Exceptions should be limited to single family and duplex structures. The economics of scale with respect to multiple unit structures should limit encroachment in required yard areas and require retrofitting of the existing structure in a manner that would allow handicapped access without the need of the proposed special exception for handicapped access. Zoning ordinance changes to be considered are allowances for the following items presently restricted within front, side and or rear yard setback areas; access ramps, parking pad locations ( front and side yards ), awnings or breezeways, carports, entry landings, overnight or permanent parking within front yards, and circular drives wider than 12 feet. Alternative Methods for Improved Accessibility Allow outright as an exception within the ordinance - This alternative would not require a review process. However, it does not allow for a mechanism to remove the structures located within yard areas when the property is no longer used by a handicapped individual. Special Exception - This alternative would create a review process for design solution and would allow a means to provide adequate access without evidence of a hardship related to the property. The approval can stipulate the requirement of removal of the allowed structures when the property is transferred to a non handicapped individual. Variance - This alternative would require the applicant to show evidence of hardship that is related to the land and not the use or user of the land. The variance mechanism would be a discretionary review process. The staff 's recommended alternative is the special exception process which could be allowed in any zone permitting the primary land use and have a predetermined set of requirements. The proposed special exception would provide a process for appropriate design solutions for access to residences of non- ambulatory individuals. Approval would be through the Board of Adjustments upon their determination that the requirements and intent of the exception to the ordinance is met. To further facilitate the approval of these special exceptions, it would be advantageous to have the Board of Adjustment delegate the approval of handicapped special exceptions to the zoning administrator . Special exceptions when approved would be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder 's Office. This would place a notice with the property records that when sold to individuals without an ambulatory handicap that any structures approved as a special exception would have to be retrofitted with the property being restored to zoning code requirements. However, periodic rental of modified homes may occur and in these situations the removal of structures for handicapped access should not be removed. Removal of such structures would be an unreasonable economic impact to those persons maintaining housing opportunities for handicapped individuals. Any process to allow for exceptions in yard areas for handicapped access when located within a historic district or site would need to first obtain Historic Landmarks Commission approval prior to final administrative approval and permit issuance. Allowances granted through the special exception process could not override any Uniform Building Code requirements. Master Plan Considerations - Impact upon the urban design character of neighborhoods. - Improved services and function to handicapped individuals. - Allows for more potential in the provision of housing opportunities for handicapped persons. The special exception process would require design review and at that time could identify means to mitigate any impacts upon neighboring properties and the neighborhood character. ( i . e. design location, screening etc. ) RECOMMENDATION The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a handicapped special exception modification to the zoning ordinance as to concept and refer to the Attorney's office and Planning staff to place in ordinance form. When an ordinance is drafted then the Planning Commission will be provided a final review and approval opportunity. April 1990 Everett Joyce PC MINUTES May 17, 1990 Page 3 Petition No. 440-001 - Modification of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for handicapped accessibility for residential zoning districts. Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report and stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for certain handicapped access facilities and structures within required yard areas. This request is for an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate access for handicapped individuals. Access improvements would be for homes when such improvements are precluded by present yard area requirements. Mr. Joyce stated that modification of the ordinance would provide a special exception process to allow existing residential uses to become accessible to the physically handicapped. If adequate design requirements dictate an exception to the yard area requirements is necessary, the Board of Adjustment should be able to grant the special exception to allow for necessary facilities. Mr. Joyce added that any exception to the yard area requirements for handicapped access must show need, not just convenience. Mr. Joyce said there are several alternative methods for improved accessibility. They are as follows: 1. Allow outright as an exception within the ordinance: This alternative would not require a review process. It does not allow for a mechanism to remove the structures located within yard areas when the property is no longer used by a handicapped individual. 2. Special Exception: This alternative would create a review process for design solution and would allow a means to provide adequate access without evidence of a hardship related to the property. The approval can stipulate the requirement of removal of -the allowed structures when the property is transferred to a nonhandicapped individual. 3. Variance: This alternative would require the applicant show evidence of property hardship related to the land and not the use or user of the land. The variance mechanism would be a discretionary review process. Mr. Joyce said the Planning Staff recommends the special exception process which could be allowed in any zone permitting the primary land use along with a predetermined set of requirements. Approval would be through the Board of Adjustment upon their determination that the requirements and intent of the exception to the ordinance were being met. To further facilitate the approval of these special exceptions, it would be advantageous to have the Board of Adjustment delegate the approval of handicapped special exceptions to the Zoning Administrator. Special exceptions when approved, would be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Mr. Joyce stated that the Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a handicapped special exception modification to the Zoning Ordinance as to concept and refer to the Attorney's Office and Planning Staff to place it in ordinance form. When the ordinance is drafted, the Planning Commission will be provided a final review and approval opportunity. / . PC MINUTES May 17, 1990 Page 4 Mr. Johnson stated that the Zoning Administrator would review each case. All approvals would be reported to the Board of Adjustment. Those cases the Zoning Administrator felt he could not approve would be referred to the Board of Adjustment for action. Ms. Cromer suggested that the language in the ordinance should not be limited to handicapped individuals in wheelchairs. Mr. Steve Magelby, 2377 East 2100 South, stated that he was probably the genesis for this matter. He stated that he is in need of a special exception to allow a ramp from his garage to his back door. As the ordinance currently exists, this ramp would cause his garage to be considered an attached garage which would result in noncompliance with the ordinance. Mr. Schumann moved to approve modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for handicapped accessibility for residential zoning districts but only after a draft of proposed changes prepared by the City Attorney's Office is reviewed by the Planning Staff and presented to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Becker seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. PLANNINS ISSUES Discuss status report with time table on the Downtown Master Plan. Mr. Doug Dansie handed out draft copies of the Downtown Master Plan to the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson stated that the Sunday, May 20th meeting to discuss the Downtown Master Plan should probably be postponed in order to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the current draft of the Downtown plan. It was agreed the meeting would be held on Sunday, June 3, 1990 from 9:00 a.m. until 11:30 in Room 126 of the City and County Building. Discuss 1990-91 Division Budget Report. Mr. Johnson informed the Planning Commission that the Planning and Zoning Division has been divided into two divisions: 1) Planning and 2) Permits and Licensing Services. He explained that Mt. Brent Wilde has been appointed the Director of the Permits and Licensing Services Division. Mr. Johnson then went over the budget handouts the Planning Commission members had received in their packets explaining the budget splits and the effect on the two divisions. Mr. Howe asked what the rationale was for the split. Mr. Johnson explained that when the City moved into the CPS Building during the remodeling of the City and County Building, the Planning and Zoning Division contained Long Range Planning and Current Planning. After the move into the Cry Building, the Permits Counter was added to the Planning Division and upon moving back into the City and County Building, the Licensing Division was added to the Planning Division. These additions called for more of the Planning Director's time being spent on daily activities rather than long range planning issues. Mr. Johnson stated that the split in the division should streamline the operation and create greater efficiency for the entire department. :///// ' PC MINUTES - July 5, 1990 Page 2 to prepare a final draft to be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Bruce Baird, the Assistant City Attorney, has suggested adding a new subsection to /// the ordinance rather than changing the existing ordinance text. Ms. Jardine stated that since the proposed draft from the City Attorney's Office is substantially different from the draft prepared by the Planning Staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission, the staff is bringing this matter before the Planning Commission for a second review. Ms. Jardine continued that the Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, the approval of the petition and amendments to Section 21.38.060 Conditional Uses allowed in a Residential "R-6" zone as outlined in Mr. Baird's draft ordinance. Ms. Cromer stated that she felt this matter involved land use decisions and could see no reason for land use decisions being made by the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Cromer said she was not willing to support any additional matters requiring duplication of review by the Board of Adjuslment and the Planning Commission. A short discussion followed on duplicate review processes being eliminated with the rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, the time frame involved in rewriting the Zoning Ordinance, changing the ordinances requiring duplicate reviews by the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission, and considering the petitioner's needs. Mr. Neilson said he felt staff's recommendation was the best compromise to a difficult situation and moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of the amendment to Section 21.38.060.B of the Zoning Ordinance as presented in the staff report. Mr. Bethel seconded the motion; Mr. Neilson, Mr. Bethel and Mr. Becker voted "Aye," Ms. Cromer voted "Nay." The motion passes. Mr. Schumann pointed out this action needed ratification of a full body. Petition No. 440-001 - Modification of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for handicapped accessibility in residential zoning districts. Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report and stated that this matter had been presented to the Planning Commission on May 17, 1990 to change the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a special exception process for handicapped accessibility. Mr. Joyce stated that the draft ordinance was now complete and ready for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Joyce added that modification of the ordinance would provide a special exception process to allow existing residential uses to become accessible to the physically handicapped. Mr. Becker moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of the ordinance modification to allow for handicapped accessibility in residential zoning districts. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Mr. Schumann pointed out that this action needed ratification of a full body. p\I ofic4in Hop, t {Aili -440' COr C NOV . ETHEL C. HALE and W. PAUL WHARTON ^ � 436 East 8th South Street fV 2 O 1990 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL November 19, 1990 HAND CARRY MEMO To : Salt Lake City Council Members From: Hale and Wharton, private citizens. Re: Demolition procedures THE DEMOLITION BOTTLENECK The Present Procedure Before an applicant can APPLY for a demolition permit, the applicant must have a signed contract with a contractor to do a demolition which IS NOT YET PERMITTED. Before an applicant can APPLY for a permit, the telephone , cable, electric, and gas lines must be removed. The gas must be disconnected (in most cases) at the main line under the street ( requiring a new hole in the street) . All this must be done BEFORE APPLYING for the permit , with no guarantee a permit will be issued . The applicant must get clearance from the Building Inspector (good) ; asbestos clearance from the Board of Health (good) ; and permission from the Traffic Engineer (good) . Before the applicant can get the necessary approval from the Sewer and Water Department, the applicant MUST HAVE a permit. Now that the applicant has done all of the above (which should clear the way for the sewer permit) the permit is withheld until a bond is posted to assure that grass and a sprinkling system will be installed. Then the applicant is told that a landscape plan is not needed because the to-be-demolished structure is legally part of the applicant' s DOMICILE property. The applicant is told, also, that it is "unlawful" in Salt Lake City to have two houses on one lot. But still, applicant is denied the permit which would allow removal of the second, offending, house. Applicant confers with the City Landscape Architect regarding plans for the post- demolition site (as a courtesy) and has been told the plan is acceptable. Applicant, as a courtesy, prepares a landscape plan showing present structures and the projected planting, including specific types of trees as the salient vegetation. This does not suffice. Applicant is advised that if a sign- off is obtained from the [ largely fictional] Neighborhood Council , that will clear the way for a permit to be issued. Yet, applicant is told that if no structure is to be built 2 to replace the removed house, that applicant must post a bond and sign a covenant (probably unconstitutional but who wants more litigation in our Courts?) that a sprinkling system will be installed and grass established to be maintained in perpetuity, which is a long time. HOWEVER, the covenant that was given to applicant to sign DOES NOT SAY THAT. The covenant says that the owner covenants (1 ) to obey existing ordinances . Failing that , (2 ) if owner fails to obey ordinances AFTER NOTICE, then (3 ) owner must install sprinklers and grass . (Which, we suppose, the errant owner , who has refused all else, will dot ) If the owner signs this clumsy document, would a permit be forthcoming? No. Next , applicant telephones City Attorney' s office. City Attorney advises to ask the head of Permits to call the City Attorney' s Office. Applicant does . Then, applicant is told that a permit can be obtained by posting a bond to guarantee that sprinkling system and grass will be installed. [On this domicile property. ] No mention is made , now, of the need for a sign-off from the Neighborhood Council , which has still not been obtained. At this point, applicant decides it might be more productive to become angry. Applicant does. No permit, yet. Applicant asks if a permit can be obtained to build a dog house to replace the removed structure. (This would eliminate the need for grass and sprinklers. ) Applicant is told "yes" , but applicant decides that this insincere solution will not be helpful in solving problems, and does not apply for a doghouse for a non-existent dog. Applicant offers to post a bond ($3500--enough to do an O.C. Tanner Fountain) but is told, "No, we have waived the bond for you. We just want you to bring in a plan for a sprinkling system to go with the landscape [Semi-Xeriscape] plan you already gave us" . Next, a sign-off agreement comes from the Neighborhood Council . At last, on November 16 , about 9: 45 a.m. , applicant was issued a permit. Before 5: 00 p.m. that day, the house was down and mostly hauled away. NOTE; This is a much-condensed version of a process that began sometime before October 18 . The personnel were at all times courteous and seemed to be trying to be helpful , but they probably have no control over the "rules" . Thank you for your attention. Please see attached suggested procedure plan. Truly, ETHEL C. HALE and W. PAUL WHARTON 436 East 8th South Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 November 19, 1990 MEMO To : Salt Lake City Council Members From: Ethel C. Hale and W. Paul Wharton, private citizens Suggested Procedure for Obtaining Demolition Permit 1 . Preliminary application by owner, contractor , or agent . 2. ( a) Building inspector determines if there are dangerous conditions that should preclude demolition. (b) Determination is made that ownership title is clear . (c) Question reasons for wanting to demolish. Would owner sell property to have it saved if there is a buyer? If yes , notice can be given to persons and/or organizations that want to prevent demolition . (Organizations should be prepared to respond in five business days. They will have been informed of new procedure and should have a policy and means established . ) (d) Owner is advised that an empty lot , the same as a lot with structure, is subject to ordinances regarding weed control , trash, litter , and plantings. ("Weed trees" should be defined. Some self-planted trees are desirable. ) (e) If there is no buyer , a Preliminary Permit grants permission. A contractor ' s qualifications are established and a contract is confirmed. 3 . Next , owner , contractor , or agent arranges disconnection of telephone, cable, electric, and gas lines. (Utilities need up to about seven working days to disconnect . ) 4 . Board of Health is contacted to do asbestos check ; Traffic Engineer to evaluate traffic needs ; Building Inspector to confirm conditions are appropriate. Water lines and sewer lines are located and instructions are given. 5. Permit To Proceed is granted . (This could be done in 12 to 15 working days . ) THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.