Loading...
10/18/1990 - Minutes (2) PROC)INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CII, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as Committee of the Whole, on Thursday, October 18, 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 Don Hale Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey The following Council Members were absent: Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting. There were no Briefing Session minutes for this date. 90-334 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Thursday, October 18, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale Nancy Pace Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. #1. There was no invocation CONSENT AGENDA given. ACTION: Councilmember Hardman #2. The Council led the moved and Councilmember Hale Pledge of Allegiance. seconded to approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all #3. Councilmember Whitehead members voted aye except Council- moved and Councilmember Hardman members Horrocks and Kirk who were seconded to approve the minutes of absent for the vote. the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, #1. RE: Approving the October 9, 1990, and Thursday, appointment of Rick Ith to the October 11, 1990, which motion Salt Lake Arts Council. carried, all members voted aye (I 90-16) except Councilmembers Horrocks and Kirk, who were absent for the NEW BUSINESS vote. (M 90-1) #1. RE: Setting a date for November 20, 1990, at 6:40 p.m., #4. Consider adopting a joint to accept public comment and resolution supporting the effort consider adopting an ordinance to bring the Neighborhoods, U.S.A. amending Chapter 80 of Title 21 Conference to Salt Lake City in creating a special exception 1992. process for certain zoning encroachments required to allow ACTION: Councilmember Hale handicapped access. moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Resolution 104 ACTION: Councilmember White- of 1990, which motion carried, all head moved and Councilmember Pace members voted aye except Council- seconded to set the date of members Horrocks and Kirk who were November 20, 1990, at 6:40 p.m. , absent for the vote. for the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted Councilmember Hale read the aye except Councilmember Kirk who resolution. was absent for the vote. (0 90-43) #2. RE: Setting a date for November 20, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. , 90-335 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1990 to accept public comment and ACTION: Councilmember Hor- consider adopting an ordinance rocks moved and Councilmember Pace amending Title 21 to provide for seconded to adopt Resolution 105 the limited conditional use of of 1990, which motion carried, all barbed wire fences in certain members voted aye. districts subject to certain (B 90-4) conditions pursuant to Petition No. 400-794-90. #2. RE: Approving the appointment of Mark L. Lawrence to ACTION: Councilmember Hale the Salt Lake Arts Council. moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to set the date of ACTION: Councilmember Hale November 20, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. , moved and Councilmember Pace for the public hearing, which seconded to approve the appoint- motion carried, all members voted ment of Mark L. Lawrence to the aye except Councilmember Kirk who Salt Lake Arts Council, which was absent for the vote. motion carried, all members voted (0 90-44) aye. (I 90-16) #3. RE: Approving the reappointment of R. Gordon Bader #3. RE: Adopting a resolution to the Metropolitan Water District endorsing the Salt Lake City Board of Salt Lake City. Housing Policy. ACTION: Without objection ACTION: Councilmember Pace Councilmember Godfrey referred moved and Councilmember Hardman this item to the Consent Agenda, seconded to adopt Resolution 106 which motion carried, all members of 1990 with the addition of voted aye. Section 2-A, which motion carried, (I 90-20) all members voted aye. (T 90-18) #4. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending the C-4 Demolition #4. RE: Adopting a concurrent Ordinance to add a section resolution of support for the allowing for an appeal to the City award of the 1998 Winter Olympic Council within 30 days after Games to Salt Lake City and filing of the final decision. authorizing the execution of the necessary undertakings to induce ACTION: Councilmember Hardman the International Olympic Commit- moved and Councilmember Whitehead tee to award the games to Salt seconded to refer this item to the Lake City, Utah. Planning Division, which motion carried, all members voted aye. ACTION: Councilmember Pace (0 90-45) moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 107 UNFINISHED BUSINESS of 1990, which motion carried, all members voted aye. #1. RE: Adopting a resolution ratifying the budget recommended Councilmember Pace moved and by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Councilmember Hardman seconded to Waste Management Council for reconsider the Winter Olympics calendar year 1990. Games resolution, which motion carried, all members voted aye. 90-336 PROCEiINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITx, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1990 Councilmember Pace moved and Councilmember Pace said she Councilmember Whitehead seconded was reluctant to approve something to approve Resolution 107 of 1990, she had not seen and wanted to see with amended language of paragraph a copy of the paragraph change. 5B attached as presented at the Mr. Cutler provided the Council Council Meeting which substituted members with a copy of the language in 5B in the original changes. He said this would be contract, which motion carried, Exhibit A to the resolution and all members voted aye. would be the language substituted for paragraph 5B in the contract. DISCUSSION: Roger Cutler, Councilmember Hardman asked what City Attorney, said since the City the major difference was between made the presentation concerning the latest draft and the one the the contract there had been a Council had already seen. language change in paragraph 5B. He asked if the Council ' s vote Mr. Cutler said the State had could include the changes in the drafted the new paragraph and were attachment. Councilmember Godfrey happy with the wording. He said it asked Councilmember Pace if that covered basically the same thing. was her understanding. Council- Councilmember Horrocks asked Mr. member Pace said she did not Cutler if he had the original recall what that portion was. Mr. draft with him. Mr. Cutler said he Cutler said it was paragraph 5B. did not. Councilmember Kirk said He said the City had finished she had her copy and read the negotiating this paragraph today original paragraph. and the Council did not have a copy in front of them. Councilmember Pace voiced her concern about receiving material Mr. Cutler said it gave the right before being asked to make a City the flexibility to sign the decision. She said it would have standard International Olympic been helpful to have the wording Committee ( IOC) contracts, but the change ahead of time. City had agreed that if there were (C 90-136) to be amendments to the contracts, the City would consult with the #5. RE: Adopting a State and the State could approve resolution approving the amended the amendments. He said if the and restated Utah Municipal City negotiated contracts with Finance Cooperative Agreement; third parties, the City would get authorizing the execution and the State' s consent. He said the delivery of said amended and amendments could impact the restated agreement; appointing a State' s liability or rights under representative and alternate to the contract or the expectations represent the member in the of the award of the games. He said governing body of the Utah the State had assumed liability, Municipal Finance Cooperative; and so they did not want the City to related matters. sign amendments which might pre- judice the State' s rights without ACTION: Councilmember Hardman their consent and the City had moved and Councilmember Horrocks agreed to that. Mr. Cutler said seconded to appoint Councilmember there was not much difference, Godfrey as the representative and just some wording change in Councilmember Kirk as the paragraph 5B. alternate to represent the member in the governing body of the Utah 90-337 PROCEE"i)INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1990 Municipal Finance Cooperative and The meeting adjourned at 5:45 adopt Resolution 101 of 1990, p.m. which motion carried, all members voted aye. (- Q 90-7 ) 44$A411001404t. COUNCIL HAIR PUBLIC HEARINGS #1. A public hearing at 5:00 p.m. to receive public comment and I Y E DER consider adopting an ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 69 of 1990, which approved, ratified, and finalized the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990, and ending June 30, 1991. ACTION: Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to reduce the general fund contin- gency by $22,050 and increase the City Recorder's Division budget by $22,050 for the provisions of minutes for certain City Council Meetings, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Pace seconded to adopt Ordinance 88 of 1990, as amended, which motion carried, all members voted aye. DISCUSSION: Steve Fawcett, Finance, said the Council had the packets before them. He said it was the first opening of the fiscal year and he would answer any questions the Council might have. (B 90-3) 90-338 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Thursday, October 18, 1990 5:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. 1. Report of the Executive Director. 2. The Council will interview Mark L. Lawrence prior to consideration of his appointment to the Arts Council. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: nn 1. Invocation. -- rwif G' 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the minutes. 4. Consider adopting a joint resolution supporting the effort to bring the Neighborhoods, U.S.A. Conference to Salt Lake City in 1992. C. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: 1. Consider approving the appointment of Rick Ith to the Salt Lake Arts Council. ( I 90-16) Staff recommendation: Approve. E. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Handica_pped Uses Set date for November 20, 1990 at 6:40 p.m. , to accept 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 90-85 ) Staff recommendation: Set date. 2. Ordinance: Barbed Wire Fences - Petition No. 400-794-90 Set date for November 20, 1990 at 6: 30 p.m. , to accept 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 90-86 ) Staff recommendation: Set date. 3. Board Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of R. Gordon Bader to the Metropolitan Water District Board of Salt Lake City. ( I 90-20) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 4. Legislative Action Item, Councilmember Hardman: C-4 Demolition Consider adopting an ordinance amending the C-4 Demolition Ordinance to add a section allowing for an appeal to the City Council within 30 days after the filing of the final decision. (0 90-87) Staff recommendation: Refer to Planning. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Landfill Budget for Calendar Year 1990 Consider adopting a resolution ratifying the budget recommended by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council for calendar year 1990. (B 90-4) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 2. Board Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Mark L. Lawrence to the Salt Lake Arts Council. ( I 90-16) Staff recommendation: Approve. 3. Resolution: Housing Policy Consider adopting a resolution endorsing the Salt Lake City Housing Policy. (T 90-18) Staff recommendation: Adopt, with the addition of Section 2-A. 4. Resolution: OlympicsUndertaking Agreement Consider adopting a concurrent resolution of support for the award of the 1998 Winter Olympic Games to Salt Lake City and authorizing the execution of the necessary undertakings to induce the International Olympic Committee to award the games to Salt Lake City, Utah. (C 90-136) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 5. Municipal Finance Cooperative Agreement Consider adopting a resolution approving the amended and restated Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative Agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of said amended and restated agreement; appointing a representative and alternate to represent the member in the governing body of the Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative; appoint a member and an alternate, and related matters. (C 90-581) Staff recommendation: Select Members and Adopt. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5:00 p.m. 1. Ordinance: Budget Amendment #1 Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 69 of 1990 which approved, ratified and finalized the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990 and ending June 30, 1991. (B 90-3) Staff recommendation: Adopt. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGED►. DATED: October 16, 1990 / 1010 To oFa44412 STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 16th day of October, 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. _i 411 I RECORDER Subscr' . ` and sworn to before me this 16th day of October, 1990. • Notary P . '-� siding in the State of Utah Commission Expires: —'7 tom---a--e-a{�rry�a+-- BARBARA HAIbilc GHT I -74, � *, 451 So.Stage St.Ftrn 415 Y Salt Lsilae City,Utah 841 Q2 My p t CorrAtIon Expires I August 1,1 3 I Sta s of u-i APPROVAL: 0 0 EXECUT VE DIRE OR S R' ° t'Vitt c.2,114... -Of f 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: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1990 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: Thursday, October 18, 1990 TIME: 5: 45 p.m. , or immediately following the official meeting and dinner break 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 regarding Policy Issues relating to the, Salt Lake City Attorney's Office. 2) The Council will hold its Quarterly discussion with SLACC. cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl, Emilie Charles, Roger Cutler, Kathryn Marshall, Department Heads, Press, SLACC PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole, Tuesday, October 9, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk The following Council Members were absent: Wayne Horrocks Nancy Pace Don Hale Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting. Councilmember Hardman called the meeting to order at 5 : 00 p.m. Agenda Item D-4: Reappointment of Bernice Cook to the Community Development Advisory Committee. Ms. Gust-Jensen said this item had been pulled from the agenda. Agenda Item E-1: Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative Agreement resolution. Mr. Dick Fox, Salt Lake City Bond Council, said he had been in contact with Roger Cutler, City Attorney, and had discussed the item in detail. Councilmember Godfrey asked if the motion on this item should be "suspend and adopt" , or "suspend and adopt with the conditions stipulated by the City Attorney. " Councilmember Hardman requested Ms. Gust-Jensen to review this question with Mr. Cutler and provide recommended language for a motion. The meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m. 90-321 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, October 9, 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 Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Don Hale The following Council Members were absent: Wayne Horrocks Nancy Pace Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and S. R. Kivett, Chief Deputy Recorder were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES #2. RE: Consider approving the reappointment of Stan Roberts #1. The invocation was given to the Salt Lake Arts Council. by Mr. Bob Blackhurst, Police ( I 90-16) Chaplain. #3. RE: Consider approving #2. The Council led the the reappointment of D'Arcy Dixon Pledge of Allegiance. Pignanelli to the Salt Lake Arts Council. #3. Councilmember Kirk moved (I 90-16) and Councilmember Hardman second- ed to approve the minutes of the #4. RE: Consider approving Salt Lake City Council for the the reappointment of Bernice Cook regular meeting held Tuesday, to the Community Development October 2, 1990, which motion Advisory Committee. carried, all members present voted ( I 90-2) aye. #5. RE: Consider approving CONSENT AGENDA the reappointment of Nancy Saxton to the Community Development Item #4 was pulled from the Advisory Committee. agenda. ( I 90-2) Councilmember Hale moved and #6. RE: Consider approving Councilmember Kirk seconded to the reappointment of Sharon Alder- approve the consent agenda, which man to the Salt Lake Arts Council. motion carried, all members ( I 90-16) present voted aye. #7. RE: Consider adopting #1. RE: Consider approving Resolution 102 of 1990, authoriz- the reappointment of Curley Jones ing the execution of an interlocal to the Community Development cooperation agreement with the Advisory Committee. Board of Education of Salt Lake (I 90-2) City, Utah. (C 90-574) 90-322 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990 NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS #1. RE: Adopt a resolution approving the amended and restated Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative Agreement; authorizing the execu- tion and delivery of said amended and restated agreement; appointing a representative and alternate to represent the member in the gov- COUNCIL CHAIR erning body of the Utah Municipal Finance Cooperative; and related matters. CITY RECORDER ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution 101 of 1990, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. (C 90-581 ) DISCUSSION: There was no discussion. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS #1. RE: Consider adopting an ordinance enacting Section 15.04.320 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Steiner Aquatic Center. ACTION: Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 84 of 1990, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. (0 90-42) DISCUSSION: There was no discussion. The meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m. 90-323 MIKE ZUHL SALT LAKES GITY CORPORATION, LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TD: 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 fee 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: / L / MICHAEL B. ZUHL Interim Director -- Coliuhiunity 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: 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 DATE : September 11, 199O RE: Handicapped Access Ordinance Attached is a revised copy of the proposed ordinance amendment providing a special exception process for hand icapped 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 fleeting. The basic changes that arc 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 pr operty 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 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 BUILDiNIG SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 i•H: itIPANDII1i TO: Lee Ki ng , LiG FROM: Everett ,Joyce DATE : Septe::',ber 29 I )()0 RE : H(111di C0f1_>e-I:3 to I„ rind i lalncr EnC Losed i s the' is r :irl';:. Li i l i t,-,i !<aqr f_Or I IIC' h<sra<_ii r'epped-1 coc os;; ordinance mod i } 1 o:ci I. i on:;. Th` v 1 ';E'Cl h IIId 1 c'ci[-If->ed ordinance was pr. II (P i�i.`', ion Oil `_HpLemhec 20th. The Planning comm I o iC)I1 r eco _r:]elto_'r3 io Elie City Col_Irlci 1 the modified handi capped ae( ''',ss (lrI_3 i nonce f c>: I proval . The P1-arming Commission recom.fended That the ' , rind" ;it; the end of par. o,Igreph 21 . itO. ] 2.3 ( D ) be removed and replaced Lb a period. This minor ordincnee modi L i cation ( ; )n(1 ) reco ended by the Planning Comm issiOn bin been held trIl•r. I: iarr:.m-iheelI to r.he Attorney " s Office rint i l <itior- in1 !, t-rat ive revi If you have any questions r> rontP,0 . c ycIur col;ve'rli ��n< � . cc: Al len C. ,Johnson 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 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'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 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, Alle 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 - 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 Coll➢[lission, 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 sec 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 Adjustment 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. 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. PINING 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 Mr. 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 CFS 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 C;ib 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. 1111 MIKE ZUHL SALT LAKE' v", Oc1�1iQoWlQN LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 T0: 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 Conuission 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 Interim Direc or Co munity and 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 : [21.80.28O Barbed-Wire Fences prohibited. ] [ (A) . It is unlawful for any person to erect or use to be erected or to maintain any barbed wire or similar type fences within the city. (13) The board of adjustment may, however, permit the erection of a barbed-wirc fence, for security reasons , around 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 ) of ands of barbed wirc may be placed upon the top of the fence not less than six ( 6 ) than sixty degrees ( G0©) from the verti al . -2- the erection of razor wire. 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- 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 II4111 RALPH P. NEILSON TELEPHONE 535-7757 GEORGE NICOLATUS VICKI PALACIOS JOHN M. SCHUMANN TO: Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Allen C. Johnson, Planning Direc p DATE: July 6, 1990 \�} SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Changes Allowing Barbed Wire Fences Attached please find the staff report and Planning Commission 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. ;s r (NEY'S --OFFICE SAMLAKI CITY C :RPADR 'IO ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP .,_ , �.��q 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 LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 RALPH P. NEILSON TELEPHONE 535-7757 GEORGE NICOLATUS VICKI PALACIOS JOHN M. SCHUMANN TO: Bruce Baird FROM: Allen John 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 Commission 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. SALT'LAKE CITY CORPORA I 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 `-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 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 consertina 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. Mr. 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 k SALT LAKE CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION NO. 400-794 CHANGES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING BARBED-WIRE FENCE'S • D• ID 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. RECCMMENEATION 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-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. 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 %AKE G.iT )e)ING 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. (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 (51-5-26) 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 CITY Z6NIOC. 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 I'ROF-IDITED. O 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. CT'"' 7.QNTYCII ^r;JINANC'E Page 160 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 res,.idential 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 LAKE (LTY ZONING ORDINANCE Page 161 • ROGER R. EVANS SALT' _ CITY CORPORATION`I HARVEY F. BOYD ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Building and Housing Services 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONL 535-6436 March 12, 1990 Mike Zuhi, 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 Barbed-wire fences prohibited. A. It is unlawful for any person to erect or cause to be erected or to maintain any barbed wire or similar type fences within the city with the following exceptions: 1. The erection of a barbed-wire fence is permitted in A-1 Agricultural, M-1, M-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 barbed 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 Zuh1 March 12, 1990 Page two --- certain limitations. Many property owners are having a hard time securing their properties frzxn vagrants and there are hundreds of cases that Building and Housing Services are not enforcing because we have not received a complaint. Sincerely, Roger R Evans Director RRE:rm ...- OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL- CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 October 12, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: C0UNCILMEMBERS FROM: JENNIFER NAPIER SUBJECT: REVIEW OF R. GORDON BADER FOR REAPPOIN1 ENT TO METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD As you know, the City Council approves the appointment and reappointment of members of the Metropolitan Water District Board. Recently, the MWDSLC Board . of Directors requested reappointing R. Gordon Bader to a -second full term extending through July, 1996.. Mr. Bader's first appointment to the MWDSLC Board of Directors was on July 28, 1981 to fill the remainder of a term previously filled by Mr. G. Kenneth Handley. In 1984, Mr. Bader was reappointed to the Board. Mr. Bader, who lives in District 6, is a retired financial executive and currently serves as the Board 's Vice Chair. Please review and let me know of any concerns or comments about this action as soon as possible. If you have no objection, we will place him on the October 18 agenda. ey OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 October 9, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: COUNCILMEMBER ALAN HARDMAN SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEM I am proposing a Legislative Action Item relating to the C-4 demolition ordinance, and I would like to request your support. I would like to see the Council add an appeal clause to the demolition ordinance, similar to the appeal clause in the Historical Landmarks ordinance, which states: "Any person aggrieved by any decision of planning may appeal that decision to the City Council , provided petition for such appeal is presented to the City Council within thirty days after the filing of planning's final decision." It is my understanding that the Scherbel case allows for the Council to designate itself as the appellate body, and this is what I am proposing. I hope I can have your support in this effort . LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEM Consider adopting an ordinance amending the C-4 Demolition Ordinance to add a section allowing for an appeal to the City Council within 30 days after the filing of the final decision. The landfill budget background information was included in your October 16 �1 packet. Attached is an additional copy of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDED BY THE SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1990 . WHEREAS, on August 25, 1980, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County entered into an Interlocal Agreement pursuant to Title 11 , Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated for the purpose of managing a jointly owned and operated solid waste processing and disposal facility for the use and benefit of their respective citizens; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement established the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council to manage the jointly owned solid waste processing and disposal facility; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council has adopted its budget for calendar year 1990; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement provides that all actions by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council constitute recommendations to the City and the City has the power to review, ratify, mbdify. or veto any action submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council . Actions taken by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council shall take effect only upon ratification by the City and the County; and WHEREAS, the City wants to ratify the attached budget effective for calendar year 1990 . Pa Refer to item Al for information on Mark Lawrence MIKE ZUHL SALTLAKE:CITY- CORPORATION LEE KING INTERIM DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 October 5, 1990 Alan Hardman, Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Alan: RE: PROPOSFD CHANGES TO THE SALT LAKE CITY HOUSING POLICY On August 7, 1990, the Council voted to adopt the Housing Policy in concept. At that time, the Council indicated a desire to develop programs encouraging home ownership for middle income households in Salt Lake City. One way in which this can be accomplished would be to expand the Grants for Home Buyers Program identified in the Housing Policy to include households whose income exceed CDBG guidelines. In order to accomplish this, a separate section has bccn added to the Housing Policy, identified as Section 2a. This program would be identified as Grants for Homebuyers (Special City-Wide Program) . The extension of this program would provide grant assistance to households with incomes exceeding CDBG guidelines. In addition, the grant assistance would be extended to include areas not designated as CDBG eligible, Since the expanded program is specifically targeted at non-CDBG eligible areas and families, CDBG funds will not be available for use as a grant in this program. Staff have identified two potential resources to encourage home ownership. The first potential funding source would be the creation of a revolving loan fund. The loan fund would provide assistance for down payment, and repair and closing costs to home buyers at a very low interest rate (0% to 3%) . This would be an excellent opportunity for local lending institutions to participate in activity that would help fulfill the new CRA requirements. The staff is aggressively pursuing the establishment of a revolving loan fund of this type. Alan Hardman, Chair October 5, 1990 Page 2 A second method for making home ownership possible to middle income families would be to encourage lending institutions to implement the new "Fanny Mae Affordable" financing program. This program has been designed to assist households with incomes up to 115% of median in securing permanent financing with as little as 5% down payment. This program would also allow the use of grants to assist with the closing costs and repairs. The more liberal qualifying guidelines of this program will make home ownership affordable to more families. While both of these initiatives will be helpful, neither can be identified as a certain funding source. The implementation of this plan suggests a general fund allocation of $40,000 for the budget year 1990-1992. This allocation would provide the opportunity for 20 households to receive grant assistance. An additional concern noted by the Council was to elevate the priority of the Residential Code Development and Inspection Standardization Program to a Priority 1. The Housing Advisory and Appeals Board was in concurrence with the recommendation. The change will be included in the final published document. Sincerely, Lee King Deputy Director LK:LR:ks 2a. Grants for Homebuyers (Special Citywide Program) Actions: I.A.1.a., VII.B.1.a. Program Description The purpose of the program is to preserve and increase homeownership in areas which have been identified by the Administration as eligible for Grants for Homebuyers, but not falling within existing CDBG eligible areas. In addition, this program would be available to households up to 125%of median income. Patterned after the"Own in Ogden"program, this program would provide grants to families to purchase existing homes in target neighborhoods. It would pro- vide$2,000-$3,000 grants/loans to persons willing to buy a home in selected areas,and live in it for 5 years. The grant would be contingent on prospective owner getting a VA, FHA, or conventional loan. Other components of the program are: — Purchaser must stay in the house for five years or repay a pro rata portion with interest. — House must be in a residential zone and meet habitability standards at time of closing. — The grant may be used for the down payment, closing costs,and reimbursement of out-of-pocket preauthorized rehab costs within 60 days after closing. — Buyer must invest$500 cash in the home purchase. Implementers • SLACC CDC O Planning Division,Building and Housing Services, City Council Funding * General Fund $40,000 Priority/Time Schedule Priority: 1 Time Schedule: Priority implementation within 0-2 years RESOLUTION No. of 1990 c\a (Endorsing the Salt Lake City Housing Policy) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City believes it important to have a comprehensive housing policy to assist in the revitalization of neighborhoods and enhance the vitality of the City; and WHEREAS , the City, with input from interested parties has developed such a housing policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City believes it appropriate to endorse the goals and direction of the housing policy. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that it does hereby: 1 . Endorse the Salt Lake City Housing Policy as a goal and direction for Salt Lake City and instructs the City Recorder to keep a copy of the Housing Policy available for public review. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL • By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc ArA 0 ) 1,cNr 0()SC). /S( e \ t . CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR TH 3 •;3;_, p AWARD OF THE 1998 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES ��� \} TO SALT LAKE CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY UNDERTAKINGS TO h1 �\ INDUCE THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE TO NNOA) . AWARD THE GAMES TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is desirous of hosting the 1998 '? = Winter Olympic Games ( "Olympic Games" ) within its jurisdiction and in appropriate surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the climate, terrain, geographic location, existing physical facilities and infrastructure, community commitment, and native hospitality of our community are ideal to enable the City to successfully host the Olympic Games ; and WHEREAS, the City is a major transportation hub, which will provide convenient and easy access to the City by all persons of all countries of the world desiring to participate or attend the Olympic Games; and WHEREAS, the cultural, social and economic well-being of the people residing in the City would be enhanced by the staging of the Olympic Games in the City and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the educational, commercial and recreational resources available to City residents would be enhanced, improved and enriched by staging the Olympic Games in the City and surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, hosting the Olympic Games in the State of Utah would similarly enrich and benefit all of the residents of the State of Utah; therefore, the Legislature of the State of Utah enacted the Utah Sports Authority Act, which Act created a State agency to promote, foster and conduct amateur athletics in the state and provided a funding mechanism to build facilities for conducting such events , including the Winter Olympic Games ( 62-1-101 et seq. Utah Code Ann . , 1953 as amended) ; and WHEREAS, there has been organized the Salt Lake City Olympic Bid Committee (SLOBC) , a nonprofit corporation of the State, created to obtain the IOC' s award of the 1998 Winter Games for the City; and WHEREAS, the City, together with the SLOBC, entered into an Agreement dated on or about March 21 , 1990 with the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to secure the designation of Salt Lake City as our country' s choice to host the 1998 Winter Games , which Agreement also provided for appropriate insurance, bonding and other mechanisms to allocate risk away from the City; and WHEREAS, the State of Utah, the Authority, the SLOBC, the USOC, and the City have been cooperatively working to obtain the right to host the 1998 Winter Olympic Games through their respective roles and capacities; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Salt Lake City Council, the Mayor concurring therein, as follows : -2- • w • fS3 K. 1 . Salt Lake City, as an inducement for the IOC to select Salt Lake City as host to the 1998 Winter Olympic Games, supports, by entering into contracts with the Bid Committee and the State or their successors or agencies (including any Organizing Committee created which may have a role in conducting the Games) , all undertakings and commitments of the Bid Committee or its successors required ~.< by the IOC to conduct the Games in the City and its environs . 2 . The City should undertake and vigorously pursue the procurement of contracts by and between the Bid Committee and the State of Utah, or other political subdivisions of the State of Utah and the private sector, which may be necessary or desirable to enable the Bid Committee or its successors to fulfill the undertakings and obligations to the IOC in -connection with the planning, conduct and successful completion of the Winter Olympic Games . DATED this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -3- $, Concurred in by the Mayor: ,$ PALMER DePAULIS Mayor ,} • -4- IS I j'�i_ok gay e ZONE OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7600 October 16, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmembers FROM: Cindy Gust-Jenson SUBJECT: Municipal Finance Cooperative Agreement -- Selection of Representatives You are scheduled to select the representatives to the Municipal Finance organization. You'll recall that you adopted the resolution previously, but we were not ready at that time to provide information on how the representatives would be selected. I have now spoken with Ken Bullock of the League, the and several members of the City Administration to determine the best selection method. I am recommending that we just use our regular policy of selecting representatives. A copy of the policy is attached. Ken Bullock indicates that the representative or the alternate selected would need to be prepared to attend a meeting which is held once a year, in conjunction with the League's annual convention. At that meeting, the body selects a Board and also votes on policies. The Board then meets monthly. At this time, we will have a representative on the main body, but not on the five-member Board. Our representative and alternate to the main body need to be elected officials. I have asked the Mayor's staff to check on his interest in serving as the representative or alternate, and it is my understanding that it is fine with him to have Councilmembers serve in both positions. If you are interested in serving as the City's Municipal Finance representative or alternate, please express your interest to Councilmembers prior to or during Thursday's meeting. REPRESENTATION OF COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY TASK FORCES AND BOARDS POLICY: It is the informal policy of the Council that requests for Council representation on community task forces and boards are brought before the Council for consensus selection. (Examples include representation with the Council of Governments, the Salt Palace Task Force, the Courts Complex Committee, County task forces, etc. ) PROCEDURE: 1. When the Council Office receives a request for Council representation, the request will be brought before the Council. 2. The Chair or staff will determine with the requesting group whether a single Member needs to be selected to represent the Council, or if more than one interested Member could serve. 3. Once the number of available slots is determined, the Councilmembers will be informed of the opening(s) at a Committee of the Whole meeting. 4. Whenever possible, all Members will be made aware of the availability of the position( s) in advance of the briefing session or Committee of the Whole meeting at which it will be considered, in order to allow Members time to consider their interest and availability. 5. If a greater number of Councilmembers are interested in participating than there are slots available, Council representation will be determined either by consensus or by the flip of a coin. 6. Should the timing of a request for representation and the next meeting of a group be such that. the Council cannot consider the item in a meeting or cannot be contacted with reasonable effort, the Chair will request a Member to attend on an interim basis. At the next available opportunity, the above process will be followed to fill the slot(s). 7. Members who represented the Council on task forces, commissions or boards are encouraged to provide periodic written updates for the Council, with the assistance of staff, and to inform the Council of significant developments. 8. If individuals are asked directly by the Mayor or by outside groups to serve and represent the Council, they are requested to make the Council aware of the invitation. 9. Councilmembers who serve on outside task forces, committees or boards are encouraged to make it clear that the entire Council must consider issues before official positions can be expressed or action can be taken. Supported by the Council, February 24, 1990 Detailed background information on the Budget Opening was provided with your October 16 packet. Attached is the resolution. • • 4110 LINDA HAMILTON � `'+ 'lli A�a Cat WW U1 El D ON PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE \"� I l� 1 ID � MAYOR ANIMMw DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6426 September 6 , 1990 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 - PUBLIC HEARING Recommendation: That on October 2, 1990 the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on October 16 , 1990 to discuss Budget Amendment #1 . Availability of Funds : Not applicable . Discussion and Background: The amendment packets will be transmitted to the Council office on October 9, 1990 . Additionally, a briefing session will be held with the Council on October 11 , 1990 to discuss the amendment. Legislative Action: The City Attorney' s office has prepared the necessary ordinance and it is included with this transmittal . Submitted by: • Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/SF:hd cc: Lee King, Deputy Director of CED Enclosure k` s=a SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. OF 1990 (Amending the Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 69 OF 1990 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1991 . PREAMBLE On August 9 , 1990, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, which was adopted on June 12, 1990 , for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990 and ending June 30, 1991, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Director of Finance, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public . The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on October 16, 1990 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget was held on October 16 , 1990 in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Purpose . The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 69 of 1990 . SECTION 2 . Adoption of Amendments . The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1 , 1990. and ending June 30, 1991, in accordance with requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3 . Certification to Utah State Auditor. The Director of the City' s Finance Department, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. -2- SECTION 4 . Filing of Copies of the Budget Amendments . The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1990 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attomey's Office Date ' 0 - uc� By -3- . . , •(SEAL) Bill No. of 1990 Published -4- PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH REGULAR SESSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Thursday, October 11, 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 Wayne Horrocks Nancy Pace Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Don Hale Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and S. R. Kivett, Chief Deputy Recorder were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES adopt Ordinance 86 of 1990 per- taining to the Northwest Estates, #1. The Council led the which motion carried, all members Pledge of Allegiance. voted aye. PUBLIC HEARINGS Councilmember Pace moved and Councilmember Hale seconded, to #1. RE: Receive comment and adopt Ordinance 87 of 1990 per- consider adopting an ordinance taining to the Northcove area, rezoning the property located at which motion carried, all members approximately 1100 East Capitol voted aye. Boulevard, approximately 10 Dorchester, and west of Ensign DISCUSSION: Councilmember Peak at approximately 1000 North Godfrey said the item he read was Street from "R-1" to an "R-lA" what the Council would be taking classification. action on. He said the Council (P 90-317 and P 90-318) would deal with the rezoning and had the authority to ask the Mayor ACTION: Councilmember to hold a public hearing if there Whitehead moved and Councilmember was a real property issue. He Kirk seconded to close the public said both hearings would be heard hearing, which motion carried, all at the same time and as people members voted aye. spoke they could address either or both issues at the same time. Councilmember Pace moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to Bill Wright, City Planning adopt Ordnance 85 of 1990 pertain- Director, said the rezoning pro- ing to Dorchester with instruc- cess for this area began in about tions to the City Attorneys Office January of 1990, when a proposal to revise the effective date from was submitted to the Planning May 1 1992 to November 1, 2003, Commission by Ensign Downs Incor- which motion carried, all members porated. He said they wanted to voted aye. pursue an amendment or a new master plan for the Ensign Downs Councilmember Pace moved and area. He said a master plan was Councilmember Kirk seconded to originally prepared in 1953 and 90-324 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 the plan outlined all future garbage collection. The master developments within the area. He plan proposes that a gate be said in 1980 a new master plan was installed and that there would be submitted to the Planning Commis- restricted access to the area sion and was subsequently ap- because it would be a planned unit proved. Mr. Wright said the area development under private owner- was privately owned and had devel- ship with private streets. He opment rights in the area. He said the Planning Commission had said in January, 1980, a proposal specifically reserved the right was submitted to the City and was to further deliberate on the type reviewed by the planning staff, of access permitted to the North and other city departments that Cove area. The type of access were involved. would focus on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access. Vehicle Mr. Wright said a task force access was an acceptable item with was put together to review the the planning commission but the master plan and other issues commission still wanted to reserve relating to development in this the right to deliberate on pedes- area. He said the important trian access issue. points of the 1990 plan was that it guides ( 1 ) the development of Mr. Wright said the second the areas which were presently planned area is known as the vacant and privately owned, ( 2 ) Dorchester PUD. The proposal for the development of a public park this area is for 14 lots. He said in the area, ( 3 ) the development similar provisions for this area of an open space area which was exist as in the North Cove area. part of the land trade proposal (4 ) the proposal for foothill Mr. Wright said the third trail access and trail heads in planned area is known as the the Ensign Downs area. He said Northwest Estate PUD. It is the plan also guides the land use planned for 13 very large lots. development patterns; which land He said similar provisions for uses would be proposed for the this area exist similar to the subdivision of land into lots with North Cove area, with the addi- public streets, and planned unit tional provisions for pedestrian developments. and bicycle access onto a trail system and some limited vehicle Mr. Wright said there were access. three areas which were planned unit development ( PUD) areas. The Mr. Wright said the 1990 first was known as the North Cove master plan also provides for a area and was located at the upper total of 83 new single family lots end of East Capital Boulevard. approximately 1/2 acre in size. He said there was current develop- He said the new master plan pro- ment in the area. The plan pro- posed 155 new lots, compared to vided for approximately 44 new the 1980 plan which approved 250 lots, each lot would be 2 to 2 1/2 lots. He said the new plan re- acres on private streets . He said duced the number of proposed lots the new owners had to provide by about 100. He said the plan- public services except police and ping staff and Planning Commission fire. These private services felt this is a significant benefit would consist of plowing roads, to Salt Lake City for developing maintenance to the water and sewer in this sensitive area. He said lines and private trash and gar- the entire area is overlaid with 90-325 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 the F-1 overlay zone and is a very Mr. Wright said the planning sensitive area for development. commission requested several He said the Planning Commission conditions for approval in their felt that the new plan was benefi- recommendation. These conditions cial to both the public and the are contained in the ordinances environmental issues of this area which are before the Council for of town. consideration. The major condi- tion the ordinances require is Mr. Wright said the original that the rezoning will not take master plan provided land be set effect until the PUD plat is aside for a park. He said that approved by the Planning Com- the only development of the park mission and Planning Director. were tennis courts, which had not been maintained, and that the Mr. Wright said the North proposed master plan would result Cove area had some additional in a six acre public park consist- conditions in addition to the plat ing of an upgraded grassy park. requirements. He said part of the He said about half of the proposed conditions included the exchange site was developed by the LDS of deeds between Salt Lake City Church as a ward house location, and Ensign Downs which is proposed It was developed under an arrange- in the land trade. ment with the Salt Lake City School Board who owned the proper- Mr. Wright said the Northcove ty at the time. The School Board area will be developed in a series declared the property no longer of phases primarily because of its necessary and sold that property size. He said there would be a to Ensign Downs. This piece of preliminary approval for the property will be part of the entire area and that when the proposed land trade to the City. first plat or phase was approved this would trigger the rezoning Mr. Wright said the 1990 for the entire area. Master Plan proposed a nature park in the area. He said the plan Mr. Wright also said another primarily focused on Ensign Peak condition for the Northcove area and the City presently owns about was the time element of one and nine acres on the top of Ensign one half years to develop and have Peak. the area platted and recorded. He said this time period equated Mr. Wright defined the R-1, to about May 1, 1992. He said R-1A, and P-1 zoning which are the this time had an extension clause three zoning designations being of 1 year if granted by the Mayor. considered for the proposed rezoning. Mr. Wright said the other two planned unit developments, Mr. Wright said the rezoning Dorchester and Northwest Estates, was necessary to implement the had similar recommendations. master plan. He said the planned unit development requested by Councilmember Pace said she Ensign Downs in the North Cove, thought there was an error in the Northwest, and Dorchester areas Dorchester area, she said the could not be developed without condition date of May 1, 1992 those areas being rezoned. should read November 1, 2003. 90-326 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Mr. Wright said the date Commission recommended the City would have to be corrected. He stay with the 40 percent slope said the conditions must be met by which is currently in the City' s November 1, 2003. He also said ordinances. He said the Planning there are provisions for two Commission made recommendations additional two year extensions for some changes to the site which must be certified by the development ordinances, whereby a Mayor. He said the longer period building will have a greater set was suggested because of the back if the building is on a 40 different rate of absorption of percent slope line. He said the the lots in this area due to setback will take in consideration location. the slope line as well as the property line. He said the scar- Mr. Wright said this was a ing issue is complicated. He said long term master plan and that within the city' s site development completion of the plans will not ordinance there are allowances for take place right away. He said it a vertical cut of 15 feet and is important that the elements of fill. He said there are re-vege- the master plan be set in place tation requirements on the cuts now. He said the full development and fills. He said most of the of this master plan is between scaring which exists on the hill- thirteen and twenty years into the sides was done prior to the adop- future. tion of the site development ordinance. He said he felt there Mr. Wright said the Planning were requirements in existence to Commission found the rezoning an keep the scaring to a minimum. appropriate action and recommended the Council approve the rezoning. Councilmember Horrocks asked about the requirement for re- Councilmember Hardman asked vegetation and if the ordinances Mr. Wright if the Council was to were enforceable. take any action on the master plan. Mr. Wright said the plan provides for lots to be placed on Mr. Wright said the Council the uphill and downhill side of was not required to take action on all streets. He said this would the master plan. He said it was a take care of the re-vegetation subdivision development master requirement and the scaring issue. plan not a public policy master He said it appears that all work plan. He said the Capitol Hill planned can be done within the Master plan had been previously parameters of the existing ordi- adopted by the Council. nances. He said the Planning Commission was concerned about Councilmember Horrocks asked the scaring of the hillsides and Mr. Wright how the developers were that it may be seen from the going to mitigate the hill side valley floor. He said the Plan- scaring and how the 30 and 40 ning Commission was looking at percent slope issue would be changing the ordinances to allow handled. the planning staff to address the placement of homes on the hill- Mr. Wright said the planning side with more detail than exists commission had made its recommen- in the present ordinances. dation on the 30/40 percent slope issue. He said the Planning 90-327 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Councilmember Horrocks asked designated as a grassy park. Mr. Wright about the preservation Another area will house a five zone, and whether the P-1 Zone million gallon water tank to allowed for only one single family provide water for the development dwelling unit per 16 acres. and other parts of the city. He said the developer will pay for Mr. Wright said that in the and use 7% of the water. The P-1 Zone that was correct. He remaining 97% will be utilized by said the P-1 Zone was established other residences of Salt Lake in 1976 after a moratorium was put City. He said there were other in place. He said the P-1 Zone areas which are called administra- was originally created as an tive adjustments which provide for ordinance. He said the P-1 Zone the park to totally front on the had only one unit developed in it. abutting street and to provide for He said the properties which are the trails to stay in public in this proposal consists of ownership. He said the Planning fourteen acres. He said the Commission has reserved the right property was in the P-1 because of to do further study on the area city ownership not because the known as Little Ensign if needed. land is developable. He said that He said the Planning Commission although this 14 acres would be approval of the master plan ex- removed from the P-1 overlay zone, cluded this area. through the land trade the City will be adding 66 acres to the P-1 Mr. Wright outlined how the Zone. values of the property were estab- lished. He said there were three Councilmember Whitehead asked appraisals done early in 1990 of the 66 acres added into the P-1 which generated a series of fig- Overlay Zone, how much could have ures. He said the appraisals were been developed. done by MAI appraisers. Mr. Wright said approximately Councilmember Horrocks asked 27 1/2 acres of the 66 acres could how much land was contained in 51 not be developed. He said this unimproved lots and how they could was due to the 40 percent slope equal 1 million dollars. criteria of the ordinances. He said it would leave 38 1/2 acres Garth Coles, Real Property that could be developed under Manager, said the preamble to the today' s guidelines . handout which Mr. Wright had provided the Council, titled "Land Mr. Wright outlined the Trade - Salt Lake City and Ensign proposed land trade. He said one Downs Inc. " , and which is on file of the primary goals of the Plan- with the City Recorder, contained ning Commission, when the Capitol the methodology used to obtain Hills planning documents were the values. He said the appraisal developed, was the preservation of was based upon the lots available certain lands around Ensign Peak. that could be developed, rather During the present master plan than the amount of acreage that review it was determined that could be developed. He said this there could be a public benefit if method was more beneficial to the a land trade could be made with city. He said the lots varied Ensign Downs. He outlined the from 1/2 to 1 acre in size. He areas proposed to be traded. One said the appraiser went to neigh- of the areas is the area to be boring subdivisions in the area 90-328 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 and obtained prices of sales for develop and plan a community. He lots of half acre size and deter- said there are 162 similar exist- mined the value based upon today' s ing home in the area and the 155 prices. He said the cost derived new homes will be high income included cost of development. homes which will give the city a good tax base. He said that the Mr. Wright said the value of plan calls for 100 less homes than the Ensign Downs Property is is legally allowed by current $1, 130, 556 . He said the differ- ordinances. He said the plan ence between that value and the called for an additional 50 acres value of City property is 478,457. be added to the P-1 Zone. He said Ensign Downs is providing 1 .4237 value of land to the Cities Councilmember Hardman asked 1 .0 value of land. Mr. Turville to outline the Little Ensign area and what part it Ralph Becker, Planning Com- played in the master plan and who mission addressed Councilmember owned it. Horrocks concern about the scaring and re-vegetation. . He said that Mr. Turville said Ensign this was a major consideration of Downs owned the area and the plans the planning commission during the were to develop the area and build evaluation of this request. He houses on it as sensitively as said the commission had included they can. He said the Planning in the master plan far beyond what Commission has withheld this area is required in the site develop- from the proposed master plan so ment ordinance. He said those that specific site planning can be areas which are specifically discussed. visible from the valley will require the developer to meet Councilmember Hardman asked specific controls as to where how many acres were involved. Mr. those structures can be located. Turville said the area would He said he feels that what the consist of eight lots of about one planning commission has recommend- half acre each. ed has balanced the public inter- ests and values with that of the Councilmember Hardman asked legitimate property owners inter- what the current zoning was for ests. that property. Mr. Turville said the zoning for Little Ensign Peak Scott Turville, Ensign Downs was R-1 . He also said the majori- Representative, said the plan ty of the property in the proposed conceived was to work under prin- land trade was zoned R-1. ciples which were to consolidate city owned land and to consoli- Councilmember Hardman asked date the developers land to a if the area had any overlay zones. point where the city could pre- Mr. Turville said that it had an serve their land and the developer F-1 overlay as did all of their could develop his land. He said property in that area. the reason the City is getting land that can not be developed is Glen Saxton, Ensign Downs because the City was in the busi- Incorporated, said he felt they ness of holding land and preserv- have a carefully and sensitively ing foothills and preserving views conceived project plan which is and areas from being scarred. He good for the city and good for the said Ensign Downs had set out to residents of the area. He said he 90-329 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 believed the developers were Mr. Morris said the neighbor- creating open spaces and trail hood would be divided by those who head opportunities which created live in the PUD' s. He said those benefits to the public while residents would have all of the developing a project in a sensi- benefits of living in Salt Lake tive way. City but would not have the same kinds of issues or problems as the Cindy Cromer, 816 East First rest of residents. Especially South, said she supported the land those who share the single access trade and the rezoning for the PUD road, East Capitol Road. He said status, because of the reduction the issue is the single neighbor- in street width. She said the hood, but by creating the PUD' s, City was buying back Ensign Peak, three enclaves are being created. and asked the Council and the Mayor that upon its purchase some Teresa Overfield, 172 kind of restrictive covenants be Braewick Road, Second Vice Presi- placed in the deeds that will dent of the Ensign Downs Home prohibit future governments from Owners Association, expressed the selling this property. anger in the neighborhood about the creation of exclusive en- Patricia Peterson, 130 claves. She said the neighborhood Braewick Road, said she supported was divided over this issue. She the plan, the land exchange and said the owners within the en- the rezoning for the PUD. She claves would be able to come into said she had reservations about their neighborhood but they would the proposed location of the gate. be unable to enter the enclaves. She said she applauded the devel- She said she does not agree with opers for their consideration of the rezoning question, but does the area. agree with the land exchange. David Morris, 172 Braewick James West, 820 East Capitol Road, said he opposed the rezoning Boulevard, said he was concerned proposal. He said establishment about the residents in the en- of the PUD created free walled claves who can utilize the street enclaves within the Ensign Downs in front of his house but he was area, and created a divergence of unable to use the street in front interest. He said it was not the of theirs. He said the idea of a role of the government of Salt community is not a place where a Lake City to create special inter- wall exits between you and your ests which would ultimately become neighbor. He also discussed the a problem for the community. He issue of trails into the foothills also said it was difficult to and said access to an area is one understand why the Northcove area, thing but access to a 40 degree which belonged to Salt Lake City slope is not access. He said the and consisted of approximately 14 overall idea of the development of acres, was appraised at just under this area was good, but the devel- $210, 000 when the area of approxi- opment which seals the residents mately 39 acres, belonging to out was not a pleasant thought. Ensign Downs, was appraised at $1, 000, 000. Tony Thurber, 129 Braewick Road, said there was a great deal Councilmember Pace asked Mr. to commend in the plan. He said Morris to elaborate on his comment he approves of much of it but said about the problems which would be he has some concerns. He said created by the three enclaves. 90-330 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 most of the neighbors are against Shirley Hanrath, 139 Braewick a closed enclave. He said another Road, said that in 1980 there was concern was the ridge line prob- a ruling for emergency exits in lem. He said the Little Ensign new developments. She said parcel should be withdrawn from Braewick Road is narrow with consideration. He also said he curves and cannot accommodate the was disturbed about the park being additional 800 vehicles which cut in half, and the 14 acres would require access to the new being removed from the P-1 preser- housing. She also said emergency vation zone. He said the trade is vehicles would not have access to not a good trade for the City. the area. She said that vehicles will use the closest access road Hermoine Jex, 272 Wall, spoke which in this case is Braewick in opposition of approval of the Road. new master plan. She read a prepared speech which outlined ten Councilmember Godfrey read a items of concern. (Her comments comment submitted by Ms. Erlinda are on file in the City Recorders T. Davis. She said she opposed Office) . She requested a contin- the development on Little Ensign uance of the public hearing and a Peak and asked that the space not 90 day moratorium in which to re- be developed. study the Little Ensign question. Kim Anderson, 768 North Paul Wise, 856 East Capitol Redwood Road #18, spoke in behalf Boulevard, First Vice President of SLACC. He read a statement of the Home Owners Association, from the Executive Committee of said at a meeting held in April SLACC stating "SLACC has still not members of the association voted seen final land trade and feel on the revised master plan. He that changes made day to day, said the vote was 2 to 1 in favor minute by minute are not in the of the plan. He said as a private best interest of the City and citizen he shared concerns with there should be a better public some of the other people about process, therefore SLACC can not access to parts of the planned endorse either the land trade or unit development especially the the zoning change for the Ensign Northcove area and requested that Downs neighborhood. " access to this area not be re- stricted. Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. Anderson if SLACC was involved in Marie Schulthies, 1015 N. E. the planning process. Mr. Capitol Boulevard, said when they Anderson said SLACC was involved purchased the home the street was in most of the meetings but was open to the public and now it is not kept informed of the land proposed to be closed by a gate trades and therefore could not being placed adjacent to her home. support the master plan. She said she does not want the gate in front of her house. Jim Othroe, 1080 East Capitol Boulevard, said he agrees with the Ron Schulthies, 1015 N. E. land trade, and is in favor of the Capitol Boulevard, said he had gates. He said he feels this will contacted an appraiser who stated help control traffic in the area. that the gate would reduce the He said he has a concern with the value of their property. placement of the gates but feels they are needed. 90-331 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Councilmember Kirk said it ap- the extent that a subsequently peared there was a lot of negotia- approvable PUD for that develop- tion which took place during the ment may require some form of three month planning process. She easement access thru Dorchester to asked Councilmember Pace if every- the Little Ensign development. one was now satisfied. Mr. Bill Wright did not Councilmember Pace said not agree. He again outlined the every was satisfied but that is areas on the map which the pro- part of the negotiation process. posed ordinances affected. He She also praised the Planning said none of the ordinances affect Commission and everyone who was Little Ensign and ordinances did involved in the negotiation and not change the zoning of Little planning process. Ensign. He said the Council was not taking any type of action on Councilmember Whitehead said Little Ensign or to force it to be the most controversial thing that developed. was discussed during the hearing was the issue on the placement of Councilmember Pace asked Mr. the gate. He asked if the sugges- Scott Turville about the task tion to place the gate at the force document which recommended bottom of the existing neighbor- setting a two year period before hood area and make the whole thing development could take place on a PUD had arisen. Little Ensign so further study could be accomplished on the area. Mr. Baird said the gate issue will come back before the council Mr. Turville said Little when the plat is submitted for Ensign had always been an area of amendment. concern for some people but Little Ensign was not part of this devel- Councilmember Hale said there opment process. was an indication that the city is giving a 1 .4 value versus receiv- Councilmember Godfrey said ing a 1 . 0 value. He asked for a the work of the Council was com- comment on the differences in plete as far as the rezoning. He values of the various properties said they were asked by the Mayor in the land trade. to hold a joint public hearing to discuss the land trade and there- Garth Coles re-addressed the fore he asked Mayor DePaulis if he appraisal process. He said the would care to comment on that appraisal process was very compli- portion of the hearing. cated. He said the City used what is called an "absorption value in Mayor DePaulis said that as appraisals" system. Mr. Wright presented the land trade issue, and as the comments Councilmember Kirk said she were heard from the public most was still not sure whether Little concerns dealt with the zoning Ensign would be effected by the issue. He said at this point the Dorchester or Northwest ordinanc- recommended proposal of the 1.4237 es. She asked Mr. Baird to com- to 1 value was the proposition ment on these ordinances. that was on the table and was recommended to the Council. Mr. Baird said that Little Ensign would only be effected to 90-332 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 Councilmember Hardman asked Mayor DePaulis about the comment made by Cindy Comer and the possi- bility of placing a comment in the deeds to make the new property perpetual public property. He said he would strongly recommend that possibility be pursued. Mayor DePaulis said part of the rational behind all of this process was to preserve as much of the Vista and Ensign Peak area as possible. He said the perpetual land statement was an item that could be looked into. The meeting adjourned at 8: 54 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 90-333