Loading...
09/05/1989 - Minutes PROCE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITE UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, September 5, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Councilmembers were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council bers should be present at the Executive Director, reviewed the committee meetings to express any Council ' s invitations and events, concerns they might have. It was including the Little Dell Dam agreed that the Council Members tour, the UTCL conference, the would make their concerns known to Central Valley water reclamation Lee King, who would communicate facility dedication ceremony, the them to the Council Chair prior to Clark Financial Corporation the Olympics meeting. Christmas party, and the Congress of Cities conference in Atlanta, The meeting was concluded in Georgia. She mentioned that a preparation for the convening of memo with information on the the regular City Council meeting. Atlanta trip would be distributed after the meeting. Ms. Gust-Jenson reviewed the agenda items for the evening's Council session, noting that the budget opening paperwork would be distributed next week, that Item E-2 should be pulled from the agenda (name withdrawn) , and that someone would be present for questions regarding item E-23. Councilmember Hardman asked about the information the Council had recently received for the Winter Games Organizing Committee meeting. Councilmember Fonnesbeck inquired about the Olympics audit committee recommendations, ex- pressing concern that certain policies and procedures did not appear to have gone through the committee' s recommendation pro- cess. Councilmember Kirk suggest- ed that some of the Council Mem- 89-244 PROCE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIZ UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, September 5, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Councilmembers were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler Mayor Palmer DePaulis,_ Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Lynda -Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Council Member Bittner conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to #1. The invocation was given adopt Resolution 99 of 1989, by Police Chaplain Michael Denos. honoring the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which motion carried, all #2. The Council led the members voted aye. Pledge of Allegiance. LeRoy Hooton, Director of #3. Councilmember Godfrey Public Utilities, said the treat- moved and Councilmember Horrocks ment plant had been a real success seconded to approve the minutes of story because ten years ago the the Salt Lake City Council for the plant was often out of compliance, regular meeting held Tuesday, over loaded, and a poor neighbor. August 8, 1989, which motion He said they were now looking to carried, all members voted aye the future and did not plan to except Councilmember Fonnesbeck have any rate increases for anoth- who was absent at the time of the er ten years. He said the plant vote. was fully funded and functioning, (M 89-1) and in compliance under the clean water act. #4a. The City Council and Mayor presented a resolution Councilmember Fonnesbeck said honoring the Wastewater Treatment she wished Ron Whitehead was at Plant. Councilmember Horrocks the meeting to hear what was being read the resolution which honored said as he had spent so much time the plant for the significant in past years to get the changes improvements made during the past made. She said they owed him decade, for its dedicated employ- congratulations also. ees, for receiving the Environmen- tal Protection Agency's 1987 award Bill Farmer, plant manager, of excellence for Region 8, and said it was a team effort and he for its gold award received from publicly thanked all those who the Association of Metropolitan worked at the plant for the com- Sewer Agencies for a perfect mitment they had made. record in complying with national (R 89-1) affluent limitation requirements. 89-245 PROCEOI NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIA! UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 #4b. The City Council and State Street after 10 p.m. " rule. Mayor presented a resolution He said that perhaps in an effort honoring Salt Lake City' s Central to control one problem they had City Western Boys' Baseball Asso- created another. ciation (WBBA) Little League All Star Team. Councilmember Hardman Mayor DePaulis said the read the resolution honoring the Police Department had recommended coaches and team for displaying the policy to him and he had outstanding skills, hard work, and approved it on a trial basis to determination; and for great see if it would alleviate the strength of character in never Saturday--night cruising problem on giving up and coming from behind State Street. He said the cruis- to win the Little World Series. ers would park and occupants would sit on the cars or trucks and Councilmember Godfrey moved sometimes throw objects such as and Councilmember Hardman seconded pop cans at passing cars. He said to adopt Resolution 100 of 1989, the Police Department was having a honoring the Central City Little tremendous problem controlling the League team, which motion carried, rowdiness from the vehicles, and all members voted aye. there had been a shooting recently where someone was killed. He said Dave Spatafore, the team's the business owners had complained coach, introduced the team members about the debris left behind by who were present to the Mayor and the cruisers which they had to Council and said he had enjoyed clean up. He said he would con- working with the boys and he sider the protests of Mr. Caputo applauded them for their courage and others and evaluate them along and determination. with input from the Traffic and (R 89-1) Police Departments. COMMENTS CONSENT AGENDA Lee Caputo, 147 South State, Councilmember Kirk moved and said he was opposed to the "no Councilmember Godfrey seconded to parking on State Street" rule approve the consent agenda, with that was currently in effect. He the exception of Item 2, which said this affected those business- motion carried, all members voted es, such as his bar business, that aye. were open later at night, and his business had dropped 25% as a #1. RE: Set a date to hold a result. He said it was bad enough public hearing on September 19, to receive parking tickets in the 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain daytime but to receive them at public comment to discuss Budget night too was unfair and he felt Amendment No. 2. people didn't want to come down- (B 89-5) town if they couldn't park on the street. #2. RE: Set a date to hold a public hearing on October 3, 1989, Councilmember Hardman said at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public Mr. Caputo and another constituent comment to discuss the Legislative who owned businesses on State Intent regarding the appointment Street had called him and com- procedures to the Historical plained about the "no parking on Landmark Committee. 89-246 PROCEEINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY`, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 ACTION: Without objection watermain extension at 3815 East this item was pulled. and Crestwood Drive (3870 South) . (C 89-489) DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she had a problem #7. RE: Adopting Resolution with the language of Item 2 as 105 of 1989, authorizing the there were ordinances in her execution of an interlocal agree- packet and she questioned whether ment with Salt Lake County for an the Council would discuss an easement for Watermain Extension ordinance or a legislative intent. 33-C-1276 at 2029 East Creek Road, Ms. Gust-Jensen, Council Executive - Willow Creek Hollow Estates. - - Director, said the language on the (C 89-490) agenda was not correct and al- though the City Attorney had indicated they could amend it and NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS set the date, she felt it would be better to pull it from the agenda #1. RE: Consider approving and allow them to correct the lan- the appointment of Theophile J. guage. Syms to the Board of Appeals and (0 89-7) Examiners. #3. RE: Adopting Resolution ACTION: Without objection 101 of 1989, authorizing the this item was referred to Commit- execution of an interlocal agree- tee of the Whole. ment with Salt Lake County relat- (I 89-13) ing to law enforcement services • for the watershed areas outside #2. RE: Consider approving the city' s corporate limits, the appointment of Carol A. Maul (C 87-448) to the Community Development Advisory Committee. #4. RE: Adopting Resolution 102 of 1989, authorizing the ACTION: This item was pulled execution of an interlocal agree- from the agenda. ment with the Utah Department of (I 89-2) Transportation for sidewalk con- struction on Redwood Road, 1000 #3. RE: Consider approving North to 1300 North. the appointment of Glenda Armour (C 89-492) to the Community Development Advisory Committee. #5. RE: Adopting Resolution 103 of 1989, authorizing the ACTION: Without objection execution of an interlocal agree- this item was referred to Commit- ment with Salt Lake County for an tee of the Whole. easement to install Watermain ( I 89-2) Extension 33-C-1382 at approxi- mately 2450 West, north from 3200 #4. RE: Consider approving North. the appointment of Karel Doop (C 89-488) McDonough to the Tracy Aviary Board. #6. RE: Adopting Resolution 104 of 1989, authorizing the ACTION: Without objection execution of an interlocal agree- this item was referred to Commit- ment with Salt Lake County for an tee of the Whole. easement to install an 8-inch (I 89-16) 89-247 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITF', UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 #5. RE: Consider approving ACTION: Councilmember Stoler the appointment of Victoria Pala- moved and Councilmember Godfrey cios to the Planning and Zoning seconded to suspend the rules and Commission. approve the reappointment, which motion carried, all members voted ACTION: Without objection aye. this item was referred to Commit- (I 89-15) tee of the Whole. (I 89-5) #11. RE: Consider approving the reappointment of Verda Mae #6. RE: Consider approving Christensen to the Salt Lake City the appointment of Curtis Decker Library Board. to the Mosquito Abatement Dis- trict. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Godfrey ACTION: Without objection seconded to suspend the rules and this item was referred to Commit- approve the reappointment, which tee of the Whole. motion carried, all members voted (I 89-8) aye. (I 89-15) #7. RE: Consider approving the appointment of Christine #12. RE: Consider approving Chalkley to the Urban Forestry the reappointment of Cindy Gust- Board. Jenson to the Salt Lake City County Board of Health. ACTION: Without objection this item was referred to Commit- ACTION: Councilmember Stoler tee of the Whole. moved and Councilmember Godfrey (I 89-3) seconded to suspend the rules and approve the reappointment, which #8. RE: Consider approving motion carried, all members voted the appointment of Pamela R. Heal aye. to the Urban Forestry Board. (I 89-1) ACTION: Without objection #13. RE: Consider approving this item was referred to Commit- the reappointment of Rosemarie tee of the Whole. Rendon to the Community Develop- (I 89-3) ment Advisory Committee. #9. RE: Consider approving ACTION: Councilmember Stoler the appointment of Mike Martin to moved and Councilmember Godfrey the Central Business Improvement seconded to suspend the rules and District. approve the reappointment, which motion carried, all members voted ACTION: Without objection aye. this item was referred to Commit- (I 89-2) tee of the Whole. (I 89-11) #14. RE: Consider approving the reappointment of Ranae Pierce #10. RE: Consider approving to the Community Development the reappointment of Alicia Suazo Advisory Committee. to the Salt Lake City Library Board. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Godfrey 89-248 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 seconded to suspend the rules and motion carried, all members voted approve the reappointment, which aye. motion carried, all members voted (I 89-5) aye. (I 89-2) #19. RE: Consider approving the reappointment of LaVone Lid- #15. RE: Consider approving dle-Gamonal to the Planning and the reappointment of Rawlins Young Zoning Commission. to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved andCouncilmember Godfrey ACTION: Councilmember Stoler seconded to suspend the rules and moved and Councilmember Godfrey approve the reappointment, which seconded to suspend the rules and motion carried, all members voted approve the reappointment, which aye. motion carried, all members voted (I 89-5) aye. (I 89-2) #20. RE: Consider approving the reappointment of Anthony L. #16. RE: Consider approving Rampton to the Salt Palace/Fine the reappointment of Marion Willey Arts Board. to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Godfrey ACTION: Councilmember Stoler seconded to suspend the rules and moved and Councilmember Godfrey approve the reappointment, which seconded to suspend the rules and motion carried, all members voted approve the reappointment, which aye. motion carried, all members voted (I 89-17) aye. (I 89-2) #21. RE: Consider approving the reappointment of Charles #17. RE: Consider approving Loving to the Salt Lake Art Design the reappointment of Kevin Board. Anderson to the Tracy Aviary Board. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Godfrey ACTION: Councilmember Stoler seconded to suspend the rules and moved and Councilmember Godfrey approve the reappointment, which seconded to suspend the rules and motion carried, all members voted approve the reappointment, which aye. motion carried, all members voted (I 89-9) aye. (I 89-16) #22. RE: Consider approving the reappointment of Kip K. Harris #18. RE: Consider approving to the Salt Lake Art Design Board. the reappointment of Ralph Becker to the Planning and Zoning Commis- ACTION: Councilmember Stoler sion. moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to suspend the rules and ACTION: Councilmember Stoler approve the reappointment, which moved and Councilmember Godfrey motion carried, all members voted seconded to suspend the rules and aye. approve the reappointment, which (I 89-9) 89-249 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY', UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 #23. RE: Consider adopting they were bypassing the policy and a motion that the Capital Improve- he questioned the wisdom of it as ment Program Contingency Project, it cost the city a lot to process 38-89099, be reduced by $4, 256; alley vacations. He also indicat- the Parks Facility Repair Project, ed there were 10 people abutting 83-89028, be reduced by $6, 000; the alley which would only cost and the Old Fire Station #4 Asbes- $10 per person. tos Removal Project be increased by $10, 256. The Council discussed the decision they had made some two ACTION: _ Councilmember God- years ago allowing-alley -vacations -- - frey moved and Councilmember Kirk to be done without a fee being seconded to suspend the rules and paid. They said it was done as an adopt the motion, which motion incentive to close alleys and was carried, all members voted aye. done at the request of Grant (B 89-6) Mabey, former councilmember. They wondered if they should extend the #24. RE: Consider adopting period for another year, or wheth- an ordinance amending Title 11, er they should change the policy the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, by to exclude low-income people from adding a new Chapter 12 relating paying the fee. to parties, gatherings or events. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, ACTION: Without objection said the issue was a question of this item was referred to Commit- legal protection as the city had tee of the Whole. an ordinance stating that there (0 89-37) was a filing fee of $100 for a petition to close an alley and #25. RE: Consider adopting those guidelines should be fol- an ordinance vacating an alley lowed. He suggested the Council located between Goshen Street and amend the ordinance to make excep- 1100 West, approximately 150 feet tions for low-income persons. south of 700 South. Mayor DePaulis asked Mr. ACTION: Councilmember Hor- Cutler if Mr. Mabey' s request for rocks moved and Councilmember a period of time in which to reach Godfrey seconded refer the item to the people had been legal, and Mr. Committee of the Whole, which Cutler said yes. motion carried, all members voted (P 89-307) aye. DISCUSSION: Councilmember UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS Godfrey questioned why the item was a legislative action instead #1. RE: Consider adopting of being processed through the an ordinance amending Section 21- regular petition procedure. He 14-020 of the Salt Lake City Code said there should be a $100 fee to relating the zoning and fixing of hold a hearing for an alley vaca- boundaries of use districts pursu- tion. Councilmember Horrocks said ant to Petition No. 400-713-89 he was trying to avoid the $100 submitted by First Charter Devel- fee as the property owners abut- opment Corporation requesting that ting the alley were low-income, the city rezone property located elderly and couldn't afford the below the Block U from "R-1" to fee. Councilmember Godfrey said "R-lA" . 89-250 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT4', UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 ACTION: Councilmember Fon- #2. RE: Consider adopting nesbeck moved and Councilmember an Ordinance amending the Official Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance City Map No. 19372 to add the 56 of 1989, which motion carried, Russell and Olwine Annexation to all members voted aye. District A and create certain major streets for the map. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the rezoning was ACTION: Councilmember Kirk contingent upon certain conditions moved and Councilmember Godfrey being met and she wanted to know seconded to adopt Ordinance 57 of if those conditions had been met. __ 1989, which __motion -carried, --all members voted aye. Alan McCandless, Planning and Zoning, said the conditions were: DISCUSSION: Brent Wilde, 1) that the approved Planned Unit Deputy Director Community and Development be recorded with the Economic Development, said the County Recorder; and 2 ) that the Scoreboard Lounge at 1239 East road connecting it from Virginia 3300 South had applied for a Street and llth Avenue through the business license and his staff proposed park was approved by the realized the annexation documents city. He said as far as he knew, did not include extending the the conditions had not been met. tavern location map to encompass Councilmember Fonnesbeck ques- the area. He said they also tioned why the ordinance was on failed to designate 3300 South and the agenda. Brickyard Road as major streets as they related to the tavern loca- Ms. Gust-Jensen, Council tion map. He said Mr. Baird, Executive Director, said the Assistant City Attorney, had ordinance would not become effec- informed his office that they tive until those two conditions could amend the annexation without had been met and it was approved going through a second hearing. by the Department of the Interior. (P 88-194) Mr. Cutler said his office under- stood the Council wanted the ordinance to be in a form that PUBLIC HEARINGS could be adopted but conditioned on those things happening before #1. RE: A public hearing at it was valid. 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment con- cerning proposed amendments to Councilmember Fonnesbeck said Section 21.78. 130, Recreational there was also a request for First Facilities in Residential Areas. Charter Development to meet with the neighborhood council to dis- ACTION: Councilmember Kirk cuss how the plans were going to moved and Councilmember Godfrey interface with the possibility of seconded to close the public the llth Avenue extension. She hearing, which motion carried, all said a verbal agreement had been members voted aye. given at the hearing and she wanted some kind of verification Councilmember Godfrey moved that those conditions had been and Councilmember Stoler seconded met. to table the item until September (P 89-137) 12, 1989, to allow the attorney' s office to draft another ordinance to reflect the items discussed, 89-251 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITT, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 which motion carried, all members report that the wording of the voted aye. proposed ordinance would create a problem for the Country Club and DISCUSSION: Brent Wilde, asked if that item had been re- deputy director Community and solved. Mr. Wilde said the word- Economic Development, said the ing was " . . .permitted as any proposal was an amendment to an conditional use permitted pursuant existing ordinance which permitted to this section. . . ", and his private non-profit facilities in understanding was that the Country residential districts. The pro- Club was non-conforming now and posed ordinance would permit for- would continue_ to function on - a profit private recreation facili- non-conforming basis. Coun- ties in residential areas subject cilmember Godfrey asked if that to conditional use approval. He meant they were grandfathered in, said this had been on the and Mr. Wilde answered yes, that Council ' s agenda in May and June they would be a pre-existing use. and two issues had not been re- He said the golf courses were not solved in the original ordinance approved subject to a conditional draft. He said they were: 1 ) the use process, they were permitted issue of alcohol sales and con- under contract from the city sumption; and 2) the appeal pro- administration, so they made a cess. He said the ordinance had distinction between the public been amended in regards to the facilities and the public conces- alcohol consumption and read as sions that were contracted. follows: "accessory uses for which licenses for the sale or Councilmember Stoler ques- consumption of alcohol are re- tioned how the rule would affect quired shall not be permitted as the situation if a club house part of any conditional use per- burned down at the Country Club mitted pursuant to this section" . and Mr. Wilde said they would lose He said the language received from their non-conforming status. Mr. the attorney's office deviated Cutler said if it was damaged they slightly from what the Council had could not rebuild because they suggested but it seemed to be would be non-conforming, and they adequate. He said the second would have to go through the issue had been clarified and application process to comply with appeals would now go to the Coun- the non-conforming use status and cil. get a permit. He said the petitioner was Mr. Wilde said if a situation securing approval of a golf driv- such as that occurred, the Board ing range and training facility at of Adjustment (BA) was available the Mount Olivet Cemetery on to grant continuance of non-con- Sunnyside Avenue. He said the forming uses. Councilmember petitioner had been approved as a Godfrey asked if the BA had the non-profit use under the existing option to continue the non-con- ordinance but if the proposed forming use, and Mr. Wilde said ordinance was adopted the peti- the only ones he had seen were tioner would have to return to the those that had questions about the conditional use process once again "50% of fair market value" . He for compliance. said if the entire structure was lost the BA would not have the Councilmember Godfrey said discretion to grant a continuance. there was a reference in the staff 89-252 PROCEOINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT4", UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 Mr. Cutler said they could at 145 North Redwood Road be change the ordinance to include a rezoned from "R-6" to a "C-1" sentence dealing with non-conform- classification. ing use rights and say that exist- ing golf courses would be a non- ACTION: Councilmember Staler conforming use and would be viewed moved and Councilmember Kirk as a whole and any appurtenant seconded to close the public structures that were destroyed hearing, which motion carried, all would be viewed in the context of members voted aye. the total asset of the golf course operations and it would be un- - Councilmember Kirk moved and likely that a building would Councilmember Horrocks seconded to exceed the value of the golf adopt Ordinance 58 of 1989, which course as a whole. motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Horrocks asked what recreational uses would do to DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, the theme park as far as selling Planning and Zoning, briefed the beer etc. , and Mr. Wilde said Wild Council on the proposed rezoning Wave was in a Commercial "C-3A" saying that Ms. Ruiz wanted to district and would not be gov- build a family-style restaurant to erned by the proposed regulation. serve Mexican food. She said the He said the existing ordinance Northwest Community Master Plan included provisions for proximity called for the area to remain a to adjacent residential struc- buffer between the residential and tures, parks, etc. and Glendale commercial uses but it allowed for Golf Course was probably consid- the expansion of commercial zoning ered a park. He said the proposed to accommodate development propos- ordinance would not regulate the als. She said counsel for Ms. sale of alcohol in commercial Ruiz had appeared before the North zoning districts but the city had Redwood Community Council and an ordinance that would regulate received a favorable recommen- it. dation. She said the site plan complied with all existing city Councilmember Hardman asked design standards and met all the what the zoning was at Mt. Olivet requirements of the zoning ordi- Cemetery and Mr. Wilde said it was nance. She said the Planning zoned Residential "R-2" to assure Commission recommended that the control over future land use petition be approved with the change. He said the Country Club rezoning to become effective upon Golf Course was also zoned "R-2" . approval of a building permit within one year from the date of Hermoine Jex, SLACC, spoke in the approval by the Council. opposition to the proposed amend- ment and said it was a rezoning Jay Hansen, counsel for Ms. maneuver that went gainst the Ruiz, said they intended to build community council 's goal to pre- a 3,000 square foot Spanish style serve neighborhoods. restaurant with appropriate land- (0 89-36) scaping. He said the Cafe Syl- vestre had three present locations #2. RE: A public hearing at within the city and Ms. Ruiz was 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment con- an industrious person and had an cerning Petition No. 400-740-89 excellent reputation. He said requesting that property located they felt the site was ideal for a 89-253 PROCE.NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITT, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 restaurant and it would fit well situations in the Yalecrest area, in the area. so in order for the city to win in (P 89-247) court they had to enforce the other 43 situations in violation. #3. RE: A public hearing at Mr. Nelson said as a result this 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment on a spawned interest for the Council proposed ordinance outlining to adopt legislation that would conditions and an overlay zone to protect people who had purchased legalize certain garages, car property with existing non-con- ports and patio covers which were forming setbacks. He said his built without proper permits and staff report recommended- denial -of do not adhere to the present side that type of legislation and this yard and/or rear yard require- was upheld by the Planning Commis- ments. sion, but if the Council was so inclined to adopt it there were ACTION: Councilmember God- eight conditions they recommended frey moved and Councilmember Kirk that were tied to an overlay zone seconded to close the public proposal. hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Godfrey said when they had discussed this item Councilmember Godfrey moved previously the Council had indi- and Councilmember Kirk seconded to cated they wanted to adopt condi- refer the matter to the City tions that the Board of Adjustment Attorney' s Office to draft an could use in making their deci- ordinance establishing criteria sion, and he felt that the present for legalizing existing garages, proposal wasn' t what the Council car ports, and patio covers which had asked for. were built without proper permits and do not adhere to the present Roger Cutler, City Attorney, side yard and/or rear yard re- said it would be confusing to quirements; and return the ordi- adopt an overlay zone and that nance to the City Council for they should possibly adopt an action on November 21, 1989, after ordinance setting forth standards it has been reviewed by the commu- where they could invade side nity councils, which motion car- yards. ried, all members voted aye. Ms. Gust-Jensen, Council DISCUSSION: Merrill Nelson, Executive Director, said that Alan Building and Housing, explained Johnson, planning director, said that a citizen had applied for a that this hearing date had been building permit to build a car set so the Council would go ahead port right on the property line and accept comment on what was and the permit was denied because written, then the planning staff it didn't meet the setback re- would work to modify the proposal quirement. He said the citizen based on the Council ' s concerns subsequently built the car port and public comment. without a permit so the city brought suit against him. He said Councilmember Horrocks said the citizen appealed all the way he felt they needed to give neigh- to the Supreme Court and was borhoods a decision in the matter ordered to remove the car port. as it would affect a lot of people He said the citizen had pointed if there were 43 other cases. out that there were 43 similar Councilmember Godfrey said there 89-254 PROCEIPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 were actually only two cases out tion on their home they had pur- of the 43 that this item would chased in 1964 and were denied a address and they were situations permit by the city because they in which people had bought a home had a non-conforming car port on with an existing non-conforming their property. She questioned use. whether they would have problems in trying to sell their property. Councilmember Kirk said those people who were made to conform Nancy Saxton, 164 South 900 were angry and except in a couple East, said she felt there should of cases they were not aware that be better _ _enforcement of- the they were illegal. Councilmember already existing laws. Bittner said if there were 43 cases in the Yalecrest area there Stan Penfold, 715 2nd Avenue, must be many in Glendale and Rose suggested that the Council defer Park. mzaking a decision so the neigh- borhoods could discuss it. Mr. Nelson said they should refer the ordinance to the Attor- Wyllis Dorman, 634 East 700 ney' s Office to adjust the legal South, said she felt the Council language. was missing the real issue which in her opinion was numerous viola- Mr. Wilde, planning office, tions of front, side and rear reiterated that they were not yards. proposing additional regulation but were in search of a solution Bill Thompson, 563 Columbus to a problem that already existed. Street, said he had his automobile towed away while parking on the Councilmember Bittner said street because he could not park the problem was created because in his yard. He said when he homes built in the 50' s and 60 ' s purchased his property the realtor were built to house either one car did not mention any restrictions. or no cars and now people had multiple cars and no place to park Jim Webster, 938 Military them. She said they were trying Drive, said he felt overlay zones to find a solution for an existing should be an incentive mechanism problem. to encourage people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, and The following persons spoke he felt it was an inconsistent ap- regarding the issue: proach. Ralph Anderson, 1430 Cheyenne Mr. Nelson said the cases Street, said he hoped the Council they had enforced were the ones would not limit itself to what had where people had put a carport in been indicated. He questioned the side yard then attached a whether he might have a problem if garage or other structure in the he should decide to sell his home. rear yard. He said side yards He said he felt it was more un- provided a significant planning sightly to have vehicles parked in buffer between lots and that all the street than in a side yard. master plans reflected setbacks. Mrs. Ronald Rosher, 2701 Councilmember Fonnesbeck said Wilshire Drive, said they had that with a good ordinance illegal wanted to build a $22,0000 addi- existing structures could be 89-255 PROCAINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 legitimized and she didn' t see a yards as a conditional use with reason for the overlay status as appropriate requirements such as it could be dangerous. She said landscaping, fencing and buffer- if they passed the regulations ing; both ordinances to be re- they would be allowing the neigh- turned to the City Council by bors to have a say and the majori- December 12, 1989, with review by ty of concerns would be handled. the neighborhood councils prior to She suggested they delay the that date, which motion carried, ordinance to allow the attorneys all members voted aye. to revise the conditions so it could go to the neighborhoods. DISCUSSION: Everett _Joyce, Planning and Zoning, said there Mr. Cutler said if the Coun- were numerous violations and upon cil had modifications he would contacting the County Assessors want clarification of them and he Office they had learned that there understood they would be dealing were 3, 800 RVs and trailers with the uses outlined in G-3 of licensed in the city. He said the agenda. Councilmember Godfrey they felt that not all of them said it would not include the would be in a proper location or overlay zone. storage area. He said his staff had looked at requirements in Mr. Wilde said if the changes other cities and found they were were substantial they would have allowing RVs in side yards with to go before the planning commis- certain conditions, and they sion and he felt they may want to recommended this also. He said abandon the architectural compati- it would relate to single family bility. He said they should work and duplex dwellings only and with the attorneys then present it would be limited to one motor or to the Council before the ordi- travel trailer per dwelling and nance went to the community coun- other RVs, for a total of two. He cils. said if you could get an RV in the (0 89-33) side yard it was questionable why you couldn't get it into the rear #4. RE: A public hearing at yard. He said if a vehicle is 6: 50 p.m. to obtain comment on a parked in the side yard it should proposed overlay zone to allow be on a hard surface pad and certain recreational vehicles access to the pad could have both (RVs) in the side yards of resi- grass and hard surface. He said dentially zoned properties. they recommended that side yard parking not be used for automobile ACTION: Councilmember God- parking and that the side yard frey moved and Councilmember parking be screened by a six foot Hardman seconded to close the high fence. He said they also public hearing, which motion recommended the use of land- carried, all members voted aye. scaping in the front yard to screen the vehicle and that the Councilmember Horrocks moved vehicle be registered with the and Councilmember Stoler seconded resident of the property. He said to refer the issue to the City the Planning Commission had re- Attorney' s Office to prepare two viewed the staff report and felt alternative ordinances for Council it was a poor solution to an consideration: 1 ) an overlay zone unenforceable ordinance and recom- with conditions, and 2 ) an ordi- mended that the existing ordi- nance legitimizing the use of side nance be enforced rather than 89-256 PROCAINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 create another one that would be Hermoine Jex, SLACC, said she just as hard to enforce. He said had spent hours viewing different they recommended that the Council neighborhoods with regards to maintain the existing ordinance front yards and side yards and and not adopt a new one. He said found some in compliance and some the overlay was an administrative not. She said the aesthetic concept. value was important for low-income as well as the wealthy. She said Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she felt they needed stricter maybe they should add a stipula- regulations. tion that if an RV was allowed in - a side yard it could not be used Edith Montrone, 2010 Richards as a living area. Street, said her son had built a pad for his motor home in the back Councilmember Godfrey said if of his yard and the motor home an abutting property owner had a been broken into twice, whereas notarized statement that he didn't her motor home was outside her object to RV parking in the side bedroom window and she felt that yard and then moved, would the new lessened the chance of a break in. owner have to live with the RV. Mr. Joyce said they recommended Bill Thompson, 563 Columbus that a neighbor not have a say in Street, said he felt citizens allowing the RV. should be allowed to park their RVs near their home where they Mr. Cutler said neighbors could keep an eye on them. could have input but veto power could not be delegated to a land Stan Penfold, 715 2nd Ave, owner. said he represented SLACC and hoped the Council would refer the Councilmember Fonnesbeck matter to the community councils questioned whether a sunset clause for comment. would take effect if a permit was given, and Mr. Joyce said the Kim Anderson, 768 North permit would go with the land. Redwood Road, was concerned about the fire hazard that parking two The following people spoke to RVs close together could cause. the issue: He felt if people could afford an RV they could afford to store Renee Garritson, 2367 Blaine them. Circle, thanked the Council for their fairness and hoped a reason- Note: the Fire Department able solution could be found. had no comment to the safety issue. Jeanette Webb, 1147 North 13th West, was concerned for her Bonnie Dean, 1090 Taffeta neighborhood because of illegally Drive, said if RVs were allowed to parked RVs. She said the present be parked anywhere in the yard it ordinance was too restrictive. would take away from the quality She said her neighborhood had of life. She hoped that if an banded together and did not have ordinance was passed it would be cars parked on the street during enforced. the daytime for the safety of children. Calvin Burningham, 1231 Catherine Street, said he had 89-257 PROCAPINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITT, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 owned a trailer and parked it at the parking to the rear yard, his home for 20 years and he therefore, the ordinance would didn't think he should be heckled preclude the property from consid- by the city for it. eration. Nancy Saxton, 164 South 900 Roger Evans, Building and East, said she was opposed to Housing said the ordinance would having RVs parked at the side of a not solve the problem for 90% of home and neighbors shouldn't have the pending cases they now had, to put up with it. and that if you applied the crite- ria -to the present casesthey Wyllis Dorman, 634 East 700 could not comply. He said most of South, pointed out several places the cases had reasonable access to within the city where zoning their back yard but for those who violations were occurring and felt didn't, their only solution would the Council needed to deal with be to tear up existing concrete to all problems in side yards, not force access to the rear yard. just RVs. Mr. Wilde said the ordinance Mr. Cutler said the Council was an attempt to satisfy the needed to decide whether they residential integrity while re- wanted the overlay zone for dis- sponding to the legitimate hard- cussion purposes or an ordinance ships. He said the only other that would be applicable to all viable option was to just allow areas of the city. He said the parking in the side yard without overlays created all sorts of restrictions. administrative problems and prob- lems with neighborhoods, and maybe Mr. Cutler said with an they should use an overlay with overlay zone it would have to be some discretion. Councilmember initiated by a neighborhood and it Bittner said she felt if such would pit neighbor against neigh- decisions had to be made they bor and create land use issues should be made by the Council and that he felt were better resolved they should not put that responsi- on a city-wide basis. He said he bility on a neighborhood. felt the overlay would create more problems than it would solve and Mr. Wilde said that one other would not solve the non-compli- advantage to an overlay zone was ance problem. He said people that the geographic characteris- would not give up their back yard tics varied considerably and the space and would continue to park conditions they had established illegally in their side yards. He were to maintain residential said the Council wasn't addressing integrity. He said in some the underlying problem which was neighborhoods the condition re- whether or not they were going to quiring that an owner extend the compromise and allow people to use parking into the rear yard would side yards with landscaping and be difficult to live with. He buffering under certain circum- said in many communities the large stances. majority of property owners could extend the hard surface to the Councilmember Kirk said what rear yard and would be exempt from they were trying to do with the consideration, but if they went former ordinance was give people a with the overlay district there little bit of flexibility. She was nothing to prevent extending said she felt they were trying to 89-258 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 tell people there was a way out if they had unusual circumstances. She felt that most people would not be able to meet the criteria. Mr. Cutler asked if the40 Council would consider two alter- �j�.� natives: 1 ) an overlay, and 2) a � / conditional use where they would C C L HAI • legalize side yards if there was buffering, landscaping, an ade- quate separation between houses, allowing some discretion to solve '� �.. the issue on a case by case basis. / / Mr. Wilde said that if their _errrr.=rrr�;T.r intent was just to accommodate the DEPUTY CITY RECORDER few exceptions that had a legiti- mate hardship they would easily be able to administer it on a city- wide basis. Councilmember Hardman said he assumed they would send the two alternatives to the neighborhood councils and asked that the motion reflect that. Councilmember Bittner said they were trying to solve an unsolvable problem and it was not only a land use issue but a life- style issue also. She said they had spot enforcement in the Rose Park area in response to com- plaints from neighbors. She said if the Council passed the ordi- nance a few people would be able to park in their yards but the majority would be in noncompli- ance. She said it was a difficult problem and she was glad the neighborhood councils were going to discuss it as the Council had been struggling with it for years. Mr. Cutler said they needed to send the ordinances to Planning and Zoning also. (0 89-34) The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 89-259 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Councilmembers were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Councilmembers Sydney Fonnesbeck and Wayne Horrocks were absent. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive carriage operators and the city Director, reviewed the Council ' s had not reached a consensus on how agenda and said that briefings the routes should be distributed. were scheduled for August 10, He said the operators were con- 1989, for the issues involving cerned about protecting their side and rear yard set backs and investment while allowing new restrictions in a B-3 zone. companies into the market. Lee King, Budget Analyst, Councilmember Hardman asked briefed the Council on the hear- how a new company would get a ings relating to the horse drawn share of a finite number of down- carriage ordinance and the certif- town permits, and Mr. Larsen said icates of convenience and necessi- that one possible method would be ty ordinance. (See Attachment to hold a lottery, then each year #1 ) He said meetings had been one half of the permits could be held between city staff and the given to the existing operators in carriage operators to work out proportion to the status quo and acceptable language for the ordi- the other half would be lotteried nance. He said the new ordinance off to new operators. He said a should grandfather in existing lottery ticket would be the permit applications, protect current to operate a carriage in the city businesses, and allow for the and every operator with a valid entry of new operators into the permit could enter in the lottery. market. Mr. Larsen said that the Mr. King said the traffic distribution system was only engineer and the carriage opera- needed to allocate the routes in tors had agreed that the downtown the downtown area where traffic could support 18 carriages. Kurt congestion was a problem. He said Larsen, traffic engineer, said that operators could apply for that Blaine Oveson had requested permits and routes outside the an additional carriage on the downtown area according to exist- application which would raise the ing procedure. number of carriages downtown to 19 . He said he felt the city Councilmember Hardman asked could live with that. why all the downtown permits weren't included in the lottery Councilmember Godfrey asked and Mr. King said that the city if the number of routes would was interested in protecting some increase and Mr. King said the of the investment of existing 89-236 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT ',AKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 operators. Mr. Oveson said that by including all the permits in the lottery it would put the operator' s business and investment at risk because of the possibility of losing every permit in the lot- tery. Mr. Larsen said that a new company could buy lottery tickets by obtaining the needed permits, and as each year' s lottery was held, the new company could in- crease its share of the market if it won in the lottery. Coun- cilmember Godfrey said that per- mits and routes would open up as carriage companies went out of business due to natural market forces. These could then be distributed to new and existing operators. Mr. Larsen said that no decisions had been made as to the final form the distribution system would take, but the lottery idea was just one of the possibilities. Councilmember Stoler asked what the grievance procedure was for operators not receiving per- mits, and Mr. King said that according to the ordinance, the final decision would be made by the traffic engineer but the procedure could be changed. He said the decision power could be placed with a committee to include representatives from the engin- eer' s office, the Council and the administration. Mr. Oveson said he liked the idea of a committee making the decision, as it would take the pressure off one person and avoid problems that might come from perceived favoritism. 89-237 Council Meeting 8/8/89 Attachment 1 MIT 0.1,1 atyl fammusli ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP ROBERT M. BRIDGE BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOR PLANNING DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION SUPERVISOR PERMITS AND Business Licensing ZONING SERVICES 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 215, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7717 August 8, 1989 SLNMARY STATEMENT CN CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE & NE7CCESSITY AND THE HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE ORDINANCE After a rather lengthy meeting Monday with the three present operators and the City's Task Force on the Horse Drawn Carriage Ordinance, we feel that we have reached a consensus on five major points with respect to the ordinance: 1. Grandfathered in this ordinance would be the approval of the following number of carriage permits: number Carriage Horse Livery 15 owner (Wayne Scott) Carriage For Hire 10 owner (Blaine Oveson) Carriage Connection 6 owner (Mark Tanner) Total 31 (The new authorized permits being grandfathered are a result of formal requsts being made through proper channels to the appropriate City agencies by the following operators: ) no. requested - date requested 1. Carriage Horse Livery 5 Dec. '88 2. Carriage Connection 4 Sept. '88 237a 2. Approval by The Division of Transportation of the following number of autorized carriages in the Downtown Central Business District. Carriage Horse Livery 10 Carriage for Hire 4 Carriage Connection 4 Total 18 3. The other 13 Carriage permits to be approved for routes in other quadrants of the City by The Division of Transportation. 4. Division of Transportation to develop a system or process which will allow for a fair and reasonable procedure whereby a new carriage operator may enter the market place and for the fair and reasonable allocation of routes and termini in other zones and quadrants of the City. 5. The amended ordinance to reflect such a system or process (perhaps a lottery) which will be developed by The Division of Transportation with input from other city agencies and carriage operators by no later than February 15, 1990. 237b PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Councilmembers were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Council Members Sydney Fonnesbeck and Wayne Horrocks were absent. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at and conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES waiting. He said he had spent 30 minutes trying to help an out-of- #1. No invocation was given. town mother and child connect with the right bus to get to the air- #2. The Council led the port, but she ended up missing her Pledge of Allegiance. flight. He said something should be done about the bus situation #3. Councilmember Kirk during parades. He said he would moved and Councilmember Godfrey like to talk to someone about the seconded to approve the minutes of routing of the UTA buses as he the Salt Lake City Council for the knew that by changing the route of regular meeting held Tuesday, one bus it would save 22 inbound August 1, 1989, which motion and outbound routes and save carried, all members present voted approximately $50, 000. Mr. Lloyd aye. said the city should levy a pollu- (M 89-1) tion tax on trucks, buses, and cars. Mayor DePaulis said he would follow through with the COMMENTS problem. Conrad Lloyd, 1174 Gillespie Ave, said when he arrived at CONSENT AGENDA tonight' s meeting he found the south door locked, and he felt Councilmember Godfrey moved that all City and County Building and Councilmember Hardman seconded doors should be kept open for to approve the consent agenda, Council meetings. He was also which motion carried, all members concerned about the "unorganized present voted aye. chaos" during the Pioneer Days horse parade with the schedule of #1. RE: Set a date for a UTA buses. He said the buses public hearing on Tuesday, Septem- should have been allowed down Main ber 5, 1989, at 6:40 p.m. , to Street up until 5:30 p.m. but obtain public comment regarding a instead they had been routed down proposed ordinance outlining State Street and the would-be conditions and an overlay zone to passengers were on Main Street legalize certain garages, carports 89-238 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 and patio covers that were built related facilities at approxi- without proper permits and do not mately 1943 East 3435 South (Ever- adhere to present side yard or green Avenue) . rear yard requirements. (C 89-418) (0 89-33) #6. RE: Set a date for a #2. RE: Set a date for a public hearing on Tuesday, Septem- public hearing on Tuesday, Septem- ber 5, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to ber 5, 1989, at 6: 50 p.m. , to obtain comment concerning proposed obtain comment on a proposed amendments to Section 21 .78 . 130 overlay zone to allow certain regarding recreational facilities recreational vehicles in the side in residential areas. yards of residentially zoned (0 89-36) properties. (0 89-34) #7. RE: Adopt Ordinance 49 of 1989, closing portions of #3. RE: Set a date for a Ashton and Simpson Avenues and public hearing on Tuesday, Sep- associated alleyways between 1300 tember 12, 1989, at 6: 20 p.m. to East and Highland Drive pursuant obtain comment on a proposed to Petition 400-732-89. amendment to Section 21. 52.010 (P 89-177) regarding "B-3" business districts to prohibit mechanical repair and #8. RE: Adopt Ordinance 50 specialty type service centers for of 1989, rezoning property between automobiles and light trucks. Simpson Avenue and 1-80 and 1300 (0 89-35) East and Highland Drive from Residential "R-2" and Commercial #4. RE: Adopt Resolution 97 "C-1" to Commercial "C-3A" pursu- of 1989, authorizing the execution ant to Petition 400-731-89. of an interlocal agreement with (P 89-176) the Utah Department of Transporta- tion (UDOT) to establish a man- agement and operation structure PUBLIC HEARINGS consisting of the UDOT safety engineer and the Salt Lake City #1 RE: A public hearing at transportation engineer, to deter- 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment con- mine goals, objectives, and poli- cerning a proposed ordinance cies relating to the operation and regarding Certificates of Conve- maintenance of the signal system. nience and Necessity for horse- Both parties will maintain juris- drawn carriages. diction over their respective roadways and signals. The adviso- ACTION: Councilmember God- ry committee will be responsible frey moved and Councilmember Kirk for traffic analysis, traffic seconded to close the public control philosophy, computer hearing, which motion carried, all programming and maintenance and members present voted aye. installation functions. (C 89-419) Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to #5. RE: Adopt Resolution 98 adopt Ordinance 51 of 1989, which of 1989, authorizing the execu- motion carried, all members tion of an interlocal agreement present voted aye. with Salt Lake County for an easement for a watermain and 89-239 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 • DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, Mr. Zoll, representing Carriage business license supervisor, said Horse Livery, said Wayne Scott had a lot of research and input from worked hard for the past five committees and operators of the years and spent a lot of time and horse carriages had gone into both expense to gain input in order to ordinances and he recommended that have a more efficient ordinance. they be approved as written. He said he enjoyed the image it had given to Salt Lake City. He John Fox, Humane Society, said since the city was presently said his office was concerned that allowing the service on a trial there were no limitations or basis he hoped they would pass the regulations regarding the length ordinance. of time horses could be used and whether they would be allowed to Mr. Tanner, said the Carriage operate in the cold and hot weath- Connection was very concerned er. He said the proposed ordi- about the horses and didn't want nance said the animals should be them getting hurt, and they had examined by a veterinarian but he large veterinarian bills as a felt it should be done by an result. He said they used special equine practitioner He said they rubber shoes for horses to help would also like to see a specifi- alleviate the stress from the cation in the ordinance allowing concrete. He said the horses were the animal control officers to fed well, and they used light pull the animals from the street colored horses during the hotter if the tack or equipment used was daytime hours and darker colored improper. horses during the cooler hours. Frank Crowe, Animal Control, Mr. Miller said the carriages said the ordinance stated that were equipped with buckets of horses would be pulled from the water in the back so the horses street if any condition occurred could drink every couple of hours that affected the horse' s ability and the horses were taken good to pull a carriage safely. He care of. said there were also limited hours that the horses could work as they Ms. Garcia said she felt the were not allowed on the streets carriages added a great deal of during peak traffic hours. He ambience to the city and she said his office checked on the thought they were classy. horses regularly and during July they had pulled five horses off The following people spoke the street. He said he felt the against the issue: Humane Society had some valid concerns that should be addressed, Lee Englebrecht Bountiful but he recommended that the Coun- Wendy Von Crum 1671 Redondo Av. cil approve the ordinance and Fred Englebrecht Bountiful amend it later if necessary. Conrad Lloyd 1174 Gillespie Av. Robert Von Crum 1347 E. 1700 S. The following people spoke in Pat Von Crum 1347 E. 1700 S. favor of the issue: Those who spoke against the Ray Zoll 360 W. 5300 S. ordinance complained about the Mark Tanner Carriage Connection following: horses having to work Loren Miller Bountiful in extremely hot or cold tempera- Adria Garcia 445 Virginia St. tures; carriages creating a 89-240 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 traffic hazard downtown; horses regulating horse drawn carriages, having to breathe fumes and which motion carried, all members pollution from automobiles; horses present voted aye. having to stand for such long periods on concrete which tended DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, to create a strain on their business license supervisor, said tendons; the necessity of special he had recently attended a nation- shoes for horses because of the al business license convention concrete; and that only those where he had presented Salt Lake people pushing the ordinance would City' s proposed horse drawn car- profit from it. riage ordinance. He said it was interesting to note the comments Councilmember Godfrey pointed he had received on it. He said out that the audience was probably many other cities had horse drawn confused with the two ordinances carriage businesses and he was before them as one was regarding told by their business license certificates of convenience and administrators that it generated a necessity for horse drawn carriag- lot of tourism and created a lot es and the other was for estab- of interest for the local people, lishing horse drawn carriages in as well as brought a lot of charm the city. to the cities. He said that after reviewing the voluminous files Councilmember Bittner said that had been accumulated during she was uncomfortable with the the study he recommended that the statements made by Mr. Fox from ordinance be passed. the Humane Society and wondered whether they should address some Council Chair Stoler said of those concerns before passing that the comments made during the the ordinance. previous hearing probably applied to this hearing, and they were on Larry Spendlove, assistant record and would be taken into city attorney, said he wanted to consideration. clarify that there were two sepa- (0 89-31) rate ordinances before the Council and the one before them now was #3. RE: A public hearing at dealing with certificates of 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment con- convenience. cerning bicycle dealer fees. (0 89-32) ACTION: Councilmember God- #2. RE: A public hearing at frey moved and Councilmember Kirk 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment con- seconded to close the public cerning a proposed ordinance hearing, which motion carried, all regulating horse drawn carriage members present voted aye. businesses within the city. Councilmember Godfrey moved ACTION: Councilmember Kirk and Councilmember Kirk seconded to moved and Councilmember Godfrey adopt Ordinance 53 of 1989, which seconded to close the public motion carried, all members hearing, which motion carried, all present voted aye. members present voted aye. DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, Councilmember Kirk moved and business license supervisor, said Councilmember Bittner seconded to his office had received a lot of adopt Ordinance 52 of 1989, comments from bicycle dealers 89-241 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 700 and 800 South and Main Street and West Temple. He said it would become part of the Rick Warner auto dealership development. He said all the necessary city de- partments had reviewed the pro- posed ordinance and recommended approval. (P 88-260) The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 89-243 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 regarding the fees they were DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, presently allowed to charge for business license supervisor, said registration and decals. He said he had been impressed by the it involved a lot of time and amount of involvement required by effort to register and fill out various city departments in pro- forms in triplicate and he re- cessing a business license appli- quested that the fee be increased cation. He said there had to be from $1 to $2. inspections, surveys, etc. and it was a cooperative effort between Councilmember Bittner ques- his department, the Police Depart- tioned the record keeping methods ment, Fire Department, and Build- of the bicycle dealers and said ing and Housing. He said some of they should ensure that the the applicants did not qualify and records were maintained properly. he felt that a non-refundable application fee would help to Mr. Bridge said the registra- cover part of the expense associ- tion forms were completed in ated with the application. triplicate with one copy being (0 89-29) maintained by the dealer, one copy going to the owner and the third #5. RE: A public hearing at copy going to Salt Lake County 7:00 p.m. to obtain comment con- where it was microfilmed. He said cerning Petition 400-596 submitted this allowed them to track bicy- by Banj Investment requesting that Iles if they were lost or stolen. the city close the alley located at 750 South 25 West. Cindy Gust-Jensen, Council Executive Director, said there was ACTION: Councilmember God- an 80-90% recovery rate if bicy- frey moved and Councilmember Kirk Iles were registered and later seconded to close the public lost or stolen. She said the hearing, which motion carried, all program was not perfect but it was members present voted aye except good and improving. She said the Councilmember Hardman who was city sold all the licenses and the absent for the vote. county recorded them, so it was a joint effort. Councilmember Godfrey moved (0 89-30) and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 55 of 1989, which #4. RE: A public hearing at motion carried, all members 6:50 p.m. to obtain comment con- present voted aye except Coun- cerning a proposed ordinance to cilmember Hardman who was absent establish a non-refundable busi- for the vote. ness license application fee. DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, ACTION: Councilmember God- planning director, explained that frey moved and Councilmember Kirk the hearing had been advertised seconded to close the public and presented to the Council once hearing, which motion carried, all before, but at that time his members present voted aye. office had presented the wrong staff report. He said it was a Councilmember Godfrey moved request to vacate part of an alley and Councilmember Bittner seconded running north and south for 38 to adopt Ordinance 54 of 1989, feet and east and west for 8. 25 which motion carried, all members feet, and it was an extension of present voted aye. an alley already vacated between 89-242 6) Oale,7cla2 0 Agenda 0. 7`1 6&.0 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA h niLW ia- DI Ztee6 lC .1 U \ / 1.� ' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER c\ D 5� ,0\ J F�-� ROOM 315, \l \��\pc O. CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING �\ 0_ \`� `�`�� 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ,w �� \J� o �� Tuesday, September 5, 1989 A.kI \ 6:00 p.m. V ` J 1-15: 12-DA. •- \. —, .�,•.�-- �� \' I BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 , �'! , , South State. -- `� 1. Report of the Executive Director. 2. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1. Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. 4(a). The City Council and Mayor will present a resolution honoring he Wastewater Treatment Plant. - Lak%1 t i ; I, - ncrence - Lc.J 1 l (b). The City Council and Mayor will present a resolution honoring Salt Lake City's Central City Western Boys' Baseball Association Little League All Star Team. ' au e z j-A - iv ( - C. COMMENTS: . 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: 1. Budget Opening Set a date to hold a public hearing on September 19th at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment to discuss Budget Amendment No. 2. '1 per oc'k VD US (B 89-5) -MAI r W ee,{2 • P(� l�(A) want a bne! Staff Recommendation: Set Date. 1() o d ua n a', or i-h6 2. Amendment to Section 21. 74.030 Landmark s Committeer ' G1"�? Set a date to hold a public hearing on October 3rd at 6: 20 p.m. to obtain public comment to discuss the Legislative 7Intn regarding the appointment procedures to the Historical Landmark Corn t (0 89-7) Nc Staff Recommendation: Set Date. I`� U 3. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. _ Salt Lake County. Law Enforcement. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County relating to law enforcement services for the watershed areas outside the City"s corporate limits. (C 87-448) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 4. Interlocal Cooperation greement - Utah Department of Tranfportation Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. between Salt. Lake City and the Utah Department. of Transportation for sidewalk construction on Redwood Road, 1000 North to 1300 North. (C 89-492) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 5. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement ^ Salt Lake County Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for an easement to install a 6-inch watermain extension 33-C-1382, at approximately 2450 West, north from 3200 North. (C 89-488) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 6. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Salt Lake County Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for an easement to install an 8-inch watermain extension at approximately 3815 East and Crestwood Drive (3870 South). (C 89-489) Staff recommendation: Adopt. 7. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Salt Lake County Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for an easement to install an 8-inch and 6-inch watermain extension 35-C-1276, at approximately 2029 East Creek Road for Willow Creek Hollow Estates. (C 89-490) Staff recommendation: Adopt. tad c E /��9 - u� i �C/I y , 74O 6G/70'6447a 7 , E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: . 1. Board of Appeals and Examiners A ointment Consider approving the appointment of Theophile J. Syms to the Board of Appeals and Examiners. ( I 89-13) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 2� Community Development Advisory Committee Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Carol A. Maul to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ( I 89-2) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 3. Community Development Advisory Committee Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Glenda Armour to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ( I 89-2) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 4. Tracy Aviary Board Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Karel Doop McDonough to the Tracy Aviary Board. ( I 89-16) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Victoria Palacios to the Planning and Zoning Commission. ( I 89-5) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 6. Mosquito Abatement District Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Curtis Decker to the Mosquito Abatement District. ( I 89-8) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 7. Urban Forestry Board Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Christine Chalkley to the Urban Forestry Board. ( I 89-3) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 8. Urban Forestry Board Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Pamela R. Heal to the Urban Forestry Board. ( I 89-3) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 9. Central Business Improvement District Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Mike Martin to the Central Business Improvement District. ( I 89-11 ) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. 10. Salt Lake City_Library Board Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Alicia Suazo to the Salt Lake City Library Board. ( I 89-15) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 11. Salt Lake Cites Library Board Reintment Consider approving the reappointment of Verda Mae Christensen to the Salt • Lake City Library Board. ( I 89-15) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 1 Salt Lake City/County Board of Health Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Cindy Gust-Jenson to the Salt Lake City/County Board of Heath. ( I 89-1 ) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 13. Community Development Advisory Committee Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Rosemarie Rendon to the Community 11 Development. Advisory Committee. ( I 89-2) \ Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent.. 14. Community Development Advisory Committee Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Ranae Pierce to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ( I 89-2 ) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 15. Community Development Advisory Committee Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Rawlins Young to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ( I 89-2) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 16. Community Development Advisory Committee Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Marion Willey to the Community Development Advisory Committee. ( I 89-2) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 17. TracyAviary_ Board_Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Kevin Anderson to the Tracy Aviary Board. ( I 89-16) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 18. Planning and Zoning Commission Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Ralph Becker to the Planning and Zoning Commission. ( I 89-5) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 19. Planning and Zoning_Commission Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of LaVone Liddle-Gamonal to the Planning and Zoning Commission. ( I 89-5) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 20. Salt Palace/Fine Arts Board Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Anthony L. Rampton to the Salt Palace/Fine Arts Board. ( I 89-17) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 21. Salt Lake Art Design Board Reappointment Consider approving the reappointment of Charles Loving to the Salt Lake Art Design Board. ( I 89-9) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 22. Salt Lake Art Design Board Re_gpp2Intment Consider approving the reappointment of Kip K. Harris to the Salt Lake Art Design Board. ( I 89-9) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. /, �Q 23.) Legislative Bu get Revision of CIP/GF fi'05emc 7 T ��c.(//s 4LC- Consider adopting a motion that the Capital Improvement Program Contingency Project, 38-89099, be reduced by $4, 256; the Parks Facility Repair Project, 83-89028, be reduced by $6,000; and the Old Fire Station #4 Asbestos Removal Project be increased by $10, 256. (B 89-6) Staff recommendation: Suspend the rules and adopt. 24. Ordinance - Parties, Gatherings or Events Consider adopting an Ordinance amending Title 11, the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, by adding anew Chapter 12 relating to parties, gatherings or events. (0 89-37) Staff recommendation: Refer to Committee of the Whole. o 25. Legislative Action - Council Member L. Wayne Horrocks -'� p' ��c Consider adopting an ordinance vacatingan alleylocated be n Goshen v P g Po\IC Street and 1100 West, approximately 150 feet south of 700 S uth. P�e-Cof{o�, � (P 89-307 Oa') a 00 ; s-POkki need& fio Qdctblish CV`1 rT4 Q t Ord• -10 an b -tc) Com m i ttu. lee In 1 Staff recommendation: e er tQ Economic Development IO ClV. Po b(iL lb-WV- O In carom 0 fio (�c� P3U c� ru cavnc, Uct t � ) tn1C. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Petition No. 400-713-89 submitted by First Charter Development Corporation. Consider adopting an Ordinance amending Section 21-14-020 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to zoning and fixing of boundaries of use districts pursuant to Petition No. 400-713-89 submitted by First Charter Development Corporation requesting the City rezone pro.-rty located below t e Block U from R-1 to "R-1A". •eel/CU (P 89-137) .��+ ,�y.:¢ _,� v ' wive w • Ai Staff recommendation: Adopt. k4(k 0'1 4e 2. Amendment to Russell and Olwine Annexation vl(/Lu.) hn.6l U►-- • Consider adoption of Ordinance amending the Official City Map No. 19372 to add the Russell and Olwine Annexation to Districts A and create certain major streets for the map.17Q di nt( ,-1 P" , (P 88-194) MGT Staff recommendation: Adopt. I. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Recreational Facilities in Residential Areas — mil ' WAJIC `t M9 6: 20 P.M. lG(nloaoi-e Obtain public comment concerning proposed amendments to Section 21.78. 130 vv'i'/U Recreational Facilities in Residential Areas. — Cj,,,i b Ck 1t Um 1 (089-36) i7� (a1r ,f la' ck"".4thi v,k ia ^U�f� Staff Recommendation: Close heatin . 2. Petition No. 400-740-89 submitted by Gloria Ruiz ()tr 1/4,- `, 6:30 P.M. Obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-740-89 requesting that property located at 145 North Redwood Road be rezoned from "R-6" to a "C-1" classification. (P 89-247) Staff Recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 3. Side Yard/Rear Yard Requirements 111-0 ljuij 6:40 P.M. Obtain public comment on a proposed ordinance outlining conditions and an overlay zone to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. (089-33) Staff Recommendation: Close hearing.�� 4. Recreational Vehicles in Side Yards �,�� // 9 6: 50 P. M. Obtain public comment on a proposed overlay zone to allow certain recreational vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. (089-34) Staff Recommendation: Close hearing. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA 3,161reG ( d C mi_vo ,„ (-`2‘ OcV6 CM' ' ( `c"(' T DATED: - - i� tc8,7 -- BY: dion4a,a C E DEPUTY CITY RECORDER STATE OE UTAH COUNTY OE SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 1st day of September, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and C i t.y 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. E DEPUTY CIT RECORDER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of September, 1989. Notary Public residing in the State of Utah My Commission Expires: APPROVAL: EXECUTI DIR CTOR PALMER DEPAUUS '.n ROW%��r�V��'' l Ij MAYOR " r OFFICE. PT. RNP,=GOUNTY'aU)LyING,` 451 SSpUTH ,STROOM:E STREET, ROO ,3O6 SAI LAIS6p 3 Y��JTA1 ;'84Th :6c3O�Tw- July 31 , 1989 Willie Stoler, Chairperson, and Members of the Salt Lake City Council 324 South State Street, Room 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Willie: I am transmitting herewith recommendations for board appointments which I would appreciate the Council to advise and consent upon: BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS Theophile J. Syms to be appointed to replace Eric Kankainen for a term extending through March 1 , 1994 SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY BOARD Alicia Suazo to be reappointed to serve a second term extending through June 30, 1992 Verda Mae Christensen to be reappointed to serve a second term extending through June 30, 1992 SALT LAKE CITY/COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Cindy Gust-Jenson to be reappointed to a second term extending through August 29, 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Rosemarie Rendon to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July, 1992 Ranae Pierce to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July , 1992 Rawlins Young to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July , 1992 Marion Willey to be reappointed to his first full term extending through July , 1992 Carol A. Maul to be appointed to fill Peter Netka's unexpired term extending through July, 1990 Glenda Armour to be appointed to fill a vacant position, for a term extending through July, 1992 TRACY AVIARY BOARD Karel Doop McDonough to fill Virginia A. Walton's unexpired term, extending through October 31 , 1990 Kevin Anderson to be reppointed to fill a second term extending through October, 1991 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Ralph Becker to be reappointed to fill his first full term, extending through June 30, 1993 LaVone Liddle-Gamonal to be reappointed to a second term, extending through July 31 , 1992 Victoria Palacios to be appointed to replace Kathy Wacker for at term extending through July 1 , 1992 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Curtis Decker to be appointed to replace Lynn M. Thatcher, for a term ending December 31 , 1990 URBAN FORESTRY BOARD Christine Chalkley to be appointed to fill Barbara Jean Ray's unexpired term extending through April 8, 1992 Pamela R. Heal to be appointed to fill Robert Adams' unexpired term extending through April 8, 1992 SALT PALACE/FINE ARTS BOARD Anthony L. Rampton to be reappointed to fill his first full term extending through July 1 , 1992 SALT LAKE ART DESIGN BOARD Charles Loving to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through March 8, 1992 Kip K. Harris to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through March 8, 1992 CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Mike Martin to be appointed to fill Daniel McNeer's unexpired term extending through January, 1991. I would appreciate your consideration of these appointments and ask that they be placed on the Council 's agenda at the earliest opportunity. If I can provide you with any further information, please don 't hesitate to call . Sincerely, Mayor PD/jf Enc. BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS ORDINANCE CITATION: 18-12.010 MEMBERSHIP: 5 voting, 1 ex-officio TERM: 5 years QUALIFICATION: Experience and training in building constuction, housing, and abatement codes. ADVICE AND CONSENT: Yes OATH OF OFFICE: No PURPOSE: The Board determines the suitablitiy of alternate materials and methods of construction and provides reasonable interpretations of the Building Code. It also decides appeals from city administrative decisions in enforcing the building code. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1 . Steve Crane 3 11/88 U/T 473 M Street 3/1/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W) (H)363-5423 2. Steve Smith 7 7/83(7/87) 2nd Term 2280 Preston Street 7/87 3/1/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Phone: (H)487-6041 (W) 571-8600 3. Rex Loker 5 7/83(3/88) 2nd Term 965 McClelland Street 9/88 3/1/93 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (H)359-1675 4. Eric Kankainen Resigned 5 9/87 Unexpired Term 1174 Harrison Avenue 3/1/89 Salt Lake City 84105 Phone: (H)485-9464 (W) 5. Ronald H. Weber 7 11/87 Unexpired Term 1164 Garfield Avenue 3/1/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Phone: (H)467-3194 (W)532-7323 Staff Support: Roger Evans 535-7751 ec 9/05/88 SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY BOARD ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.28.010 MEMBERSHIP: 9 Members TERM: 3 Years--two term limit. QUALIFICATIONS: Non-required ADVICE AND CONSENT: no OATH OF OFFICE: no PURPOSE: Operates the Library and hires the Librarian within the budget approved by the City Council. Adopts rules for operation of libraries and appoints personnel with recommendation of librarian. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Boyer Jarvis 6 7/83(6/85) 2nd Term 2357 Blaine Ave. 6/85(6/88) 6/30/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 6/88 Phone: (W) 581-8763 (H) 581-0412 2. Priscilla Mayden 6 1st Term 939 Donner Way #311 6/30/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: 582-0747 3. Alicia Suazo 1 3/87 Unexpired Term 1307 Garnette Street 6/30/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: (H) 596-1750 (W) 533-3040 4. Dr. Roger Jones 6 11/85(6/88) 2nd Term 2720 St. Mary's Way 6/88 6/30/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (H) 581-9576 (W) 533-0079 5. Stephanie Cannon 3 6/84(6/87) 2nd Term 832 Northcliff Drive 6/87 6/30/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 534-0743 6. Verda Mae Christensen 1 6/86 1st Term 810 North 1500 West 6/30/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: 532-6984 7. James A. Giauque 7 7/83 2nd Term 2236 Preston Ave. 6/30/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Phone: 531-9666 8. Donna Smart 3 10/87 1st Term 55 laurel Street 6/30/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: 363-4759 Library Board Page Two 9. Cynthia Ong 6 11/85(6/88) 2nd Term 2091 Laird Ave. 6/30/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (H) 583-9168 (W) 531-6888 Meeting Schedule: Third Wednesday, 3:30 pm 209 East 500 South City Library Board Room Staff Support: Dennis Day 363-5733 ec9/11/88 SALT LAKE CITY/COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH ORDINANCE CITATION: 2. 18.010 MEMBERSHIP: 13 members appointed by the Salt Lake County Commission: With 5 nominated by the Mayor. TERM: 5 years. QUALIFICATION: Salt Lake City resident ADVICE AND CONSENT: no OATH OF OFFICE: no PURPOSE: The Board has power to hire the Salt Lake County health director; promulgate rules and regulations and enforce health laws. NAME REPRESENTATION INITIAL TERM APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1 . Cindy Gust-Jenson, City 5 8/84 1st Term 1061 Windsor Ave. 8/29/89 Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (H) 355-5250 (W)268-9622 2. Kirk M. Gilmore, M.D. 6 3/87 (Mayor's Designee) 1085 Oak Hills Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (W) 321-1180 (H) 583-7504 3. Dr. Rulon Simmons, City 3 4/80 2nd Term 324 10th Ave. 6/1/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 533-8030 4. Ms. Linda Hamilton 6 2/87 1st Term 1554 East Garfield Ave. 2/3/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (W) 535-7600 (H) 487-5001 5. Joe Duke Rosati 6 1/89 1st Term 1897 South 1500 East 7/1/94 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (H) 484-6500 (W)359-2444 6. John M. Bevan, D.D.S. , West Valley 2960 West 3650 South 1/87 West Valley City, Utah 84119 Phone: (W)969-8200 7. L. Jed Morrison, M.D. , South and West Jordon 1847 West 900 South 1/88 West Jordon, Utah 84084 Phone: (W)566-7701 BOARD OF HEALTH Page Two 8. Richard Bollard, Mgr. Magna 1/6/91 LDS Church Dist. Ctr. Taylorsville 1999 West 1700 South Bennion Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Kearns 9. Ann Ford, At Large 7/21/91 2197 Camino Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 10. Paul C. McClure Sandy 1/27/91 12656 South 900 East Midvale Draper, Utah 84020 Union Draper i. Granite 11 . R. Todd Neilson, At Large 10/7/90 CBS Tower/Crossroads 50 South Main, Suite 1450 Salt Lake City, Utah 84144 12. Douglas H. Smith, Pres. Holladay 1/6/91 Beneficial Life Ins. Cottonwood 36 South State Street Olympus Cove Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 13. D. Michael Stewart County Elective Commissioner 2001 South State Street N2100 County Govm' t Center Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1000 14. Roy Turner Murray 1/27/91 City Hall South Salt Lake 324 South State, Suite 301 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 15. Lee Wanlass, Mayor Riverton 7/8/90 City of Bluffdale West Jordan 14212 South 3600 West South Jordan Bluffdale, Utah 84065 Bluffdale Herriman 4/20/89ec Community Development Advisory Committee ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.41 .010 MEMBERSHIP: 15 members TERM: 3 years, staggered terms. QUALIFICATIONS: One member from each council district; representatives of low and moderate income, ethnic minorities, handicapped, elderly and female-headed households. ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes OATH OF OFFICE: yes PURPOSE: This committee provides citizens an opportunity to participate in the city's planning of its community development program. The committee recommends to the Mayor the projects that should be completed with Community Development Block Grant Funds. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Kim Anderson 1 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term 768 No. Redwood Rd. #18 10/88 7/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: (H) 539-1972 (W) 546-6637 2. Rosemarie Rendon 1 10/87 1st Term 356 North 600 West 7/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: (H) 355-3955 3. Bernice Cook 2 10/87 1st Term 1746 South West Temple 7/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Phone: (H) 485-9304 4. Hermoine Jex 3 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term 272 Wall Street 10/88 7/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 364-5326 5. Ranae Pierce 3 10/87 1st Term 191 Canyon Road 7/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 364-4075 (W) 363-5733 6. Peter Netka RESIGNED 3 10/87 1st Ter. 471 M Street 7/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 359-0179 7. Russell Allred 4 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term 1169 South 300 East 10/88 7/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (H) 467-6851 Community Development Advisory Committee - Page Two 8. Rosemary Grim 5 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term 773 East 1300 South 10/88 7/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (H) 484-7590 (W) 487-7771 9. Barbara Bennent 5 10/87 1st Term 1164 Herbert Ave. 7/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (H) 583-4227 (W) 321-3300 10. Paul Osborn 6 2248 Wilson Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (H) 581-1215 (W) 261-4077 11 . Diana Smoot 7 10/87(7/88) 2nd Term 2592 Elizabeth Street #5 10/88 7/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Phone: (H) 486-0634 12. Rawlins Young 7 10/87 1st Term 2135 South 19th East 7/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Phone: (H) 467-5164 13. Marion Willey 2 12/88 U/T 237 Montrose Avenue 7/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: (W)535-1000 X7337 (H)359-8462 14. Nancy Saxton 4 4/88 1st Term 164 South 900 East 7/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 15. Meeting Schedule: Staff Support: Stephanie Loker 12/2O/88ec TRACY AVIARY BOARD ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.22.010 MEMBERSHIP: 13 voting members, the Mayor, the Parks Director and the City Attorney are Ex-Officio. TERM: 4 years, staggered QUALIFICATIONS: not less than 18 years of age, be a resident of the State of Utah. ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes OATH OF OFFICE: yes PURPOSE: The Board assists the City in the orderly development and promotion of the Aviary so that it best serves the citizens of SLC. The Board is empowered to: (1 ) Recommend the adoption of rules and regulations. (2) Recommend planning and expansion projects for the Aviary. (3) Recommend broad matters of policy regarding the operation and management of the Aviary, including budget control, fee structures, public programs, bird acquisitions, and bird sales. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENP EXPIRATION DATE 1. Mayor Palmer DePaulis Ex-Officio 300 City and County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7704 2. John Gust Ex-Officio 1965 West 500 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Phone: 972-7805 3. Roger Cutler Ex-Officio 100 City and County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7788 4. Cindy White 7 7/01/86 1st Term 638 Redondo Ave. 10/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (El) 466-3973 (W) 364-3561 5. Jules Dreyfous N/A 1st Term 5920 South 2300 East 10/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 Phone: 277-2311 6. Jon Wennergren 5 7/01/86 1st Term 1398 E. 900 S. 10/00/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: 583-0407 Tracy Aviary Board Page Two 7. George Allen III N/A 8/87 1st Term 1155 East 4870 South 10/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84117 Phone: 262-4852 8. Kevin Anderson 1st Term 800 Continental Bank Building 10/00/87 Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: 9. Jeanne Le Ber 2 9/87 1st Term 144 South 900 East #1 10/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 10. Conrad Harrison 7 2nd Term 2136 Dallin Street 10/00/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: 467-1447 11 . Rendell Mabey 3 2nd Term 109 East South Temple 10/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 295-2665 12. Clayton White 2 2nd Term 1146 South 300 West 10/00/90 Orem, Utah 84057 13. Barbara Stublefield 3 1st Term 755 5th Avenue 10/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 14. Gainor Bennett N/A 2nd Term 4425 Covecrest Drive 10/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 15. Virginia A. Walton RESIGNED 4 1st Term 733 Green Street 10/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 16. Rex Kennedy N/A ( 10/87) Unexpired Trm 502 Altura Circle 1/88 10/00/91 Sandy, Utah 84070 (H)571-6183 Meeting Schedule: First Tuesday, 9:30 am 1965 West 500 South Staff Support: Rick Graham 972-7805 ec 4/08/89 PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.20.010 MEMBERSHIP: 15 TERM: 4 years - 2 Term limit QUALIFICATION: Registered voter of Salt Lake City. ADVICE AND CONSENT: Yes OATH OF OFFICE: No PURPOSE: The Commission adopts and acts on any changes to the City's master plans, redevelopment plans, special studies, zoning ordinances, use district maps, and major street plans. The Commission approves the subdivision of all property and the adoptions of official street maps for street widening purposes. To ensure compliance with plan provisions, the Commissions acts on all authorizations dealing with the use or disposition of all public property owned by the City. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Mayor Palmer DePaulis Ex-officio 300 City and County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (W) 535-7704 2. Max Peterson Ex-officio 401 City and County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 3. Tim Harpst, Acting Director Ex-officio 333 South 200 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 538-2142 4. Roger Evans, Acting Director Ex-officio Building and Housing 324 South State Street 2nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7751 5. Thomas A. Ellison 7 6/81 2nd Term 2257 Country Club Drive 7/1/90 Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (W) 532-3333 (H) 583-4124 6. Ralph Nielson 5 1/87 1st Full Term 958 Windsor Street 7/1/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (H) 533-8113 7. Ralph Becker 3 5/88 U/T 231 Canyon Road 7/1/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H)364-1656 (W)355-8816 Planning and Zoning Commission Page Two 8. Rick Howa 6 2/88(10/88) 1st Full 1039 Oakhills Way 10/88 7/1/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (H)583-9210 (W)328-0678 9. George Nicolatus N/A 9/83 1st Full Term Corporate Real Estate Division 7/1/90 First Security Service P.O. Box 30006 Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (W) 350-5250 x5455 10. John Schumann 3 7/82 2nd Term 499 Northmont Way 7/1/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W) 534-1447 (H) 328-1000 11 . Dan Bethel 2 4/89 U/T Term 1014 A Euclid Ave. 7/1/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Phone: (W) 355-1465 (H) 355-1465 12. Peter Van Alstyne 6 6/81 2nd Term 1306 Roxbury Rd. 7/1/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (W) 530-6700 (H) 582-7262 13. Kathy Wacker VACANCY 3 6/80 2nd Term 501 Fourth Ave. 7/1/88 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 532-1170 14. Cindy Cromer 4 11/87 1st Term 816 East 100 South 7/1/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: (W) 581-0194 (H) 355-4115 15. LaVone Liddle-Gamonal 1 9/84 1st Full Term 1234 South Main Street 7/1/88 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (W) 533-2027 (H) 595-8182 Staff Support: Allen Johnson, 535-7757 Meeting Schedule: Second and Fourth Thursday, 5 p.m. Planning Commission Board Room ec4/4/89 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE CITATION: UCA 26-27-9 MEMBERSHIP: 5 members TERM: 2 years QUALIFICATION: Registered voter of the municipality. ADVICE AND CONSENT: Not required OATH OF OFFICE: No PURPOSE: The Board's primary function is that of establishing policy and making decisions as guidelines for administrative execution. Broad powers were given to the board by the Utah State Legislature in recognition of the need to act expediently to meet emergency needs of rapid mosquito development and avoidance of public health and nuisance hazards. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Lynn M. Thatcher 6 4th Term 1647 Wasatch Circle 12/31/88 Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Phone: 581-0366 2. Frank Jackson 6 12/87( 12/88) 1st Term 2536 Blaine Avenue 3/89 12/31/90 Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Phone: 3. Byron T. Haslam 1 2nd Term 1118 Catherine Street 12/31/89 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (H)359-9036 4. Ron Whitehead 1 10/88 U/T 1098 Garnette Street 12/31/89 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: (H) 355-4722 (W) 292-1466 5. Jim Webb 1 8/88 1st Term 1147 No. 1300 West 12/31/89 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (H) 596-3870 Meeting Schedule: Second Tuesday, 12:45 pm District Headquarters 463 North Redwood Rd Staff Support: Sammie Dickson, 355-9221 3/00/89ec URBAN FORESTRY BOARD ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.26.010 - 2.26. 160 MEMBERSHIP: 9 TERM: 3 years QUALIFICATIONS: One member from each Council District, one member from the Central Business District and one member from the Sugarhouse Business District. ADVICE AND CONSENT: Yes OATH OF OFFICE: Yes PURPOSE: The Board serves to advise the Mayor, City Council, Urban Forester and the public on matters concerning the City's urban forestry program. Recommending, reviewing, and developing policies related to the proper management and perpetuation of the City's urban forest resources. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTTMEITP EXPIRATION DATE 1. Paulette Mounteer 1 4/11/89 1st Term 1553 Talisman Street 4/8/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: (H)359-4549 2. Kathy Kinney 2 1/8/89 1st Term 1188 West 500 South 4/8/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Phone: 364-2809 3. Jennifer Harrington 3 4/8/86(4/8/88) 2nd Term 480 F Street 10/88 4/8/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: 532-6726 4. Orson Gibb 4 4/8/86(4/8/87) 2nd Term 314 South 1200 East 8/8/87 4/8/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: 583-0951 5. Barbara Jean Ray RESIGNED 5 9/1/87 Unexpired Term 1146 Princceton Ave. 4/8/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (H)582-4348 (W) 359-7711 6_ Robert Adams RESIGNED 6 7/00/88 Unexpired Term 1649 E. Downington Avenue 4/8/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: 583-5028 7. Lloyd Siegendorf 7 7/1/86(4/8/87) 2nd Term 1998 South 1400 East 8/88 4/8/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Phone: 467-4372 URBAN FORESTRY BOARD PAGE TWO 8. Jan Strifel CBD 1/1/89 1st Term 444 South 300 West 4120 4/8/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: 466-7278 9. Rick Graham SHBD 4/8/88 1st Term 1558 South 1400 East 4/8/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: 466-8104 Meeting Schedule: First Tuesday, 6:00pm Planning Commission Conference Room Staff Support: Steve Schwab 972-7800 ec 4/12/88 SALT PALACE/FINE ARTS BOARD ORDINANCE CITATION: Interlocal agreement approved July 5, 1988 MEMBERSHIP: Nine directors--three appointed by Governor of the State of Utah, three appointed by Salt Lake County Commissioners and three appointed by the Mayor of Salt Lake City. TERM: Three-year terms, for no more than two terms. QUALIFICATIONS: None ADVICE AND CONSENT: Yes OATH OF OFFICE: No PURPOSE: NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTTMEITf EXPIRATION DATE CITY APPOINTEES: 1. Anthony L. Rampton 3 10/11/88 7/1/89 215 South State Street Twelth Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (H) (W) 531-8900 2. Grant Mabey 2 10/11/88 7/1/90 975 Genesee Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (H) 359-8994 (W) 524-4643 3. Marcia Poulsen Price 3 10/11/88 7/1/91 1270 Fairfax Road Salt Lake City, UT 84103 (H) 363-9944 (unlisted) (W) STATE APPOINTEES: 4. Gary Anderson 175 East First South Logan, UT 84321 (H) 752-2206 (W) 752-2610 5. Kenneth Y. Knight 1762 Country Side Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (H) 487-3852 (W) 524-2710 6. Sandra Richins 298 24th Street Ogden, UT 84401 (H) 394-5241 (W) 399-5506 COUNTY APPOINTEES: 7. Truman Clawson 966 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84102 (H) 278-8404 (W) 534-1595 8. Richard Galbraith 10117 Alta Villa Drive Sandy, UT 84092 (H) 943-2521 (W) 1-378-4121 9. William G. Gibbs 215 South State #700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (H) 364-5795 (W) 531-8400 EX OFFICIO: Commissioner Bart Barker 2001 South State Street #S2100 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1000 (W) 468-3387 SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR'S REPRESENTATIVE: Nancy Boskoff 54 Finch Lane, Reservoir Park Salt Lake City, UT 84102 (W) 535-7704 Staff Contact: Nancy Boskoff ec: 10/21/88 SALT LAKE ART DESIGN BOARD ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.30.010 MEMBERSHIP: 5 members 1 ex-officio: ( 1) Architect (2-5) Citizens interested in visual art (6) Executive Director, Salt Lake Arts Council. TERM: 3 years QUALIFICATIONS: No more than two members shall be professional artists or arts administrators and one member must represent the Arts Council. ADVICE AND CONSENT: Yes OATH OF OFFICE: No PURPOSE: The board assesses artistic needs of future individual City construction projects and recommends the nature, acquisition and placement of works to be used in such projects where the City has declared its policy to allocate 1% of the budget of a new building for works of art. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1 . Brook Bowman 2 1/87 1st Term P.O. Box 16253 3/8/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: 2. Charles Loving 4 (12/86)1/87 1st Term 40 South 900 East #5E 3/8/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 3. Bonnie Sucec 3 4/89 U/T Term 189 1st Ave. #82 3/8/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: 322-4637 4. Tom Kass 3 1/87(3/88) 1st Term 735 10th Avenue 5/88 3/8/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 5. Kip K. Harris, Architect 3 8/86 1st Full Term 574 9th Avenue 3/8/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 363-6367 Meeting Schedule: Second Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. Art Barn, 54 Finch Lane Staff Support: Nancy Boskoff 596-5000 ec4/17/89 CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.36.010 MEMBERSHIP: 13 Members: 9 voting members: ( 1-2) Citizens-at-large (3) SLC Chamber of Commerce (4) Retail Merchants Association (5) Property Managers Association (6) parking lot operators (7) professional service groups (8) the Mayor or designee (9) financial institutions. 4 Ex-Officio, non-voting members: ( 10) The Mayor (in the event he shall not be a voting director) ( 11 ) City Council member ( 12) City Attorney ( 13) City Engineer. TERM: 4 Years QUALIFICATIONS: 21 years old and a resident of the State of Utah. ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes OATH OF OFFICE: yes PURPOSE: The CBID extends through the heart of downtown Salt Lake from South Temple to 400 South and from West Temple to State Street. All firms located within these boundaries are members of the District. The purpose of the CBID is to initiate projects, which add to the appeal and growth of the downtown area. These activities are designed to encourage people to come to the downtown area for business and entertainment. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Daniel McNeer N/A 9/88 U/T Crossroads Plaza 1/91 50 South Main Street 475 Salt Lake City, Utah 84144 Phone: (W)363-1558 (H)561-4796 Home Address : 929 Well Spring Rd. 84047 2. John Williams 3 1/85 1st Term Gastronomy Inc. 7/86 1/90 60 Post Office Place Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Home Address: 574 No. East Capitol 3. Fred S. Ball 3 1/82 2nd Term Executive Vice President 7/86 1/90 Salt Lake City Chamber Of Commerce 175 E. 400 S. Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 364-5918 Home address: 809 16th Avenue 4. C. Reuel Ware N/A 2/88 1st Term 370 South West Temple 1/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: 355-1713 Home address: 5791 Whitewater Drive, 84121 CBID Page Two 5. Richard Coles N/A 11/88 1st Term 4983 Regency Street 1/92 Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (W) 321-8700 (H)278-5743 6. John Pace 3 1/85 1st Full Architect Representative 3/87 1/91 Babcock and Pace 52 Exchange Place Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 531-1122 Home Address: 1524 Arlington Drive 7. Jan Graham 11/88(3/89) U/T Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough 1/93 1500 First Interstate Plaza Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: (H) 487-4471 (W) 521-3200 8. William Cutting 5 10/86 1st Term Penna/Powers/Cutting/Hayes Inc. 1/90 51 East 400 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 466-1672 Home Address: 1233 South 800 East 9. James Stewart N/A 4/89 1st Term CEO Continental Bank 1/93 200 South Main Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: 534-6097 Home Address: 8026 South Top of the World Drive, 84121 10. Mayor Palmer DePaulis 4 Ex-Officio 500 City Hall 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7704 11 . Councilmember Roselyn Kirk 6 Ex-Officio 300 City Hall 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7600 12. Roger Cutler Ex-Officio City Attorney 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7788 CBID Page Three 13. Max Peterson Ex-Officio City Engineer Salt Lake City, Utah 841111 Phone: 535-6231 Meeting Schedule: Third Wednesday, 12:00 p.m. Staff Support: Jill Remington, Economic Development Assistant Director, 535-7777 Carole Dibblee, Administrative Coordinator 328-3211 ec 4/22/89 �` - 17r.: 2 7_. ,ci sic%r ecT: J r,7c:7,a: T J i. ttT r ,:� *. r^ r ri� 7n^r:ZarDI:Pr i:J_T5:;- n POP-':^ _ ;F--tIT_-' ice( SA -.,r- I ,kK CI I_ c - .Po it.A Rr_ io?it ;- Rzo1itthitt A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF =_ SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WHEREAS, The Salt Lake City Wastewater Treatment Plant has made significant improvements during the past decade; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City adopted a plan in 1982 allowing new wastewater treatment facilities to be built and, with the dedication of treatment plant personnel , vastly improved water quality; and WHEREAS, In 1987 the Environmental Protection Agency recognized the plant' s '= progress by awarding it an "Excellence Award" for Region 8; and WHEREAS, The Association of Metropolitan Sewer Agencies has recently awarded the Wastewater Treatment Plant a "Gold Award" for a perfect record in complying with national effluent limitation requirements in the last year. • NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor that we hereby congratulate Salt Lake City' s Public Works Department and especially the Wastewater Treatment Plant' s personnel for their • outstanding record. • DATED this 5th day of September, 1989. • Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor W. M. "Willie" Stoler, Chair Florence B. Bittner L. Wayne Horrocks • Sydney R. Fonnesbeck Alan G. Hardman L. Tom Godfrey Roselyn N. Kirk A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WHEREAS, Salt Lake City' s Central City Western Boys' Baseball Association Little League All Star team recently won the WBBA Little World Series in Helper, Utah; and WHEREAS, The Salt Lake City boys, ages 10-12, displayed outstanding skills, hard work and determination in defeating teams from California, Idaho and Utah; and WHEREAS, The Central City All Stars demonstrated great strength of character by never giving up and coming from behind to win three crucial games; and WHEREAS, By becoming the first Salt Lake Central City team to win the WBBA World Series, these boys have paved the way and shown their friends and younger brothers that Central City can be a contender every year; and WHEREAS, The Central City All Stars won 10 games to finish in first place ahead of teams from throughout the western United States: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, that we do hereby praise and congratulate the Salt Lake Central City All Stars for their tremendous achievements in winning the WBBA Little World Series. DATED this 5th day of September, 1989. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor . M. "Willie" Stoier, hair - t\\IAP11 orence . it er . ay i Horroc<s aeGUA. 4 /411A-1/414441i y ne nnes ec Alan G. Hardman 7 Tom Godfrey Roselyn N. Kirk L / x: �S\l_ �L tt email.��1 PALMER DEPAULIS LINDA HAMILTON ..� DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAYOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT Policy and Budget Division 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 248 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-7810 August 28, 1989 TO: W. M. "Willie" Stoler Chairman, Salt Lake City Council RE: SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2 I respectfully request that the City Council set a date for a Budget Amendment Public Hearing during their September 5 meeting. I request that the hearing to amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 Budget be set for September 19, 1989 . The primary purpose of the amendment will be to reappropriate fund balances in the CDBG grant operating fund and other grant funds, and to appropriate fund balance of enterprise and internal service funds necessary to cover outstanding purchase orders of June 30, 1989 . Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/SF:lc SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. OF 1989 (Amending the Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 36 OF 1989 ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1 , 1989 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1990 . PREAMBLE On June 13, 1989 , the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council" ) adopted the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6 , Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Director of Finance, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public . The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on September 19 , 1989 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 September 19 , 1989 in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council . All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Purpose . The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah as adopted by Salt Lake City Ordinance 36 of 1989 . SECTION 2 . Adoption of Amendments . The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990 , in accordance with requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3 . Certification to Utah State Auditor. The Director of the City' s Finance Department, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4 . Filing of Copies of the Budget Amendments . The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. -2- Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1989 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 Published -3- LAKE BOARD Elaine B.Weis, Chair PALMER A. DEPAULIS, Mayor D t` 1? >- Curtis E.Ackerlind,Jr. • J.Alan Blodgett • Don A.Mackey — ti LOUIS E. MILLER Eddie P. Mayne • Joseph Rosenblatt �``" ''"'" Director of Airports Patrick A. Shea • Thomas K.Welch O AU-\ ' July 11, 1989 W.M. (Willie) Stoler, Chairman and Members of the Salt Lake City Council City & County Building, Room 303 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 SUBJECT: AMEND THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S FY 1989-90 BUDGET FOR SUPERVISION OF THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION STARTER SERVICE AT THE SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Dear Chairman Stoler & Members of the City Council: RECOMMENDATION: Amend the Airport Authority's FY 1989-90 Operating Budget relating to the addition of 5 new full time operations officers to provide supervision of the ground transportation operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended increase for FY 1989-90 amounts to a $97 ,100 increase in personnel costs which is equal to 70% of the total annual cost to fund the five new FTE operations officer positions. DISCUSSION: At the direction of the Airport Authority Board, I have completed my review of the available options for providing better passenger service relating to the Ground Transportation "Starter Services" currently being provided by each of the numerous companies operating at the Salt Lake City International Airport. The attached report will provide you with a good understanding of the background of the changes in the ground transportation regulations and the process we used to reach our final recommendations which consist of the following: 1. The Airport Authority will provide "supervision and regulation" at the ground transportation counters and the individual companies will continue to provide their own starters . 2. The ground transportation facilities will be expanded in both of the terminal buildings to increase the level of service and meet the increased demands created by the different types of ground transportation providers. Salt Lake City Airport Authority •AMF Box 22084, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122•(801) 575-2400•Telefax: (801)575-2679 Salt Lake City Council July 11, 1989 Page Two 3. A "call-up" system will need to be developed and installed to provide better communication between the staging areas and the terminal commercial roadway system. 4. The additional costs relating to this recommendation will be approximately $138,500 annually. We would recommend that we NOT increase the ground transportation charges at this time and that we take this cost into consideration, in addition to amortization of the capital costs, when we complete the Parking Structure and Roadway Development Project in 1991. At that time, we will be in a position to study all of the off airport operators and assess the appropriate fees and charges for conducting business operations at the Salt Lake City International Airport. As you will recall, I had committed to you to have the report completed and a final recommendation by June 30, 1989. Based on the schedule of the Airport Authority Board, it was not possible to meet this date and final acceptance of my recommendations was not received until July 5, 1989. We provided the ground transportation companies with a copy of the draft report and invited them to attend the Airport Authority Board meeting on July 5, 1989. The comments we received at the meeting were favorable and not one of the providers voiced opposition to the recommendations. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City Council amend the Airport Authority's FY 89-90 Budget to increase our authorized expenditures for personnel costs by $97,100 and our authorized position list by 5 FTE positions to reflect the new operations officers. Respectfully submitted, Louis E. Miller GROUND TRANSPORTATION STARTER SURVEY SALT LAKE CITY AIRPORT AUTHORITY JUNE 1989 The purpose of this study is to review the current practices and recommend changes to the delivery of ground transportation services at the Salt Lake City International Airport. Basically, the study was structured as follows: (1) an inventory process reviewing current levels of services provided; (2) a review of physical facilities; and (3) a review of options available for consideration. Background Ground transportation services have generally been somewhat self- regulating in that, historically, there has always been more demand than supply. In 1987, the State of Utah passed what was essentially a motor carrier deregulation act. The major thrust of this legislative change was to deregulate the motor carrier industry, particularly in the area of intrastate commerce. No longer was it necessary for companies interested in providing service to prove "convenience and necessity. " The new standard established was basically a standard of fitness. This substantial change allowed a number of new entrants into the commercial motor vehicle transportation business. These businesses became licensed and started operating at the Salt Lake City International Airport providing transportation service primarily to skiers. With the increased competition, we began to experience a substantial increase in the number of problems relating to ground transportation services. The traveling public was not receiving reliable information on transportation services and there were problems and conflicts among and between the various service providers. The ordinances regulating commercial ground transportation services within the city were generally adequate pri,r to the deregulation act; however, the deregulation act in essence created the necessity to change the City's ordinances. That task has been accomplished and provides a strong framework in which to regulate commercial services at the airport. Page 1 With the issue of adopting new ordinances behind us, it has become apparent that a method to enforce these regulations needed to be reviewed. This study focuses on the three most obvious options available for us to remedy the problem of regulating service providers at the airport. The three options are as follows: Option 1: No substantive change and stricter enforcement by on-duty staff. Option 2: The Airport Authority provide all starter coordination for the commercial operators. Option 3: The Airport Authority provide supervisory and law enforcement oversight of the company-provided starters. With these three options being identified, the inventory process was initiated. The staff developed a survey (Exhibit I) which was mailed to all companies providing commercial ground transportation services at the airport. Reasonable success was experienced in receiving comments from the providers. The results of the survey and the recap of the comments are discussed later in this study. Additionally, observations of the ground transportation facilities were made by the Airport staff. After completion of the survey data, staff began a more thorough review of the requirements for staffing and operating under Options 2 and 3. No serious consideration was given to Option 1 as a feasible option, but is used as a base case comparison to Options 2 and 3. As a general element of the study, staff identified the advantages and disadvantages of each of the two options. Following the study of the issues, we have made a series of recommendations listed in the last section of this study. Page 2 Survey Process On January 26, 1989, a survey containing ten questions was provided to all of the ground transportation providers operating at the Salt Lake City International Airport. All but three of the companies returned the survey. Some of the information requested in the survey was of a proprietary nature; in particular, the number of passengers transported and the salaries paid to employees. Therefore, this information is addressed in the aggregate or as an average. The following is the actual survey information. It reflects the question asked on the survey, explains briefly why the information was requested, outlines the survey results and identifies which companies did not respond to the question. For the purpose of this survey, companies have been grouped by service type. These service types are consistent with the current city ordinances. Question No. 1 Question: What are your hours of operation? Please list the number of hours you have a starter each day for each terminal . Reason: This question was asked to get an idea of what the staffing levels for starters needs to be during different months of the year for each terminal building. Page 3 Results: During the winter months (November to March) starters are available in both terminals from 8:30 a.m. until midnight on a daily basis. The breakdown is as follows: 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 2 Starters 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. 6 Starters 10:00 - 11:00 a.m. 7 Starters 11:00 a.m. - Noon 6 Starters 12:00 - 4:00 p.m. 7 Starters 4:00 - 8:00 p.m. 6 Starters 8:00 - 12:00 p.m. 5 Starters During the summer months (April to October) starters are available in both terminals from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The breakdown is as follows: 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. 2 Starters 10:00 - Noon 4 Starters 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. 4 Starters 1:00 - 8:00 p.m. 5 Starters 8:00 - 9:00 p.m. 3 Starters 9:00 - 10:00 p.m. 2 Starters No Response: Transki , Presidential , Elite Question No. 2 Question: What do you currently pay your starters (hourly rate)? Reason: This question was asked to determine what the costs would be to provide starter services. Results: The following are averages for each type of service. Limousine Service: $5.00 per hour Scheduled Service: $6.40 per hour plus commission Unscheduled Service: $6.00 per hour Taxicab Service: $5.50 per hour No Response: Lewis Brothers , Transki , Presidential Question No. 3 Question: Who handles money (driver or starter)? Page 4 Reason: This question was asked to determine whether the starter, if provided by the Airport, would be responsible for handling money for the different companies. Results: The results show who collects fees. The number indicates how many companies in each service group use the driver, the starter, or both to collect their fees. Service Type Driver Starter Driver & Starter Limousine Service 2 1 Scheduled Service 2 Unscheduled Service 2 1 2 Taxicab Service 3 No Response: Presidential Question No. 4 Question: What forms of payment are acceptable? Reason: This question was asked to determine what set up would be required for handling money received by starters. Results: For companies making credit card transactions, only Visa, Master Card, and American Express are accepted. A few companies will accept checks. Question No. 5 Question: Estimated number of passengers which your company transports from the airport by month. Reason: This question was asked to determine the peak periods and number of passengers requiring ground transportation services at different times of the year. This information will help in determining staffing levels of starters. Page 5 Results: Each company estimated the number of passengers they transport per month. The information presented is a total of those estimates. Limousine Scheduled Unscheduled Taxicabs Total January 136 2269 32,160 16,400 50,965 February 136 2450 35,718 17,000 55,304 March 136 2259 41 ,450 16,000 59,845 April 57 2099 19,435 9,000 30,591 May 49 2070 1 ,194 9,000 12,313 June 43 2070 1,612 9,000 12,725 July 43 2070 2,382 11,000 15,495 August 43 2070 3,300 12,000 17,413 September 43 2070 3,322 8,000 13,435 October 57 2070 1,576 8,000 11,703 November 57 2085 11,390 10,000 23,532 December 71 2365 18,400 18,000 38,836 TOTAL 871 25,947 171 ,939 143,400 342,157 Question No. 6 Question: Do you receive telephone inquiries at the booth? If so, what is the nature of the calls. Reason: This question was asked to determine the level of utilities and telephone service the Airport Authority would need to provide. Results: The results show the number of companies, by service type, that require telephone service. Limousine Scheduled Unscheduled Taxicabs Yes 2 3 3 No 4 2 Comments: One option is to provide a common telephone number for the ground transportation booth and have starters forward callers requesting a particular company to additional phones located in the ground transportation area. These calls may then be picked up by the requested company. Page 6 Question No. 7 Question: What type of call-up system would you like to use for the starter to call up the driver? a. Light System (sign with all company names and have company name light up when needed) b. Radio System c. Inbound Toll Booth d. Other. Please Explain. Reason: This question was asked to gain an understanding of what type call- up system would be most acceptable to the transportation providers. Results: The initial results of this question were not conclusive which may have been a result of the language used and the concepts not clearly understood. This issue may need to be resurveyed. The best solution from an efficiency standpoint would be to have all operators on a common radio network; however, as a practical solution, this is unworkable. This would require each company to establish a radio system and install common radio equipment in all vehicles. We believe the most practical approach is the adoption of a call-up system which would be activated by a ground transportation "supervisor" calling up vehicles located in a remote parking area. This concept will require more study. Question No. 8 Question: How do starters currently communicate with drivers? Reason: This question was asked to gain an understanding of the current practices for communicating between drivers and starters and to determine if practices being used could be implemented into a common system. Page 7 Results: Presently the starters use either a radio system, mobile phones, or communicate verbally to coordinate travel with the drivers. Question No. 9 Question: On what basis should starter costs be allocated to the various companies? (per passenger, per vehicle, vehicle size, vehicle weight, destination, other). Reason: This question was asked to see how the majority of the companies would like to be charged for starter services if provided by the Airport Authority. Results: Limousine Service: Per Vehicle Scheduled Service: Per Passenger Unscheduled Service: Per Passenger Taxicab Service: Per Passenger No Response: Canyon, Park City, Lady Jane, Question No. 10 Question: How many starters do you feel the Airport will need to provide? What are your recommendations on the staffing levels and hours of operation? Reason: This question was asked to gain a perspective of the employees who work in the booth as to how many people it takes to properly man the area. Results: The responses to this question overwhelmingly stated that this approach was totally unacceptable to the operators and that it does not provide the opportunity for individual companies to represent their own interests. However, many of the providers indicated that an airport sponsored supervisor present at the ground Page 8 transportation booth in each terminal during the hours of operation would be the best solution. This would allow the individual companies to present their services and would provide oversight and proper management of the ground transportation starters. Staffing Level Analysis This section of the staff study tries to draw some conclusions about the staffing levels which will need to be provided under Options 2 and 3. (Option 2 - Airport Authority provided starters and supervisor and Option 3 - Airport Authority provided supervisor and company-provided starters) . A review of the information indicates that we have an extremely seasonal demand situation. The statistics show the demand is five times higher during March than October, with significantly decreased demand during the summer. For purposes of this analysis winter and summer are as follows. 1. Winter - November 15 - March 31 (20 weeks) 0800-2400 (16 hours/day) 2. Summer - April 1 - November 15 (32 weeks) 0900-2200 (13 hours/day) Table 1 is a typical staffing level analysis for each of the three options during the winter months by hour of day. Option 1 shows the current staffing level . This information was provided by the ground transportation companies through the survey. It is important to point out that these staffing levels are shown for only one terminal building; however, the financial figures to follow reflect the level of service for both Terminal Unit No. 1 and 2. Option 2 is a recommended staffing level proposed by the Airport staff. The breakdown of how staff would be utilized in Option 2 is shown in Table 1-A. Under Option 2, one person would be a designated starter for the taxicab companies, one for the luxury limousine companies, one for scheduled service, Page 9 and 3 starters would be dedicated to providing service for unscheduled transportation providers because the demand for this service is so high. The luxury limousine starter would most likely be the on-duty supervisor since the demand for this service is the lowest. In addition, the supervisor could be the focal point for additional information service about the airport and points of interest. Option 3 indicates that the Airport would provide one on-duty supervisor of transportation services at each terminal during all hours of operation of the ground transportation center. Table 2 and 2-A reflect the same information as Table 1 and 1-A with the exception that it is for the summer months. Table 1 Starters Per Hour - Winter Time of Day 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Option 1 Current Staffing 2 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 0 Option 2 Recommended Staffing , 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 0 Option 3 Supervisor Staffing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Table 1-A Option 2 Staffing Explanation Time of Day 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Taxicab Starter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 0 Luxury Limo Starter 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Scheduled Service Starter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Unscheduled Service Starter 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 0 Totals 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 0 Page 10 The number of hours for providing starter service each day, seven days a week is as follows: Option 1: 95 hours Option 2: 91 hours Includes 16 hours of supervisor pay and 75 hours of starter pay Option 3: 16 hours for a supervisor Table 2 Starters Per Hour - Summer Time of Day 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,16 17 18_ 19 20 21 22 23 24 Option 1 Current Staffing 0 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 0 0 0 Option 2 Recommended Staffing 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 Option 3 Supervisor Staffing , 0 1 1 1. 1_ 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Table 2-A Option 2 Staffing Explanation Time of Day 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Taxicab Starter 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Luxury Limo Starter 0 1 1 1 1 1 , 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Scheduled Service Starter 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Unscheduled Service Starter 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Totals 0 4 4 4 4_ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 The number of hours for providing starter service each day, seven days a week is as follows: Option 1 : 54 hours Option 2: 52 hours Includes 13 hours of supervisor pay and 39 hours of starter pay Option 3: 13 hours Page 11 Winter Option 1: 20 weeks x 95 hours/day x 2 Terminals = 26,600 hours Option 2: 20 weeks x 75 starter hours x 2 Terminals = 21 ,000 hours 20 weeks x 16 supervisor hours x 2 Terminals = 4 ,480 hours 25,480 hours Option 3: 20 weeks x 16 supervisor hours x 2 Terminals = 4,480 hours Summer Option 1: 32 weeks x 54 hours/day x 2 Terminals = 24,192 hours Option 2: 32 weeks x 39 starters hours x 2 Terminals = 17,472 hours 32 weeks x 13 supervisor hours x 2 Terminals = 5,824 hours 23,296 hours Option 3: 32 weeks x 13 supervisor hours x 2 Terminals = 5,824 hours Annual Hours Option 1: 50,792 Option 2: Starters 38,472 Supervisor 10,304 48,776 Option 3: 10,304 The costs for providing the starters under each scenario are outlined below. The information on salaries for this option are estimates based on a review of the information received by the ground transportation providers. The wage rates are a weighted average and are fairly reasonable projections of actual costs, although they are not representative of any one company. Page 12 Costs Associated With Option #1. Option 1 identifies a base line of wages expended by all companies under the current scheme. Because it is assumed that the current starters are hourly, seasonal employees, FICA was the only additional expense figured in the calculation. Average Weighted Salary of Starters $ 5.81 FICA Paid by Employer $ 0.43 Total Salary Per Hour $ 6.24 Total Number of Hours Worked 50,792 Total Cost for Option #1 $316,942 Costs Associated With Option #2 Option 2 shows the calculations for the Airport Authority to provide all services. The costs associated with salaries are five full-time supervisors and hourly, seasonal employees to provide starter services. Estimated Salary for Operations Officer $ 20,298 Estimated Benefits $ 7,412 Estimated Total Salary $ 27,710 Total Number of Hours 10,304 Available Hours Per Employee 1 ,816 Number of Officers Needed 5.67 Assume that Existing Manpower 5.00 will assist with coverage Annual Cost of 5 new Operations $138,550 Officers Estimated Salary of Starters $ 6.25 FICA $ 0.47 Page 13 Total Salary Per Hour $ 6.72 Total Hours Required $ 38,472 Estimated Cost for Starters $258,532 Estimated Total Cost for Option 12 $397,082 Additional Costs as Compared to Option #1 $ 80,140 Costs Associated with Option 13 This scenario reviews the financial burden for the addition of full-time supervisor staff only. This cost indicates there is an additional burden of $138,550; however, some of this burden can be relieved by the use of the supervisory staff in other Airport-related functions during non-peak hours. Cost of Five New Operations Officers $138,550 Continued Existing Cost of Company $316,942 Provided Starters Estimated Total Costs for Option #3 $445,492 Additional Costs as Compared to Option #1 $138,550 Page 14 Comparative Analysis of Options 2 and 3 Each of the options have advantages and disadvantages. This section reviews the features of each option. Option 2: Airport Authority responsible for providing starters and supervision. Advantages 1. More direct control of quality of service. 2. Ability to provide appropriate levels of staffing. 3. Information provided to traveler is potentially more accurate and less confusing. Disadvantages 1. Increased costs to operators which may or may not be passed on to customers. Cost increases for some operators require rate hearings, i .e. taxicabs. 2. Places Airport in position of increased fiduciary responsibility. 3. Removes opportunity for service providers to present their service on a competitive basis. 4. Increases Airport staff support requirements substantially, (financial , training, personnel , etc. ) . 5. Places Airport in position to be accused of favoritism. Option 3: Airport provides supervisory staff over operator-supplied starters. Advantages 1. Reduced costs relative to Option 2. 2. Provides oversight and enforcement while reducing concerns of favoritism. 3. No fiduciary responsibility incurred. Page 15 4. Assures quality control of services. 5. Staffing levels are not subject to seasonal fluctuations. Disadvantages 1. Less direct control over starters. 2. Staff increases relative to current situation, but considerably less than Option 2. Recommendations The staff recommends that the concept of providing supervision as outlined in Option 3 be adopted. This recommendation provides supervision at the ground transportation booth and allows the various companies to be represented at the booth. Additionally, electing this option does not preclude the Airport from providing the starter services if this approach is unsuccessful . The second recommendation is that facilities be increased to accommodate the rapid growth which has occurred. This has already begun in T.U. #1 and will be addressed for T.U. #2 during the expansion for Delta Air Lines. Staff also recommends that a call-up system be developed and implemented to make the most efficient use of the terminal curb and available resources. A thorough review of the rates and charges related to ground transportation needs to be conducted. The timing on this is perhaps best staged to coincide with the opening of the parking structure, completion of the roadway system, and the expansion of T.U. #2. An ongoing information gathering process needs to be implemented to further qualify and quantify passenger and vehicle movements related to the ground transportation industry at the Airport. Page 16 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Case Studies A. Controlling Ground Transportation Operations Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport By Kenneth E. Minton, Properties Manager Dept. of Aviation, Atlanta Airport January 30, 1989 1. Taxi/starters work for Department of Aviation. 2. Using gross receipts formula to recoup costs. Graduated fee structure for start-up. 1989 = 7%, 1990 = 8%, 1991 = 9%, working toward 10%. B. Revenue, Legal and Operational Issues of Off-Airport Ground Transportation Services. Metropolitan Knoxville Airport. 1. Explains the three year long battle over imposing gross receipt fees on non-tenant rental car operators. 2. Provides some very good ideas in the form of resolutions/ordinances on dealing with rental cars , taxicabs, and courtesy cars. C. Legal Considerations for Regulating Non-Tenant Landside Transportation. Ronald B. Dent Yellowstone Airport Manager Helena, Montana February, 1985 This paper is an excellent summary of the legal aspects to be considered in regulating ground transportation services. The paper covers in some detail the following major issues as they relate to the regulation of non- tenant landside transportation: 1. The proprietary function 2. Exclusive contracts 3. Public use 4. Interstate Commerce 5. 14th Amendment Guarantees 6. Sherman Antitrust Act 7. Parker Doctrine "home rule chapter" Page 17 The summary and conclusion statements of this paper are quoted below. The preceding chapters have been an examination of the legal precedents which form the body of law regulating the actions of the airport in respect to its dealings with non- tenant ground transportation operators. In order to be useful , however, it is necessary to distill this information into a few basic tenets. The airport operator, in managing its facility, does so in a proprietary capacity as opposed to its governmental function. The airport has a right and an obligation to operate its facility efficiently and to control access to its property in the interests of the safety and convenience of the traveling public. To accomplish this, the airport may enter into exclusive contracts with selected ground transportation operators and regulate the access and restrict solicitation of non-tenant firms. Prior to restricting non-tenant operators, the airport must establish whether or not its roadway is dedicated to the public use, either by a prescribed manner of dedication or common law dedication. If the roadway is not dedicated to the public use, the airport's right to restrict access is much the same as a private landowner. However, an airport may not deny access in a manner deemed to place undue burdens upon an operator engaged in interstate commerce. In order to deny access to or to unduly restrict a ground transportation operator engaged in interstate commerce, the airport must show that it is acting under a "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" state policy which is "actively supervised" by the state itself (Parker v. Brown, supra) . Although an airport may not deny access to a ground transportation operator engaged in interstate commerce or an operator which is subject to pre-arranged transportation reservations, the airport may require the operator to obtain a permit and pay a. fee as long as the fee is reasonable and not enacted as an exclusionary device. In establishing such regulations, the airport may differentiate between rental car vans, hotel/motel courtesy vans, etc. without violating 14th Amendment guarantees. In general , when establishing restrictive regulations and establishing fee schedules , in addition to being in compliance with federal and state laws , the airport must be able to show that its actions are reasonable and prudent. Each airport must tailor its specific regulatory actions according to its own particular set of circumstances. Page 18 Industry Reports A. 5th Draft Edition - AOCI Ground Transportation Controls and Charges Task Force Report. This report is still in draft form and under legal review prior to final publication. It was released for our use and review with the strict understanding that it was for internal airport use and not to be released to the public. The task force report is quite comprehensive. It offers an overview of the current situation, suggests alternatives, and reviews the legal considerations. The report would serve well as a guide to structuring a comprehensive ground transportation program. Policies, Procedures and Ordinances A review of the work of other airports in regulating ground transportation operations was conducted. The documents provided useful concepts which will be considered in future Salt Lake City ordinance reviews. The documents reviewed are: A. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority Commercial Ground Transportation Policy B. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority Commercial Ground Transportation Policy. C. General Mitchell Field, County Ordinance Relating to Commercial Ground Transportation Services. D. Gulf Port - Biloxi Regional Airport Authority Resolution establishing regulations and fees for taxis and limousines. E. Ordinance 83-1 ; Requirements for Taxicabs Operating at the Charleston International Airport. F. Rules and Regulations for the Operation of Taxicabs, Limousines, Motor Buses , Charter and Courtesy Vehicles at McGhee Tyson Airport. G. Resolution 10-81 , Rules and Regulations Regarding Ground Transportation at Spokane International Airport. Page 19 H. Ground Transportation Operating Procedures, Tampa International Airport September 3, 1987. 1. Regulate by length of vehicle. 2. Taxicabs operate under a license agreement with airport. Define rights and obligations. 3. Grants a permit and develops a revocation process. Page 20 rAs . W T1YI CORK) SAID . __ I�0r CRAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council August 22, 1989 Re: Amendment to Section 21.74.030 Landmark Committcc Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on October 3, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss the Legislative Intent regarding the appointment procedures to the Historical Landmark Committee. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Comission has reviewed this Legislative Intent and recommends that the City Council adopted a "revised draft". The Planning Commission agreed that having a geographical balance of representation is important but felt that the method of limiting the "at large" memberships on the committee to residents who do not own property nor reside within a historic district is too limiting. Their proposal emphasizes the need for a balanced membership both professionally and by location but would not exclude a candidate solely on property ownership or residency. Legislative Document: An ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and is ready for your action. Submitted by: 7 i CRAIG EJPEEERSON Director lf/ ROGER F. CUTLER SALT 1 CORM D DMA. I®N f ASSISTANT ATTORYC ATTORNEYCITY .-' ' RAY L. MONTGO". ERY STEVC-.N W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWK:N, OE:°UTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LARRY V. EFENDLob F_ BRUCE R. BAI:-D CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 FRANK M. NAK?;.4URA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. CELLS: CECELIA M. ESP;'' July 20, 1989 RICHAS:D G. H GLEN A. COCK Craig Peterson, Director Community and Economic Development 218 City & County Building 451 South State StreetSalt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Amendment to Section 21 . 74 . 030 Dear Craig: rc�f,l On July 19 , 1989 your note to Roger Cutler transming_ Allen Johnson' s letter of June 6, 1989 dealing with revisions ' to the Historic Landmark Committee Membership Ordinance Section 21 . 74.030 was assigned to me. I have redrafted the ordinance consistent with the recommendation for the "revised draft" from the Planning Commission. As you know, the initial request for the draft ordinance came from the Council and the wording in the original draft was designed to effectuate the purposes of the requesting council member. The new draft effectuates the intent of the Planning Commission . Our office expresses no preference for either draft recognizing that the matter is one of policy consideration appropriately left in the hands of the legislative and advisory bodies. If you have any questions please free to call . Sincerely, BRUCE R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRB: rc Enclosures cc: Allen Johnson Alan Hardman, Council Member ,---; fa-" ' ittoh SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21 . 74.030 creating additional residency limitations on the Historic Landmark Committee) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 74. 030 CREATING ADDITIONAL RESIDENCY LIMITATIONS ON THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to have geographical diversity of membership on the Historic Landmark Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 74.030(B) be amended to read as follows: 21.74.030 Historical landmark committee - Creation - Membership A. B. [The m;i tee shall consist of not less the nine or moire than maximum of fifteen voting members. ] Each voting member shall be a resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members[ , to] shall be appointed by the mayor with the consent of the city council [ , shall be-selected fro and interested par-tie-a] as follows: [1-- -One-member-from-the-membership of the Utah Society, Ameri an Institute of Architects] (a) Historic Districts. From each area designated as an historic district not more than two members who either reside or own property within the district; [2. One m the city] ( b ) At Large. Five members who are residents of the city with consideration of broad geographical representation; [3..--One---member frem the Uta i Heritage Foundation] (c) Designated Members. One member designated to represent the Utah Heritage Foundation; one architect licensed in the State of Utah; and, one member of the Planning Commission designated to represent the Planning Commission; [ 4—No-mere tha-n--twe mref bei-s-who--are--reside cs o-f-o =own property in each area--des-ignated as an-historic district] (d ) Ex Officio. The directors of the Planning Division and the Building and Housing Division (or their designees ) shall both serve as members ex officio without vote[;] . [5. Five members may be citizens at le-rg-e;] [fry On ss-i-on;] [7. The directors of the planning division and Building- and r-their designated-representatives shall both serve ..ff; ember-withoutvote. ] SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON -2- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp -3- LCEIVD Oil . ATTORNEY'S O' F,CE DATE - ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR RALPH BECKER SANDRA MARLER rGR S1���� � IT CINDY CROMER OMAS A ELLISO N SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RICHARD J. HOWA MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission RALPH P. NEILSON CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 GEORGE NICOLAT ; CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL F. KEITH STEFAN 535-7757 PETER VAINALSTYN_ KATHY WACKER June 6, 1989 Mr. Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Craig, The Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning Commission has reviewed the Legislative Initiative from the City Council regarding the appointment procedures to the Historical Landmark Committee. The City Council submitted a new draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and requested their recommendation. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed change on April 27, 1989 and held an informal hearing on May 25, 1989 to receive public comment. At the conclusion of the informal hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend not to change the existing ordinance. Additionally, the Planning Commission voted (five in favor and three against) to recommend to the City Council a "revised draft" of the proposed ordinance change. A copy of their "revised" draft is attached. The Planning Commission agrees with the intent of the proposed City Council change, that of having a geographical balance of representation on the Historical Landmark Committee. However, the opinion of the Planning Commission is that the method of limiting the "at large" membership on the committee to residents who do not own property nor reside within a historic district is too limiting. The Planning Commission recognizes the many hours of expertise donated to the city by the Historical Landmark Conuliittee members to further the heritage of the City. The Planning Commission wishes not to penalize a qualified interested participant in Salt Lake City's preservation effort because of ownership of property or their residency. Craig H. Peterson June 6, 1989 Page 2 The Planning Corrunission believes the Mayor and City Council may need to increase their efforts to find qualified enthusiastic volunteers for the "at large" positions from neighborhoods throughout the City thereby assuring the geographical balance of Committee membership. The Historical Landmark Committee provides a very technical review of design issues to maintain and improve the quality of life in Salt Lake City. The Planning Corrunission proposal emphasizes the need for a balanced membership both professionally and locationally but would not exclude a candidate solely on property ownership or residency. The Planning Corrunission respectfully recorruriends that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the "revised draft ordinance". if you have any additional questions regarding the Planning Commission recommendation, please call me. Respectfully submitted, Allen C. Johnson ATCP Planning Director ACJ;GTIR--- attachment `I MEMBERS: ALLEN C. JOHNSON RALPH BECKER PLANNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER 1 _, �' 1 �\ a,'GITI C��sasRPORATL00 NE THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY ''�' •`� �' y me LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD J. HOWA EX•OFFICIO MEMBERS: Planningand ZoningCommission RALPH F. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHI MANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535.7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Bil Schwab, Historical Landmark Committee DATE : April 20 , 1989 SUBJECT: Proposed Historical Landmark Committee Ordinance Change Please find attached minutes from the Historical Landmark Committee meeting of April 5 , 1989 with the Historical Landmark Committee review of the proposed ordinance change for appointments to the Committee . Also , enclosed are two letters from Alan Hardman and Roger Cutler . Copies of the proposed ordinance changes were included in your Planning Commission meeting packets for the April 13th meeting . At the April 19 , 1989 meeting , the Historical Landmark Committee moved to oppose the ordinance changes . Mr . Louis Ulrich, from the Historical Landmark Committee will attend the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, April 27, 1989 to discuss this issue with you before a recommendation is forwarded to the City Council . Thanks . BS : skm IILC Minutes , Apr" 5 , 1989 Page 13 and service organizations and City Boards and Commissions or Committees . Ten organizations have been invited to participate in the tree planting , one being the Historical Landmark Committee. The HLC members were enthusiastic about this project , and several members volunteered , as follows : Ms . Pamela Grubaugh-Littig, Anna Grace Sperry, Randall Dixon, Steve England and Louis Ulrich, as well as Stuart Loosli , a former HLC member . Any members not present during this meeting will be contacted . A dedication plaque will also be installed along the planting treeway but the exact spot has not been selected yet Ms . Harrington is asking each participating organization to contribute $25 . 00 to help pay for the plaque. Mr . Bil Schwab said he will arrange for the $25 . 00 donation from the HLC. The second activity will be later during the day on April 29th when Salt Lake City will be designated "Tree City USA" , which is a national designation. The Mayor will receive a plaque and a flag to fly on the flagpole in front of the City and County Building . The ceremony will be at 3 : 00 p .m. , and the members of the HLC were invited to attend Review of Proposed Ordinance Chance for Appointmenis to Historica 1 Landmark Committee . Ms . Cindy Gust-Jensen from the Cityad dressed Offices adcres�e.. the Committee . She stated that as a City Council staff person , she, of course , does not take any position and was only there to present some background explain the procedure followed in matters like this . She explained that several months ago the City Council members, in reviewing the composition of city boards , noticed that District 3 had several more representatives on city boards and committees than any other district . The Council members thought that members of the Historical Landmark Committee all had to be from the Avenues area but when Councilmember Alan Hardman read the city ordinance, he found it stated two members from the historic district and five at-large members . He interpretated "at-large" to mean people who live in areas other than historic districts . However , the City Attorney' s Office was consulted , and one of the attorneys explained that the ordinance could , at first glance , be construed that way but due to the punctuation used , it does ' nt specify and cannot be construed to mean that the members of the committee have to live in aYeas other than the historic district . Councilmember Hardman is very interested in an ordinance being passed specifying that each historic district have a epresentative and that interested groups have representation but that there also be members on the Historical Landmark Committee from other areas of the city. Ms . Gust-Jensen said Mr . Hardman • HLC Minutes , Apri,_ 5 , 1989 page 14 had stressed that this was not a personal issue on his part but just that he felt a broader representation is needed . This issue was discussed in detail during the Council ' s retreat held in February 1989 . Councilmember Sydney Fonnesbeck brought up several issues which were discussed at that time . Councilmember Hardman asked the City Attorney' s Office to draft an ordinance with the additional representation he was interested in. The ordinance was drafted and was on the agenda for the City Council held the previous evening (April 4th) , at which time the Council voted to refer the revised ordinance to the Planning Commission for a recommendation . Ms . Gust-Jensen said the Council members had not realized this was a zoning ordinance and had thought they could act on it by voting it "up or down" ; however , it was brought to their attention that it was an ordinance change and should be referred to the Planning Commission and after that, placed on the City Council agenda for a public hearing and vote. Ms . Gust-Jensen said Allen Johnson, Planning Director , had said the Planning Commission could possibly refer this matter to any number of places but that it could be back to the City Council in about two months . Mr . Ulrich felt it would be inappropriate to create change without looking at the history of the direction of the ordinance in the beginning . Ms . Gust-Jensen said the Council had the ordinance and the materials relating to the Committee but that if this Committee had information along those lines they would like to provide to Alan Hardman or to the whole Council , it might be a good idea . Bil Schwab said that Ms . Linda Edeiken, a member of the Historical Landmark Committee , was unable to attend this meeting but she talked with him and cave him some information which he will provide to the city Council . Mr . Stuart Loosli , 955 East South Temple, a former member of the Historical Landmark Committee , was present . He thought the idea of the original ordinance was to give quite a bit of leeway to whoever made the appointments to select people who are interested and concerned with historic preservation regardless of where they live even if they all live in one area ; that the concern was to appoint people who are willing and able to participate in the activities of the Committee . He said there is nothing in the ordinance stating a person ' s residence would qualify her/him Eor membership on the Committee . Mr . Kimball stated there are the lower Avenues area , the Capitol Hill , the South Temple historic district , which has been without representation for two years because the City Council has not approved the names submitted because the appointing of new members to the Historical Landmark Committee has been "put on ryk.°';c7 J_ HLC Minutes , Apr_ 5 , 1989 Page 15 hold" since the matter of the change in the ordinance was first brought up. Mr . Kimball continued, stating there are presently eight members on the Committee who either own property in or reside in a historic district. He noted the words "own property in" are important language which would disqualify many people who may have an investment in the lower Avenues or in Capitol Hill and live elsewhere in the city. He said of the eight people, three organizations are represented; i . e. , Utah Heritage Foundation, the AIA and Planning and Zoning . Those people cannot be from the historical districts or they count in those districts. He clarified there are eight people , three organizations being represented , and five members-at-large. Mr . Kimball noted there have been several vacancies periodically on the Historical Landmark Committee, and the difficulties in getting new appointees have at times made it difficult to have a quorum present at the meetings ; also, that the members of the Committee would appreciate having a few extra members so it would not be absolutely necessary to attend every meeting to get the necessary business done. He asked how, under the proposed ordinance change which would permit 15 or 16 members on the Committee, how would the existing members be dealt with who have spent hundreds of "volunteer hours" because most of them are from the previously designated historic districts . It appears that the change will "wipe out" three people from Capitol Hill and three people from the Avenues presently on the Landmark Committee. Ms . Gust-Jensen said she had asked that question and been informed that generally when there is a change like the proposed change, the existing membership is not affected but that future appointments would be based on the new ordinance , if the ordinance were to pass . Mr . Loosli expressed concern over the possibility of having a committee composed of absentee landowners having little interest in the historical quality of the property, or the reverse--of having absentee landowners whose interests would be in seeing maximum development for profit--not historical preservation . During discussion it was brought out that should additional historic districts be designated in the city, there would , of course, be members on the Committee as representatives of those districts . Ms . Gust-Jensen said based on her conversations , it seemed the larger issue was the idea that all City committees should have representatives from all areas . Mr . Ulrich said he felt the language of the proposed ordinance is discriminatory because it excludes participation. He noted there are members presently serving on the Historical Landmark Committee who do not reside in a historic district but are serving because they are very interested in preservation, and he 'uT q!`N:l $ 4 '.j: • HT,C Minutes , April 5 , 1989 Page 16 felt it is because people have that interest and are willing to serve , rather than "numbers" that make this a viable committee . He feels strongly that qualifying because of "numbers" and not because of "interest or qualifications" is a very dangerous precedent in legislation . He has no objection to any of the City Council members trying to promote someone in their district because of " interest" ; however , he believes to direct by legislation is very dangerous . that is a matter of course and interest; however , he feels to direct by legislation is very dangerous . Mr . England ' s objection to the proposed change is that it is negative does not guarantee representation from all districts ; it only guarantees that all members won ' t be from District 3 . He feels the valid way to address general representation would be to require one representative from each of the six districts and the additional members to be at-large members . Dr . Schricker commented as one of the newer members of the HLC, at the time inquiry was made as to his interest in serving on the Committee , no mention was made about where he lived but only concerning his interest in old homes and restoration , etc . During discussion, it was brought out that many of the existing members were appointed to the Historical Landmark Committe for different reasons will find themselves , because of the proposed change in the ordinance, in a position of not being eligible to serve on the Committee, and the membership of the Committee oppose the proposed legislation . Discussion again turned to the absentee landowner issue which was a major concern of the Committee members . Mr . Loosli suggested the Planning Commission clearly understand the concerns from the point of view of the members of the Historical Landmark Committee . He voiced concern over the inability of the Mayor ' s Office to make appointments to clear vacancies existing on the Historical Landmark Committee for long periods of time after names have been submitted . He sees that as having a weakening effect for the whole process . He resides on South Temple, and wonders why that district has not had a representative on the HLC for over one and one-half years . Further , he referred to the South Temple Master Plan nowin process , noting there is not even a voting member from South Temple on the Committee . Mr . Kimball asked that the Minutes reflect his appreciation , and the other Committee members agreed with him, to all members who have been on the HLC for more than one meeting and also to the members of the Architectural Subcommittee of the Historical Landmark Committee for their many hours spent in meetings . He noted these are not political appointments , and when things become "political" , he gets a "funny taste in his mouth" . He added that all efforts put forth by the HLC and the ASC have been F HLC Minutes , Apri_ 5 , 1989 r:. Page 17 done independently of political interests and on a voluntary basis as responsible citizens . He shares Mr . Loosli ' s concerns ,' over the lack of appointments by the Mayor ' s Office to the Historical Landmark Committee . Mr . Stransky commented that perhaps the Committee should make a motion that they have read the proposed ordinance, and they are anxious to receive the City Council ' s input soon and moving ahead with the matter quickly because the members of the Historical Landmark Committee are interested in filling the existing vacancies as soon as possible. He wondered if the City Council members should make recommendations for persons from their districts? Mr . Schwab said Allen Johnson (or did you mean Alan Hardman?) has directed him to bring this matter up for discussion, saying there will probably be further discussion during the April 19th meeting and to prepare a letter to the City Council requesting anyone who is concerned to come and talk with the Historical Landmark Committee at that meeting or at some other time when the Committee could meet. Review Historical South Temple Master Plan With Recommendation to Planning Commission . Bil Schwab explained that he and Ms . Jan Striefel had gone over the South Temple Master Plan and made the changes recommended by the Historical Landmark Committee and others . Copies of the revised draft of the Master Plan were previously mailed to the HI,C members for their review. (A copy of the revised draft is on file with these original Minutes . ) Mr . Schwab said the Planning Commission will not be reviewing the draft of the Master Plan until April 27th , or possibly later , and he asked the Committee members , or others present , if they had further recommendations or suggested changes before the Master Plan is presented to the City Council . Mr . Stuart Loosli referred to page 9 concerning the "Existing and Proposed Land Use" and the legend shown for "Commercial" . He felt the document should be changed to say "Proposed Land Use" and not "Existing" , and it should show all that is now "Commercial" as "Residential" . It was decided there should be two maps--one showing what is "existing" and one showing what is "proposed" in order to avoid confusion. Mr . Ulrich commented concerning " Institutional" and "Commercial •" that many times the structures are residential in character ; i . e. , the Cathedral of the Madeline and the adjacent properties , and the Holy Cross Hospital . He suggested using different graphics for those institutions . Mr . Neilson agreed , thinking that would reinforce the notion of getting away from commercial and into residential . Mr . Schwab said he would work out two legends . He said most Master Plans require the existing land use and the proposed land use to be shown. ALAN HARDMAN OFFICE •OF. .THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER. DISTRICT #4 - - 856 PARK STREET " 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84102 - .SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,84111 ae9-6ee9 — 535=7600 December 29, 1988 RECEIVED Roger Cutler JAN 03 1969 City Attorney City Hall, 5th Floor MAYOR'S OFFICE Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Roger: I would like to request that your office review the composition of the Historic Landmarks Board to see if the current practice is in keeping with the ordinance. The ordinance states that members shall be selected from the ". . . following y.oups of experts and interested parties as follows: 1. One member from the membership of the Utah Society, American Institute of Architects; 2. One member representing the historical societies of the city; 3. One member from the Utah Heritage Foundation; 4. No more than two members who are residents of or own property in each area designated as an historic district. 5. Five members ay be citizens at large. " Currently, the Administration is interpreting this to mean that two members should be designated as representatives of each of the historic districts, but they also are recommending for appointment individuals who live inside the historic districts as the "at large" members. In addition, several of the individuals who are representing professional organizations reside in one of the historic districts. I have two questions relating to this: 1. Is it appropriate, given the wording in the ordinance, for the "at large" members to be appointed from within the historic districts, as the current practice, or should the "at large" members be appointed from other areas of the City? 2. Is it appropriate, given the wording in the ordinance, for the members representing professional organizations to also live within the historic districts? It seems to me that the current membership of the Historical Landmarks Committee is not in compliance with the intent of the ordinance. However, I would appreciate hearing your response on both of these questions. I have enclosed for your information a listing of the current board members and their places of residence. If you have questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me, or you can call Cindy Gust-Jenson in the City Council Office. Thank you in advance for your review of this request. Sincerely, ( Alan Hardman Council Member District 4 cc: Linda H _ ton c -Lillie Charles • n JAN 2 J.".`1 laPs SALT L o CITY couNria ,. _T� rr'n' �1� t�,m',T ROGER F. CUTLER �;J - 1{ ' -` �'11�:Lill�i- vO,jt`l� 1 PL:] ION[ ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS RAY L. MONTGOMERY Cm ATTORNEY �- I :`• �„ • GREG R. HAWKINS CHERYL D. LUKE .r. ' " ,LAW. DEPARTMENT - LARRY V. SPENDLOVE CITY PROSECUTOR • •324 SOUTH STATE. FIFTH FLOOR STEVEN W. ALLRED SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BRUCE R. BAIRD (801 `535-?7B8'L. ' FRANK M. NAKAMURA • FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESFENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP January 4, 1988 GLEN A. COOK Alan Hardman Council Member 324 South State, Third Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Historic Landmarks Board • • Dear Alan: This letter is written in response to your request of December 29, 1988, which was assigned to me, for a legal opinion concerning certain questions you have about • appointments to the Historic Landmarks Board. Your two questions will be answered seriatim. QUESTION 1. Is it appropriate, given the wording in the ordinance, for the "at large" members to be appointed from within the historic districts, as the current practice, or should the "at large" members be appointed from other areas of the City? RESPONSE. The wording in Section 21 . 74. 030(B) ( 5 ) which you cite is written in the permissive "may" rather than any mandatory type of language. Accordingly, there is no requirement that the "at large" members be appointed from areas of the. City outside of the historic districts . As the ordinance is currently written the issue of "at large" appointments and their residents is a matter of the political process which the City council may consider in rendering its advice and consent to appointments. • QUESTION 2. Is it appropriate, given the wording in the ordinance, for the members representing professional �: ,.. ; organizations to also live within the historic districts? i c Alan Hardman January 4, 1988 • Page -2- RESPONSE. In subsections ( 1 ) , (2) and (3 ) there is no limitation on the residents of the three official memberships. Again, checks on the number of representatives from each individual district is a matter of the political process. In your letter you highlighted the provisions of subsection ( 4 ) of the ordinance. In the form that the ordinance is written the various subsections of 21 . 74. 030(B ) establish different, independent, classes of membership on the Committee. Subsection ( 4 ) does not, therefore, serve as a limitation on the other subsections setting out membership classes on the committee. %_` If you have any further questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, • BRUCE- R /BAIRD Assistant City Attorney :- BRB:cc • LEGISLATIVE ACTION ` ACTION PROPOSED BY: Council Member Alan uardman PROPOSED ACTION: Amend Section 21.74. 030 creating additional residency limitations on the Historic Landmark Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This proposed change is in keeping with Council Member Hardman's discussion of the issue at the Council's February 25, 1969 retreat. -Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney, has indicated that there is some justification for requiring that the Planning Commission issue a recommendation on the proposal, but that the Statute itself is unclear. In deference to the Planning Commission and in order to avoid any appearance of attempting to subvert the regular process, Council Member Hardman is requesting that the proposed ordinance change be referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council will hold a public hearing concerning the proposal prior to final action. REFERRED TO: Department of Development Services for scheduling on the Planning Commission agenda. of, k ` • t SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 - (Amending Section 21.74.030 creating additional residency limitations on the Historic Landmark Committee) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21.74.030 CREATING ADDITIONAL RESIDENCY LIMITATIONS ON THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to have geographical diversity of membership on the Historic Landmark Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained b the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21.74.030(B) be amended to read as follows: • 21.74.030 Historical landmark. committee - Creation - -Membership • A. * * * B. [Thc eommitt y-- more than a may _. . ] Each voting member shall be a resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members[ , to] shall be appointed by the mayor with the consent of the city . council[ , ] as follows: c memec=ship of the Utah Society, • ] (a) Historic Districts. From each area desi nated as an historic district not more than two members who either reside or own property within the district; e y] (b) At Large. Five members who shall not reside Cr own property in an historic district; [.,. ] (c) Designated Members. One member designated to represent the Utah Heritage Foundation; one member designated to represent the Utah Society of the American Institute of Architects; and, one member of the Planning Commission designated to represent the Planning Commission. In the event that a Designated Member resides or owns property within an historic district, the. Designated Member shall also be counted as one of the members allowed from that historic district. In no event shall the appointment of a Designated Member be allowed to increase the number of members residing or ownin property in any historic district to more than two; " • [ (d) . Ex Officio. The directors of the Planning Division of the Building and Housing. Division (or their designees) shall both serve as members ex officio without vote[;-]_ -t large; ] [7 ding and SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date • of its first publication. -2- ('. -) Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • • CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved • Vetoed. • MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER BRB:pp • -3- J0 • LEROY W. HOOTON,JR. DIRECTOR - " .¢.f WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. alp SUPERINTENDENT ,`, 1 �' '�1( �y `�/■1��� � WATER SUPPLY 8 WATERWORKS 444JJJ E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENTiOFPUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION Il "WAT,ER.SUPPLY$ UVATE:iWO,RKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES CHIEF FIN M. ANc a.PA. ti.a cgWATERS} ECLAMATION�; `:' MAYOR ACCOUNTING OFFICER -,..15Q�S^ t• . �1. M�LE-" GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT.LAKECITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 26, 1989 RE: The Seventh Amendment to the Salt Lake City-Salt Lake County Law Enforcement Agreement to provide law enforcement services for the watershed areas outside the City' s corporate limits. Recommendation: That the Council approve the Seventh Amendment Agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: The Public Utilities Department has budgeted for the $83, 890.00 funding for this project. Discussion: For the past seven years the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has relied upon the County Sheriff' s Department for enforcement of its watershed ordinances in the Wasatch Canyons. The Sheriff ' s deputies have been very effective during this time in preventing activities in the canyons which might degrade the water quality of the canyon streams. Please return three (3) signed agreements to this office to be forwarded to the County Sheriff' s Department. Submitted by: LEROY W. HOOTON, J Wor WEE/LWH:dt RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An amendment of paragraph 10 and Exhibit "A" of the agreement between the parties dated July 13, 1982. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc 2-7:— / Z yo Taxpayer I .D. No . SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE SALT LAKE CITY-SALT LAKE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT This Seventh Amendment is made and entered into by and between Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the Sate of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" . W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on or about the 13th day of July, 1982, as contained in Resolution 72 of 1982, a copy of which is attached hereto, the parties hereto entered into an agreement to provide law enforcement services for the watershed areas outside the CITY' s corporate limits; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend subject agreement by extending its term for another 12-month period. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows : 1 . Paragraph 10 of subject agreement is amended to read as follows : -2- "Unless sooner terminated as provided for herein, this Agreement shall be effective June 1, 1982 , and shall run for a 12-month period. A second term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 1983 , through June 30 , 1984 . A third term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 1984 , through June 30, 1985 . A fourth term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 1985, through June 30 , 1986, a fifth term shall be from July 1, 1986, through June 30, 1987, a sixth term shall be from July 1, 1987 through June 30 , 1988, a seventh term shall be from July 1, 1988 through June 30 , 1989 , and an eighth term shall be from July 1, 1989 through June 30 , 1990, and shall run for a 12-month period . . . " (All other terms and conditions contained in subject paragraph remain unaffected by this amendment) . 2 . Exhibit A providing for fiscal year 1988-1989 ' s cost figures is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. " 3 . All other terms and conditions of subject agreement entered into by the Board of County Commissioners of Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City on July 29 , 1982 , remain in full force and effect . -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment the day and year appearing below their respective signatures . SALT LAKE COU TY By: BART BA ER, Chairman Board of Count Co ssioners Date: � SALT E COU CLERK CITY OF SALT LAKE By: PALMER DEPAULIS, Mayor Date: ATTEST: tP KATHRYN MARSHALL City Recorder 6478I APPROVED AS TO FORK EAR I Mt try a°MVP tay: gy8fttorney tr/L/Ti_308 EXHIBIT A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT COST ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD 7-01-89 THRU 6-30-90 PERSONNEL: 2 Deputies @ $1,986/Mo $47,664 Fringe Benefits @ 35% 16,682 Total Salaries $64,346 County Indirect Costs @ 3.5% 2,091 Total Personnel Costs $66,437 *Vehicle Costs: 2 Canyon Vehicles @ $14,500 $29,000 2 Radios 3,200 Total $32,200 Cost Per Year - @ 3 Year Life 10,733 Operating Cost: 21,000 Miles Each @ 16t/Mile 6,720 Vehicle Cost Per Year $17,453 $17,453 Total Contract Cost For Year $83,890 *Vehicles have been purchased with funds from Sheriff's Office Patrol Replacement Fund. Salt Lake County will provide fuel and maintenance on the vehicles. is SALT; _k, e CITY G RPO `'.'LION y n L ty�v� .v DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH R. ANDERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MAYOR 535-7775 TO : SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE : AUGUST 8 , 1989 REFERENCE: Interlocal agreement between Utah Department of Transportation and Salt Lake City Corporation for Sidewalk construction on Redwood Road , 1000 North to 1300 North . RECOMMENDATION ; That the Salt Lake City Council authorize Mayor Palmer DePaulis to sign the attached Interlocal Agreement in behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ; Project will be funded 75% by Utah State (Pedestrian Safety ) funding . The remaining 25% to be funded by local match from Salt Lake City is available in the Capital Improvement Budget . DISCUSSION ; Previously in 1988 a interlocal agreement was signed with UDOT for this project with a total estimated cost for construction of $ 14 , 000. Since that estimate was based on very preliminary cost information , subsequent design of the project determined that an additional $ 24 , 000 would be needed for the construction of the facilities . Using the 75/25 funding split, Salt Lake City's share will be $6 , 000 with a total local match requirement of $9 , 500 . This project will be very beneficial to residents of Morton Meadows and West Pointe Subdivisions , particularly school children who walk daily along Redwood Road to and from school . SUBMITTED BY : JOSEPH R. ANDERSON , PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR IIo RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An agreement for curb, gutter and sidewalk construc- tion on State Road 68 from 1000 North to 1300 North with the City paying $6, 000.00 and UDOT $18, 000.00 therefor. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance witti its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: r CITY RECORDER RLM: rc Curb, gutter & sidewalk Construction SR-68, 1000 North to 1300 North Charge ID No. SW0758 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19_, by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Party of the first part, hereinafter referred to as the "UDOT", and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, Party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as the "City" , WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in the interest of public safety, it is the desire of the parties hereto to construct and thereafter maintain on SR-68, curb, gutter and sidewalk at the locations described as follows: at various locations on both sides from 1000 North to 1300 North, and WHEREAS, funds for pedestrian safety projects have been made available by appropriation from the Utah Legislature for distribution by the UDOT, and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the proposed construction has increased by S24,000, and WHEREAS, the City is willing to participate in the cost of the construction to the extent of an additional $6,000, and WHEREAS, the UDOT is willing to grant to the City the additional lump sum amount of $18,000 for the construction of said pedestrian facilities. THIS AGREEMENT is made to amend the agreement between the parties hereto, dated November 4, 1988 and numbered 89 1789. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Upon satisfactory evidence that the project is ready to proceed, or if the project is currently under construction, the UDOT will pay to the City the lump sum amount of $18,000 for the construction of the facilities covered by this agreement. 2. All other provisions of the original agreement shall remain in effect. 1 Curb, gutter & sidewalk Construction SR-68, 1000 North to 1300 North Charge ID No. SW0758 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the day -and year first above written. ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Title Title ************************************ ************************************ ATTEST: UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By Secretary Director RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: FUNDS AVAILABLE: Title Budget Officer APPROVED: Title District Director Director of Finance APPROVED AS TO FORM: R. Paul Van Dam, ATTORNEY GENERAL By Assistant Attorney General 2 Ai-- LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTORWATER SU E. &WATER O P.E. `�Q ����lE 1 SUPERINTENDENT 2 A` 1 WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE 8 ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER August 14, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Easement for Pipeline Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the installation of Watermain Extension No. 33-C-1382. Recommendation; That the Council approve the agreement. Availability of Funds: None Required. Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has a need to install a 6-inch watermain extension at approximately 2450 West, north from 3200 North. 1. Please return the original and four ( 4) agreements to this office to be forwarded to Salt Lake County for final execution. Submitted by: LEROY J4 &tj HOOTON, JR Director Department of Public tilities /srb Attachments File C-7 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An easement for a water supply pipeline at approxi- mately 2450 West, north from 3200 North. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 10th day of August , 19 89 , by and between the SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body of corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY, " and Salt Lake City Corporation, Dept. of Public Utilities 1530 South West Temple hereinafter called "GRANTEE. " WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of obtaining from the County an easement to construct, and thereafter maintain and operate pipelines within the right-of-way limits of COUNTY roads and highways within the COUNTY and immediately adjacent thereto for the purpose of Water S,1pply ; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to grant said easement under the terms and conditions herein set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. LOCATION OF PIPELINES. (Address) 2450 West North from 3200 North (Wateuiiain Ext. 33-C-1382) Length of Cut (Feet) Approximately 400 feet of 6-inch PVC Owner, Corp. , Co. , etc. Address Dept. of Public Utilities 1530 South West Temple, Salt Lake city, Utah 84111 The pipelines to be installed, the diameter of which shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches shall consist of Approximately 400 feet of 6-inch PVC pipe, satisfactory to the COUNTY in all respects. The location of the pipelines within the roads and highways, on one or both ides shall be as near the right-of-way lines as practicable in accordance with the plans, specifications and maps prepared by Dept. of Public Utilities Engineers and on file in the offices of the parties hereto. The foregoing description of pipeline location is subject to such changes or variations therefrom as may be required or approved by the County Public Works Department at the time of construction. Following completion of construction the foregoing numbered detail sheets will be furnished showing distance from right-of-way line to pipeline center lines on all roads and highways where said pipelines are installed. 2 . APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION. The excavation of trench for said pipelines shall not be commenced by the GRANTEE until and after notice has been given by the GRANTEE, to said ounty Public Works Department. Construction shall be carried forward to completion in the manner required by said Department. 3 . PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION. The GRANTEE shall so conduct its construction operation that there shall be a minimum of interference with or interruption of highway traffic. The GRANTEE shall conform to such instruction of said Department as may be given with respect to handling of traffic, and shall at all times maintain such watchmen, barricades, lights or other measures for the protection of traffic as may be required to warn and safeguard the public against injury or damage during the operations of the GRANTEE in constructing said pipelines. 4 . COMPACTION OF BACKFILL. The backfill of any trench within the paved portion of the highway, the shoulders thereof, or the portion under or intersecting street or highway shall be thoroughly compacted. Method of compaction shall be as directed by 2 the COUNTY. The GRANTEE shall be liable for any damage which may result to . he pavement due to failure to properly compact the backfill. 5 . RESTORATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. The GRANTEE shall replace, at its expense, any pavement removed or damaged with the same type and depth of pavement as that which is adjoining, including the gravel base material. This pavement shall be constructed in conformity with the standard specifications and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Public Works Department of the COUNTY. If weather conditions do not permit immediate placing of permanent pavement, a temporary pavement shall be placed until such time as weather conditions are favorable, at which time the temporary pavement shall be removed and replaced with a permanent pavement. If the gravel surface, gravel shoulders, or gravel surfaced approach roads become fouled with clay or other unsuitable Materials, such entire surfacing shall be removed and replaced with a new gravel surfacing material. No cleated or metal crawler type equipment shall be permitted to operate on any COUNTY hard surfaced street. The repairs to pavement or surface shall include pavements which might have been damaged with construction equipment. The COUNTY shall have the option of restoring said roadbed to its original condition in every part of said highway at the expense of the GRANTEE. 6 . DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MATERIAL IN CLEANING UP HIGHWAY. Upon completion of the work, all surplus material shall be removed from within the limits of the highway. The disturbed surface shall be carefully graded to the lines and grades established. Any highway facilities such as signs, culverts, etc. , disturbed or damaged during the progress of the work shall be properly restored to their original condition. 7 . MAINTENANCE OF PIPELINES BY GRANTEE The said pipelines and their attached appurtenances, excluding fire hydrants 3 and the connecting system thereof, shall at all times be maintained, -epaired, reviewed and operated by and at the expense of the GRANTEE in such a manner as shall most suitably protect the highway and the traffic thereon, and shall be subject to the approval of the COUNTY. In the event emergency repairs of reconstruction of said pipelines or appurtenances are required as determined by COUNTY, and after notice in writing requiring GRANTEE to perform said repairs or reconstruction within a reasonable time, and upon a failure of GRANTEE to complete said repairs or reconstruction, the COUNTY reserves the right to make such emergency repairs to said pipelines as it may consider necessary and the GRANTEE hereby agrees to reimburse the COUNTY for the cost of such emergency reconstruction or repairs. 8. RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY. In the event that any of said highways or portion thereof is so reconstructed at any future date as to location, grade or width so as to require the relocation of the waterline or lines thereon, or adjustment of manholes or other facility thereof, including service connections (except for any fire hydrants, including the connecting system thereof) , the Grantee shall assume and pay all costs incident to relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of manholes or other facilities thereof including service connections. 9 . CROSSING OF PIPELINE IN EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY SYSTEM. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto and as part of the consideration for this agreement that the County shall have the right to cross said pipelines at any point necessary in the future construction and expansion of the COUNTY highway system, provided that the COUNTY shall use due care and diligence in the protection of said pipelines in making such crossings. 4 10. LIABILITY. Any supervision or control exercised by the COUNTY, or on its behalf, shall in no way relieve the GRANTEE of any duty or responsibility to the general public, nor relieve said GRANTEE from any liability for loss, damage, or injury to persons or property sustained by reason of the installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the pipelines and its appurtenances, nor of said GRANTEE's LIABILITY for damage to the highway, and the GRANTEE shall protect and indemnify and save harmless the COUNTY from any and all damages, claims or injuries that may occur by reason of the construction, maintenance, repair or removal of said pipelines by the GRANTEE provided. This agreement shall not constitute an admission of any liability as to any third party or give to any third party any greater or further right of cause of action. It is understood and agreed that neither the COUNTY nor the GRANTEE by entering into this agreement acknowledge any liability for any acts of negligence, whether of omission or commission, of any of its agents, servants or employees. 11. AGREEMENT NOT TO BE ASSIGNED. The Grantee shall not assign this agreement or any interest therein without the written consent of the COUNTY. 12 . SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. All covenants and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. 13 . SUBJECT TO. This easement is subject to the right of the COUNTY at all times as the COUNTY deems necessary to construct roads, public buildings, sidewalks, parks or to carry out any other COUNTY purpose over the area covered by this easement, and when the GRANTEE ' s lines, structures and appurtenances or any of them interfere with any COUNTY purpose, the GRANTEE 5 will remove such lines, structures or appurtenances within a reasonable time After notice to do so by the GRANTOR and at the expense of the GRANTEE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the GRANTEE have caused these presents to be signed by their proper officials thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY By: D. MICHAEL STEWART, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: . H. DIXON HINDLEY Salt Lake County Clerk AIThST: GRANTEE: Salt Lake City Corporation City Recorder MAYOR STATE OF UTAH ) : ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by , who is the of NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah (SEAL) My Commission Expires: 6 STATE OF UTAH ) County of Salt Lake ) On , personally appeared before me PAMER A. DePAULIS and KATHRYN MARHSALL, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: L Co LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WATER SUPPLY E. EVENSE O P.E. ; 2 rTr A�T�iTil�(fA�I�x�ri e\'r� i []'j�+f� r SUPERINTENDENT J ' \5)+3j+a+t+� \ [•A,I11j +I WATER 8 WATERWORKS SUPER NTDENNDENE. TIM T DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY &WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE 8 WATER RECLAMATION ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530.SOUTH.WEST:TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, PE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER August 14, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Easement for Pipeline Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the installation of a 123 foot easement for water supply. Recommendation; That the Council approve the agreement. Availability of Funds: None Required. Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has a need to install a 8-inch watermain extension at approximately 3815 East and Crestwood Drive (3870 South) . 1. Please return the original and four (4) agreements to this office to be forwarded to Salt Lake County for final execution. Submitted by: LEROY W. HOOTON, J Director Department of Public ' lities /srb Attachments File C-8 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: A 123 foot easement for a water supply pipeline at approximately 3815 East and Crestwood Drive (3870 South) . 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 198R. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this llth day of August , 19 89 , by and between the SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body of corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY, " and Salt Lake City Corporat;nn, nopt of public Utili+iPs hereinafter called "GRANTEE. " WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of obtaining from the County an easement to construct, and thereafter maintain and operate pipelines within :the right-of-way limits of COUNTY roads and highways within the COUNTY and immediately adjacent thereto for the purpose of Water Supply ; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to grant said easement under the terms and conditions herein set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. LOCATION OF PIPELINES. (Address) 3815 East and Crestwood Drive (3870 South) Length of Cut (Feet) 123' of 8-inch DTP _____ _-__-_, Owner, Corp. , Co. , etc. Address Dept. of Public Utilities 1530 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 The pipelines to be installed, the diameter of which shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches shall consist of 8-inch Ductile Iron pipe, satisfactory to the COUNTY in all respects. The location of the pipelines within the roads and highways, on one or both :.1i.::.`:ti::-J2i::.:):>.>)...'D ::.:.;:.:.`:.:.)::. :.:.....:.f:..).).).a.a;at.tato:.:.att.l)...t.l.l.>V.>)..., ...... •`.1a.i>...t .....r..a.. ....,i.................................... ........ _. _ _.. .__. ides shall be as near the right-of-way lines as practicable in accordance with the plans, specifications and maps prepared by Dept. of Public Utilities Engineers and on file in the offices of the parties hereto. The foregoing description of pipeline location is subject to such changes or variations therefrom as may be required or approved by the County Public Works Department at the time of construction. Following completion of construction the foregoing numbered detail sheets will be furnished showing distance from right-of-way line to pipeline center lines on all roads and highways where said pipelines are installed. 2 . APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION. The excavation of trench for said pipelines shall not be commenced by the GRANTEE until and after notice has been given by the GRANTEE, to said County Public Works Department. Construction shall be carried forward to completion in the manner required by said Department. 3 . PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION. The GRANTEE shall so conduct its construction operation that there shall be a minimum of interference with or interruption of highway traffic. The GRANTEE shall conform to such instruction of said Department as may be given with respect to handling of traffic, and shall at all times maintain such watchmen, barricades, lights or other measures for the protection of traffic as may be required to warn and safeguard the public against injury or damage during the operations of the GRANTEE in constructing said pipelines. 4 . COMPACTION OF BACKFILL. The backfill of any trench within the paved portion of the highway, the shoulders thereof, or the portion under or intersecting street or highway shall be thoroughly compacted. Method of compaction shall be as directed by 2 the COUNTY. The GRANTEE shall be liable for any damage which may result to the pavement due to failure to properly compact the backfill. 5. RESTORATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. The GRANTEE shall replace, at its expense, any pavement removed or damaged with the same type and depth of pavement as that which is adjoining, including the gravel base material. This pavement shall be constructed in conformity with the standard specifications and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Public Works Department of the COUNTY. If weather conditions do not permit immediate placing of permanent pavement, a temporary pavement shall be placed until such time as weather conditions are favorable, at which time the temporary pavement shall be removed and replaced with a permanent pavement. If the gravel surface, gravel shoulders, or gravel surfaced approach roads become fouled with clay or other unsuitable materials, such entire surfacing shall be removed and replaced with a new gravel surfacing material. No cleated or metal crawler type equipment shall be permitted to operate on any COUNTY hard surfaced street. The repairs to pavement or surface shall include pavements which might have been damaged with construction equipment. The COUNTY shall have the option of restoring said roadbed to its original condition in every part of said highway at the expense of the GRANTEE. 6. DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MATERIAL IN CLEANING UP HIGHWAY. Upon completion of the work, all surplus material shall be removed from within the limits of the highway. The disturbed surface shall be carefully graded to the lines and grades established. Any highway facilities such as signs, culverts, etc. , disturbed or damaged during the progress of the work shall be properly restored to their original condition. 7 . MAINTENANCE OF PIPELINES BY GRANTEE The said pipelines and their attached appurtenances, excluding fire hydrants 3 and the connecting system thereof, shall at all times be maintained, repaired, reviewed and operated by and at the expense of the GRANTEE in such a manner as shall most suitably protect the highway and the traffic thereon, and shall be subject to the approval of the COUNTY. In the event emergency repairs of reconstruction of said pipelines or appurtenances are required as determined by COUNTY, and after notice in writing requiring GRANTEE to perform said repairs or reconstruction within a reasonable time, and upon a failure of GRANTEE to complete said repairs or reconstruction, the COUNTY reserves the right to make such emergency repairs to said pipelines as it may consider necessary and the GRANTEE hereby agrees to reimburse the COUNTY for the cost of such emergency reconstruction or repairs. 8. RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY. In the event that any of said highways or portion thereof is so reconstructed at any future date as to location, grade or width so as to require the relocation of the waterline or lines thereon, or adjustment of manholes or other facility thereof, including service connections (except for any fire hydrants, including the connecting system thereof) , the Grantee shall assume and pay all costs incident to .relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of manholes or other facilities thereof including service connections. 9 . CROSSING OF PIPELINE IN EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY SYSTEM. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto and as part of the consideration for this agreement that the County shall have the right to cross said pipelines at any point necessary in the future construction and expansion of the COUNTY highway system, provided that the COUNTY shall use due care and diligence in the protection of said pipelines in making such crossings. 4 10 . LIABILITY. Any supervision or control exercised by the COUNTY, or on its behalf, shall in no way relieve the GRANTEE of any duty or responsibility to the general public, nor relieve said GRANTEE from any liability for loss, damage, or injury to persons or property sustained by reason of the installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the pipelines and its appurtenances, nor of said GRANTEE's LIABILITY for damage to the highway, and the GRANTEE shall protect and indemnify and save harmless the COUNTY from any and all damages, claims or injuries that may occur by reason of the construction, maintenance, repair or removal of said pipelines by the GRANTEE provided. This agreement shall not constitute an admission of any liability as to any third party or give to any third party any greater or further right of cause of action. It is understood and agreed that neither the COUNTY nor the GRANTEE by entering into this agreement acknowledge any liability for any acts of negligence, whether of omission or commission, of any of its agents, servants or employees. 11. AGREEMENT NOT TO BE ASSIGNED. _ The Grantee shall not assign this agreement or any interest therein without the written consent of the COUNTY. 12 . SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. All covenants and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. 13 . SUBJECT TO. This easement is subject to the right of the COUNTY at all times as the COUNTY deems necessary to construct roads, public buildings, sidewalks, parks or to carry out any other COUNTY purpose over the area covered by this easement, and when the GRANTEE' s lines, structures and appurtenances or any of them interfere with any COUNTY purpose, the GRANTEE 5 will remove such lines, structures or appurtenances within a reasonable time after notice to do so by the GRANTOR and at the expense of the GRANTEE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the GRANTEE have caused these presents to be signed by their proper officials thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY By: D. MICHAEL STEWART, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: H. DIXON HINDLEY Salt Lake County Clerk A'1'1'RST: GRANTEE: Salt Lake City Corporation City Recorder Mayor. STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by , who is the of NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah (SEAL) My Commission Expires: 6 STATE OF UTAH ) County of Salt Lake ) On , personally appeared before me PAMER A. DePAULIS and KATHRYN MARHSALL, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. (� 1��9 (� �.�►�Tr SUPERINTENDENT Y& ER $• ( '��/��L'.L.L y/�.I,r� i/J�I1II WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS �� �►lll u/ lV� E.TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, C.P.A. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER August 17, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Easement for Pipeline Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the installation of Watermain Extension No. 33-C-1276. Recommendation; That the Council approve the agreement. Availability of Funds: None Required. Discussion: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities has a need to install a 8-inch and 6-inch watermain extension at approximately 2029 East Creek Road for Willow Creek Hollow Estates. 1. Please return the original and four (4) agreements to this office to be forwarded to Salt Lake County for final execution. Submitted by: WI-H-001 'r\/ ..:•••• LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. Director Department of Public Utilities /srb Attachments File C-9 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An easement for an 8" and 6" water main, 1778 feet long at approximately 2029 East Creek Road for Willow Creek Hollow Estates. 2. Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:rc EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this August day of 17 , 19 89 , by and between the SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body of corporate and politic of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY, " and Salt Lake City Corporation. Dept. of Public Utilities hereinafter called "GRANTEE. " WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of obtaining from the County an easement to construct, and thereafter maintain and operate pipelines within the right-of-way limits of COUNTY roads and highways within the COUNTY and immediately adjacent thereto for the purpose of Water Supply Watermain Ext. 33-C-1276 ; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to grant said easement under the terms and conditions herein set forth, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. LOCATION OF PIPELINES. (Address) Approximately 2095 E. Creek Road (Willow Creek Hollow Estates) Length of Cut (Feet) 1,592 feet of 8-inch and 186 feet of 6-inch Owner, Corp. , Co. , etc. Address Dept. of Public Utilities, 53csouth West Temple. Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 _ The pipelines to be installed, the diameter of which shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches shall consist of Ductile Iron pipe, satisfactory to the COUNTY in all respects. The location of the pipelines within the roads and highways, on one or both -ides shall be as near the right-of-way lines as practicable in accordance with the plans, specifications and maps prepared by CUMMOCK ENGINEERS Engineers and on file in the offices of the parties hereto. The foregoing description of pipeline location is subject to such changes or variations therefrom as may be required or approved by the County Public Works Department at the time of construction. Following completion of construction the foregoing numbered detail sheets will be furnished showing distance from right-of-way line to pipeline center lines on all roads and highways where said pipelines are installed. 2 . APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION. The excavation of trench for said pipelines shall not be commenced by the GRANTEE until and after notice has been given by the GRANTEE, to said ounty Public Works Department. Construction shall be carried forward to completion in the manner required by said Department. 3 . PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION. The GRANTEE shall so conduct its construction operation that there shall be a minimum of interference with or interruption of highway traffic. The GRANTEE shall conform to such instruction of said Department as may be given with respect to handling of traffic, and shall at all times maintain such watchmen, barricades, lights or other measures for the protection of traffic as may be required to warn and safeguard the public against injury or damage during the operations of the GRANTEE in constructing said pipelines. 4 . COMPACTION OF BACKFILL. The backfill of any trench within the paved portion of the highway, the shoulders thereof, or the portion under or intersecting street or highway shall be thoroughly compacted. Method of compaction shall be as directed by 2 the COUNTY. The GRANTEE shall be liable for any damage which may result to the pavement due to failure to properly compact the backfill . 5. RESTORATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. The GRANTEE shall replace, at its expense, any pavement removed or damaged with the same type and depth of pavement as that which is adjoining, including the gravel base material. This pavement shall be constructed in conformity with the standard specifications and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Public Works Department of the COUNTY. If weather conditions do not permit immediate placing of permanent pavement, a temporary pavement shall be placed until such time as weather conditions are favorable, at which time the temporary pavement shall be removed and replaced with a permanent pavement. If the gravel surface, gravel shoulders, or gravel surfaced approach roads become fouled with clay or other unsuitable materials, such entire surfacing shall be removed and replaced with a new gravel surfacing material. No cleated or metal crawler type equipment shall be permitted to operate on any COUNTY hard surfaced street. The repairs to pavement or surface shall include pavements which might have been damaged with construction equipment. The COUNTY shall have the option of restoring said roadbed to its original condition in every part of said highway at the expense of the GRANTEE. 6. DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS MATERIAL IN CLEANING UP HIGHWAY. Upon completion of the work, all surplus material shall be removed from within the limits of the highway. The disturbed surface shall be carefully graded to the lines and grades established. Any highway facilities such as signs, culverts, etc. , disturbed or damaged during the progress of the work shall be properly restored to their original condition. 7 . MAINTENANCE OF PIPELINES BY GRANTEE The said pipelines and their attached appurtenances, excluding fire hydrants 3 and the connecting system thereof, shall at all times be maintained, repaired, reviewed and operated by and at the expense of the GRANTEE in such a manner as shall most suitably protect the highway and the traffic thereon, and shall be subject to the approval of the COUNTY. In the event emergency repairs of reconstruction of said pipelines or appurtenances are required as determined by COUNTY, and after notice in writing requiring GRANTEE to perform said repairs or reconstruction within a reasonable time, and upon a failure of GRANTEE to complete said repairs or reconstruction, the COUNTY reserves the right to make such emergency repairs to said pipelines as it may consider necessary and the GRANTEE hereby agrees to reimburse the COUNTY for the cost of such emergency reconstruction or repairs. 8. RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY. In the event that any of said highways or portion thereof is. so reconstructed at any future date as to location, grade or width so as to require the relocation of the waterline or lines thereon, or adjustment of manholes or other facility thereof, including service connections (except for any fire hydrants, including the connecting -system thereof) , the Grantee shall assume and pay all costs incident to relocation of the pipeline or adjustment of manholes or other facilities thereof including service connections. 9. CROSSING OF PIPELINE IN EXPANSION OF HIGHWAY SYSTEM. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto and as part of the consideration for this agreement that the County shall have the right to cross said pipelines at any point necessary in the future construction and expansion of the COUNTY highway system, provided that the COUNTY shall use due care and diligence in the protection of said pipelines in making such crossings. 4 10. LIABILITY. Any supervision or control exercised by the COUNTY, or on its behalf, shall in no way relieve the GRANTEE of any duty or responsibility to the general public, nor relieve said GRANTEE from any liability for loss, damage, or injury to persons or property sustained by reason of the installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the pipelines and its appurtenances, nor of said GRANTEE's LIABILITY for damage to the highway, and the GRANTEE shall protect and indemnify and save harmless the COUNTY from any and all damages, claims or injuries that may occur by reason of the construction, maintenance, repair or removal of said pipelines by the GRANTEE provided. This agreement shall not constitute an admission of any liability as to any third party or give to any third party any greater or further right of cause of action. It is understood and agreed that neither the COUNTY nor the GRANTEE by entering into this agreement acknowledge any liability for any acts of negligence, whether of omission or commission, of any of its agents, servants or employees. 11. AGREEMENT NOT TO BE ASSIGNED. The Grantee shall not assign this agreement or any interest therein without the written consent of the COUNTY. 12 . SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. All covenants and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. 13 . SUBJECT TO. This easement is subject to the right of the COUNTY at all times as the COUNTY deems necessary to construct roads, public buildings, sidewalks, parks or to carry out any other COUNTY purpose over the area covered by this easement, and when the GRANTEE's lines, structures and appurtenances or any of them interfere with any COUNTY purpose, the GRANTEE 5 will remove such lines, structures or appurtenances within a reasonable time .fter notice to do so by the GRANTOR and at the expense of the GRANTEE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the GRANTEE have caused these presents to be signed by their proper officials thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY By: D. MICHAEL STEWART, Chairman Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: H. DIXON HINDLEY Salt Lake County Clerk A'1'1'1 ST: GRANTEE: Salt Lake City Corporation City Recorder Mayor STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by , who is the of NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah (SEAL) My Commission Expires: 6 STATE OF UTAH ) County of Salt Lake ) On , personally appeared before me PAMER A. DePAULIS and KATHRYN MARHSALL, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah My Commission Expires: :.e'er' OEM R s a0N11 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 August 29, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ED SNOW RE: REVIEW OF MAYOR'S MOST RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD APPOINTMENTS I was asked to update a recent memo regarding the Mayor's recommendations for board appointments. I was asked to include the breakdown into Districts of the memberships of the boards affected by the new appointments. Would you please review the list. If you have any concerns or comments about the Mayor's recommendations or if you need more time to review the list, please contact me before August 31. We would like to act as quickly as possible on these recommendations. If you have no objections, we will place them on the Council Agenda, September 5. In addition, the Mayor's office wants me to remind you that he is interested in receiving suggestions for board members from you. If you have a particular name or names, please let me know and I will contact the citizens to get more information and then forward on those names and the appropriate materials to the Mayor's office. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD APPOINTMENTS NEW APPOINTMENTS BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS Theophile J. Syms to be to appointed to replace Eric Kanakainen for the term extending through March 1, 1994. Mr. Syms, an election judge, resides in District 5, MIr. Kanakainen also lives in District 5, If Mr. Syms is appointment, of the five-member board, two will live in District 5, two in District 7 and one in District 3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Carol A. Maul to be appointed to fill Peter Netka's unexpired term extending through July, 1990. Ms. Maul resides in District 4 and has served on the Central City Neighborhood Council. She is interested in the development and the future of her neighborhood and community. Mr. Netka lives in District 3. If Ms. Maul is appointed, the board will consists of three citizens from District 1, two from District 2, two from District 3, three from District 4, two from District 5, one from District 6 and two from District 7. Glenda Armour to be appointed to fill a vacant position, for a term extending through July, 1992. Ms. Armour resides in District 1. She has assisted in NAACP fundraisers to assist young people to go to college. Ms. Armour is a strong advocate for increasing available housing in the City. (See Ms. Maul 's entry for board distribution) TRACY AVIARY BOARD Karel Do_op McDonough to fill Virginia A. Walton's unexpired term, extending through October 31, 1990. Ms. McDonough resides in District 5 and served on the original board of directors of Neighborhood Housing Services. She is a member of the Salt Lake Opera Theatre Orchestra. Ms. Walton lives in District 4. Of the eight voting members of the board who live in the City, none live in District 1, two in District 2, two in District 3, none in District. 4, two in District 5 ( including Ms. McDonough), none in District 6 and two in District 7. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Victoria Palacios to be appointed to replace Kathy Wacker, for a term ending December 31, 1990. Ms. Palacios, a lawyer, resides in District 5. She is very active in community affairs and currently serves as a member of the Coalition for Utah's Future and as a member on the Mayor's Advisory Committee of Salt Lake City Tomorrow Project. She is a also a member of the Utah Prison Association and is the Chair of the Utah State Board of Pardons. Ms. Wacker lives in District 3. If Ms. Palacios is appointed, one official member will live in District 1, one in District 2, two in District 3, one in District 4, two in District 5, two in District 6 and one in District. 7. PAGE TWO MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Curtis Decker to be appointed to replace Lynn M. Thatcher, for a term ending December 31, 1990. Mr. Decker worked for Safeway Stores for 43 years and is a member of the American Legion. He lives in District 2 and is confident he can help the City by serving on this board. Mr. Thatcher lives in District 6. If Mr. Decker is appointed, the five members of the abatement district will consist of three members from District 1, one from District 2 and one from District 6. URBAN FORESTRY BOARD Christine Chalkley to be appointed to fill Barbara Jean Ray's unexpired term extending through April 8, 1992. Ms. Chalkley resides in District 6. She is a member of the State Arboretum of Utah and is a construction volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Chalkley's goal is to improve the City's vegetative resources. According to the qualifications, each Council District must have one member on the board. The two appointments to the Urban Forestry Board retain that balance. Pamela R. Heal to be appointed to fill Robert Adams' unexpired term extending through April 8, 1992. Ms. Heal, a member of the Utah Heritage Foundation, resides in District 5. CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTIRICT Mike Martin to be appointed to fill Daniel McNeer's unexpired term extending through January, 1991. Mr. Martin is the President of J. Michael Martin Properties and a partner with Hill Martin Property Management and Hill Martin Real Estate Company. He currently serves on the City's R/UDAT Steering Committee, the Mayor 's Capitol City Committee and the City's Winter Games Organizing Committee. Like Mr. Martin, Mr. McNeer does not live in the City. PAGE THREE REAPPOINTMENTS SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY BOARD Alicia Suazo to be reappointed to serve a second term extending through June 30, 1992. Ms. Suazo is a school teacher and lives in District 1. Verda Mae Christensen to be reappointed to serve a second term extending through June 30, 1992. Ms. Christensen teaches English, debate and creative writing at Highland High School and resides in District 1. SALT LAKE CITY/COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Cindy Gust-Jenson to be reappointed to a second term extending through August 29, 1994. Cindy resides in District 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Rosemarie Rendon to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July, 1992. Ms. Rendon lives in District 1 and is active in several health-related organizations in the community. • Ranae Pierce to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July, 1992. Ms. Pierce resides in District 3. She is a member of SLACC and served as President of the Greater Avenues Community Council in 1986. Rawlins Young to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July, 1992. Mr. Young lives in District 7. Marion Willey t.o be reappointed to his first full term extending through. July, 1992. Mr. Willey resides in District 2 and has been involved in housing rehabilitation. TRACY AVIARY BOARD Kevin Anderson to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through October, 1991. Mr. Anderson, an attorney, has been a long-time supporter of the aviary and a member of the board since it was organized. He resides in Sandy, but the membership qualifications for the board only require members to reside in the state. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Ralph Becker to be reappointed to fill his first full term extending through June 30, 1993. Mr. Becker resides in District 3 and has extensive experience in environmental law. PAGE FOUR LaVone Liddle-Gamonal to be reappointed to a second term, extending through July 31, 1992. She is an Administrative Law Judge and resides in District 6. SALT PALACE/FINE ARTS BOARD Anthony L. Rampton to be reappointed to fill his first full term extending through July 1, 1992. Mr. Rampton, a lawyer, resides in District 3. SALT LAKE ART DESIGN BOARD Charles Lovinlc to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through March 8, 1992. Mr. Loving resides in District 4 and is the Assistant to the Director at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts. Kip K. Harris to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through March 8, 1992. Mr. Harris is an architect and resides in District 3. # # # STAFF RECOMMENDATION CIP BUDGET REVISION SEPTEMBER 1, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: That you approve a revision to the General Fund Capital Improvement Program for old Fire Station #4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order to complete the sale of old Fire Station #4, the County Health Department is requiring removal of asbestos from the attic duct work and an expansion tank in the basement. The station will not be available for resale until the asbestos problem is resolved. STAFF ANALYSIS: If approved, the asbestos removal should be completed in 8- 10 weeks. The bid process for the sale should take an additional 2-3 weeks, so we are looking at a mid-November completion date. Funding for this proposal would come from the CIP Contingency and the Parks Facility Repair projects. Theses two projects would have $8,739 and $82,953 respectively remaining in project balance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Suspend the rules and adopt on first reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move that we suspend the rules and adopt on the first reading a motion amending the CIP program. I move that the Capital Improvement Program Contingency Project, 83-89099 be reduced by $4, 256; the Parks Facility Repair Project, 83-89028 be reduced by $6,000; and the Old Fire Station #4 Asbestos Removal Project be increased by $10, 256. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUH STATE STREET. SUITE 404 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7902 August 7 , 1989 TO: W.M. "Willie" Stoler, Chair Salt Lake City Council RE: LEGISLATIVE BUDGET REVISION OF CIP/GF RECOMMENDATION: That you approve the following budget revision to the CIP/GF: Current Recommended Project Budget Budget Change Source Old Fire Station #4 -0- $10, 256 $10, 256 Projects Asbestos Removal 83-89028 & 83-89099 Parks Facility Repair $88 , 953 $82,953 ($6, 000) NA ( 83-89028 ) Contingency: CIP $12,995 $ 8, 739 ($4, 256 ) NA 83-89099 DISCUSSION: Fire Station #4 is currently up for sale. About one week prior to the opening of bids, a County Health Department inspection revealed that the structure had serious asbestos problems . The station will not be available for resale until the asbestos problem is resolved. The $10, 256 will allow the asbestos to be removed from the attic duct work and expansion tank in the basement. This amount includes engineering fees and a contingency fund. In addition, it will allow the exposed duct work to be re- insulated following asbestos removal . Further, it should be noted that the Parks Department was informed of the need for $6 ,000 and volunteered the funds from the Parks Facility Repair line item, once they were assured it could be spared. If you have any questions regarding this revision, please contact Joe Reno . Sincerely, PLC • i Zl-D Roar Davis Dir cto p � V cc : Emily Charles Craig E. Peterson Garth Coles Bruce Biesinger Rick Graham Jerry Orton File SHP r�� a��'G� T�Y�OC�R,Pn iION( � 'mow `I'•M•••1`I��mmk.1s e f: IE ©EP'1RM NT TELEPHONE(801)799 3000 315 EAST 200 SOUTH MIKE CHABRIES FAX(801)799-3557 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 CHIEF OF POLICE August 17 , 1989 Honorable Palmer DePaulis Mayor Salt Lake City & County Bldg. 451 South 200 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: For many years , especially in the summer months, private parties have posed a special [problem for the Police Department. Initial responses to loud, active parties require several officers to respond for safety and other reasons. Upon arrival , we are many times confronted by boisterous party-goers who are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. We offer little incentive for them to comply with the laws. Our jails are full and a misdemeanor citation does little to motivate an intoxicated party-goer in the presence of peers at the apex of their evening . Upon our departure, little time passes before we find ourselves receiving additional complaints from neighbors and sending two, three or more officers to the same location to repeat the exercise. The frustration of our officers is exceeded only by helpless neighbors. Clearly, we waste our time and resources repeating this scenario night after night. This letter introduces a draft of a proposed City Ordinance which, if enacted , will create a serious financial incentive for those receiving first warnings , to comply with the law. The ordinance requires that our officers issue a written warning to a responsible person. If the police have to respond to the same location within 24 hours, police serviced costs are levied against the responsible person. The Chief then notifies the City Treasurer of the incident, specifying costs , and appropriate billings are generated. Mayor DePaulis August 17, 1989 Page 2 We feel this ordinance will be an effective tool in reducing manpower demands on the Police Department. In concurrence with the City Attorney ' s office, we therefore recommend the ordinance be passed as written. S ' ncer ly, ICHAEL P. CHABRIES Chief of Police MPC/OJP/nw cc: Admin. File DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Parties, gatherings or events ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11, THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12, RELATING TO PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR EVENTS, AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Title 11 of the Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, amended by adding a new Chapter 12, relating to Parties, gatherings or events, as follows: Chapter 11-12 PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR EVENTS Sections: 11.12.010 Definitions. 11.12.020 Initial Police Responses to Parties. 11.12.030 Subsequent Police Responses to Parties, Gatherings or Events; Liability. 11.12.040 Cost; Collection. 11.12.010 Definitions. The following words, phrases and terms as used in this chapter shall have the meaning as indicated below: A. "Party, gathering or event" shall mean three or more people who have assembled or are assembling for a social activity where alcoholic beverages have been or are being consumed, or substances regulated by the Utah Controlled Substances Act are used by any person at the party, or where the noise from the party disturbs the public peace. B. "Host" shall mean the person who owns, or as a tenant leases, rents or otherwise resides at the location or occupies in any capacity, whether for personal or business purposes, the property where the party, gathering or event takes place; and/or the person in charge of the premises; and/or the person who organized the event; and/or the person who gave permission to hold the party on the premises. If the party is hosted by an organization, either incorporated or unincorporated, the term "host" shall include the officers of the organization. In the event the "host" is a minor under eighteen years of age the term "host" shall include the parent or parents or legal guardian of the minor. C. "Services fee" shall mean the cost to the City of any special security assignment and shall include, but is not limited to, salaries of police officers while responding to or remaining at the party, gathering or event; the pro rata cost of equipment; the cost of repairing City equipment and property damaged while responding to the gathering; the cost of any medical treatment or disability, sick leave or other related costs of police officers injured while responding to the party or gathering, regardless of fault; costs of collection and the cost of reasonable attorney' s fees. D. "Special security assignment" shall mean the assignment of police officers, services and equipment during a second or subsequent response to the party, gathering or event after the distribution of a written notice to the host or -2- person( s ) who are identified as being in charge of the party in absence of the host, that a fee may be imposed for costs incurred by the City for any subsequent police response. 11.12.020 Initial Police Responses to Parties, Gatherings or Events. When any police officer responds to any party, gathering or event in response to allegations that activities or noise may be in violation of the law, and the officer in good faith finds there is probable cause to believe there is a threat to the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare, the police officer shall issue a written notice to the host or person(s ) identified as being in charge. The notice shall inform the host or person( s ) identified as being in charge that a subsequent response to that same location or address, within a twenty four hour period, shall be deemed a special security assignment and that the host( s ) may be liable for the services fee as defined in this chapter. 11.12.030 Subsequent Police Responses to Parties, Gatherings or Events; Liability. If after a written notice is issued pursuant to section 11. 12.020, a subsequent police response to the same location or address, within a 24 hour period, such response shall be deemed a special security assignment. The host or person( s ) identified as being in charge who were warned shall be jointly and sever- ally liable for the services fee, as defined in this chapter. -3- The amount of such fee shall be a debt owed to the City by the host( s) and/or person( s) warned. In no event shall the fee be more than One Thousand Dollars. The City reserves the right to seek reimbursement for actual costs, exceeding One Thousand Dollars through other legal theories, remedies or procedures. The subsequent response may also result in the arrest and/or citation of violators of the state penal code or other regulations, ordinances or laws, but this provision shall not be construed to preclude appropriate action, including arrests or whatever on the first visit by the police to the gathering. 11,12,040 Cost; Collection. The chief of police shall notify the city treasurer in writing of the performance of a special security assignment, of the name and address of the responsible person( s) , the date and time of the incident, services performed, costs thereof and such other information as may be required. The city treasurer shall thereafter cause appropriate billings to be made. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON -4- ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989. Published: GRH:rc -5- LEGISLATIVE ACTION ACTION PROPOSED BY: Council Member L. Wayne Horrocks PROPOSED ACTION: Close alley which runs east and west between Goshen Street and 1100 West. It is approximately 150 feet south of 700 South. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Significant crime has occurred in this alley, creating ongoing problems for the neighborhood. REFERRED TO: Community and Economic Development. fir, 1: • • • SARI �c r(to E np�I,O�Yj DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES _AAI G E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 201 DIRECTOR .- SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 535-7777 • TO: Salt Lake City Council April 17, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-713-89 submitted by First Chatter Development Corporation • Recommendation: That the. City Council hold a public hearing on July 11, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-713-89 submitted by First Charter Development Corporation. The petitioners are requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the approximately 35 acres located below the University of Utah's "U" from "R-l" to -"R-lA" classification. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The rezoning request was-made to allow for narrower private roads to be constructed. The narrower roads will mean reduced visual and environmental impact on the site and to surrounding areas due to the reduced amount of cuts and fill required for the narrow private roads. The "R-1" zone requires public roads built to City Engineering widths and specifications, the "R-lA" zone allows Planned Unit Developments and accompanying private roads. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. The zoning be conditional upon the final approval and recording of a PUD subdivision. 2. The rezoning remain "R-1" until said subdivision is approved for recording with the County Recorder. 3. The zoning change be conditioned upon the project being approved as a single family detached development. The Planning Commission noted that many detailed development issues need to be resolved, separate from the rezoning issue. These issues will be resolved through the subdivision approval process for the Planned Unite Development. • .'v Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's _Office_.has prepared and = 21 approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: • CRAIG E. PEI'ERSCN Director 1E/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located below the Block U from "R-1" to "R-1A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-713-89 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 14 .020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS . WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by FIRST CHARTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, No. 400-713-89 , the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located below the Block U from the present "R-1" to "R-lA" classification is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21 . 14 . 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts , be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows : Sec. 21. 14. 020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Residential "R-1" is hereby rezoned Residential "R-lA" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Beginning at a point that is North 89© 58 ' 03" East 877 .57 feet along the South line of Arlington Park Subdivision from the Southwest corner of Lot 19 , Arlington Park, a recorded subdivision in Section 33 , Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence North 89© 58 ' 03" East 337 . 38 feet along said South line to the Southeast corner of Lot 10 of said subdivision, thence South 13 . 61 feet; thence South 89© 58 ' 15" East 1, 309 . 32 feet; thence South 0© 00 ' 17" East 1, 014 . 62 feet to the North line extended of Federal Heights Subdivision, Plat "F" ; thence South 89©58 ' 03" West 1 ,286 . 60 along said extension and North line of Federal Heights Subdivision, Plats "E" and "F" ; thence North 0© 00 ' 17" West 392. 38 feet; thence South 83© 44 ' 01" West 88 . 23 feet; thence North 65© 13 ' 44" West 300 . 00 feet; thence North 0©00 ' 17" West 520 . 99 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 34 . 926 acres . SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS . This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following conditions have been met: 1 . An approved Planned Unit Development Subdivision for development of the property has been recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder . 2 . The road connecting from Virginia Street and Eleventh Avenue to the proposed subdivision, through the proposed park, -2- has been approved by the City and by the United States Department of the Interior. If the foregoing condition is not completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time may be extended for an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the conditions have not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -3- r � • A LLEN C. JOHNSCN A`�a 11�LLLLI 11 ��v tl D�e ' DIM w� ���� ., ....r.+, .. .�.� MEMBERS: PUNNING DIRECTOR NANCY K. PACE. CHAIRMAN BRENT B. WILDE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROBERT LEWIS -!CNING AOMINISTRATCR Board of Adjustment on Zoning DOROTHY PLESHE PETER VAN ALSTYNE GEORGINA CUFCUR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 I. J. WAGNER SECRETARY SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ALTERNATES: 535-7757 FAUN O. HANSEN March 15, 1989 W. KENT MONEY Craig E. Peterson, Director Department of Development Services 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition 400-713, Block "U" Subdivision Dear Craig: Attached is petition 400-713 by Mr. Brent Beesley, representing First Charter Development Corporation, requesting Salt Lake City . to rezone approximately 35 acres located below the University of Utah "s "U" ( Attachment B ) . The request is to rezone the property from the existing R-1 to R-1A in order to allow . a planned unit development single family subdivision ( p. 3 Attachment B ) . The . rezoning request has been made to also allow private streets, thereby reducing the amounts of necessary cuts and fills for roads. The zoning surrounding the project is R-1 with P-1 zoning to . the east and north. This parcel has been discussed for many years concluding with a complicated land trade between the Board of Education, Salt Lake City, and the Department of the Interior in 1985. The development of this property with low density residential subdivisions is consistent with the 1979 Avenues Master Plan, and the July 1987 Avenues Master Plan Update. The detailed development issues are presented in the February 22, 1989 staff report to the Planning Commission ( Attachment A) . A briefing of the recent meetings prior to the March 9th Planning Commission Meeting is found in Attachment I. t. On [•larch 9, 1989 the Planning Commission held an informal hearing and received comment from neighboring residents, property owners, the Avenues Community Council, and Citizens of Salt Lake City. The Planning Commission noted that many detailed development issues need to be resolved, separate from the rezoning issue. Those issues will be resolved through the subdivision approval ptocess for this Planned Unit Development. The issue of access and easement locations through the future City park and the continuation of Eleventh Avenue are pivotal issues for this development proposal. The Planning Commission concluded with a recommendation 'to approve the rezoning and for the City Council to hold a public *hearing. The rezoning to "R-lA" will permit a subdivision development consistent with the Avenues Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommends its approval subject to three conditions: 1. The zoning be conditioned upon the final approval and recording of a PUD subdivision, 2. The zoning remain R-1 until said subdivision is approved • for recording with the County Recorder, 3. The zoning change be conditioned upon the project being • approved as a single family detached development. • • Respectfully Submitted, c��rJ Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director attachments ACJ: ACN cc: John Schumann, Planning Commission Chairman Jim Huppi , Petitioner ( local representative ) Brent Beesley, Petitioner y • • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION 400-713 FROM FIRST CHARTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL R-1 TO RESIDENTIAL R-1A FOR A PROPOSED 31 LOT PUD SUBDIVISION OVERVIEW • Mr. Brent Beesley, president of First Charter Development Corporation, is requesting a zone change for the block "U" area located east of the Virginia Street Park. The rezoning is to • accommodate a 31 lot single family subdivision on 34. 90 acres. The request is to change the zoning from the existing R-1 ( Single Family Dwellings ) to R-lA ( Single Family and/or Planned Unit Developments ) . The local representatives for this petition are ' John Pace, Babcock Pace Architects, and James Huppi, Bush & Gudgell, Inc. A')..:-.T--J� V. - , -- 1 ), , t 11-1 -- ;t fj o i _ F' n /, VICTIM HAP ^ 1 n .,,.._ 7,.$ F IFIII) ��t. q Parcel to be Id Rezoned Jai CO • n ,:�---, _ - G�AOCNS ��" �_GQ_O: CITY (�" \3.L.4 fs �'S}p .•—AF- n ( U „� CEMETERY n .^ A . _] ...... A A ' A ' l 1 ! 1 ; n •veal ^ A 1 n • ISC ❑ nNJonoco ❑c.�-L . --'------C"\. ry-, r-, r---, sib r--i r; n n [—I ,,.'''s )Fl �-1(� .. I " -- GENERAL INFORMATION OWNER: - Board of Education . PARCEL NUMBERS: . 9-33-251-001, ( 30. 0 acres ) . 9-33-176-013, ( 4. 90 acres ) • REQUESTED CHANGE: R-1 to R-lA PROPOSED LOTS: 31 single family lots STREETS: Eleventh Ave. - Proposed Public Street " Balance - Proposed Private Streets OVERLAY ZONE: F-1 ( Foothill Development Overlay Zone ) LOT SIZE RANGE: 18, 500 to 43, 560 ( 1 acre ) square feet BACKGROUND This area has received much discussion over the past years and is brielfy summarized as follows: - A complicated land trade between the Board of Education, F^; Salt Lake City, and the Department of the Interior occurred in 19.85 placing the properties in their current ownerships. At that time agreements were written that Salt Lake City would use the park property only for park and recreation purposes. - This area has also been discussed in both the 1979 Avenues Master Plan and the July 1987 Avenues Master Plan Update. - To date the City has met on several occasions to work on an acceptable conceptual subdivision design for this property. - This subdivision was briefly presented and discussed at the February 1 , 1989 Avenues Community Council Meeting. The proposal for this subdivision more formally was presented to the Community during the Avenues Community Council ' s March 8, 1989 .meeting. The comments received from the meeting will be presented at the Planning Commission Meeting. . • ANALYSIS The request for the change in zoning from R-1 to R-1A has been made to allow for narrower private roads to be constructed. The narrower roads will mean reduced visual and environmental impacts cn the site and to surrounding areas due to the reduced amount of cuts and fills required for the narrow private roads. The R-1 zone requires that public roads be built to City Engineering widths and specifications, however, the R-1A zone allows Planned Unit Developments and accompanying private roads. Avenues Master Plan Update. The Avenues Master Plan Update mentions several points relating to this proposal: "The concerns are regarding new construction that is not compatible with established neighborhood character. " ( p. 2 ) "Many of the incompatibility problems created by new construction in residential areas are associated with excessive building height; new dwellings that tower over adjacent homes . . . " (p. 2 ) "Properties that the city should preserve as natural open space through the use of zoning regulations and through prohibiting access across city-owned property" ( p. 4 ). The master plan update map classifies the Virginia Street park as, "Parks and Open Space" and the subject property as, "Very Low Density" residences ( 1 to 4 units per acre ) (p_ 7 ) "Larger lots in the foothills will respond positively to the following concerns. . . Traffic congestion, Views, Visual Appearance. . " . . (p- - 5 ) Eleventh Avenue. The Master Plan Update provides a discussion of Eleventh Avenue on Page 6. Summarized, the following issues remain unresolved: - Eleventh Avenue has been proposed to facilitate local traffic between the upper Avenues and the University. - There continues to be some disagreement among Avenues residents regarding the Eleventh Avenue extension. - No definite decisions have been made regarding the eastward extension of Eleventh Avenue. - The Planning Commission accepts a concept of the eastward extension, but has not endorsed the extension. . • - The City to date has not agreed to allow access to this development as proposed across the adjacent park. property. The proposed subdivision plan depends on this extension of Eleventh Avenue. • - The City may desire to require dedication of,.the eastern portion of Eleventh Avenue , to allow for the eventual continuation of the right of way in the future. This dedication would be required during the subdivision process. Additional considerations expressed for Eleventh Avenue are: - The City Traffic Department is in the process of preparing an Avenues traffic study. The study is proposing Eleventh Avenue only as a future long term goal. - If Eleventh avenue is to continue eastward from this project, the right of way will cut across forty -percent slope areas, which areas are prohibited from development. University of Utah "U" . The northeast corner of this project contains the "U" of the University of Utah. The conceptual lot layout excludes this area and also provides an access for maintenance of the "U" . Legal easements exist surrounding this structure. This portion of land including the "U" , and the buffer area surrounding the "U" should not be included in the rezoning with the subdivision. Additional Property to the East. • During meetings with the applicant, Mr. Beesley has expressed a desire to acquire additional property for lots. The conceptual subdivision plat shows a Cul-de-Sac touching the eastern border of the property. • These lots would eventually obtain access from this cul-de-sac. This additional property would likewise require a zone change, and the filing of a subdivision at a future date. The City shold maintain a protection strip along this side of the cul-de-sac. Slopes. Jim Huppi , engineer for Bush and Gudgell, Inc. has been preparing the engineering and slope maps for this .project. The conceptual subdivision has been platted over ground with portions of the property with up to fifty percent slopes. It appears that the subdivision can be built without -disturbing major forty percent slopes. Eleventh Avenue is shown on the conceptual lot layout as being optionally continued or with a cul-de-sac at the eastern end of this project. Zonina Options. The two options presented at this time are either leaving the property R-1, or changing the zoning to R-1A. The R-1 zone would require the streets built to City widths and standards, and would also be maintained by the City. The R-1A zone will allow narrower private streets, and would be therefore privately maintained. The R-1A zone also allows, . . clustered owner-occupied detached and attached single • family dwellings, and multiple family structures under various ownership patterns including condominiums, and individual ownership of a building .and its site by following the conditions and procedures as outlined . . . The staff is recommending that as a condition of rezoning to R-1A that this project only be approved as a single family detached development as a condition to the rezoning. RECOMMENDATION The Staff respectfully recommends a change in the zoning for the above described property from R-1 to R-1A, and 1. The zoning be conditioned upon the final approval and • recording of a PUD subdivision, 2. The zoning remain R-1 until said subdivision is approved for recording with the County Recorder, 3. The zoning change be conditioned upon the project being approved as a single family detached development. • Allen G. McCandless Environmental Planner February 22, 1989 • iEn FEB 2 1 190. --- • First Charter Development Corporation 95 East Tabernacle Street. Sc.George,Utah 84770 Telephone:(801)628-0433 - =y • Telecopier.(801)628-5638 • February 17 , 1989 . s _ The Honorable Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Salt Lake City 342 South State Street , Suite 500 Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 Re: Realignment of Easement through Virginia Street Park Dear Mayor DePaulis : • • On July 12 , 1988 , First Charter Development Corporation - ("First Charter") acquired approximately 34. 9 acres of real estate from the Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District (the "School Board") . This land is east of and • • adjacent to the proposed Virginia Street Park. • The School Board acquired these 34.9 acres from Salt Lake City in trade for the land upon which the Virginia Street Park is being built . At the time of the trade , Salt • Lake City conveyed to the School Board an "easement for construction, maintenance and repair of an access road in and over a strip of land fifty feet in width . " This easement runs along the south border of Salt Lake City ' s park property. This easement was sold to First Charter by the School Board along with the 34. 9 acres . Within the next few days , First Charter will be making • an application to Salt Lake City for approval of a subdivi- sion on the 34. 9 acres . It is contemplated that access for this development will be through the Virginia Street Park along our deeded easement or along the existing rough cut road. ' There are several significant advantages to using the existing rough cut road as opposed to constructing a new access road through our deeded easement . • ry. Hon. Palmer A. DePaulis February 17 , 1989 �: .. Page 2 First , a road through cur deeded easement would have to cross several areas where slopes are steeper than 4070. The new cuts and fills could detract from the beauty of the park and the neighborhood. • Second , a road through our - deeded easement would be adjacent to the back yards of all the neighbors which border the park on the south and could create a concern for these families . Third , a finished road along the existing cut would provide public access to a larger portion of the park. Fourth , finishing and landscaping a road along the existing cut would enhance the beauty of the park as the existing cut is unsightly and appears to be a project that has been abandoned. Accordingly, First Charter respectfully requests that Salt Lake City exchange the existing easement owned by First Charter for an easement that would utilize the existing cut. If this realignment can be made , First Charter proposes to bear the cost of completing a public road along the existing cut as the City may design. We would envision - a low-speed, relatively narrow road' for vehicles and paths for pedestrians and bicycles from the end of the improvements in Phase One of the new park approximately 2 ,000 feet to the • east end of the City ' s property. It should be noted that the Federal Government approved the granting of' • our existing easement through the proposed park. We do not consider that a realignment of our easement would require additional approvals or that a road through the park is , in any event , inconsistent with the development and t,r; l i v r i ran of the park. However , if it is deemed that Federal approval is required to realign our easement from its current location to the location of the existing cut, we will be pleased to work with the City to obtain this approval in a timely manner . The present plans for the development of the Virginia Street Park call for the construction of improvements on .our deeded easement which could interfere with our construction' of an access road in the event an agreement to realign our easement can not be reached. Therefore, today I have also written Parks Director John Gust requesting him to consider not going forward with the construction of those improve- ments in the new park that would impair our use of the deeded easement . Hon. Palmer A. DePaulis February 17 , 1989 • Page 3 Enclosed is a . drawing which shows the 34 . 9 acres which we have acquired from the School Board , our deeded - - easement through the park, the Virginia Street Park property and the proposed new easement along the existing cut. Also enclosed is a copy of part of the plans for the Virginia Street Park which illustrates how the proposed improvements are inconsistent with the use of our easement for an access road. We appreciate your attention to this matter and will be pleased to work with any of your staff to whom you may direct us . Sinc Y y / ' . Brent Bee ey President Enclosures CC: Hon. Sidney Reed Fonnesbeck ' Rodger F. Cutler , Esq. John Gust • Allen C. Johnson Douglas Wheelwright Allen McCandless W. Gary Harmer , Salt Lake City School Board John E. Pace , Babcock Pace and Associates James Huppi , Bush & Cudgel] , Inc . Wayne G. Petty, Esq. , Moyle and Draper i. ••--7>,.;-....,- " * / . . ,.(.. . y.- , ..".,.,-': . • i.. .pittis4,...it.. ....."---..............................„_\ ' I. . .\* -7:'\ \. , -----------...............„,s .6 • .• . - / . • -.:--- . \ . . \ . : .... ,.., - e,,): _, i „ • ; • �%' • ` `l ; �` � , i ii ii i .k. -;.:- .! • , i .• . - , , ... . •, .15. 0 • .• . til . ,... :, . :0___ . 1 _. / ../. I ./I. . i 7, • _ , ,. ... ) : . ....1 . .,. „ iz.71 ./ .,. ... A,Trri . • . . .. . ..,.., • • .• ._ . ... .,.........„ .._. . . • �a r • t • ; v. .7, J } j f� 1��� .., .. .. ......... .., , . • z . . . . • __cr9 a). !. ` �. . , j '.. I f ' r ,S......''''--„,...:,....4/ - . . ;',. ! ..;), 7-., .-. . 0 :Li: • *•-f I t• ' '''..----- IT- C t . 'f '1 \ J O lrr, *x -4 .- . . , ) 7---,,c:. ., . t y,. •• r i g ('''. 7L. • . • i .,,/ :./ • - . . 1 • (., )7r2s1 '..-----(-% , ___....- -- 47'. 0 . • m........ • ( - ..<-_.) / . ..-r.„,,:b ,,..H. ' 77 ? ( . ‘,. " D 1 i j • • ,. 1, ! . . ..... --\, . r... -- -...i, i 1 if _. z . "_77 1 1,, . ,,.. 1 ...._., z ...?.......ef • _ .rvol . rl ... . ,.,,..\„.., s • \ '' )C ) ! (I'2 • - r. . •I r, ' . '77 i . '//.. . :•-• • .1 f' ,__-. / f . , g. . 0 C . i - . } F • • _ C -„ r! I = i . . _ , r•*4.'..-.-.4 '.'7;.!.." . . -. 41.,..-0' il-,--71''‘ ‘ • .A.1'., 1 .. ... ..,- . ' .. ;:....) : •-•---• • ' ..?... .... . " 1: < < . • -- I. ,I < I• 101 . . -.:• ...:- 0 CI i• < - < . S ..: ,-2 . ... -a. C11 .- • ' ::' CA < i• 41P . . . .....-• to...,......) . . . ..i . .. ad . • -, . .... 44. t. • . 0 ' F--?.. . . < 46 • : Z 01 < .0 • -• V‘: ' •.--. ai cl / . -.f• 0 I•-. : < ' < — a.) . . : • tn i______, : I, Al 1. 8117.i Itfr . C . cn tz.1 u • t < < tr: 1 • •r-I .,. .,.. !"• . . ) 4 LrIC ii i • • vib• qilv ii. . .. ... - 0 • h: • < • ----T i u ire• •( • : 1.4 tf) . ; .. >1 / ( . „...—.— . -. Tidal ...) < 1.--4- : 0 I S Sf I- L . ... J. ! i /.: • 200. L_L__ 1 . _ . . , I v G Nv D • 12" - I r• . - ,...lw, 111-• 41. .,/5;• < ..: I.-- If • •,.111 < • • .4. a • < < is sr 0 .,............ ...._ se i S L'I 6 a III itlipra- ii fa 0,. ; < . e4; ----- Ole .• z.-- it's4.- I , i - . i I*, iii... ...,.• , : .... ..,. 4. tii.li . • ,... , et I r-- ..4. r . • r4 1 .-- ; ' - .1 . . \ ; • Ea FEB 2 1 1989 Fti First Charter Development Corporation . 95 East Tabernacle Street. •Sc. George,Utah 84770 Telephone:(801)628-0433 Teletopier:(801)628-5638 February 17 , 1989 Mr. John Gust, Director Salt Lake City Parks Department 1965 West 500 South Salt Lake City , Utah 84014 Re : Development of Virginia Street Park -- Phase One Dear Mr . Gust : • On July 12 , 1988 , First Charter Development Corporation • ("First Charter") acquired approximately 34. 9 acres of real estate from the Board • of Education of Salt Lake City School: District (the "School Board") . This land is east of and adjacent to the proposed Virginia Street Park. The School Board acquired these 34.9 acres from Salt Lake City in trade' for the land upon which the Virginia Street Park is being built . At the time of the trade , Salt Lake City conveyed to the School Board an "easement for construction, maintenance and repair of an access road in and over a strip of land fifty feet in width . " This easement runs along the south border of Salt Lake City ' s property. This easement was sold to First Charter by the School Board along with the 34. 9 acres . First Charter has recently become aware that certain improvements related to the construction of the Virginia Street Park may be on this easement and may interfere with our construction of an access road over the easement . It would seem sensible to modify the easement to coincide with the new road and parking lot which the Parks Department is building in the new park. I have written to Mayor DePaulis requesting that our deeded easement be realigned to conform to the improvements in the park and also to the rough cut road to the east . However , until our deeded easement is realigned , we request that you consider not going forward with the construction of those improvements in the new park that would impair the use of our deeded easement in the event we are required to build our access road on our • easement . ice. Mr . John Gust February 17 , 1989 Page 2 • _ Within .the next few days , First Charter will be making ^\:, an application to Salt Lake City for approval of a subdivi- sion on the 34. 9 acres which contemplates the construction of an access road along our deeded easement or through the park along the existing rough cut road . To avoid the need to destroy or reconstruct any .of the proposed improve- ments in the new park, we would like to work with you to make certain that these improvement will accommodate the new access road : It appears from what we know of the proposed improvements for the park that it would require significant modifications in order to build a road of the type we understand the City will require for the new subdivision . There are other 'matters that may also require coordina- tion. If, for example , a sewer line is required to be built from the 34.9 acres through the new park to Virginia Street , hopefully this could be done before the improvements in the new park are completed. Enclosed is a drawing •which shows the 34 . 9 acres which we have acquired from the School Board, our deeded easement through the park, the Virginia Street Park property and the proposed new easement along the existing cut. Also enclosed is a copy of part of the plans for the Virginia Street Park which illustrates how the proposed' improvements are inconsistent with the use of our easement 'for an access road. Within the next several days you will be contacted by. Mr . Jim Huppi of Bush & Gudgell who is doing the engineering on the proposed subdivision . Mr . Huppi will be calling to set up a meeting where , hopefully , we will be able to work out a satisfactory solution to these issues . Sinc , • . Brent Be ey President • Enclosures CC: Hon. Palmer A. DePaulis Hon. Sidney Reed Fonnesbeck Rodger F. Cutler , Esq. Allen C. Johnson Douglas Wheelwright Allen McCandless W. Gary Harmer , Salt Lake City School Board John E. Pace , Babcock Pace and Associates James Huppi , Bush & Gudgell , Inc . Wayne G . Petty , Esq. , Moyle and Draper • I • i... ` • . .'• �r - _'yr .1:- Lam. - ,+.-. • ... I14- ---.f':L1%:-... - - . _::,.r•..l •r=s-.•Y--� -.:•: . e„‘ „ 111 1 ,1, ' - . ALLE C.. JOHNSCN r '� 1 •• :.HEMHER :.;.. y tic/ 7A :. - . -- rtAnNlnaotscoR ..- • .1,'-- - _.4_. «f„.__ . - - _ _ -__. INDY CRO MER : - SANDRA MARL=.R s \ i`.-A-4�r'� ( Rpow,ic \ `' MASA. ELISON ... .. SC 1 _ :LAVONE L EJ_OFF(CIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT:OF .DEVELOPMENT_SE VICS RICHARD .HOWA r _ RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY lip Planning 'drid-Zoning' Commission: GORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STRE :T_ROOM200 - JOHN M.SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER :5ALT4AK.E-CI•T`C__UTAH- 841.11• F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL •-- '--'-Bj35-7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER H. Brent Beesley - First Charter Development Corp. 5260 South Geneva Way • 'Englewood, Colorado 80111 • February 21, 1989 - I have met with the City Attorney and have reviewed the documents pertaining to your proposed subdivision of the property near the block "U" . I understand your plans for this subdivision require Eleventh Avenue to continue eastward across the City' s Virginia Street Park property to serve as access to your proposed. e Gov division. not°allow1Salt aLakeeCitystorextend Eleventl h Avenue Govern.�lent do n . across this park property as shown on your proposed plat. The agreement dated April 29, 1985 between the U. S. Department of the Interior and Salt Lake City states , "Whe.reas , the Salt Lake City Corporation has agreed that it • • will use said replacement lands exclusively for park and recreation purposes, subject to reversion to the United States of America for failure to so use said property. " The deed conveyed to Salt Lake City in 1984 further states this land is to be used only for park and recreation purposes. The exchange of deeds between the School Board and the City was "Without Warranty" and the access easement was clearly described in both deeds . The City therefore has no liability for any access other than as specifically provided in the deeds. To construct Eleventh Avenue across this park property could place • this park property in jeopardy of reversion to federal ownership if used for any other purposes other than for park and recreation. • i. Salt Lake Citywould not necessarily "'�� -•.r.« • • • ob ect : �'•.t ��� J .-toY-Your.�attempt �•to r. modify these federal restrictions resulting :in .more flexibility = _ in development options than we currently enjoy.:- We-_are pleased with your proposal for the subdivision. The design -seems - r. • to take into consideration the concerns of the citizens and City development goals. We would like to -keep a dialogue •.open as your plans evolve. Please feel free to call if you have questions regarding this topic. . Sincerely, • • Allen C. J hnson AICP Planning Director r�\aMVaaaaaaVIAL I Ill) MAR 1989 1. SAI,T' NY CORPORATION; ASS NT ATTORNEYS RAY IL.AMON GOMERY 7CGZR F. CUTLER _ c;TY ATTORNEY ••• LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWK;NS - LARRY V. SPENOLCVE crr? p L 0. Lux= 324 SOUTH STATE. FIFTH'FLOOR STEVEN W. ALLRE: CITY PROSECUTOR _ . SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 aaucE R. sA1Rc - (801) .535-7788 •-- FRANK M. NAKAMURA FAX (801) 535-7640• ASSISTANT PROSECUTo=3 DCNALD L. GEORG= CEC=LIA M. ESPE.'OZA • RICHARD G. HAMP February 24, 1989 GLEN A. COCK • H. Brent Beesley • Firsz Charter Development Corporation 95 Last Tabernacle Street • St. George, Utah 84770 ?e: Realignment of Easement throuch Virginia Street Park Dear Mr. Beesley: Your letter to Mayor DePaulis, Roger Cutler and others in the city was referred to me today for response. There is no cuestion that the federal government did approve the easement described in the deeds between the City and the School Board which, pursuant to its terms, runs along the westerly and southerly boundaries of the property. By ' virtue of topography an access road on this easement would not be buildable. There is further no question that there is no specific provision in the acceptance by the federal ccver nment for the City to unilaterally realign the easement . It is, accordingly, our position that the City does not have the unilateral right to realign the easement without the prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Interior. If you wish to seek approval from the Department for such a change the City may be willing to cooperate. The proper procedure to follow when dealing with property owned by the City is to initiate a petition :•:ith the Reel Property Department for the change you propose. That petition would then be circulated to all of the relevant departments for comment. Assuming a favorable comment is received from all departments the City might H. Brent Beesley . • February 24, 1989 Page -2- • agree to realign the easements after you have obtained approval from the Department of Interior. You should note that the easement alignment which you propose might adversely affect the Virginia Street Park requiring compensation to the City. that would, of course, be a determination by the Parks Department in conjunction with the Real Property Department. If you have any further questions please feel free to call. Sin 7 E R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRE: c cc: Mayor DePaulis - Sydney Fonnesbeck / John Gust Allen C. Johnson ttV// • - Doug Wheelwright W. Gary Harmer, Salt Lake City School Board John Pace, Babcock, Pace and Associates Jim Hupoi, Bush & Gudgel Wayne G. Petty, Moyle & Draoer _ • • SALT'EMT'@NYC CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING' 1 333 SOUTH 200•EAST• SUITE 201 JCSEPH R. ANOERSCN SALT:LAKE CITY. UTAH 841.1.1'.' TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. 7t:2L1C WORKS DIRECTOR _ CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER March 6 , 1989 Doug Wheelwright City Planner Planning and Zoning RE : Request for Review , Petition #400-713 - Block U Subdivision • Dear Doug : The Transportation Division has no concerns in regard t,o the above referenced petition . Sincerely , W . Steve Me er , P . E . Deputy Transportation Engineer WSM/ lh • • PC MINUTES ; - '" . March 9 1989 _. `i_ Page o - recuired , the costs might be high enough to endanger the entire Project. - Mr. -Schumann opened the hearing for public comment and asked if anyone wishe to address the Planning- Commission. 'Mr . Kim Anderso , 768 North Redwood Road, stated that he is in favor of the project only if the entire project is developed. He , , also said he does of want. any businesses in the project offering 24 hour services . • Sind no one else wa desirous of speaking on the matter , Mr . Schumann closed the he ring to the public. Mr . Howa asked if the • rezoning would be limit d for this particular developer or if anv E-3 use could go into th' s site . Mr . Johnson explained that the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that the rezoning be subject to the onstruction of this project under this configuration , but not ecessarily to this particular developer . Mr . Johnson furth r explained that the staff recommendation requests that t e zoning change not become effective until the building pe mits have been obtained ( the - developer has one year from the •ity council hearing to obtain those permits) . If the permits a e not obtained within the one • veer period , the rezoning issue di- . Mr . Schumann then pointed - out that this would give the develo -r year to obtain Financing and line up tenants . _ Mr . Neilson inquiredpif this means all emits have to be acplied . for simultaneously. - Mr . Schumann responded in the negative and . stat_d- that the permits could be obtained in different pha=es . Mr . Nicolatus moved to accept staff ' s recomt-ndation ( including seven master plan considerations and two cone • tions listed in the recort) to recommend aLprcval of Petition No . 400-705 to the City Council . Mr . Howa seconded the motion; all voted "Aye. " The motion passes . 41r/ INF-OF:MA,L HEARING - Petition No . 400-713 , First Charter Development requesting the property located at approximately 1800 East llth Avenue be rezoned from a Residential "R-1" to a Re=idential "R-1A" zoning district. Mr . Allen McCandless presented the staff report stating that Mr . - , Brent Beesley is requesting a zone change for the block "U" area located east of the Virginia Street Park . The rezoning is to accommodate a 31 lot , single family dwelling subdivision on 34 . 9 acres . Mr . McCandless added that this area has received much discussion in the past and is summarized as follows : 1 . A complicated land trade between the Board of Education, Salt Lake City, and the Department of the Interior occurred in 1985 placing the properties in their current -- • • PC MINUTES Lt `? � ,March 9 , 1989 - . Page 7 • • ownerships. At that time,. agreements were written that -' : A . Salt Lake City would use the park property only for 'park and recreation purposes.• . 2. This area has also been discussed in both the 1979 . Avenues Master Plan and . the July 1987 ,Avenues Master • - • Plan Update . . . " . - ` ' 3 . To date, the City has met on several occasions to work on an acceptable conceptual 'subdivision design for this property. 4 . This subdivision was briefly presented and discussed at . the February 1 , 1989 Avenues Community Council Meeting. The proposal for this subdivision was presented to the Community during the Avenues Community Council ' s March 8 , 1989 meeting. • The recuest for the change in zoning from R-1 to R-1A has been made to allow for narrower private roads to be constructed . The narrower roads will mean reduced visual and environmental impacts on the site and to surrounding areas due to the reduced amount of. . cuts and fills required for the narrow private roads. The R-1 zone requires that 'public roads be built to City Engineering widths and specifications , however , the R-lA zone allows Planned • Unit Developments and accompanying private roads . Mr . McCandless stated that the following issues remain unresolved in connection with the Avenues Master Plan Update: Eleventh Avenue has been proposed to facilitate local traffic between the upper Avenues and the University . There continues to be some disagreement among Avenues residents regarding the Eleventh Avenue extension. No definite decisions have been made regarding the eastward extension of Eleventh Avenue . • The Planning Commission accepts a concept of the eastward extension, but has not endorsed the extension. The City, to date , has not agreed to allow access to this development across the adjacent park property as proposed . The proposed subdivision plan depends on this extension of Eleventh Avenue . The City may desire to require dedication of the eastern portion of Eleventh Avenue to allow for the eventual continuation of the right-of-way in the future. This dedication would be required during the subdivision process . • PC MINUTES l5 March 9, 1989 Y`` - Page 8. - . Mr . McCandless said the staff is recommending that, as a ' . � . condition of -rezoning to R-1A, this project only be approved .as a single family detached development. Mr. McCandless further --, stated that the Planning Staff recommends a--change -in the zoninc for the above described property from R-1 to R-1A, subject to the . following conditions : 1. The zoning be contingent upon the final approval and recording of a PUD subdivision. 2 . The zoning remain R-1 until said subdivision is approved for recording with the County Recorder. 3 . The zoning change be contingent upon the project being . - approved as a single family detached development. Mr . :rent Beesley, the petitioner said he concurs with the staff recommendations . Mr . Schumann opened the hearing to the public • and asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr . James Richards 1555 Federal Heights Drive, said they are concerned about the access • issue and asked if there are specific rules regarding access. • . Mr . Johnson responded that the subdivision plat has to be ready for recording before the subdivision can be developed, and this recuires the access issue be resolved. Mr . Richards said he succorts the:rezoning but is concerned about the access . Mr . Ernest Dixon , 77 "C" Street said he is concerned that the ' • community won ' t be given the opportunity to express their opinions . He also stated that he would prefer access other than llth Avenue. . • Mr . Beesley stated that the reason for the rezoning request is solely to allow for private roads in the subdivision. The configuration, as presently shown could be developed in t„e existing zoning . He added that the reason for the private roes is because they can be narrower than public streets and would recuire less cut and fill . Mr . Beesley stated that the civil encineers are doing to try and develop alternative access other than the access from Vircinia Street Park. Ms . Hermoine Jex, representing Land Use and Natural Resources end SLACC, handed out copies of a letter to the Planning Commissioners , . a copy of which is filed with the minutes . She stated that .they believe no action should be taken on this matter until the issue of access has been settled . Ms . Jex said they are requesting denial of this petition until all pertinent facts are disclosed to the community. Ms . Deedee Corradini , 1600 Tomahawk , stated that they realize this land will be developed at some point in time and said she is in favor of this particular development over anything else they • have reviewed. Ms . Corradini said she would prefer a development with large lot sizes over some future development which might nct be es cood. • PC MINUTES March 9 , 1989 • Page 9 . -, 1- Mr . Stan Penfold , 715 Second Avenue, stated that there is . • - • . • tremendous concern in the community .about the 11th- Avenue _ Extension. - i . Mr . Nicolatus asked how the residents in the back portion of the site would cope with only one access if there was a fire blocking • the entrance of the access . Mr . Nicolatus also inquired about cerbace collection. Mr . Beesley stated that the issue of the - fire is probably one of the reasons the city is desirous of _ having private roads in the area and that this issue needs • further investigation . He added that the cost of garbace collection would have to be absorbed by the property owners . Mr . Nicolatus expressed concern about losing sight of the "U" on the side of the mountain due to development that is too close to the site. Mr . James. Huppi stated that no one can build within l00 feet of the "U" and the homes closest to the site will be 70 feet below the "U" which will keep it in clear view. • -Mr . Howe inquired- how they will deal with the Chevron and Mt. Fuel pipelines . Mr . Huppi responded that: they- might have to move the Chevron pipeline and that the city has requested that no lots front on the lower road of the subdivision . He added that at ' this Point, no homes are designed that conflict with the Mt. Fuel pipeline. Mr . Neilson pointed out that the area is already zoned "R-1" and the only real issues in rezoning to "R-1A" are the width and ownership of the streets involved. Mr . Nicolatus moved to approve recommending approval of Petition No. 400-713 to the City Council, subject to the conditions listed in th= staff report . Mlr . Howe seconded the motion. Mr . Neilson asked if this restricts the development to the 31 lots shown in the current site plan . Mr . Johnson responded that with the planned Unit Development ( PUD) , the developer will have to come • back before the Planning Commission for approval. He added that they could handle the number of lots allowed at that time . Mr . • Hupai informed the Planning Commission that Mr . Beesley might cos--ibly purchase additional land which could add another three lots to the plan . All voted "Aye" to the motion. The motion passes Ms . Liddle-Camonal stated that she is in favor of holding a • hearing on this matter due to the number of concerns the neighbors have expressed regarding the llth Avenue access. Mr . Wright suggested that when the PUD issue comes back before the Planning Commission as a part of the subdivision, the '' Planning Commission could hear the matter in the format of en . .* informal hearing . • ATTACHMENT I Summary of Events Jan 23, 1989 - Initial meeting with City concerning the - proposed subdivision development. Conceptual subdivision plans were presented and discussed with several City staff members . Feb 7, 1989 - Meeting with Allen Johnson, Roger Cutler, Syndey Fonnesbeck, Bruce Baird, Doug Wheelwright, Allen McCandless to discuss City' s position on the Eleventh Avenue Extension. Feb 13, 1989 - Meeting with Brent Beesley, Jim Huppie, Doug Wheelwright, Allen McCandless to discuss next steps necessary in the subdivision approval. Feb 14, 1989 - Rezoning Petition submitted by Brent Beesley for the proposed subdivision, petition # 400-713 ( Attachment B ) . Feb 17, -1989• - Letter from -Brent Beesley to the City concerning the realignment of existing easement through Virginia Street Park ( Attachment C ) . Feb 17, - 1989 - Letter from Brent Beesley to John Gust, Director of '.Salt Lake City Parks Department concerning the existing access easement for the proposed subdivision • ( Attachment • D ) . Feb 21, 1989 - Letter from Allen Johnson to Mr. Beesley regarding the City' s position of allowing Eleventh Avenue through the park property ( Attachment E ) . Feb 24, 1989 - Letter from Bruce Baird to Brent Beesley concerning the right of way over the City Park Property ( Attachment F ) . Mar 1, •1989 • - Plan and profile for roadway on existing 50 foot easement filed with Development Coordination Team for review.' Mar 8, 1989 - The plans for the proposed subdivision were presented formally to the Avenues Community Council for comments and review. Major negative comments were concerning the eventual extension of eleventh avenue. Mar 9, 1989 - Petition for Agreements with Salt Lake City was presented to the City ( Attachment C ) . Mar 9, 1989 - Planning Commission review and motion to approve of the rezoning request from R-1 to R-1A. • Surrounding property owners were notified of the informal hearing with the Planning Commission ( Attachment H - Minutes ) . �1 ice, . ICATION 'OR .ZONING A .1-:OR :.: - - .- _ � J• .-7.: St. \.^3`- tic• To be'filed in.duplicate with thedepartirent of.Develo meet Services' - - ... . 324 :South State Street Suite •#201•. - ri"r • 'i = t� _ .- ._ . _ . • Filing• Fee • $100.00-.'�.-�•:.:._ _ . 4., . - Advertising Fee* $100.00 i--- f•.y, . _. .__. - - . (*if•a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Courcil of Salt Lake City , Utah, to: - - . - ' . • Amy the teTt of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section (Use reverse side for requested text change) AIL=zl the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: approximately 1800 East llth Avenue from a . R-1 classification to a R-1A classification (Use reverse side for legal description) APT,ai O APPT TCATION . * 1. The reasons why the present zoning istnot proper for the area. * 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. * 3. Description of the piopcsed use to be made of the property. . A. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Inddication of support for rezoning fran all affected property owners. . 6. Any other information or e. i_bits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recorrmerdation. 7. . Sitwell Parcel Identification Number. * See Attached Sheet. THE ABOVE INFORMATION, IN DETAIL, musr ACCOWANY' lIaS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR TEE P IT1CU TO BE PROPERLY C BY THE PLA I CEMESSION. . First Charter Development Cor . Signature of the applicant Address 5260 S. Geneva Way, (303) Englewood, CO • Telephone Number 7 -8720 Zip Code 80111 Local Representative : James Huppi • • Bush & Gudgell , Inc. FILL cur REVERSE SIDE 555 South 300 East � b � t ' Utah Att.?ch a11 exhibits and supporting � � application. Petition No. 2107)--'7/ Date t--)1ly/FC' / Receipt No. n(a - , Gt.�0 • Amrunt $ ino.o ' • a 1 / 2/ 1 CRAIG E. PETERSON A _r Q Cili �'GORPf'° ItAItop- DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TO: Salt Lake City Council TELEPHONE 535-7777 August 29, 1989 RE: Amendment to Russell and Olwine Annexation Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the Official City Map No. 19372 to add the Russell and Olwine Annexation to Districts A and created certain major streets for the map. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Russell and Olwine Annexation took effect on April 17, 1989 under Ordinance 12. It has come to our attention that we had overlooked designating the Brickyard area a "District A" to allow Class B private clubs and Class C beer licenses. The attached ordinance includes the following: ' 1. Extends the Brickyard "District A" on official City Map 19372 to include this property. 2. Declaring 3300 South Street a major street between 1100 East and 1300 East Streets on official City Map 19372; and, 3. Declaring Brickyard Road a major street between Richmond Street and 3300 South Street. A public hearing was held on this annexation, therefore another public hearing is not required. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance. Submitted by: CRAi E. P - - Dir for lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Official Map No. 19372 concerning liquor districts to add the Russell and Olwine Annexation) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING OFFICIAL CITY MAP NO. 19372 TO ADD THE RUSSELL AND OLWINE ANNEXATION TO DISTRICTS A AND CREATED CERTAIN MAJOR STREETS FOR THE MAP. WHEREAS, the City' s adoption of the Russell and Olwine annexations did not consider the affect of the annexation on Official Map No. 19372; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Official City Map No. 19372 be amended to include the Russell and Olwine Annexation within "District A" and further that 3300 South between 1100 East and 1300 East Streets be considered a major street and that Brickyard Road between Richmond Street and 3300 South Street be also considered a major street on Map 19372 . SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the first date of its publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON CY • sm2r 1_4 JIiIT j ; ,P '°9e 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 DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN MEMO To: Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney From: Bill Wright, Deputy Planning Director Date: August 17, 1989 Re: Amendment to Russell & Olwine Annexation Ordinance 12 of 1989, the Russell and Olwine Annexation and Zoning at 1239 East 3300 South, took effect on April 17, 1989 finalizing the annexation. Last week it came to my attention that through the petition process, I had overlooked a Business Licence ordinance dealing with location restrictions for Class B private clubs and Class C beer licenses. The Brickyard area is designated as a "District A" on official city Map 19372. The Planning Divisions intention was to zone the property to allow those types of uses. The "Scoreboard Lounge" is under construction and should be completed shortly. Mr. Dick Olwine has submitted an application for the Class C beer license and that review brought this to my attention. With your concurrence, I request that you prepare the necessary Ordinance Amendment for ,this annexation. It should include the following: 1. Extending the Brickyard "District A" on official City Map ' 19372 to include this property; 2. Declaring 3300 South Street a major street between 1100 East and 1300 East Streets on official City Map 19372; and, 3. Declaring Brickyard Road a major street between Richmond Street and 3300 South Street. I appreciate your assistance. I would like to have this on the City Council Agenda for September 5, 1989 under the Consent Calendar, if possible. Thanks. 0 Bq-1 P 88-1914 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 12 of 1989 (Russell and Olwine Annexation and Zoning pursuant to Petition No. 400-595-88 ) AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 5-F TO THE MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATIONS; EXTENDING THE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY TO INCLUDE THE RUSSELL AND OLWINE ANNEXATION, ZONING THE SAME COMMERCIAL "C-3A" , BY AMENDING THE USE DISTRICT MAP AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 21 . 14. 020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE; AND AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP. WHEREAS, Petition No. 400-595-88 was filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, together with a plat showing the tract of land to be annexed hereafter to be known as the "Russell and Olwine Annexation" , requesting that the contiguous, irregularly shaped parcel of approximately . 66 acres of unincorporated territory lying between 1100 East and Richmond Street along the north side of 3300 South in Salt Lake County be taken within the city limits of Salt Lake City Corporation to extend the City' s limits; and WHEREAS, the petition was signed by a majority of the owners of real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all real property, as shown by the last assessment roles, situated in the tract hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the orderly expansion of the City' s boundaries, the City has previously adopted a Master Annexation Policy Declaration on June 20, 1979 . The proposed annexation lies within Study Area No. 5 of said Declaration and is the specific subject of Amendment No. 5-F of said Declaration which was approved after favorable Planning Commission review; and. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, after examining the petition and having the petition favorably reviewed by the various departments of the City and the Planning Commission, and having accepted the petition by Resolution No. 88 of 1988, and having considered the petition at a publicly advertised hearing held September 6, 1988, and after finding the proposed annexation to be consistent and in keeping with the City' s Master Annexation Policy Declaration for Study Area No. 5 and Amendment No. 5-F, the Council voted by two--thirds or greater vote of its membership, in favor of the annexation; and WHEREAS, no objection or contest to such annexation or amendment has been filed as required by law or is presently pending; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Area. That the city limits of Salt Lake City be, and the same hereby are, enlarged and extended so as to include the following . 66 acre parcel of land located between 1100 East and Richmond Street along the north side of 3300 South in Salt Lake County, Utah: Beginning at a point on the North line of 3300 South Street S 89 ° 47 ' 10" W 253.29 feet and North 7.0 feet from the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 27, Ten Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey. Said point of beginning is D� also S 89 ° 47 ' 10" W 286. 16 feet and North 40.0 feet p.Ct. AA from a Salt Lake County Monument at the intersection $'L of 3300 South and 1300 East Streets (Basis of Bearing being S 89° 47 ' 10" W along the centerline of 3300 South Street between said county monument and a point 0 . 4 feet North and 1. 17 feet West of a Salt Lake City Monument at 1100 East Street) ; and running thence S 89° 47 ' 10" W 72. 719 feet along the North line of 3300 South Street; thence N 34° 21 ' 04" W 34.333 feet; thence N 31° 43 ' 20" W 193.410 feet; thence N 89° 47 ' 10" E 193 .788 feet; thence South 193.314 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0. 595 acres. SECTION 2. Zoning. Be it further ordained and declared that the above Annexation is hereby zoned Commercial "C-3A" and the Use District Map as adopted by Section 21 . 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to the boundaries of use districts shall be, and the same hereby is amended by the addition of this Annexation zoned Commercial "C-3A" . SECTION 3. City Council Map. The Salt Lake City Council District Map is hereby amended to include this Annexation in Council District 7 as specified on such map. SECTION 4. General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the tract of land described above in Section 1 shall henceforth be within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City Corporation. All ordinances, jurisdictions, rules and obligations of, or pertaining to, Salt Lake City are extended over and made applicable and pertinent to this tract of land; and the streets, blocks, alleys and public ways of said tract shall be controlled and governed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of Salt Lake City in that behalf. The monuments of the City Engineer shall henceforth be taken therein as the standards of location and distances of said land. SECTION 5. Filings and Notice. Upon the passage and publication of this Ordinance, the Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the County Recorder of Salt Lake County a copy of the approved annexation plan or map, duly -3- certified and acknowledged, together with a certified copy of this Ordinance. The City Recorder is further directed to provide notice to the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to applicable state law. SECTION 6. Publication and Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish this Ordinance until an annexation plat prepared by a registered professional engineer or surveyor at the developer's expense has been submitted to the City meeting all City standards for such a document and has been signed by the Mayor. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 4th day of April , 1989 . C PE SOLI ATTEST: 0 DER Transmitted to the Mayor on April 4 , 1989 Mayor' s Action: XX Approved Vetoed Z14.4(1 /41 ' Le,..1./ MAYOR ATTEST: _T R DER BRB:PP SEAL 3i11 12 of 10 ' Pub,1fs er? =�_ 'b -4— CRAIG E. PETERSON "'r, , I � - DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council July 28, 1989 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Section 21.78.130 Recreational Facilities in Residential Districts Recommendations: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss a proposed ordinance amendment to Section 21.78.130 Recreational Facilities in Residential. The proposed amendment was requested by the Council to regulate liquor at these facilities. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has recommend that the existing ordinance be amended to state that accessory uses shall not be considered to be uses which require licenses for the sale or consumption of alcohol. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CA--0,-;6- - CRAIG E./PEI'ERSCN - Directo¢ lf/ • ROGER F. CUTLER 5..��� i�`Q, at @ �� ,�D1e +® • � ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS LARRY V. SPENDLOVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET. SUITE 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA Jul 13 1989 RICHARD G. HAMP July GLEN A. COOK Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development 451 South State Street, Room 218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Section 21 .78 . 130 Petition No. 400-708-89 Dear Craig: In response to Bill Wright' s letter of June 30, 1989, I have redrafted the proposed amendment to Section 21 . 78 . 130 in response to the DeSantis petition to modify the prohibition on -alcohol pursuant to the Planning Commission recommendation. I have discussed this modification with Allen and we both note that even the modified language creates a problem for such recreational uses as the Salt Lake Country Club and, possibly, other golf courses and similar uses. My understanding is that Allen intends to be present at the Council hearing on this petition and so inform the Council of the potential problems . If you have any questions, please call. Sincer y, /� RULE R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRB:pp Enclosures 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 DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWARALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN June 30, 1989 Mr. Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development Jr 451 South State Street, Room 218 iC7J Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Section 21.78.130 Dear Craig: On Thursday, June 22, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance change amending Section 21.78.130 allowing recreational facilities in residential districts as a conditional use. The petition was submitted by David DeSantis specifically to allow "for profit" organizations to provide these recreational facilities. On June 6, 1989, the City Council referred the proposed ordinance change back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation regarding regulation of liquor at these facilities. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed language in Paragraph H2 on page 5 and felt it to be of a "criminal" nature rather than a land use regulatory nature. The Planning Commission believes this language may be difficult to administer and unreasonable for the owner of the property to enforce. The Planning Commission recommends an alternative approach. They,.suggest replacing the language in Paragraph H2 on page 5 with the following: H2. Accessory uses shall not be considered to be uses which require licenses for the sale or consumption of alcohol. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this ordinance and supports a control on the sale and consumption of alcohol. Mr. Craig E. Peterson June 30, 1989 Page Two Please call if you have any questions on this matter. Respectfully submitted, William T. Wright, AICP Deputy Planning Director WIW:skm attachments crm SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21.78. 130 Dealing with Recreational Facilities in Residential Districts Pursuant to Petition No. 400-708-89 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21. 78 . 130, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, DEALING WITH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-708-89 . WHEREAS,the City Council has held hearings before its own body and before the Planning and Zoning Commission and believes it appropriate to amend the provisions of Section 21 .78. 130, Salt Lake City Code, dealing with recreational uses in residential districts as conditional uses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendment to Section 21.78. 130 of the Salt Lake City Code. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21.78. 130, Salt Lake City Code, attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. That Section 21. 78. 130 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 21.78.130 Recreational facilities in residential districts. A. Recreational facilities as conditional use. Where not otherwise authorized by this title, and when in its opinion the best interest of the community will be served thereby, the Planning and Zoning Commission may permit, as a conditional use, the use of the land in a residential district for recreational purposes, subject to the following conditions and procedures: 1�+ B. Definition. "Recreational uses" , for the purpose of this section, shall be defined to mean a structure or developed open space designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, leisure time activities and other customary and usual recreational activities, including paths and playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools, golf courses and golf training facilities, nature exhibits and similar uses. "Recreational uses" shall not include commercial spa or aerobic clubs, all terrain or recreational vehicle parks, amusement parks, waterslides, skateboard parks or similar uses. C. Application. Applications for conditional uses under this section shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such applications shall include detailed information concerning the criteria specified in subsection E. below. The application " shall -also require the payment of a one hundred dollar ( $100.00) processing fee which includes the cost of mailing any and all required notices. D. Notice and hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold an informal hearing on applications for conditional uses under this section. Notice of the hearing shall be given to residents and property owners within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use. E. Approval criteria. -2- In considering the petition for conditional use the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine from the criteria below whether the proposed conditional use substantially supports the desirable development patter for the area in question in conformity with the city master plan for that area. The factors and criteria to be considered include: 1. Whether the proposed recreation area is of such size and shape and so located as to not cause any undue infringement on the privacy of the abutting areas and is in keeping with the design of the neighborhood. 2. Whether the proposed facility is in keeping with the adopted master plan for the area. 3. Whether the proposed facility adversely impacts the surrounding residential neighborhood by way of such factors as lights, noise, odor, time or method of operation or other similar objectionable operating characteristic. F. - Design requirements. Before the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant the proposed conditional use it must find that the following mandatory criteria have been met. 1. That the area to be used for recreational purposes is of sufficient size to accommodate all proposed facilities, together with all required off street parking sufficient to accommodate the needs of the patrons of the proposed facilities while still maintaining required landscaped thirty foot front yards, ten foot side yards and twenty five foot rear yards. -3- 2. That all drainage and water retention plans have been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Engineer. 3. That all traffic impact mitigation has been reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake City Transportation Engineer. G. Additional design elements. Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the conditional use is appropriate for the site, the Commission may, in addition, require any or all of the design criteria specified below which are determined to be reasonably necessary to minimize any negative esthetic, economic or planning impacts associated with the conditional use: 1. An opaque masking structure or fence of a material in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to screen the proposed use from neighboring uses. 2. Such other conditions reasonably necessary to ensure compatibility of uses within the district in conformance with adopted master plans and policies and the protection of property values. H. Prohibited accessory and other uses. 1. Accessory uses on the property such as retail sales and food services shall not be permitted except as such uses have been specifically approved by the Planning and zoning Commission. Any such accessory use shall be solely for the benefit and convenience of the patrons of the proposed establishment. -4- 2. Accessory uses for which licenses for the sale or consumption of alcohol are required shall not be permitted as part of any conditional use permitted pursuant to this section. I . Security. Prior to the issuance of a permit to construct the conditional use, adequate financial security shall be posted in a form acceptable to the city to ensure completion of the proposed and required landscape improvements. J. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission may appeal the decision to the City Council. Appeals must be filed within fifteen days from the date of the Planning and Zoning Commission' s final decision. The Council shall hold a public hearing on the appeal. Notice of the appeal and hearing shall be provided to all residents and property owners within six hundred feet of the proposed conditional use " no later than seven days prior to the hearing. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -5- -71 �/ smite sl ciaiY NPO TIONI CRAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council July 21, 1989 Re: Petition No. 400-740-89 submitted by Gloria Ruiz Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-740 submitted by Gloria Ruiz. The petitioner is requesting that property located at 145 North Redwood Road be rezoned from "R-6" to a "C-1" classification. Availability of Rinds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The proposed use of the property is for a family style sit down restaurant featuring Mexican food. The property is abutted by a Cash Saver service station on the south, vacant property to the west, Gertie Avenue to the north and Redwood Road to the east. The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has granted approval to the rezoning change with the zoning to take effect upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of City Council approval. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is attached for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG ONO. PETERS • Dir or lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located at 145 North Redwood Road from Residential "R-6" to Commercial "C-1" pursuant to Petition No. 400-740-89 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by Ms. Gloria Ruiz, No. 400-740-89, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at 145 North Redwood Road from Residential "R-6" to Commercial "C-1" is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21 . 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows: Sec. 21. 14.020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Residential "R-6" is hereby rezoned Commercial "C-1" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 2, 1J-. Chas S. Deskys 4th Addition Subdivision, a subdivision '( �6D9 located in the Southwest 1/4, Section 34, T1N, R1W, � 4, Salt Lake Meridian; thence South 121 feet; thence East �y 14 feet; thence South 23 feet; thence East 133 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 10 said subdivision; thence North 134 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 22; thence West 137 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS. This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following conditions have been met: 1 . A building permit has been approved for issuance for construction of the proposed facility as described in the petition. If the foregoing condition is not completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time may be extended for an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the condition has not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. -2- Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved , Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: BRB:rc -3- SALT LA) Q CITY �ORPO �i�ON ws� 111M1r~ la ALLEN C. JOHNSON. AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING D'FECTCR COMMISSION MEMBERS. WILLIAM T. WRIGHT. AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER OEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER ANC URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN July 14, 1989 Craig Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development 451 S. State, Room 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-740 - Ruiz Rezoning Request Dear Craig: Attached please find Petition 400-740 from Ms. Gloria Ruiz of Cafe Silvestre requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located at 145 North Redwood Road from Residential R-6 to Commercial C-1 classification. The proposed use is a family style sit-down restaurant featuring mexican food. The project is abutted by a Cash Saver service station on the south, vacant property to the west, Gertie Avenue to the north and Redwood Road to the east. The proposed use and site plan also meet the urban design criteria identified in the master plan to be considered when evaluating commercial rezoning requests including; community need for and support of the project, street location to accommodate additional traffic, provide adequate parking, open space, setbacks and buffers, new construction not conversion of existing building, and will not negatively impact neighboring residential uses. At their regular meeting July 13, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this request to the City Council to rezone this property from Residential R-6 to Commercial C-1 with the rezoning to become effective upon the approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. Page 2 Craig Peterson July 14, 1989 Re: Petition 400-740 - Ruiz Rezoning Request A copy of the planning staff report and supporting documentation is also attached for your reference. If you have any questions, please contact Janice Jardine or myself. Since.-ly, Allen Johnso- , AICP Planning Dir-- or attachments cc: Mr. John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman Ms. Gloria Ruiz Petitioner, c/o Mr. Jay Hansen file SALT TAKE CITY PLANNING OaTIISSION STAFF REPORT PII'1T1CN 400-740 ER CM MS. G OR A RUIZ REQUESTING TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 145 N. of ye: ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL "R-6" TO Si ,a• IAL "C-1" OVERVIEW This is a request from Ms. Gloria Ruiz requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located at 145 North Redwood Road from Residential "R-6" to Coniiercial "C-1". The site is situated about 265 feet north of the intersection of North Temple and Redwood Road. The proposed use is a family style sit-down restaurant featuring mexican food. The project is abutted by a Cash Saver service station on the south, vacant property to the west, Gertie Avenue to the north and Redwood Road to the east. The other corners of North Temple and Redwood Road are occupied by a Circle K convenience/gas store on the northeast, a Rainbo service station and Holiday Inn on the southeast, Denny's restaurant on the northwest and the Cash Saver service station on the southwest. 0 W¢ eiri A U A • 3 •..0...0 0 0 o ° A . a • 0 0 0 0 00 • . A A •c` • 0 0 0 a o ° � A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 • c W�, A • eee O O O o ° F . 0 i r i ith i 1:0,:e... • .N cso ; ii, V' • 2 too i65 W / c BACKGROUND The present depth of the Commercial "C-1" zoning is 263 foot running north from North Temple then changes to Residential "R-6". Originally Gertie Avenue was located along this present zoning boundary but has since been relocated north 155 feet to its present location. This portion of the North Temple conurercial strip is the narrowest commercially zoned property in the vicinity. ANALYSIS The Northwest Community Master Plan calls for this area to remain as a buffer betwocn residential and commercial uses but allows for commercial, zoning expansion to accommodate development proposals. Such conuercial uses are to be oriented toward North Temple or Redwood Road and are to be singular in development character. Neighborhood or conutrunity oriented commercial uses are encouraged in this area. The petitioner has three other restaurants located throughout the valley. Until approximately a year and a half ago the petitioner had a similar restaurant located in the Rose Park area but due to leasing problems had to vacate the building. She has since purchased this property and proposes to construct her own building. The proposed use and site plan also meet the urban design criteria identified in the master plan to be considered when evaluating conurcial rezoning requests including; community need for and support of the project, street location to accommodate additional traffic, provide adequate parking, open space, setbacks and buffers, new construction not conversion of existing building, and will not negatively impact neighboring residential uses. Ms. Ruiz's representative, Mr. Jay Hansen, attended the April 6, 1988 North Redwood Community Council to discuss the proposed use and site plan. The response was very supportive of the proposal. There were several residents who live on Certie Ave. and Harold Street who were in attendance and expressed their support of the proposal. The project has been reviewed by the appropriate City departments. The site plan as presented complies with all site design standards and the reviewing departments recommend approval of this request. •DS• al ION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of this request to rezone from Residential "R-6" to Commercial "C-l" the property located at 145 North Redwood Road with the rezoning to become effective upon approval of a building permit within one year from the date of approval by the City Council. June 21, 1989 Janice M. Jardine LEROY W HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, PE. �t \ r ) Q SUPERINTENDENT S 12 1 A) 4 Pnl TTTTTTTTTTTIY(OORPO ' r iIQN WATER SUPPLY&WATERWORKS �1,�yy �.�-siF�.a�y ®a��d�� E. TIM COXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS, CPA. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE& ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE GEORGE JORGENSEN, PE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHEF ENGINEER June 27, 1989 TO Janice Jardine Planning & Zoning FROM: E. T. Doxey Water Reclamattion Superintendent RE: PETITION NO. 400-740 - RUIZ REZONING REQUEST AT 245 NORTH REDWOOD ROAD The Public Utilities Department has reviewed the above noted petition and has no objections to the Petitioner' s request . There are no water or sewer conflicts. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Mr. Ray Eastman at 483-6787. /co FORMS cf: File SALT LAKE CITY PLANNIM ctM ISSIcw Ems: June 20, 1989 TO: Harry Ewing - Engineering FROM: Janice Jardine - Planning Fes: Pet. 400-740 - Ruiz rezoning request at 145 N. Redwood Road Please review the attached petition and return your written comments by June 26, 1989. ° ,�YZs:� • • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNItZ COVVISSIOU DATE: June 20, 1989 TO: Barry Walsh - Transportation FROM: Janice Jardine - Planning RE: Pet. 400-740 - Ruiz rezoning request at 145 N. Redwood Road Please review the attached petition and return your written comments by June 26, 1989. • w�gg Petition No. 400-740 B71 1,211M Cafe Silvectr 1 � By - (11n-il Ruiz ( JUN141989 1 Requesting Salt Lake City to rezone ' I CITY PLANNING & property located at 145 North Redwood i '.ONING COMMIS-51CH Road from "R-6" to "C-1" classification. / I ' 1 71e. b,e•e-O/oz• Ats • Cd/ec-ZpNS A 0/4///v2 Lee-eztss-ftre,47;d4/I • Dale Filed June 13, 1989 c/o John Hansen • Address 970 East 3300 South Street .YE Salt Lake City, Utah 84106• APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City "tah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: 145 NoLth Redwood Roast from a R-6 classification to a C-1 classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATrACH TO APPLICATION 1. The reasons why the present zoning is. not proper for the area. 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. 3. Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezoning from all affected property owners. 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. THE PROVE Th1FbRMATICU, IN DETAIL, FIJST ACCDMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THE Formal TO HE PROPERLY CONS n rD+s HY THE-PEARNING COMMISSION. x ,= e--fC -1,G .;NA c/o Jay Hansen Signature of the applicant C AND Investment Co. Address 970 E. 3300 South (7E) Salt Lake City, Ut. Telephone Number 485-3722 Zip Code 84106 FILL OUT REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. 4/ - •7y0 Date (Q//. lK y Receipt No. r7,3( Amount $ /(X),r)c; • APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT - ADDENDUM RE: 145 North Redwood Road Salt Lake City, Utah 1. The site is situated about 265 feet north of intersection of North Temple Street and Redwood Road. The intersection is a well-developed commercial corner with a Circle K and a Burger King built on the northeast corner within the past year. Across the street east is a Kentucky Fried Chicken. The other corners are occupied by a Rainbo Service Station and Holiday Inn (SE) , Denny's restaurant and other commercial development (SW) , and a Cash Saver Service Station and private club (NW) . The subject site is abutted by the Cash Saver property on the south, the private club property on the west, Gertie Avenue on the north and Redwood Road on the east. It is our opinion that the property lends itself to commercial development and is not well suited to any kind of residential development. 2 . The recent quality commercial developments at this intersection give a strong indication of the future commercial strength of the area. 3 . The site will be used for the development of a family style sit-down restaurant featuring mexican food. The architectural style will be southwestern or Spanish style with a residential appearance. The owners currently operate a restaurant at 3041 East 3300 South in Salt Lake City, 280 West 7200 South in Midvale and 3524 South 2200 West in West Valley City. 4 . It is our opinion retaining the present residential zoning would mean that the property would remain undeveloped because residential use is not appropriate in the area. 5. At a meeting of the North Redwood Community Council April 6, 1988, the proposed use was presented along with a site plan. The response was totally supportive of the proposed use of the property. Many were present who live in the immediate neighborhood, including some who live west of the site on Gertie Avenue and Harold Street. All of the response was very favorable. 6 . A site plan of the development is included with this presentation. 7 . Sidwell # 08-34-381-014 08-34-381-004 Owner Gloria Ruiz DBA CVFLAND Investment Co. , T t dr�6 aCIrTY(� TPO 's I:OI1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, 535.7777 - - -_ T0: Salt Lake City Council July 19, 1989 RE: Side Yards and/or Rear Yard Requirements Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss a proposed ordinance outlining conditions and a overlay zone to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without the proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. Availability of Funds: Not applicable r . Discussion and Background: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the Zoning Ordinance not be changed to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize building additions. The Planning and Zoning Staff report supports this Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions the Board of Adjustment could use if you wish to pursue this issue by adopting the appropriate ordinance changes. These conditions are designed so that the Board of Adjustment can verify the hardships imposed by those structures having been erected by previous owners as well as the Board can verify that the additions meet building code and reasonable separation from neighboring structures and property lines. After reviewing the staff report, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coup] ing the following proposed conditions to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment with an overlay zone: 1. Proof that the offending structure was not built by the petitioner or relative. 2. Proof that the offending structure existed prior. to 1975. 3. The offending structure must maintain a 10-foot minimum distance to any adjacent dwelling. • • 4. Thn pet-it-.inner purchased the property without notice of violation, meaning a Certificate of Non -compliance had not been recorded against the deed of the property. 5. The offending structure must be no closer to the front property line than the primary structure or 20 feet, whichever is greater. 6. The offending structure must maintain a minimum of 3 feet of landscaped open space to the property line. 7. The offending structure must meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code. 8. The structure must be architecturally compatible with the primary structure and the neighborhood. The overlay zone process is simple. It places the responsibility for its enactment on a consensus within the neighborhood and requires a legislative action by the City Council. A recommendation is required from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This process ensures neighborhood involvement and the Planning Staff conditions verify the presence of hardship and the compliance with building code standards. Should you concur with the recommendation after the public hearing, the City Attorney with the Planning Staff should be directed to prepare the necessary overlay ordinance that can then be enacted should a specific neighborhood request it. Legislative Action: No ordinance has been prepared due to the complex issues that can not be resolved until a public hearing has been held. Submitted by: CRAIG E. PERSON Director lf/ • • SALT- ��ar;C T_((� 0 iI.L1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E, PETERSON .11'4 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, -.. -- 535-7777 • - July 17, 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: Attached please find the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation concerning the City Council's request to change the Zoning Ordinance so as to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without the proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the Zoning Ordinance not be changed to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize these building additions. The Planning and Zoning staff report supports this Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions if the City Council wishes to pursue this issue by adopting the appropriate ordinance changes. These conditions are designed to verify the hardships imposed by those structures having been erected by previous owners as well as to verify that the additions meet building code and reasonable separation from neighboring structures and property lines. After reviewing the staff report, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the proposed conditions contained in the Planning Staff report with an overlay zone similar to the one I have proposed to deal with the recreation vehicle parking issue. The overlay zone process is simple. It places the responsibility for its enactment on a consensus within the neighborhood and requires a legislative action by the City Council. A recommendation is required from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This process ensures neighborhood involvement and the Planning Staff conditions verify the presence of hardship and the Mayor Palmer DePaulis July 17, 1989 Page Two compliance with building code standards. Upon receipt of your comments concerning this recommendation, I will request the City Attorney's office work with the Planning Staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and schedule briefing and public hearing dates before the City Council. Sincerely, Craig E. Peterson Director CEP:skm ),aJ( r T PAID a_ONI PLANNING ANO ZONING ALLEN C. JOHNSON. AICP COMMISSION MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER WILLIAM T. WRIGHT. AICP PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission THOMAS A. ELLISON ANO URBAN DESIGN LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL 451 SOUTH STATE STREET SANDRA MARLER RICHARD J. HOWA SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN July 7, 1989 Mr. Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 218 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Craig: The Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed City Council legislation intent which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without permits and do not have proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Staff has analyzed the existing ordinance and potential alternative changes to address the issues raised by the City Council and has recommended not to enact such legislation. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 1989, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council not to change the existing Zoning Ordinance prohibiting accessory structures in the side and rear yards without adequate setbacks. The Planning Commission and Planning Staff believe the existing City urban design policies and standards governing accessory structures are proper and all residents should abide by these standards unless a legitimate hardship is associated with a specific site. In those cases, the Board of Adjustment presently has the authority to grant variances. While studying possible alternatives, the staff concluded that in order to abide by the Uniform Building Code (for health, safety and welfare of City residents) , the ordinance would need to contain a host of conditions and provisions. Most, if not all, of the existing situations which the City Council is trying to address, would not be able to be granted because those structures could not comply with the Uniform Building Code provisions. Mr. Craig t . Peterson July 7, 1989 Page Two The Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the City Council not pursue a new ordinance authorizing the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain existing garages, carports and patio covers built without proper side and/or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Commission Ends that the existing ordinance and City zoning enforcement procedures assure compliance with master planning goals for Salt Lake City's neighborhoods. Applying consistent standards of development will assure aesthetic design of our residential neighborhoods and provide standards for health, safety and welfare of Salt Lake City's residents. If the City Council should decide to proceed with a new ordinance, the Planning Staff would recommend eight conditions for approval of any legalization. The staff requests the opportunity to discuss these conditions with the City Council. Attached are the Planning Staff report and Planning Commission minutes for their review. If you have additional questions, please let me know. Respectfully submitted, „ , Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director AC;J:skm attachments PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Allegra from UTA explained that this first phase was simply to obtain the preference on type of system and that technical details involved in the .O'P.' implementation and actual location of the system would be covered during the next phase of the study. Following the detailed and lengthy discussion, Mr. Neilson moved to recommend the loop system as the preference of the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission to the Transportation Implementation Committee. Mr. Nicolatus seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Q Discuss Northwest Community Plan Update. Mr. Johnson informed the Planning Commission that in 1980, the Planning Commission and the City Council adopted the Northwest Community Master Plan. Ms. Jardine asked if any of the Planning Commissioners had any questions on the update which they were already familiar with, and requested a hearing date for this matter to be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nicolatus moved to schedule this hearing for June 22, 1989. Ms. Liddle- Gamonal seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Discuss legislation which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without building permits and do not have the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. Mr. Merrill Nelson presented the staff report and stated that enforcement procedures taken against many illegally located garages, carports and patio covers in the Yalecrest and Rose Park areas in 1986-1987 have revealed that often the present owners were not the persons responsible for the illegal construction. Many cases have developed were the present owner has unwittingly purchased property without the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks and the length of time that has past preempts the reasonable recourse the owner may have against the original seller of the property. The present owner is, therefore, subject to a real property loss if the zoning enforcement were to proceed. • In order to protect the many citizens who become victims of other owners who built structures without the proper building permits, the City Council has proposed legislation which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers. Mr. Nelson stated that the Uniform Building Code requires garages and carports to have a "one-hour" fire wall when the structure is located within three feet of the property line. This is a life-safety requirement designed to prevent the spread of fire from one property to the next. Most of the enforcement cases involved structures which were built on or near the property line and would be subject to this Building Code requirement. PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 Page 7 The propriety of legalizing a structure simply because it already exists must also be considered. If a variance is granted because the structure already exists and not because of a hardship related to the property, the obvious motive for the variance is economic. Much evidence exists in case law which indicates that economics are not to have a role in considering a zoning variance. If the city were to pursue legislation that allows a legalization process, the staff would recommend the following conditions be met by the petitioner: 1. Proof that the offending structure was not built by the petitioner nor a relative. 2. Proof that the offending structure existed prior to 1975. 3. The offending structure must maintain a 10-foot minimum distance to any adjacent dwelling. 4. The petitioner purchased the property without notice of violation, meaning a Certificate of Noncompliance had not been recorded against the deed of the property. 5. The offending structure must be no closer to the front property line than the primary structure or 20 feet, whichever is greater. 6. The offending structure must maintain a minimum of 3 feet of landscaped open space to the property line. 7. The offending structure must meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code. 8. The structure must be architecturally compatible with the primary structure and the neighborhood. . Mr. Nelson said that separating dwellings in residential zones, by requiring minimum landscaped side and rear yard setbacks, is a significant planning objective. The proposed ordinance would substantially reduce this desired separation. Also, required side and rear .yard setbacks contribute highly to the quality of life as these setbacks.buffer noise and activities from one neighbor to the next. Mr. Nelson added that the City Master Plans are supportive of open space, visual compatibility, and urban design developed to the property line is not consistent. Mr. Nelson stated that the Planning Staff believes the proposed legislation would be detrimental to the master plan for residential areas resulting in visual incompatibility and would encourage eventual conversion into living space. By opposing this legislation, we realize that some innocent people may suffer some financial loss; however, the quality of life for neighborhoods is, in our opinion, a higher priority. The staff recommends that the city does not create ordinances that would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize carports, garages and patio covers in required yard areas. PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 Page 8 Ms. Liddle-Gamonal asked if property owners are informed of the conforming/nonconforming status of the property they are purchasing at the • time they purchase the property. Mr. Nelson responded that it would be possible to buy a piece of property that is nonconforming since the title report only deals with the deed of the property against financial encumbrances and not Zoning Ordinance issues. Mr. Johnson stated that the staff is recommending the ordinance not be revised because the majority of the violations would still exist and need enforcement even after the ordinance revision. Mr. Johnson added that enforcement is usually on a complaint basis due to a shortage of enforcement officers and when one neighbor has a complaint filed against him, he in turn, complains about everyone else in the neighborhood who is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson added that he did not feel changing the ordinance, instead of the wav the enforcements are handled, is the best alternative. Mr. Nicolatus stated he feels the citizens who comply with the Zoning Ordinance, or those who are adjacent to someone in violation of the ordinance, need to be acknowledged. Mr. Howa moved to accept staff's recommendation to recommend that the City Council not create legislation regarding authorization for the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without building permits and do not have the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. Mr. Becker seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. OTHER BUSINESS Informal R/UDAT Meeting Mr. Schumann stated that Mr. Chuck Davis of R/UDAT will be in town on Friday, June 16th, and is desirous of meting with the Planning Commissioners at 9:00 a.m. to discuss R/UDAT. It was suggested the secretary make reminder calls cn Thursday, June 15th. There being no further business, the mooting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. /12 .4J 4 //11W:4,0) /Secreta ry • ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS ROGER CITY TTORNEY CUTLER S ^\ ' ''ri! QJ U1; T4Y(GNP O �e r 111),Ni77 RAY L. MONTGOMERY STE`/EN W. ALLRED GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY LAW DEPARTMENT LARRY V. SPENDLOVE BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 CARLOS ESOUEDA MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Peterson, Director Development Services /� FROM: Bruce R. Baird Jet Assistant City Attorney DATE: July 16, 1989 RE: Overlay Zones for Recreational Vehicles and Garages On Wednesday, July 26, 1989 LuAnn brought me your memos dated July 19 and July 20, 1989 addressed to the City Council regarding proposed "overlay zones" allowing for amnesty for illegal garages and for recreational vehicle parking in side yards respectively. I understood from LuAnn that you needed comments on these two proposals quickly. This letter provides those comments. Given the brief amount of time this memorandum does not purport to be an in-depth discussion of the two proposals but merely the first preliminary opinion from our office. General Concerns. Administration of the various overlay zones co`Id become -- bureaucratically difficult and confusing for both the City administration and our citizens. To the extent that a court might determine that due to the proliferation of these zones no reasonable citizen could figure out the exact status of their Craig Peterson, DirL ,tor July 26, 1989 Page -2- • property we might have difficulty enforcing certain provisions related to the various overlay zones. Additionally, the overlay zone process contains the potential for discrimination in favor of "squeaky wheels. " That is, those citizens with an axe to grind and the ability to use the system may succeed in having the overlay zones applied where other citizens with less effective access to the process may simply give up in frustration despite justifiable claims. Obviously, to ease both of the above problems it would be simpler for the ordinances, assuming without deciding that they are useful from a planning standpoint, on a city-wide basis. Specific Problems. Creation of the actual overlay ordinances, exdept as noted above, is not terribly difficult. However, when the time comes to apply the "overlays" to the zoning maps great care would need to be taken to determine that the district overlaid with the zone met the rational relationship test for zoning ordinances. That is, planning reasons would need to be articulated why the district furthered the City' s comprehensive land use plan. It is not sufficient to meet the comprehensive planning objectives to simply say "the people of one particular area want it. " The line drawing, in applying the overlay zones, must rationally further the City' s comprehensive land use objectives. Another specific problem concerns the "amnesty" overlay zone for garages, etc. Condition No. 8, of "architectural compatibility, " is a very discretionary determination to place with the board as written. It would probably require more specifics (e. g. matching colors, matching building materials, etc. ) . Concerning the recreational vehicle overlay zone, it would be necessary before drafting the ordinance to come up with definitions for a great number of terms in the proposal. Speci- fically, "motor home, " travel trailer, " "recreational vehicle" and other terms. Condition No. 4, requiring approval from the affected, abutting property owners, is almost certainly impermissible. The Utah Supreme Court has already held that granting of variances and other zoning functions requires a comprehensive plan and cannot be conditioned upon neighbor approval. Craig Peterson, Dirt .:or July 26, 1989 Page -3- Even should these other concerns be dealt with the process of drafting the ordinance for recreational vehicles will be long and complicated due to the great number of considerations which must be specified. If you have any further questions please let me know. I apologize for the rough nature of this memorandum but ask you to remember it was written on very short notice pursuant to your request. BRB:rc cc: Roger F. Cutler Allen C. Johnson skim r HIt`TCGORPe° d,© t CRAIG E. PETERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council July 20, 1989 RE: Overlay Zone to allow certain recreation vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:50 p.m. to discuss a proposed overlay zone to allow certain recreational vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. Availability of Eands: Not applicable • Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission recommends the current Zoning Ordinance not be changed to permit the parking of these vehicles as proposed. The Planning Division's staff report supports the Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions if you want to pursue this issue by adopting appropriate legislation. These conditions are designed to reduce the obvious impacts resulting from the parking of these vehicles in areas other than rear yards. After reviewing the staff report, the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the following proposed conditions in the Planning Staff report with an overlay zone: 1. Limited to one motor home or travel trailer per dwelling. Other recreational vehicles are limited to a total of two per dwelling. 2. Recreational vehicles may be stored in the rear yard on an adequate hard surface pad with either a hard surface driveway, hard surface drive strips, or an access constructed of turf block or grasscrete materials with an irrigation system. 3. Parking in the side yard can only be allowed when there is not reasonable access to the rear yard. A fence shall not be adequate proof of lack of reasonable access to the rear yard. Topography, �-' property located structures and mature vegetation are possible reasons to permit recreational vehicle parking in the side yard. A plot plan with photographs will be required for permit processing. 4. Any permit application for recreational vehicle parking within the side yard will. require notarization of approval from the affected abutting property owner. 5. No recreational vehicle shall be parked in the required side yard unless parking area is improved with hard surface materials of either concrete or asphalt. The recreational vehicle parking area can not be situated so as to interfere with access to required off street parking. 6. A parking area within the side yard should be located in the yard adjacent to the existing driveway. The access drive should be tapered to the existing driveway. At no time can this transition area be used for vehicle parking. 7. The parking area must be screened to lessen the visual impact by a six foot sight-proof fence with gate or equivalent element. Screening with either, or a combination of, berms and vertical vegetation or with street trees is also recommended. 8. Any recreational vehicle stored on the property must be owned by the resident of the subject property and be currently registered with the Salt Lake County Assessors office. The overlay zone process is simple and places the responsibility of its enactment on the neighborhood through a legislative action of the City Council. The neighborhood would need to petition for the enactment of the overlay zone. The Planning Commission would then need to render a recommendation in public hearings held by the City Council. This process would ensure neighborhood involvement and the conditions of the Planning Staff would ameliorate some of the adverse impacts associated with the parking of these vehicles. Should you concur with this recommendation after the public hearing, the City Attorney's Office should be directed to work with the Planning Staff and prepared the necessary overlay ordinance that can then be enacted on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Legislative Documents: No ordinance has been prepared due to complex issues to be resolved at the public hearing. Submitted by: /' r CRAIG E . PEJIUSCN C---IKE Director lf/ • DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111, 535-7777 • July 17, 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: Attached please find the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation concerning the City Council's request for the Commission to examine the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of possibly allowing the parking of certain recreation vehicles in the side yards of residentially zoned properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the current Zoning Ordinance not be changed to permit the parking of these vehicles as proposed. The Planning Division's staff report supports the Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions if the City Council wishes to pursue this issue by adopting appropriate legislation. These conditions are designed to reduce the obvious impacts resulting from the parking of these vehicles in areas other than rear yards. After reviewing the staff report, the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the proposed conditions contained in the Planning Staff report with an overlay zone. The overlay zone process is simple and places the responsibility of its enactment on the neighborhood through a legislative action of the City Council. The neighborhood would need to petition for the enactment of the overlay zone. The Planning Commission would then need to render a recommendation in public hearings held by the City Council. This process would ensure neighborhood involvement and the conditions of the Planning Staff would ameliorate some of the adverse impacts associated with the parking of • these vehicles. Mayor Palmer DePaulis July 17, 1989 Page Two • Upon receipt of your comments concerning this recommendation, I will request the City Attorney's office work with the Planning Staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and schedule briefing and public hearing dates before the City Council. Sincerely, Craig E. Peterson Director • C_:skm smap A)4_,1 cur(c..,.__mPoRma,oNT 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 DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY AND URBAN CES,GN THOMAS A. ELLISON A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN July 11, 1989 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services Rm 218 City and County Bldg Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: City Council request to examine the current zoning ordinance requirements concerning the parking of recreational vehicles in the side yard. Dear Craig: Planning issues related to the modification of the zoning ordinance regarding recreational vehicle parking in the front and side yard were discussed on the April 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission discussed a proposed staff ordinance change that would allow for possible parking and storage of recreational vehicles within the side yard. This draft ordinance proposal listed several conditions to be met prior to allowing recreational vehicle parking within the side yard. The Planning Commission identified several areas needing modification if the ordinance was to be recommended for approval. The Coltanission discussion indicated that the urban design character historically and presently supported by the city master plan would be severely impacted by allowing recreational vehicle parking within the front or side yard. It was also stated that they could not support changing an ordinance that can not be adequately enforced by another modified ordinance that would still maintain the same problems as to enforceability. With the enforceability issue concern identified, the Planning Commission did not pursue additional discussion of the areas of modification to the staff's proposed ordinance change to allow recreational vehicle parking within the side yard. At this time, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that no changes be made with the existing ordinance with regards to allowing front or side yard parking. Prior to transmitting the Planning Commission decision the staff has given an opportunity of each community council to have input on this matter. Most community councils did not respond, those that did gave a mixed response. The range of response was of support for the existing ordinance and enforcement of that ordinance to one that recreational vehicle parking should be allowed in the side yard only with adequate screening and abutting property owner approval. Not one community council supported an ordinance modification that would directly allow side yard recreational vehicle parking without some form of conditional control. It should be noted in the Planning Commission discussion that allowing side yard parking with approval of the abutting property owner was a questionable requirement and not supported. Also the draft proposed ordinance has not been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Everett L. Joyce. Sincerely, Allen G. Johns n, AICP Planning Direc or attachments ACJ:elj CC: John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman file SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING aSSICN STAFF REPORT REEATICNAL VEB I(T PARKING AND SIU IN THE Slut 1 t YARD IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OVERVIEW At the request of the City Council through the Mayor the Planning Commission has been asked to examine the current zoning ordinance concerning parking of vehicles in the side yard, particularly, providing for the parking and storage of recreational vehicles. BACKGROUND Examination of this issue was initially raised in 1987 from the complaint of one neighbor concerning several other neighbors which have structures such as carports in their side yards usually to cover and store their recreational vehicles. A survey of the Rose Park area has brought to light several violations of this kind and it would be fair to assume that there are many more violations throughout the City. Subdivisions within Rose Park developed with two eight foot side yards when an attached carport or garage was constructed. At the time of development only cne off street parking space was required. Due to this development pattern, allowance of side yard recreational vehicle parking would have the most visual and environmental impact upon abutting residential uses. ANALYSIS Recreational vehicles are part of the local life style in Utah, however, they do detract from the aesthetic atmosphere of the neighborhood when parked or stored in the side and front yard. In addition there is a loss of air circulation and light (sun) penetration. In many cases the ground underneath is not surfaced and becomes muddy when wet and rutted in dry weather and presents or adds to an unkempt appearance of the residence. Recreational vehicles for this discussion include motor homes, travel trailers, campers, boats, motorc✓cles, all terrain vehicles (ATV's) , snowmobiles and trailers to transport motorcycles, snowmobiles and boats. Accessory storage of recreational vehicles, particularly motor homes, can be on a long term basis and would impact abutting properties similar to a structural addition. Allowing such storage would effect the urban design and air circulation elements of maintaining open space betweon residential uses trough minimum required side yards. Information obtained from the Salt Lake County Assessor's office provided 1988 registration numbers for recreational vehicles within Salt Lake City (sco table) . That office estimates that 25 percent of the recreational vehicles in the valley are not registered in Salt Lake County. • 1988 RECREATIONAL VEIIICJ F REGISTRATION MOTOR HC MES 538 TRAILER 3,303 CAMPER 927 BOAT 2,814 MOTORCYCLE 2,199 ATV 940 SNOW OBIfF 248 'IUI'AL 10,969 Within Salt Lake City recreational vehicle parking is allowed in the rear yard on a hard surfaced pad with a hard surfaced driveway with a curb cut. The zoning ordinance prohibits parking vehicles in the side yard. Enforcement on a complaint basis only has resulted in the proliferation of structures for and storage of recreational vehicles in the side yard. Acknowledging that the problem exists and will remain the planning staff has prepared a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow the parking and storage of recreational vehicles upon compliance with specified conditions. These conditions would minimize the impacts such parking has on the quality of life and esthetics of residential neighborhoods. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached. A survey of surrounding cities in the Salt Lake area shows that they allow parking in the side yard with requirements ranging from a very general statement in the zoning ordinance to specific conditions to be met for such parking. Adoption of an ordinance allowing recreational vehicle parking in the side yard should not give existing recreational vehicle parking areas any nonconforming status. Existing parking areas may be legalized if that parking mots the conditions identified in the proposed ordinance for allowing recreational vehicle parking. Recreational vehicle parking should be limited to single family and duplex residential uses. Other multiple residential uses need to be restricted from allowing recreational vehicle parking due the fact that multiple dwelling units share the open space associated with that particular development. Certain multiple dwellings may have areas set aside for storage of recreational vehicles, however, this is accomplished through the Planned Unit Development process with approval by the Board of Adjustment. RELt t ENDATION The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a modification to the zoning ordinance allowing recreational vehicle parking in the rear and side yards upon compliance with the conditions outlined in the proposed attached ordinance. March 1989 Everett Joyce Janice Jardine Summary of City ordinances pertaining to recreational vehicle parking Where Allowed Conditions Salt Lake Rear yard Hard surfaced pad and drive. Sandy Rear & side yard Not in public right of way. Murray Front yard On established driveways 10' setback from front property line. Ogden Rear & side yard Hard surfaced pad and drive with tapered transition. Pad not to extend in front of building. Screened with 6' sight proof fence. Must maintain one required parking space. PROPOSW ORDINANCE CHANCES TO ACCCMMODAIE RECREATICNAL VEHICLE PARKING (Definitions) 21.04.377 Recreational Vehicles "Recreational Vehicle" is a motorized self propelled vehicle with more than two wheels or a towed vehicle that may be transported or drawn upon the highway, except devices moved by human power. Types of recreational vehicles are: "Travel Trailer" is a structure designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping or travel use. "Motor Home" is a portable dwelling designed and constructed as an integral part of a self-propelled vehicle. "Pickup Camper" is a structure designed primarily to be mounted on a pickup or truck chassis and with sufficient equipment to render it suitable for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational or travel use. "Water Craft" is any unit that is used for water travel or pleasure. "Off Road Vehicle" is a snowmobile, dune buggy, or any All Terrain Vehicle with either three or four wheels designed for off-road travel and used for recreational purposes. (Proposed ordinance change to the Supplementary and Qualifying Regulations) 21.80.290 Recreational Vehicles In a residential zoning district, single family and duplex dwelling uses, as an accessory, residents are allowed to park a recreational vehicle, trailer or boat under the conditions outlined in subsections (a) and (b) below. This parking shall be in addition to, not in lieu of, the required off-street parking spaces for the particular zoning district. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked on a public right of way or front yard. A recreational vehicle may not be used for storage of goods, materials, or equipment other than those to be considered part of the unit. Recreational vehicles must be stored in a safe and secure manner. Tie-downs, tarpaulins and ropes must be secured from rattling and flapping in windy conditions. Any tarpaulins used to cover vehicles that are kept outside must be of a neutral color. Parking is permitted only for storage and no recreational vehicle shall be used for dwelling purposes. (a) Parking is permitted within any enclosed structure when the structure conforms to the zoning requirements of the particular district in which it is located; (b) Parking is permitted outside of an enclosed structure in the side yard or rear yard under the following conditions: 1. Limited to one motor home or travel trailer per dwelling. Other recreational vehicles are limited to a total of two per dwelling. 2. Recreational vehicles may be stored in the rear yard on an adequate hard surface pad with either a hard surface driveway, hard surface drive strips, or an access drive constructed of turf block or grass- crete materials with an irrigation system. 3. Parking in the side yard can only be allowed when there is not reasonable access to the rear yard. A fence shall not be adequate proof of lack of reasonable access to the rear yard. Topography, properly located structures and mature vegetation are possible reasons to permit recreational vehicle parking in the side yard. A plot plan with photographs will be required for permit processing. 4. Any permit application for recreational vehicle parking within the side yard will require a notarization of approval from the affected abutting property owner. 5. No recreational vehicle shall be parked in the required side yard unless the parking area is improved with hard surface materials of either concrete or asphalt. The recreational vehicle parking area can not be situated so as to interfere with access to required off street parking. 6. A parking area within the side yard should be located in the yard adjacent to the existing driveway. The access drive should be tapered to the existing driveway. At no time can this transition area be used for vehicle parking. 7. The parking area must be scrooned to lessen the visual impact by a six foot sight-proof fence with gate or equivalent element. Screening with either, or a combination of, berms and vertical vegetation or with street trees is also recommended. 8. Any recreational vehicle stored on the property must be owned by the resident of the subject property and be currently registered with the Salt Lake County Assessors office. March 1989 FTJ SIX rwr FENCE - Sight Proof with Gate HARD SURFA PARKING PAD mil inn ,uu 'ui� • 111nuuir IMIEuHr 11iii111111i • ACCESS DRIVE IMF NIIMW PAW ar LANDSCAPE SCREESIING AREA 1111 EY - Vertical Vegetation — -- I Street Tree PC MINUTES April , 1989 Page 12 Centre Park project, subject to the granting of an avigation easement to Salt Lake City and installation of drainage plan improvements as proposed by the developer. Mr. Wheelwright also recommended that the Planning Commission authorize the Planning Director to grant final plat approval administratively upon compliance with city ordinances and requirements. Mr. Van Alstyne moved to approve the preliminary plat. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Q PLANING ISSUES Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage in the side yard in residential districts. Mr. Everett Joyce presented the staff report and stated that City Council has recuested, through the Mayor, that the Planning Commission examine the current Zoning Ordinance concerning parking of vehicles in the side yard, particularly providing for the parking and storage of recreational vehicles. Mr. Joyce stated that this issue was raised through complaints of violations. Mr. Joyce added that a field survey brought many violations of this ordinance to the staff's attention. Mr. Joyce then showed slides of pictures taken of current violations in the Rose Park and west side area. He noted that the problem is evident throughout the city and not just within these two neighborhoods used in the illustrations. • A discussion followed on the growing number of recreational vehicles in the city, the detraction of the esthetic atmosphere and the loss of air circulation and light penetration caused by these vehicles, enforcement difficulties, safety hazards when there is no open space between residential units, and the fact that there are already more than 100 pending cases in need of enforcement. People wanting quick access to their recreational vehicles was also discussed as well as security risks at storac.e centers and the impact of obstructed views of abutting residences. Mr. Joyce stated that the Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a modification to the Zoning Ordinance allowing recreational vehicle parking in the rear and side yards upon compliance with the conditions outlined in the proposed attached ordinance. Mr. Howa asked how they would be able to enforce anything new that might be drafted if they can't enforce the current ordinance. Mr. Johnson that the department has ticketing authority and that 900 of the compliance to the Zoning Ordinance is voluntary. Mr. Howa pointed out that the majority of the violations will remain as violations even if the ordinance is amended. Following a lengthy discussion and debate of the current ordinance, Mr. Nicolatus moved to recommend enforcement of the current Zoning Ordinance rather than revising it. Mr. Van Alstyne seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." FIRST FEDERAL sos East 200 South P.O.Box 11868 SAVINGS Salt Lake City,Utah 84147 (801)531-7800 April 10. Mg • Mr. John M. Schumann 10 West Broadway, Suite 610 Salt Lake City. Utah 84101 Dear John: I am unable to attend the meeting this Thursday, but wanted to comment on two of the agenda items. With respect to recreational vehicles, I think "two wheel" should be deleted from the definition. Also, I would prefer wording that begins with a prohibition of side yard parking and proceeds to permission by exception. Also. I would delete the affirmative approval of the abutting owner. With respect to the Landmark Committee, I believe that the intent of the amendment might be served better by requiring a member from each council district rather than excluding a group of members from any historic connection. Actually, historic integrity shouldn't be the subject of political whim. and I think committee membership is better served by professional qualification than residency. Cordially yours. 7/4 Ralph P. Neilson Executive Vice President RPN:kd cc: Planning Committee Members Member FSLIC