02/05/2002 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2002
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, February
5, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South
State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Van
Turner, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert.
Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative
Officer; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director;
John Sittner, Director of Olympic Planning; Police Chief Charles F. "Rick" Dinse;
Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy
Analyst; Michael Sears, Council Budget & Policy Analyst; and Pam Johnson, Deputy City
Recorder were present.
Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 4:38 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. RECEIVE AN OLYMPIC BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMAND.
Cindy Gust-Jenson said Olympic invitations were coming in for the City Council
on a daily basis. She said Council staff member, Lehua Weaver would be contacting
each Council Member daily with the details of each invitation.
See File M 01-5 for Council announcements.
#2. INTERVIEW PAT COMARELL PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
Ms. Comarell said she had been a City Planner for 20 years. She said when she
worked as a planner for Sandy City, the area had grown from 6200 to 54,000 people in
six years. She said the challenges she faced in Ogden were revitalizing the
neighborhoods in the downtown area. She said while she was with Ogden City she went
from a City planner to the City Council Director.
#3. INTERVIEW LON RICHARDSON PRIOR TO HIS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THE METROPOLITAN
WATER BOARD.
Mr. Richardson said this would be his second term. He said prior to this
appointment he was with the Public Utilities Advisory Board for six years. He said he
served as director of that board for three years.
#4 . RECEIVE AN OLYMPIC BRIEFING AND UPDATE.
Police Chief Dinse, Rocky Fluhart and John Sittner briefed the Council regarding
the beginning night of the Olympics, Thursday, February 7, 2002.
Chief Dinse said the Police Department was ready and security measures were in
place for the arrival of the Olympic Torch. Mr. Fluhart said the Utah Olympic Public
Safety Command (UOPSC) , agreement before the Council incorporated the Public Safety
Services provided by the Airport, the Fire Department and the Police Department. He
said the agreement was in accordance with the prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ,
entered into with other venue Cities, SLOC and the State of Utah.
02 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Councilmember Christensen said the City was shouldering the burden of additional
security. Councilmember Saxton said SLOC was doing well with ticket sales and event
sponsors. She said she wanted SLOC to know that the City could use financial help
with the additional security costs.
Councilmember Lambert said he hoped the media would advertise Thursday night's
events more. He said he felt everyone was not aware of the celebration. Councilmember
Saxton asked if venders could use the buildings in the western town. Mr. Sittner said
some would be selling from the buildings, but it was mostly a scenic facade.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
pi
02 - 2
FT,
0 i nri2.
SALT' C^` 1'4‘' TJY CORPO0° ,. II.Oi I
STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH - � �� ® -�. �+��.i+���.ar- - ROSS C.ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Date: February 1, 2002
FROM: Stephen Goldsmith,Planning Director
RE: Transmittal of the Planning Commission recommendation for Petition
400-02-15: A Petition from Park Tower, LLC requesting that the City
Council waive the normally required parking lot design standards, including
hard-surfacing, curb, gutter and landscaping for a temporary commercial
parking lot at 404 West 400 South on 1.56 acres in the D-3 Downtown
Warehouse/Residential District during the Olympic Winter Games.
STAFF CONTACTS: John Sittner, director of Olympic Planning (535-7744)
Joel Paterson, Senior Planner(535-6141)
e-mail: joel.paterson@ci.slc.ut.us
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: None
DISCUSSION: Petition 400-02-15 is a request by Park Tower, LLC for a
temporary commercial parking lot at 404 West 400 South on 1.56 acres in the D-3
Downtown Warehouse/Residential District during the Olympic Winter Games.
This petition is being processed under provisions of Ordinance 67 of 2001, which
authorizes the City Council to approve temporary uses that are related to the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games through an expedited review process after receiving a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. For this particular petition, the City Council is being
asked to waive requirements for hard-surfacing, curb controls and landscaping for the
parking lot.
Public Process. Ordinance 67 of 2001 created an expedited approval process for
Olympic related temporary uses that eliminated the requirement of petitioners to present
proposed projects to affected community councils. Therefore, under provisions of this
ordinance, the notice of the Planning Commission and the City Council public hearings
were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, to members of the People's
Freeway and Rio Grande community councils designated to be noticed on all expedited
Olympic related proposals located within the boundaries of their community council and
to the chairpersons of all recognized community councils in the City.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM14O6, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-5174
C.• RECYCLED PAPER
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this petition on January 31, 2002.
The discussion focused on the location of ingress and egress to the proposed temporary
parking lot. The petitioner proposed a single access from 400 West. The Planning
Commission recommended a second access on Rio Grande Street.
The Planning Commission and voted to approve the following motion:
Based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the provisions of Ordinance 67 of 2001,
the Planning Commission grants conditional use approval for the temporary parking
lot, subject to the following conditions of approval that will be delegated to various
City Departments including the Planning Director:
1. Asphalt or similar paving material is installed for the first 100 feet of the
entrances/exits to reduce the amount of dirt that will be deposited on City streets;
2. Execution of an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City, providing for the
restoration of the site after the Olympics.
3. That City Staff will determine if the existing surface of the parking lot adequately
meets the standard set previously by the Planning Commission for temporary
parking lots. If the surface is deemed not to be adequate, road base or roto-mill
must be imported and compacted to provide a suitable parking surface.
4. That access to the temporary parking lot be provided from 400 West and Rio
Grande Street.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the
City Council to approve the request by Park Tower, LLC to waive the hard-surfacing,
curb controls, and landscaping requirements for the temporary commercial parking
lot as proposed in Petition 400-02-15.
RELEVANT ORDINANCES: This petition has been processed in accordance with
Ordinance#67 of 2001.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CHRONOLOGY
2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE
3. MAILING LABELS
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
a. Hearing Notice and Postmark
b. Staff Report
c. Agenda/Minutes
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
6. ORIGINAL PETITION
Exhibit 1
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
PETITION 400-02-01
BY THE SALT LAKE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
January 10, 2002 Petition Received by the Planning Division
Petition assigned to Joel Paterson, Senior Planner
January 15, 2002 Notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet,
People's Freeway and Rio Grande community councils
and to all community council chairs
January 17, 2002 Proposed parking lot reviewed by the Mayor's Omnibus
Committee
January 22, 2002 City Council briefing. Hearing date set for February 5,
2002
January 31, 2002 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended that the City Council allow temporary
parking lots in the M-1 and M-2 districts and waive the
parking lot design standards
Exhibit 2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Authorizing a Temporary Parking Lot at Approximately 404 West
400 South Related to a Large-Scale Special Event of National or
International Significance)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.52.050.D OF THE SALT LAKE CITY
CODE, AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 404 WEST 400 SOUTH RELATED TO A LARGE-
SCALE SPECIAL EVENT OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE,
PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-15.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That Section 3.52.050.D.2 of the SALT LAKE CITY CODE, shall be, in the
same hereby is, enacted to read as follows:
13. A temporary parking lot without the required hard surfacing, curb controls,
and landscaping on property located at approximately 404 West 400 South.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS. This Ordinance is conditioned upon the following:
A. Road base or roto-mill must be imported to the site and compacted to provide a
suitable parking surface.
B. Asphalt or similar paving material must be installed for the first 100 feet of the
entrances/exits to reduce the amount of dirt that will be deposited on City streets.
C. Execution of an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City,providing for the
restoration of the site after the large scale special event.
D. Access to the temporary parking lot must be provided from 400 West and Rio
Grande Street.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its
first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to record or publish this ordinance until the —
conditions identified herein have been satisfied, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning
Director.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor's Action: DApproved DVetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2002
Published:
G:\Ordinance 02\Olympics-Temporary Parking Lot-404 W 400 S-Jan 18,2002.doc
2
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002
(Authorizing a Temporary Parking Lot at Approximately 404 West
400 South Related to a Large-Scale Special Event of National or
International Significance)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.52.050.D OF THE SALT LAKE CITY
CODE,AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 404 WEST 400 SOUTH RELATED TO A LARGE-
SCALE SPECIAL EVENT OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE,
PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-15.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That Section 3.52.050.D.2 of the SALT LAKE CITY CODE, shall be, in the
same hereby is, enacted to read as follows:
13. A temporary parking lot without the required hard surfacing, curb controls,
and landscaping on property located at approximately 404 West 400 South.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS. This Ordinance is conditioned upon the following:
A. Road base or roto-mill must be imported to the site and compacted to provide a
suitable parking surface.
B. Asphalt or similar paving material must be installed for the first 100 feet of the
entrances/exits to reduce the amount of dirt that will be deposited on City streets.
C. Execution of an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City, providing for the
restoration of the site after the large scale special event.
D. Access to the temporary parking lot must be provided from 400 West and Rio
Grande Street.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect on the date of its
first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to record or publish this ordinance until the
conditions identified herein have been satisfied, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning
Director.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this day of ,2902.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor's Action: DApproved ❑Vetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
11,,,sJ s..-_ .•
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2002
Published:
G:\Ordinance 02\Olympics-Temporary Parking Lot-404 W 400 S-Clean-Jan 18,2002.doc
2
Exhibit 3
MAILING LABELS
.71IIUULII FCCU JIfCCIJ- -- V-I V '-r l'�-^- - use feminine WI)IOU"
ALLAN AINSWORTH Caroline Alder TOM ANNASTASION
404 S 400 W 210 South Rio Grande Street 563 W 200 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2201 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1116
Claudia Ashton JIM AVATI Robert Baer
353 W 200 S Apt 408 343 Pierpont Ave# 1 353 W 200 S Apt 302
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1415 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1414
Jessica Baker Barbara Baker SARA BOWMAN BARBARA
PO Box 1690 _ 254 West 400 South, 2nd Floor GALLER
Orem,UT 84059-1690 Salt Lake City,UT 84104 353 W 200 S Apt 312
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1226
GARY BARRUS Joanna Black TOM BONER
2571 W 2590 S 353 W 200 S Apt 415 340 W 200 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84119-1985 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1298 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1272
Sam Bowdish Sara Bowman BETSY BRADLEY
353 W 200 S Apt 405 353 W 200 S Apt 312 48 W Broadway Apt 1705N
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1279 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1226 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2014
D BRAYMAN LYNN BRIGHT Kevin Brown
Pierpont Ave#2 341 Pierpont Ave # 3 353 W 200 S Apt 310
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1226
PAUL BROWN Doyle Buchanan KATE BULLEN
329 Pierpont Ave# 1 353 W 200 S Apt 210 353 Pierpont Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1414 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712
BILL BUTLER KERRI BUXTON Stephen B. Caine
160 S 500 W 333 Pierpont Ave#2 127 S 500E Ste 100
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1128 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City, UT 84102-1975
TONY CAPUTO Randall Carlisle Ed Carnell
308 W Broadway 308 W Broadway#202 463 S 400 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1702 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1702 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2202
SAM L. CHELEMES Tom Cherry Gary Vlasic Chris Ann Olsen
mg S 300 W 415 West 400 South 435 W 400 S Ste 202
ME Lake City,UT 84101-1703 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-5500
6 AVERYe Address Labels Laser 5160®
Smooth Feed Sheets'm use template rot',MU"'
Steve Christensen CLIFF CLARK VIRGINIA CLARK .
353 W 200 S Apt 308 366 W 500 S 340 W 500 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1226 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1709 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1709
JON COLLARD Lois Collins Robert Comstock
353 W 200 S Apt 304 30 E 100 S 1980 Richards St
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1414 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-1930 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2008
Kari Ryan Connor Kathy Coston Melinda Cotton
300 W Broadway 353 W 200 S Apt 413 353 W 200 S Apt 208
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1702 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1298 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1215
Sgt. John Cribbs DANA BAIRD DAN MEADOR CAROL DIBBLEE
315 East 200 South 5 Triad Ctr Ste 480 9 Exchange PI Fl 9
Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84180-1125 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-2709
Anne Dolowitz Todd Downer ZEKE DUMKE
2747 Apache Circle 380 W 200 S Apt 306 2159 S 700 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-4202 Salt Lake City,UT 84106-1878
JOHN DURHAM BARBARA EAMES RICHARD EDGLEY
341 Rio Grande St 343 Pierpont Ave# 2 50 E North Temple
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1107 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84150-0002
Lou Arm England D. ERIC ENSIGN KEVIN MITCHELL &ERIC
347 Pierpont Ave#2 PO Box 3991 GENTRY
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84110-3991 353 W 200 S Apt 416
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1298
GARY EVERSHED Clayton &Venne Fan BOB FARRINGTON
1035 S 800 W 353 W 200 S Apt 315 9 Exchange P1 Ste 401
Salt Lake City,UT 84104-1509 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1279 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-2758
Phillip Fassler Francis Fecteau Robert Feldott
353 W 200 S Apt 316 353 W 200 S Apt 211 380 W 200 S Apt 201
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1226 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1269 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-4201
William Ferguson Teresa Flowers Berm Framer
327 W 200 S Apt 308 353 W 200 S Apt 407 510 West 100 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-4209 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1298 Salt Lake City,UT 84101
6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
✓11/VMNI !ccY ✓I�cc�J Mac Lcfll'JIRI\. wI JLVV
Samantha Francis Jessica Francis DICK FRANKLIN
70 Van Buren Ave 353 W 200 S Apt 202 340 W 500 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5322 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1215 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1709
MICHELLE FREDRICKSON ED GALLAGER BRUCE GARDNER
270 Rio Grande St 307 W 200 S 349 Pierpont Ave#4
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1104 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1212 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
Jerry Gardner Emily Gassman BRENT GEHRING
345 Pierpont Ave# 1 380 Pierpont Ave 347 Pierpont Ave# 1
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1711 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712
Robert Glessner LEE GLEYSTEEN JEFF GOCHNOUR
451 S State Street#406 320 Rio Grande St 48 Market St#250
Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1106 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2103
STEVEN GOLDSMITH Ryan Gothard MICHAEL GREEN
325 Pierpont Ave 380 W 200 S Apt 404 347 Pierpont Ave# 1
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-4203 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
0es Grissette Margaret Grochocki DIANE HAAS
31W 200 S Apt 404 6030 West California 333 Pierpont Ave# 3
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1226 Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
LARA HAEHLE BRAD HALE MICHAEL HALL
851 Washington St 378 S 300 W 333 Pierpont Ave#4
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2947 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1715 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
Eddie Hamilton Brian Haugen SUE HEATH
353 W 200 S Apt 303 353 W 200 S Apt 406 339 Pierpont Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1269 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1415 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
JEX HEPWORTH Russ Hill Connie Hill
680 N 900E 55 North 300 West 480 N 2200 W Bldg B
Bountiful,UT 84010-2828 Salt Lake City,UT 84110 Salt Lake City,UT 84116-2923
PATRICK HOAGLAND FRITZ HOFF DAVID HOLBROOK
Pierpont Ave 331 Rio Grande St Ste 100 460 W 500 S
di Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1187 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2237
® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
Smooth Feed SheetsTM use template Jul ,ivv-
Tena Holbrook KENNETH HOLMAN KRIS HOPFENBECK
380 W 200 S Apt 405 311 S State St 380 Pierpont Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-4204 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2320 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1711
Mike Hughes Jennifer Jacobs CYD JARVIE
PO Box 581032 353 W 200 S Apt 214 341 Pierpont Ave# 1
Salt Lake City,UT 84158-1032 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1414 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
JIM JENSEN Cynthia Jeppson Stephen Justesen
450 S 900 E Ste 300 345 Pierpont Ave# 3 1455 East Tomahawk Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84102-2959 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84103
BECKY JUSTESON Kane Kane Duane Kaneko
263 Rio Grande St PO Box 2526 254 W 400 S Ste 380
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1105 Salt Lake City,UT 84110-2526 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1850
Rosemary Kappes JIM KENNARD MOHAMED KHEFEIFI
1776 S West Temple 379 S 300 W 415 W 400 S
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1816 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1704 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1135
Charles Kimball Michael King LIZ KING
278 South 300 West 9090 South Sandy Parkway 333 W 200 S
Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Sandy, UT 84070 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1211
NORMAN KLEIN DEBRA KOORING Julie Lakey
335 Pierpont Ave# 3 353 W 200 S Apt 216 353 W 200 S Apt 412
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1414 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1415
CARY LARSON Louie Lavigueure Hugo Learner
55 N 300 W 353 W 200 S Apt 201 329 Pierpont Ave# 1
Salt Lake City,UT 84180-1109 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1231 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
LILY AND LEE LEI Linda Levine WILLY LITTIG
307 W 200 S 210 Rio Grande St 333 Pierpont Ave# 1
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1212 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1104 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
Dan Lloyd RUTH LUBBERS Greta Lutes _
353 W 200 S Apt 205 339 Pierpont Ave 353 W 200 S Apt 107
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1231 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1215
® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
Jmootn reed JneeLs'— U,e mill/tam WI alms"
Victoria Lyons Mariah Mann Michael Martin
353 W 200 S Apt 301 353 W 200 S Apt 411 9 Exchange P1 Ste 1112
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1269 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1298 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-2736
ANDREA MARTIN Brian Martin Kim Martinez
337 Pierpont Ave# 204 353 W 200 S Apt 106 335 Pierpont Ave#2
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1231 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
Adam Marty BOB MAYO Aidon McGrattan
1151 Gilmer Dr 235 Rio Grande St 353 W 200 S Apt 309
Salt Lake City, UT 84105-1534 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1105 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1279
Mary Mclaugh DENNIS MECHAM LORI MEHAN
343 Pierpont Ave# 3 337 Pierpont Ave# 2 335 Pierpont Ave# 1
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
Callette Mielsen JERRY MILLER John Milliken
285 W Broadway PO Box 11626 329 Pierpont Ave# 2
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1808 Salt Lake City,UT 84147-0626 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712
NNETH MILLO ANNE MILNE Kevin Mitchell
6 S 500E Ste 201 254 W 400 S F12 353 W 200 S Apt 416
Salt Lake City,UT 84102-4003 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1830 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1298
Kirk Mitchell Bill Davis Moni /Schwaerzler Michael Morgan
353 W 200 S Apt 207 353 W 200 S Apt 410 353 W 200 S Apt 215
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1231 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1415 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1269
Cecellia Morrell April Motley Chris Mullin
1457 Concord 353 W 200 S Apt 212 308 W Broadway#201
Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1414 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1702
RICHARD MURRAY KINDE NEBEKER CAL NELSON
359 Pierpont Ave#B 339 Pierpont Ave# 2 314 S 300 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1715
TIFFANY NELSON ALLEN NEVINS Kaimi Niemann
S 400 W 327 Pierpont Ave 353 W 200 S Apt 409
It Lake City,UT 84101-2203 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1298
6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
smootn teed bneets""' use Lemptate WI DIM/-
Jacob Nutall BOYD NYBORG John Ord
380 West 200 South#405 225 W Broadway# A-102 5122 Avenida Encinas
Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1863 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Alicia Orgill Lyndsie Orgill ADRIAN PERRY
315 East 200 South 353 W 200 S Apt 314 359 Pierpont Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1226 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712
DEAN PETEJA CHRIS PFEIFFER Jim Pinkston
666 W 100 S 349 Pierpont Ave# 1 616 W 200 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84104-1001 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1003
JOE PITTI MIKE PLACE JEFF POLYCHRONIS
353 W 200 S Ste 103 515 S 700 E Ste 1A 147 W Broadway
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1214 Salt Lake City,UT 84102-2801 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1914
Jodi Porter Ann Pyne BOB QUIGLEY
134 1st Ave. #6 PO Box 1690 PO Box 22639
Salt Lake City,UT 84103 Orem,UT 84059-1690 Salt Lake City, UT 84122-0639
Rocky&Nell Raymond Nell Raymond Pat Reedy
353 West 200 South, Suite 101 353 West 200 South #1 280 W 400 S Ste 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1823
JUDY REESE JUDGE REESE JOHN RENTERIA
48 Market St#250 451 S 200E 155 S 600 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2103 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3107 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1008
Brett Rock Margarita Rodriguez MERYL ROGERS
315 East 200 South 7th Floor 1533 West 800 South 5272 College Dr Ste 100
Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Salt Lake City,UT 84123-2758
Sunni Rose Mark Ross Jerry Rubacky
353W200SApt109 353 W 200 S Apt 313 380W200S
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1215 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1279 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-4200
Zach Sandal! CHRIS SATOVICK ADELLO SCAPICCI
353 W 200 S Apt 206 357 Pierpont Ave#2 510 W 200 S
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1215 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1115
® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
MICHAEL SCHOENFELD Steve Schult Camille Scrip
560 W 200 S 522 South 400 West 252 South 500 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1115 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84102
Tom Simmonds JOHN SITTNER Linda Smith
353 W 200 S Apt 307 1560 Tomahawk Dr RR T P O Box 51042
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1269 Salt Lake City,UT 84103-4227 Salt Lake City, UT 84151-0427
Roger Smith CHAD SMITH Matthew J. Smith
643 South 400 West 353 Pierpont Ave#4 380 W 200 S Apt 305
Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-4202
Roger Smith MAX SMITH PATRICIA SMITH-MANSFIELD
634 South 400 West 357 Pierpont Ave 300 Rio Grande St
Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1106
JANET SMOAK Ed Snodely RUSS SONNTAG
300 Rio Grande St 140 West 2100 South Suite 138 180 W 400 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1182 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1823 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1900
fber Staniewicz Carl Steadman Shelley Stevensen
South 200 West#111 948 West 800 South 315 East 200 South
Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84111
Brigette Stevenson Jon Stewart PATRICK STRUHS
353 W 200 S Apt 402 353 W 200 S Apt 204 404 W 400 S
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1226 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1215 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1108
Zions Summit JONOTHAN SWEET Ted Sweetland
241NVineSt 126S200W 235S400W
Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1962 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1329 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1126
Valda Tarbet Juliann Taylor TONY Thimakis
451 South State Street,Rm 418 353 W 200 S Apt 304 279 S 300 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1414 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1703
Richard THOMAS DAVID E. THOMAS DANNY THORN
alp W200S 244W400S 425S300W
it Lake City,UT 84101-1190 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1823 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1706
AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
rnoorn reea Jneets.— v,t teIIpptatc WI '.wv-
Joe Trujillo DICK TUININGA Van Turner
353 W 200 S Apt 311 5020 Amelia Earhart Dr 1321 California Ave.
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1279 Salt Lake City,UT 84116-2853 Salt Lake City,UT 84111
Christopher Viavant Paul Ray Vigil TONY VINA
404 S 400 W 353 Pierpont Ave# 3 455 S 400 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2201 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2202
DANNA WALTERS Steve Warren Eva Watterson
353 W 200 S Ste 102 339 Pierpont Ave# 3 353 W 200 S Apt 108
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1214 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1231
Dave Wentz Mark Wessel PAUL K. WHITE
308 W Broadway#203 337 Pierpont Ave#205 143 S Main St
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1702 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-1924
Janice White Clemmer Blayne Wiley Heather Willes
1445 East Princeton Ave. 353 W 200 S Apt 401 353 W 200 S Apt 306
Salt Lake City,UT 84105 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1279 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1414
Karen Willis Linda Wolcott Alexis Woods
353 W 200 S Apt 213 1699 Yalecrest Ave 353 W 200 S Apt 305
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1269 Salt Lake City,UT 84105-1752 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1269
Jeff Wright 254 S 200 W 1760 Fremont Dr
380 W 200 S Apt 604 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1801 Salt Lake City,UT 84104-4215
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-4206
120 W 1300 S 435 S 400 W 435 W 400 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5230 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2202 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1148
331 Pierpont Ave 68 W 400 S Broadcast House
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1712 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2108 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-1211
428 S 300 W /185 S 3600 W 5181 Amelia Earhart Dr#22630
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1705 Salt Lake City,UT 84119-1151 Salt Lake City,UT 84116-2869
gi AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
J IIIV VLII I a..%.b• J I IL.%.LJ via. aa.Iraaaaa. •v1 .l avV
Kacie Hersh
• 5020 Amelia Earhart Dr 598 W Capitol St
43Salt Lake City, UT 84116-2853 West South Salt Lake City,UT 84103-1710
Sal Cit
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
• w.6 LT 1(.4.Ci 7✓I c/�- 'VV /"1.441cc
PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA PACKAG CORPORATIO OF AMERICA DENVER&RIO GRANDE WESTERN RR C
P 0 BOX 2798 PO X 1700 FARNAM ST 10FL SO
Suite Suite Suite
LITTLETON, CO 80161- LITTL N,CO 801 - OMAHA, NE 68102-2010
WESTER IFIC RAILROAD CO; ET AL CLARK, GEORGE FOURTH WEST ASSOCIATES LC; ET AL
1700 FARNU OFL SO 1717 N 1500 W 0 PO BOX 571530
Suite Suite Suite
OMA , NE 68102-2010 FARMINGTON, UT 84025-3072 MURRAY, UT 84157-1530
KEB ENTERPRISES LP J& D INVESTMENTS OF UTAH, LLC VINA,TONY&SHERRY;TRS
921 W CENTER ST 336 S 400 W 445 S 400 W
Suite Suite Suite
OREM, UT 84058- SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1137 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-2202
WESCO LEASING, LLC R&H INVESTMENT, INC WRIGHT, MICHAEL J
515 S 700E 1135 W CENTENNIAL CIR 1335 S COLONIAL CIR
Suite Suite Suite
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102-2801 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116-2143 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-2202
FORSS-ONE ASSOCIATION LTD PARK TOWER LLC CARPENTER BUILDING CONDMN COMMO
6375 EMIGRATION CANYORD 6375 EMIGRATION CANYORD 9 E EXCHANGE PL
Suite Suite Suite 900
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108- SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108- SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2741
GATEWAY 2001 LLC WESTSIDE CARPENTER ASSOCAITES LLC BUYERS SYNDICATE
9 E EXCHANGE PL 9 E EXCHANGE PL 2733 E PARLEYS WY
Suite 900 Suite 900 Suite #300
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2741 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2741 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109-1661
BU S SYNDICATED SALVATION ARMY,THE SELWAY INVESTMENTS LC
2733 E E ' Y 0 PO BOX 11626 PO BOX 1523
Suite 300 Suite Suite
SALT E CITY, UT 8 109-1619 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147-0626 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110-1523
SELWAY. TMENTS, LC A&Z PRODUCE II, LC JONES, DOUGLAS W
PO BOX 3 PO BOX 1782 PO BOX 58291
Suite Suite Suite
SALT E CITY, UT 84110-1523 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110-1782 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158-0291
STATE OF UTAH JOSH ASSOCIATES WIFCO LC
270 S RIO GRANDE ST 341 S RIO GRANDE ST 1947 E ST MARYS DR
Suite Suite Suite
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1196 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108-2245
STATE OF UTAH DIV OF FAC CONSTR&MG STATE OF UTAH DIV OF FAC CONSTR& MG UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
450 N STATE ST 450 N STATE ST 450 N STATE ST
Suite #4110 Suite 4110 Suite
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-1104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-1104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-1104
' SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION STATE OF UTAH,THE
451 S S ST 451 S STATE ST 450 N STATE OFFICE
Suite Suite Suite
- SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-3104 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-1201
STAT QF UTAH STAT UTAH,THE PIONEER ASSOCIATES, LC
450 N E OFFICE BLDG 450 N ST 0 BLDG 8 N WOLCOTT ST
Suite Suite Suite
SALT E CITY, U 84114- SAL -AKE CITY, UT 8 4-1201 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103-4477
WAGNER PROSTHETIC MANUFACTURING C DEPOMAX PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LLC Toe--( Pa.4ev-scr-�
3212 E DEER HOLLOW DR 9134 S WILLIAMSBURG CT ti 5J . {a,l
. 61, Zr►,. L{db
Suite Suite cLG/ tCr <V//f
SANDY, UT 84092-4515 WEST JORDAN, UT 84088-6419
roe-I 6,,7,, ,A—__
'(4< (/ A/. Go-t.-t /oy,.
17441C c. e 1-t-T Y v9g
✓nwvu1 I ccaa ✓11cc1,7 t.P�O7)L( C GtJ S -f'd G O'*�/ vac accn�saaac wi >avv
John Adams Norma
//Amodt Ina Anderson
1805 S Main St Apt 5 950 Jefferson St 1127 S 200 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2044 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2934 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-3004
Rosella Anderson Archie Archuleta Jill Astin
136 Westwood Ave 978 Cheyenne St 1465 S 300 W
Salt Lake City, UT 841 1 5-1 824 Salt Lake City,UT 84104-3204 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5194
Susan Atkin James Joseph Jr. Austin Mardean Bair
1812 S West Temple 463 South Douglas Street 49 Layton Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1818 Salt Lake City,UT 84102-3230 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2013
Tony Barrutia SHANON BAUER Elizabeth Bawden
1531 S West Temple 243 W 600 S # 3 422 S 200 W
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5243 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2704 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2301
Larry Beebe David Betzer SCHAFFER BINDERY
1130 Richards St 36 Hartwell Ave 1608 S 300 W
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-3111 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2002 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5108
Tom Boley Gil Booth STEVE BUNTING
1484 S State St 822 Jefferson St 352 Van Buren Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5424 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2910 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5118
Thomas Burke Betty Calder Bob Carleson
120 W 1300 S 1965 Richards St 1070 S Main St
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5230 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2007 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-3115
Paul Carling Janice Christensen Peter Connolly
2030 Richards St 159 Paxton Ave. 1810 South Main Street,Apt.#429
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-2306 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84115
Kevin Cook Cordelia Coonradt GARY COOPER
132 West Paxton Avenue 1045 Jefferson St 858 S 200 W
Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-3128 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2901
Sylvia Cossin Wilma Coulam Lloyd L. &Verla Crawford
851 South Washington Street 166 Layton Ave 166 Paxton Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1812 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-3109
® AVERY® Address Labels- Laser 5160®
Jn wvul I ccV Jucc lJ VJC LCIIIIMOLC Jul JLVV
Rick D. Jeff& Cristen Davis Phyllis Deomotropolos
1530 South Main Street 1407 South Richards Street 1496 S Main St
Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5338
Scott Devous WES DUTSON Ron Eckhardt
1530 South Main Street 406 W 1500 S 147 Golte Avenue
Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5122 Salt Lake City, UT 84115
GLENN EDWARDS Lynn Erickson Joan Evans
913 Jefferson St 2008 S Main St 1873 S West Temple
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2935 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-2303 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1833
KEN R. EVON Cleone Ferguson Kevin & Gine Fisher
928 Washington St 33 Boulevard Gdns 333 Hope Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2948 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1939 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5116
John and Samantha Francis KEITH GARDNER DEBBIE GLAZER
70 Van Buren Ave 329 W 1500 S 55 Van Buren Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5322 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5121 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5321
pert Glessner JIM GRISLEY Margaret Grochocki
S State Street#406 1485 S 300 W 6030 West California
Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5137 Salt Lake City,UT 84104
Terry Haney Darrell Heiner Eileen Hendricks
65 Hartwell Ave 125 West 1400 South 69 Van Buren Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2001 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5321
MANUEL F HERNANDEZ Russ Hill Norman Hill
243 W 600 S # 1 55 North 300 West 61 Hartwell Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2704 Salt Lake City,UT 84110 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2001
Wilma Hilton JANE HUGHES DOUG JACKSON
65 Bryan Ave 1485 Green St 330 N 800 W Apt 17
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1622 Salt Lake City,UT 84105-2151 Salt Lake City,UT 84116-2770
Sam James Dale &Mary Jarrett Sarah F. Jensen
dii Hope Ave 613 Browning Ave 1407 Richards St
Np.rt Lake City,UT 84115-5116 Salt Lake City,UT 84105-2114 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5319
® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
Smootn reea neets..., LJ3C LCIIIFICILC
Dan Jensen Aim H. Jiminez Irene Ota Johnson
1525 S West Temple 27 West Boulevard Gardens 1356 Gillespie Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5243 Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84104-2525
Scott Johnson Gladys and Jack Johnson Hal Johnson
63 W Blvd. Gardens 2021 S West Temple 221 W 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1821 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1830
Vicki Jolley Hans Jorgensen Rosemary Kappes
177 South Main 147 Paxton Ave 1776 S West Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-3110 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1816
Fern Kelly Bob &Erna Kenner Maurica King
1966 Richards St 1364 Major St 1811 South West Temple
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2008 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5331 Salt Lake City,UT 84115
Unga Kioa Wilifried Klunker Steve Lacy
1469 Concord St 406 W 1500 S 820 Jefferson St
Salt Lake City, UT 84104-2147 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5122 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2910
JOHN LAKE Lucy Larson KIM LARSON
1578 S 300 W 1535 S West Temple 1340 S 400 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5142 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5243 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5160
John Long RICHARD LONGFELLOW CLARK LOWDER
1136 South West Temple 1546 S 300 W 268 Paramount Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5141 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5216
Ross Mancuso David Martin Robert& Sharon Martines
52 Boulevard Gdns 126 W 900 S 1633 S 400 E
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1940 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2942 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1754
Chris McBride Jeanine McCashland Brian McCuistion
1055 South 200 West 69 Van Buren Ave 1973 Garfield Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5321 Salt Lake City,UT 84108-2950
James McDermaid MARCIA McNabb Paul &LeeAnn Montrone
356 W 1700 S 834E 500 S 2010 Richards St
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5126 Salt Lake City,UT 84102-2929 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2306
AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
✓ 11%/4./u1 •ccu ✓I icccJ VJC LC111piaLC IVI J.UU-
Jennifer Napier-Pearce Fae Nichols Randy Nielsen
1131 East Princeton Avenue 120 Macarthur Ave 160 Layton Ave
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-1814 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1812
Bill Nighswonger LARRY NORDSTROM Carlos Noriegn
1776 S West Temple 1576 S 300 W 1723 South Richards St. Apt. #3
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1816 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5142 Salt Lake City,UT 84115
Elise Olmsted Pageet Olsen Alicia Orgill
841 Washington St 1362 Edison Street, Apt. #12 315 East 200 South
Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2947 Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Kathy Orr John Owen Laura Owens
1820 S Main St Apt 403 69 Andrew Ave 1992 Richards St
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2061 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5334 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2008
ROBERT PACK Kent &Heidi Page Mr. &Mrs. Merlin Park
395 W 1500 S 1430 South West temple 1964 Richards St
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5121 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2008
PERKINS BARBARA &ANDY PETERSON Jeff Pickett
60 S 400 W 1366 S 400 W # 1370 130 Westwood Ave
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5109 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5160 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1824
Helen Pixton Dewey Reagan Cindy Reiners
153 West Layton Avenue 2022 Laird Avenue 928 Washington St
Salt Lake City,UT 84102 Salt Lake City,UT 84108 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-2948
Maurica Reynolds Brett Rock Margarita Rodriguez
1811 S West Temple 315 East 200 South 7th Floor 1533 West 800 South
Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84104
Dolores Rousseau Doug Roy JOHN RUTTER
120 W 1300 S 65 Merrimac Ave 1626 S 300 W
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5230 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5343 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5108
JIM SABODSKI Joey&Betty Salazar John Saldivar
do Paxton Ave 1032 Jefferson St 1304 Thackie Cir
liFt Lake City,UT 84101-3035 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-3127 Salt Lake City,UT 84104-2937
6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
.JIII I.. .....V .0.1....La ,�.,........r.a�.. ..,. ,,�.,.,
Deborah Schmack Annie &Bill Smith Sam Smith
2011 Richards St 175 Goltz Ave. 1475 W 500 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-2305 Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Salt Lake City, UT 84104-3029
Jean A. Smith K.J. Staker Sandra Staker
53 Layton Ave 1188 S West Temple 942 Washington St
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-2013 Salt Lake City,UT 84101-3120 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2948
Shelley Stevensen Michael Stevenson Pat Struks
315 East 200 South 1582 Richards St 404 W 400 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5309 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1108
Will Swigert Mele Takuvaka Greg &Mardean Taylor
1512 S 300 W 51 Hartwell Avenue 39 Layton Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5106 Salt Lake City,UT 84115 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-2013
Mr. &Mrs. V. Thomas Van Turner Benny Urcino
60 Van Buren Ave 1321 Calif. Ave. 36 Van Buren Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5322 Salt Lake City,UT 84104 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5322
CRISTAL VANDONGON Ken Vidra HAL WASDEN
649 Roosevelt Ave 40 Boulevard Gdns 1478 S 300 W
Salt Lake City, UT 84105-2120 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-1940 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5138
Helen and Wilmont Wheeler Robert White Janice White Clemmer
1599 S West Temple 77 W 1300 S 1445 East Princeton Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5222 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5325 Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Nancy& Charles Wright MARGARET YEE Bill &Mike Zoumadakis
41 Van Buren Ave 3642 Redmaple Rd 325 Andrew Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5321 Salt Lake City,UT 84106-1521 Salt Lake City, UT 84115-5113
9 Exchange Place, Suite 401 Resident Woodruff Residents
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2758 39 Layton Ave 320 W 200 S
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-2013 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1223
Residence Resident Residence
352 Van Buren Ave 1553 S West Temple 928 Washington St
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5118 Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5243 Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2948
® AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
JIIIVVIII I GGU JIIGGIJ --�� ---•••r••--� •-• ----
Residents Beth James Gary Cash
1625 S West Temple 862 S 200 W 1414 South Richards Street
Salt Lake City,UT 84115-5224 Salt Lake City,UT SLC,UT 84115
•
Leahette Simae Vicki Jolley Maurica Reynolds
1381 South Richards Street 1766 South Main Street 1811 S West Temple
SLC, UT 84115 SLC, UT 84115 SLC, UT 84115
Clifton Anderson Nathaniel Roberts Machelle Haner
1530 S Main Street 1530 S Main Street 1521 South West Temple
SLC, UT 84115 SLC,UT 84115 SLC, UT 84115
Ron Eckhardt Tom Boley Tim Frederiksen
147 Golte Ave 1484 South State Street 5008 Naniloa Dr
SLC, UT 84115 SLC,UT 84115 SLC,UT 84117
6 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160®
®09i5 aase7 �vw ,M.wr•..:(- Cur----a C(. rsjagel ssaippy ®A213AH
LARRY RIGBY,CHAIR KATHERINE GARDNER,CHAIR VALERIE PRICE,CHAIR
GRTR.AVENUES COMM.COUNCIL CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL CENTRAL CITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL
1428 E.CIRCLE WAY 606 DESOTO STREET 553 EAST 600 SOUTH
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84102 •
ORSON WEST,CHAIR SAMANTHA FRANCIS,CHAIR CHRIS VIAVANT,CHAIR
LIBERTY WELLS COMM.COUNCIL PEOPLES FREEWAY COMM.COUNCIL RIO GRANDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
562 E.DOWNINGTON AVE. 70 W.VAN BUREN AVENUE 404 South 400 WEST
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84101-2201
BRUCE ALDER,CHAIR JIM BYRNE,CHAIR SHAWN McMILLEN,CHAIR
ARCADIA HEIGHTS/BENCHMARK FOOTHILUSUNNYSIDE H ROCK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1855 SOUTH 2600 EAST
1835 SO.LAKELINE DRIVE 1966 EAST 900 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84109 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108-1367
MIKE ZUHL,CHAIR PAUL TAYLER,CHAIR DOUG FOXLEY,CHAIR
INDIAN HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL OAK HILLS COMMUNITY COUNCIL ST.MARY'S COMMUNITY COUNCIL
2676 E.COMANCHE DRIVE 1165 SO.OAKHILLS WAY 1449 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108
JEFFREY MULLINS,CHAIR TIM DEE,CHAIR JILL REMINGTON LOVE,CHAIR
SUNNYSIDE EAST ASSOCIATION SUNSET OAKS COMMUNITY COUNCIL WASATCH HOLLOW
873 SO.WOODRUFF WAY 1575 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 1533 WESTMORELAND
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105
DR.ALAN CONDIE,CHAIR LISETTE GIBSON,CHAIR JULI OBERTSON,CHAIR
WEST OF LOWER FOOTHILL(WOLF) YALECREST COMMUNITY COUNCIL EAST CE NITY COUNCIL
1375 KRISTIE LANE 1764 E.HUBBARD AVE. 1218 EA SO
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84108 SA KE CITY,UT 84
BORIS KURZ,CHAIR PATRICK TAN,CHAIR WILLIAM COOLEY,CHAIR
EAST LIBERTY PARK JORDAN MEADOWS COMM.COUNCIL ROSE PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY COUNCIL 566 NO.SIR MICHAEL DRIVE 1009 TALLY HO AVENUE
1203 SOUTH 900 EAST SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84105
BRUCE NEWMAN,CHAIR KADEE NIELSON,CHAIR RAY PUGSLEY,CHAIR
STATE FAIRPARK COMM.COUNCIL WEST POINTE COMM.COUNCIL SUGAR HOUSE COMM.COUNCIL
459 NORTH 600 WEST 1410 NO.BARONESS PLACE 2171 HANNIBAL STREET
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84106
EDIE TRIMMER,CHAIR RANDY SORENSEN, CHAIR 1Zl'y•44;S 67 e-c.-q
POPLAR GROVE COMM.COUNCIL WEST S.L.COMMUNITY COUNCIL
I3& S_ t
246 SOUTH 1300 WEST 1184 SO.REDWOOD DRIVE
g
SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84104 41 r, Lc-? r641/c,Z
a
Resi
® 6I 9/01 I % eidwa;ash
w jslaays paaj tnoows
Exhibit 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
Exhibit 4a
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING NOTICE
AND POSTMARK
SALT rA: °'C�IPYrG@RPG fIONI
STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH ���' ^++-3. 4 z.A ��..444.E - 1 ROSS C. ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
Salt Lake City
Notice of Public Hearings
October 31,2001
Salt Lake City has received Petition 400-02-15 from Park Tower LLC.
to operate a temporary commercial parking lot at 404 West 400 South
on 1.56 acres in the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District.
The petition requests a conditional use approval for an expedited
temporary parking lot for use during the Olympic Winter Games. 300 S
Since the parking lot will be temporary,Park Tower LLC is requesting
that the City Council waive the normally required parking lot design 5
standards,including hard-surfacing,curb and gutter and landscaping. c
This petition is being processed under provisions of Ordinance 67 of I
2001, which authorizes the City Council to approve temporary uses
related to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games through an expedited 400 S
review process after receiving a recommendation from the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission will make the final decision
regarding the conditional approval for the temporary parking lot. The ,.
City Council will make the final decision on the request to waive the
design standards.
The Planning Commission and City Council have scheduled public hearings to review this petition and will consider
input from all interested parties prior to making,respectively,a recommendation and final decision. Details for the
hearings are as follows:
Planning Commission City Council
Date: January 31,2002 Date: February 5,2002
Time: 6:20 p.m. Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: Room 126 Place: Room 315
City&County Building City&County Building
451 S. State Street 451 S. State Street
Please call John Sittner at 535-7744 or Joel Paterson at 535-6141 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Requests for Assistive listening devices and/or interpretive
services should be made at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
TELEPHONE: BO1-535-7757 FAX:801-535-6174
is
�� aece�eo rnvea
NOTICE OF HEARING
err\
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 South State Street Room 406 •
Salt Lake City UT 84111
4C(31.
401,14C G.4-, ,14,1e/
Exhibit 4b
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
400-02-15
January 31, 2002
REQUEST
Petition 400-02-15 is a request by the
Park Tower, LLC for conditional use
approval to operate a temporary
commercial parking lot at 404 West 300 S
r
400 South on 1.56 acres in the D-3
Downtown Warehouse/Residential .
District during the Olympic Winter .,
Games. Consistent with provisions of
Ordinance 67 of 2001, Park Tower r :;>LLC is requesting that the City
Council waive the noiinally required
parking lot design standards,
including hard-surfacing, curb and 400 S
gutter and landscaping.
The Planning Commission will make
the final decision regarding the xs
conditional use request for the
temporary parking lot. The City Council will make the final decision on the request to
waive the design standards.
COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REVIEW
Section 3.52.050.C.1 of Ordinance 67 of 2001 sta__tes that_the City is not required to
present a proposed temporary use being processed under that ordinance to any community
council. However, the City is required to mail notice of all hearings to the affected
community councils. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the site, to members of the People's Freeway and Rio
Grande community councils designated to be noticed on all expedited Olympic related
proposals located within the boundaries of their community council and to the
chairpersons of all recognized community councils in the City.
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division -Page 1- January 31,2002
BACKGROUND _
Affected Parcel Numbers: 15-01-327-014 1.12 acres
15-01-327-015 0.44 acres
Lot Area of
subject property: 1.56 acres
Existing Land Use on
subject property: Warehouse and parking lot
Existing Zoning and
Overlay Districts on
subject property: D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District
Existing Master Plan
Land Use Designation: Residential Mixed-use
IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
Use: The Petitioner is requesting approval to operate a temporary commercial parking lot
during the Olympic Winter Games on the site of the Fuller Paint Building located on the
northwest corner of the intersection of 400 South and 400 West. This commercial
parking lot will be operated by a private vendor as a commercial venture. Because the
parking lot is temporary, the petitioner is requesting that the City waive parking lot
standards including providing permanent pavement, curb controls and landscaping.
Access: The site has street frontage on 400 West, 400 South and Rio Grande Street. The
primary ingress and egress is from 400 West. Auxiliary access is available on Rio
Grande and 400 South if the need is warranted.
Site Improvements: The existing surface of the parking lot consists of asphalt, road base
and gravel. The gravel areas must be covered with roto-mill or road base. In an attempt
to keep the City streets clear of mud and other debris, the Engineering Division has
required that asphalt paving or other similar paving material be installed for 100 feet at
the entrances and exits. Lighting already exists for the parking lot.
Under the provisions of Ordinance 67 of 2001, the petitioner is requesting that the City
waive parking lot improvement standards including the requirements for installing
permanent pavement, curb controls and landscaping. If the Planning Commission grants
conditional use approval,the Commission must make a recommendation that the City
Council waive the City parking lot design standards.
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division -Page 2- January 31,2002
CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission shall only approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
conditional use based upon written findings of fact with regard to each of the standards
set forth below and,where applicable, any special standards for conditional uses set forth
in a specific zoning district.
21.54.080 Standards for Conditional Uses.
A. The proposed development is one of the conditional uses specifically listed in
this Title.
Discussion: Commercial parking garage, lot or deck is listed as a conditional use
in the land use table, Section 21A.30.050. The provisions of Ordinance 67 of
2001 allow the Planning Commission to approve a parking lot as a temporary use.
Finding: The Planning Commission is authorized to approve a parking lot as a
temporary conditional use.
B. The proposed development is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of this Title and is compatible with and implements the planning goals
and objectives of the City, including applicable City master plans.
Discussion: The Gateway Development Master Plan encourages higher density
mixed-use development within the Gateway area. This project would be in
conflict with these policies if it were a permanent use. The temporary parking lot
will be used only during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and no buildings are
being demolished.
Finding: The parking lot is an acceptable interim land use.
C. Streets or other means of access to the proposed development are suitable
and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not materially degrade the
service level on the adjacent streets.
Discussion: 400 South and 400 West are major streets that can accommodate
additional traffic. The Transportation Division has not identified any concern
about the ability of the adjoining streets to accommodate additional traffic
capacity.
Finding: Streets are adequate to accommodate a temporary parking lot.
D. The internal circulation system of the proposed development is properly
designed.
Discussion: The Transportation Division has reviewed the plan and voiced no
concerns about the proposed circulation system.
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division -Page 3- January 31,2002
Finding: The internal circulation is adequate.
E. Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed
development and are designed in a manner that will not have an adverse
impact on adjacent land uses or resources.
Discussion: The site is serviced by Salt Lake City utilities.
Finding: Utilities are adequate.
F. Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light,
noise and visual impacts.
Discussion: This site is surrounded with typical D-3 land uses, but no residential
units are adjacent to the site. The petitioner is requesting that the City waive the
standard parking lot improvement requirements, including landscaping. However,
since the site will be used as a parking lot only on a temporary basis, the impact to
the surrounding community will be minimal.
Finding: There are no efforts proposed to buffer this site. However, the lack of
buffering may be appropriate because of the temporary nature of the parking lot
and its location within the D-3 zoning district.
G. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the development and
compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
Finding: This standard is not applicable. No new construction will take place.
H. Landscaping is appropriate for the scale of the development.
Discussion: -No landscaping is being provided.
Finding: Landscaping is inadequate for a long-term parking lot,however the
commercial parking lot is temporary and landscaping would be ineffective during
that time period.
The proposed development preserves historical architectural and
environmental features of the property.
Finding: There is no impact to historical landmarks or environmental features of
the property.
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division -Page 4- January 31,2002
J. Operating and delivery hours are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Discussion: Pioneer Park will operate as a major bus hub during the Olympic
Winter Games and will operate over extended hours each day. Similarly, the
proposed temporary commercial parking lot will operate over extended hours to
meet the needs of the public.
Finding: On a temporary basis, the operating and delivery hours are compatible
with adjacent land uses.
K. The proposed conditional use or, in the case of a planned development,the
permitted and conditional uses contained therein, are compatible with the
neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and will not have a
material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a
whole.
Discussion: A temporary commercial parking lot is a compatible land use in this
area of the D-3 district.
Findin : The proposed conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood
surrounding the proposed development and will not have a material net
cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
L. The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and
ordinances.
Discussion: The parking lot will not meet landscaping, hard surfacing or other
improvement standards. The Petitioner is requesting that the City waive the
standard parking lot improvement requirements.
Finding: The parking lot will not meet all other applicable codes. Therefore, the
petitioner is requesting the City Council to waive the parking lot improvement
standards under provisions of Ordinance 67 of 2001.
Recommendation:
Based on the findings, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant conditional
use approval for the temporary commercial parking lot as proposed in Petition 400-02-15
subject to the following conditions:
1. Asphalt or similar paving material is installed for the first 100 feet of the
entrances/exits to reduce the amount of dirt that will be deposited on City streets;
2. Execution of an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City, providing for the
restoration of the site after the Olympics.
3. That City Staff will determine if the existing surface of the parking lot adequately
meets the standard set previously by the Planning Commission for temporary
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division -Page 5- January 31,2002
parking lots. If the surface is deemed not to be adequate, road base or roto-mill
must be imported and compacted to provide a suitable parking surface.
Furthermore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the request by the Park Tower, LLC to
waive the hard-surfacing, curb controls, and landscaping requirements for the temporary
commercial parking lot as proposed in Petition 400-02-15.
Respectfully submitted,
Joel Paterson, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments: Exhibit 1—Description of Proposed Use
Exhibit 2—Aerial of Site
Exhibit 3—Notice of Hearing
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division -Page 6- January 31,2002
EXHIBIT 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division November 15,2001
PARK TOWER LLC
MARK J. STRUHS
404 WEST 400 SOUTH
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
801-918 6481
January 14, 2002
Joel G. Paterson, AICP
Sr. Planner
Salt Lake City Corp.
Planning Division
451 S State Street, Rm. 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
R : Permit for Parking at 404 West 400 South, Salt Lake City
County Tax Parcel Number: 15-01-327-015-0000
Location: 400 West to Rio Grand Street and 400 South north 206 feet.
Op ration: Entrance and egress to parking area will be located on North East side of
parcel boarding 400 West.
Op rating Personnel: Two attendants will be stationed at entrance for ticketing and
collection. Two parking assistance will be directing vehicle parking through
out interior of parking area. One Manager to supervise attendants and to address any
problems that may arise. Each person will have both radio and cell phone
communication.
Auxiliary Access Points: One each 20 foot chain link gate on south side of parking
area boarding 400 South and one each 18 foot chain link gate on west side of
parking area boarding Rio Grand Street. One each 20 foot east side entrance boarding
400 West for entrance and egress
Parking Area Available: Approximately 50,100 square feet.
E timated Parking Capacity: 150 vehicles
Lighting: Parking premises is lighted by the following: six each street lights, two each
mercury vapor located on north side, atop building. Two each mercury
vapor on west side atop building. One each pole light center of parking area.
Security: Parking area is surrounded by 8 foot high chain link fence with two stand of
bar wire atop fence. A security guard will be on premises 24 hours a day 7
days a week.
Fir Hydrants: Two each east side, one each south side, one each west side of
parking area.
Hours of Operation: Will be as needed.
EXHIBIT 2
AERIAL OF SITE
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division November 15,2001
Petition 400-02-15
Commercial Parking Lot
404 West 400 South
t }W."
N 'a �, f
kr �'
e i ' . v^ 'I''
I
"f
b,
x 4 M'
S S
", -;":„.400South x
7 A
.a L ... 3 Y .,� .', •tt 't 1
az' »''` "'a"'". M1k,.,'iw�°m+^raw^ a .. a a'"
°' 'X .s t' a a
EXHIBIT 3
NOTICE OF HEARING
Staff Report, Petition 400-02-15
by Salt Lake City Planning Division November 15,2001
STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH SALT' a� �� �'+®��010 ROSS C. ANDERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR
BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
Salt Lake City
• Notice of Public Hearings
Salt Lake City has received Petition 400-02-15 from Park Tower LLC.
to operate a temporary commercial parking lot at 404 West 400 South r ;,
on 1.56 acres in the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District.
The petition requests a conditional use approval for an expedited
temporary parking lot for use during the Olympic Winter Games. 300 S
Since the parking lot will be temporary, Park Tower LLC is requesting
that the City Council waive the normally required parking lot design maNt
standards,including hard-surfacing,curb and gutter and landscaping.
11)
This petition is being processed under provisions of Ordinance 67 of
2001, which authorizes the City Council to approve temporary uses
related to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games through an expedited 400 S
review process after receiving a recommendation from the Planning €
Commission. The Planning Commission will make the final decision
regarding the conditional approval for the temporary parking lot. The
City Council will make the final decision on the request to waive the
design standards.
The Planning Commission and City Council have scheduled public hearings to review this petition and will consider
input from all interested parties prior to making,respectively,a recommendation and final decision. Details for the
hearings are as follows:
Planning Commission City Council
Date: January 31,2002 Date: February 5,2002
Time: 6:20 p.m. Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: Room 126 Place: Room 315
City&County Building City&County Building
451 S. State Street 451 S. State Street
Please call John Sittner at 535-7744 or Joel Paterson at 535-6141 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Salt Lake City complies with all ADA guidelines. Requests for Assistive listening devices and/or interpretive
services should be made at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1
TELEPHONE: S01-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174
:: RECYCLCD PAPER
Exhibit 4c
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA/MINUTE S
NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.I
AGENDA FOR THE
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street
Thursday,January 31,2002,at 5:45 p.m.
The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m.,in Room 118.During the dinner,Staff may share
planning information with the Planning Commission.This portion of the meeting will be open to the public.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Thursday,January 17,2002
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m.-Petition No.410-573,by Mike Davey/Butler&Evans Architects
representing Gold Cross Ambulance,requesting a conditional use to allow a temporary 118 foot high
communication antenna during the 2002 Winter Olympics.The property is located a 762 South Redwood
Road in a Corridor Commercial"CC"zoning district.(Staff—Ray McCandless at 535-7282)
b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:05 p.m.-Petition No. 410-579,by Bridgestone/Firestone LLC,requesting
conditional use approval for a temporary commercial parking lot during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
The proposed parking lot is located at the Firestone automotive retail store at 204 East 300 South in the
D-1 Central Business District on 0.58 acres.This petition is being processed under provisions of
Ordinance 67 of 2001,which authorizes the Planning Commission to approve temporary conditional uses
related to the 2002 Olympic Winter Games through an expedited review process. The Planning
Commission will make the final decision regarding the conditional approval for the temporary parking lot.
(Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141)
c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:20 p.m.—Petition No.400-02-15,by Park Tower LLC.,requesting to operate a
41kortemporary commercial parking lot at 404 West 400 South on 1.56 acres in the D-3 Downtown
Warehouse/Residential District. The petition requests a conditional use approval for an expedited
temporary parking lot for use during the Olympic Winter Games. Since the parking lot will be temporary,
Park Tower LLC is requesting that the City Council waive the normally required parking lot design
standards,including hard-surfacing,curb and gutter and landscaping.This petition is being processed
under provisions of Ordinance 67 of 2001,which authorizes the City Council to approve temporary uses
related to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games through an expedited review process after receiving a
recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make the final decision
regarding the conditional approval for the temporary parking lot. The City Council will make the final
decision on the request to waive the design standards. (Staff—Joel Paterson at 535-6141)
d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:35 p.m.-Petition No.410-565,by Iverson Homes L.C.,requesting final
approval of Madison Estates Phase 3,Planned Development Subdivision,requesting Conditional Use
approval for a reduced width Public Street,and a Subdivision approval request for 27 single-family
residential lots on 5.04 acres,in an R-1/7000 Zone,located at 1650 West California Avenue(1330
South). (Staff-Greg Mikolash at 535-7932)
3. OTHER BUSINESS
Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a
disability,need assistance in understanding or participating In the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the
meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance.
PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR
REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE
MEETING.THANK YOU.
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111
TELEPHONE B01-535-7757•FAX 801-535-6174
The January 31, 2002 Planning
Commission Minutes will be transmitted
when approved.
Exhibit 5
PUBLIC COMMENT
--- -- ,......,... JVvi
•
Wasatch Homeless Health Care, Inc.
Fourth Street Clinic
404 South 400 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
(801)364-0058 Fax: (801)364-0161
30 January 2002
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
Salt Lake City Council members
451 South State Room 406
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
sent via FAX 535-6174
re: Petition 400-02-15—Park Tower LLC
Members of the Planning Commission and City Council
I am writing to express my concern about this petition.We who operate business and provide
services in the Rio Grande area of Salt Lake have been expressing our concern about the
impact of Olympics traffic and the plans by Olympics Transportation on our neighborhood
for months.As the Chair of the Rio Grande Community Council,I can attest that our local
concerns have been met with little sympathy,and we have essentially been asked to make
sacrifices in the name of the City as a whole.With Pioneer Park as the major Park and Ride
drop off, and with so much additional bus traffic and parked buses on Rio Grande Street,the
agency that I work for is having to close early each day. Other businesses in this area are
faced with significant disruption of their operations. We will be in gridlock,quite frankly.
With the above referenced petition, a request is being made to operate a parking lot with
access and egress onto 400 South,400 West, or Rio Grande Street. Using this space for
parking will simply add further to the already intolerable traffic problems around Pioneer
Park. In addition,it will be a dirt lot adding mud and debris onto the street at a time when we
cannot support even the level of disruption already planned.
I strongly urge you to oppose this petition on the grounds of public safety and inappropriate
use. I am not opposed to the property owners in this area making a living from their
investments,in fact quite the opposite.Unfortunately,the particulars of this location and the
requested use are not in the best interests of our neighborhood nor of Salt Lake City.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional
information.
Sincer y,
v4eA,71
Chnstoph r Viavant,CFO
Wasatch Homeless Health Care, Inc.
801-364-5576
1111
Board of Direct rs: Kenn th Buchi,MD,Chair Patrick Johnson,Vice-Chair Dave Jones,Treasurer Edna Schettl r,Secretary
Pamela J.Atkinson,Recent Past Chair Lucinda Bateman,MD Michael O'Brien Chase P terson,MD Langes J.Silva
Executive Director:Allan D.Ainsworth,PhD Chief Financial Officer:Christopher R.Viavant
Medical Director: Amy Geroso,MD Assoc.Medical Director: Scott Stevens,MD
Exhibit 6
ORIGINAL PETITION
PETITION NO. 1%V
PETITION CHECKLIST
Date Initials Action Required
( Petition delivered to Planning
1//0(4Z j� Petition assigned to: Jo c(
oZ Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date
Z %, Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover
VAZ 4��
Chronology •
7/I/6- Property Description (marked with a post it note)
-070 z .67—te Affected Sidwell Numbers Included /5"-of-3z7--e'/
/5- ai
OKe)? Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate
Community Councils
/7/�(°7' - Mailing Postmark Date Verification
°f �. 417 Planning Commission Minutes '
w.//4, /-ram5 .v',�..
/7/702 Planning Staff Report
Z/(7o 1 Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief
description of what action the Planning Commission or
Staff is recommending.
1/'(// Z 47-e- j Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office
Z(02 ("i.7? Ordinance property description is checked, dated and
initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by
�
Attorney.
et//"`4-c -�-- Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition
Zie
Date Set for City Council Action /47zZet,a-.-7 S Zc1v
Petition filed with City Recorder's Office
PARK TOWER LLC _
MARK J. STRUHS
404 WEST 400 SOUTH
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
801-918 6481
January 14, 2002
Joel G. Paterson, AICP
Sr. Planner
Salt Lake City Corp.
Planning Division
451 S State Street, Rm. 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Re: Permit for Parking at 404 West 400 South, Salt Lake City
County Tax Parcel Number: 15-01-327-015-0000
Location: 400 West to Rio Grand Street and 400 South north 206 feet.
Op ration: Entrance and egress to parking area will be located on North East side of
parcel boarding 400 West.
Op rating Personnel: Two attendants will be stationed at entrance for ticketing and
collection. Two parking assistance will be directing vehicle parking through
out interior of parking area. One Manager to supervise attendants and to address any
problems that may arise. Each person will have both radio and cell phone
communication.
Auxiliary Access Points: One each 20 foot chain link gate on south side of parking
area boarding 400 South and one each 18 foot chain link gate on west side of
parking area boarding Rio Grand Street. One each 20 foot east side entrance boarding
400 West for entrance and egress
Parking Area Available: Approximately 50,100 square feet.
E timated Parking Capacity: 150 vehicles
Lighting: Parking premises is lighted by the following: six each street lights, two each
mercury vapor located on north side, atop building. Two each mercury
vapor on west side atop building. One each pole light center of parking area.
S curity: Parking area is surrounded by 8 foot high chain link fence with two stand of
bar wire atop fence. A security guard will be on premises 24 hours a day 7
days a week.
Fire Hydrants: Two each east side, one each south side, one each west side of
parking area.
Hours of Operation: Will be as needed.
VTDI 15-01-327-015-0000 DIST O1N TOTAL ACRES 0.44
FORSS-ONE ASSOCIATION LTD PRINT P UPDATE REAL ESTATE 254100
LEGAL BUILDINGS 0
TAX CLASS MOTOR VEHIC 0
6375 EMIGRATION CANYON RD EDIT 1 FACTOR BYPASS TOTAL VALUE 254100
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 75
LOC: 404 W 400 S EDIT 1 BOOK 8325 PAGE 1884 DATE 02/11/2000
SUB: TYPE UNKN PLAT
01/14/2002 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY
BEG SW COR LOT 1, ELK 47, PLAT A, SLC SUR; N 0-,06'12" W 120
FT; N 89-55 '24" E 159. 87 FT; S 0-'06' 12" E 120 FT; S
89-655 '24" W 159.87 FT TO BEG.
PFKEYS: 1=VTNH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU 10=RXBK 11=RXPN 12=PREV
VTDI 15-01-327-014-0000 DIST 01N TOTAL ACRES 1.12
PARK TOWER LLC PRINT P UPDATE REAL ESTATE 517000
LEGAL BUILDINGS 484700
TAX CLASS MOTOR VEHIC 0
6375 EMIGRATION CANYON RD EDIT 1 FACTOR BYPASS TOTAL VALUE 1001700
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 75
LOC: 404 W 400 S EDIT 1 BOOK 8325 PAGE 1884 DATE 02/11/2000
SUB: TYPE UNKN PLAT
01/14/2002 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSES ONLY
LOT 1, & S 41.25 FT LOT 8, BLK 47, PLAT A, SLC SUR. LESS &
EXCEPT BEG SW COR LOT 1, BLK 47, PLAT A, SLC SUR; N 0-'06'12"
W 120 FT; N 89-55 '24" E 159.87 FT; S 0-'06'12" E 120 FT; S
89-55'24" W 159. 87 FT TO BEG.
PFKEYS: 1=VTNH 2=VTOP 4=VTAU 6=NEXT 7=RTRN VTAS 8=RXMU 10=RXBK 11=RXPN 12=PREV
REMARKS Petition No.
400-02-15
By Park Tower LLC
Requesting to operate a temporary
commercial parking lot at 404 West
400 South. The petition request a
conditional use approval for an
expedited temporary parking lot for
use during the Olympic Winter Games.
This petition is being processed
under the provisions of Ordinance 6-i!
of 2001.
� I
Date Filed
Address
•
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 4, 2002
SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-50-Nathan Anderson, Willow Heights, LLC
request to rezone property located at 657 South 800 East from Special
Residential SR-3 to Residential Multi-Family RMF-35
STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Land Use and Policy Analyst
Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Ordinance The proposal has no The proposal is The Administration has
budget impact. presented to revise an clearly stated the
existing ordinance. positive aspects of the
proposal.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance rezoning property at 657 South 800 East from
Special Residential SR-3 to Residential Multi-Family-RMF-35.
2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance rezoning property at 657 South 800 East from
Special Residential SR-3 to Residential Multi-Family-RMF-35.
KEY ELEMENTS
A. The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed background relating to the proposed rezoning
and findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Sec.
21A.50.050-Standards for General Zoning Amendments. Please refer to the Administration's
transmittal for details. Key points are summarized below:
1. The proposed rezoning would facilitate development of parking for a proposed 4-unit
apartment building.
2. The front or western portion of the property is zoned RMF-35. The rear or eastern portion of
the property is zoned SR-3 and cannot be used to provide parking for a use in a different
zoning classification. Please refer to the attached map for clarification.
3. Surrounding land uses include a mix of single-family, duplexes and apartment buildings.
4. Final site development,transportation and utility service requirements and landscaping plans
will be evaluated through the development review and building permit processes.
B. The purpose of the RMF-35 zone is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate
density housing types including multi-family dwellings.
•
CHRONOLOGY:
The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed
rezoning. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for full
details.
• June 20, 2001 East Central Community Council meeting
• September 6, 2001 Planning Commission Hearing
cc: Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,David Dobbins,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,
Doug Wheelwright,Ray McCandless, Sylvia Jones,Scott Barraclough
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division, Rezoning—Nathan
Anderson 657 South 800 East
4
Tuesday, February 5, 2001
City Council Agenda
Item D-2
Ordinance: Petition No. 400-01 -50, rezone
property located at approximately 657 South
800 East from Special Development Pattern
Residential to Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential
Paperwork for this item was previously received.
Hard copies are available in the Council Office.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-16—Peter Carroon with Red Gate Properties
Annexation request at 3027 South 1100 East (approximately)
STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Land Use and Policy Analyst
Document Type Budget-Related Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Facts
Ordinance The Administration's The proposal is The Administration has
transmittal notes a net presented in compliance clearly stated the
negative budget impact. with State Code. positive aspects of the
Please see the Property is contiguous proposal.
Administration's to the current City
Annexation Impact boundary. Petition has
Analysis for details. been signed by 100%of
the property owners(one
• Total Service Cost owner)representing
is$845 per unit 100%of the assessed
• Total Revenue is valuation listed on
$669 per unit current County Tax
• Impact fees are Assessment rolls.
$890 per unit
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
The Council received a briefing on this item at the Council Work Session on January 8,2002
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to
include property located at 3027 South 1100 East and to zone the property Special Development
Residential SR-1.
2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to
include property located at 3027 South 1100 East and to zone the property Special Development
Residential SR-1.
3. ["I move that the Council"] Refer this item to an additional briefing session for further review.
1
KEY ELEMENTS
A. The Administration's transmittal, Planning Commission minutes and Planning staff report provide a
detailed discussion of the annexation request. Major points are summarized below:
1. The property is adjacent to and north of the Brickyard Plaza(please refer to the map in Planning
staff report for clarification).
2. The property is within the boundaries of the area identified in the City's Future Annexation Policy
Declaration area and reaffirmed by formal Council action in 2000 and 2001.
3. This action would facilitate development of the property for residential use.
4. The property is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include a mix of single-family and multi-
family dwellings.
5. The Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use map identifies this area for medium
density residential uses, 8 to 20 units per acre. The proposed development for the site will result
in a density of approximately 9 units per acre.
6. The petitioner has received approval from Salt Lake County for a planned development consisting
of three duplexes subject to obtaining water from Salt Lake City.
7. The petitioner has applied to the City for approval of a similar planned development. The
petitioner's application will be processed with the Planning Commission after a final decision is
made by the City Council regarding annexation.
8. Final site development,transportation and utility service requirements,and development plans
including landscaping will be evaluated through the development review and building permit
processes.
B. The Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the property be zoned Special
Residential SR-1. The purpose of the Special Residential SR-1 zone is to maintain the unique character
of older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk
characteristics. The Special Residential SR-1 zoning classification allows a maximum density of 8.7
units per acre for single-family dwellings and 10.9 units per acre for duplexes.
C. Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting focused on:
1. The existing types of land uses and density in the surrounding area.
2. Zoning classifications with a density range that would be compatible with the existing character of
the area.
3. Recommendations that, in the future,the Council consider:
a. Comprehensive annexation in this area rather than"piece meal"or individual annexation
requests.
b. The Special Residential SR-1 zoning classification is used for future annexations in this
area.
D. The Administration's transmittal notes that Community Council review of annexation petitions is not
required. The Sugar House Community Council Chair was notified of the petition. As of this date, no
comments have been received from the Community Council.
MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
➢ Council Members may wish to discuss the Council's intent relating to future annexation requests to ensure
a consistent policy direction.
2
A. During the 2001 State Legislative General Session, the Legislature approved HB 155S1 -Annexation
Amendments. The bill modified provisions of the Utah Municipal Code relating to municipal
annexations. In part,the bill restricts annexations from taking place in first class counties from
April 30,to November 15,2001 with certain exceptions. The bill also requires that first class
counties and cities within first class counties prepare a plan for annexations within the county and to
submit the plan to the Legislative Management Committee at its first meeting after November 15,
2001.
1. The Council formally adopted a resolution on December 5,2000 that reaffirmed the City's
1979 declaration of intent to annex the remaining portion of unincorporated Salt Lake
County served by Salt Lake City's water system,excluding the newly incorporated City of
Holladay.
2. The Salt Lake City Council has fulfilled the 2001 Legislature's mandate that cities in Salt
Lake County prepare a master plan by November 15, 2001,to show"how the remainder of
unincorporated areas within Salt Lake County are to be included within municipalities
through annexation or incorporation."The Salt Lake Council of Governments submitted a
series of maps to the Legislative Management Committee on behalf of Salt Lake County and
the cities within the County.
3. The City Council supports the concept of annexing areas outside the City's boundaries.Its
reasons are listed in the attached document titled Salt Lake City Council and Annexation.
B. In the past,the Administration has provided the following information relating to the City's
annexation policies:
1. The City does not have a citywide annexation policy.
_ 2. Annexation policies have been developed based primarily on geographic locations and
existing land uses.
3. Annexation policies are identified in the applicable master plans prepared for affected
planning communities(i.e. East Bench, Sugar House,Northwest Community,Jordan
River/Airport area, City Creek, etc.).
4. Annexation policies in the Sugar House Master Plan are significantly different from policies
identified in the East Bench Master Plan. The Sugar House area is part of the older, fully
developed portion of the City. The East Bench area contains underdeveloped areas of the
foothills that are limited in development potential due to slope restriction and the cost of
providing municipal services.
C. In July 2001, when the Council formally adopted a resolution accepting Mr.Carroon's annexation
petition for further analysis and Planning Commission recommendation,the Administration's
transmittal noted that in May of 1998 the City Council denied a similar annexation request in the
same general area. The Council's motion to deny the resolution noted:
1. The Council is interested in annexing the area south of Sugar House,
2. The petition represents a piecemeal approach to annexation that contradicts existing policy in
the Sugar House Master Plan,and
3. Providing City services to an isolated parcel is an unsound policy decision.
D. In response to questions raised by Council Members during discussions relating to accepting Mr.
Carroon's annexation petition,the City Attorney provided a legal perspective relating to individual
annexation requests versus annexation of designated areas as a whole. Information from the City
Attorney is summarized below.
1. Many years ago the City decided not to sell water to areas for development that was capable
of being annexed into the City in order to alleviate inconsistent land development and to
3
provide efficient and equitable delivery of services. (Resolution 20 of 1982—Water Service
provided outside the City limits)
2. State annexation laws were also amended to ban development within a half-mile perimeter of
cities unless property owners tried and failed to be annexed. The law has subsequently been
amended removing this requirement.
3. These actions served to prevent urban sprawl, substandard development and double-taxation
issues.
4. The Utah Supreme Court has affirmed the City's power to use City water resources in this
way.
5. Previous City Councils and Mayors have thought the policy appropriate.
6. It seems inconsistent with the City's long-range goals not to have the development occur
inside the City boundaries when the property abuts the City boundary and would further the
City's annexation policy.
7. The City needs to be consistent and uniform in the application of City water policy or the
City will lose the ability to use this asset under Equal Protection principles.
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
A. The recently adopted Sugar House Community Master Plan Update provides the following information:
1. In 2000,the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution No. 34,which reaffirms the City's 1979
declaration of intent to annex the remaining portion of unincorporated Salt Lake County served by
Salt Lake City's water system,excluding the newly incorporated City of Holladay.This would
produce long-term benefits for County residents annexed into the City,through improved levels of
water service and a net reduction in the cost of water service,while avoiding a significant increase in
water rates paid by City residents. These areas, south of Sugar House,constitute a significant land
area. If annexed,the newly annexed areas would be best served by creating new community planning
areas.
2. Policy statements:
a. Encourage the annexation of designated areas as a whole rather than in small pieces,to provide
coordinated land use development policies and comprehensive municipal services.
b. Establish new community planning districts for areas annexed into the City south of the existing
Sugar House community planning boundary.
3. The Future Land Use map identifies this area for medium density residential uses, 8 to 20 units per
acre. The proposed development for the site will result in a density of approximately 9 units per acre.
B. The City's recently adopted Community Housing Plan contains policies and implementation strategies
that address:
1. Creating a wide variety of housing types across the City.
2. Encouraging innovation in housing design compatible with neighborhoods that are creative,
aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces.
3. Creating affordable and transitional housing.
4. Supporting home ownership for a variety of income levels.
5. Including public and neighborhood participation and interaction in the design process.
C. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in
Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria:
1. Is aesthetically pleasing;
4
2. Contributes to a livable community environment;
3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and
4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
D. Council staff has attached a synopsis of City annexation policies prepared for the Council's Annexation
subcommittee. The synopsis summarizes the following documents:
1. The City's 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration
2. City Resolution No. 34 of 2000-Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and
Declaration of Intent to annex areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt
Lake County
3. Resolution 20 of 1982-Water Service provided outside the City limits
4. Existing Community Master Plans Annexation Policies
5. The 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report
6. 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study
7. 2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study
E. State Code 10-2-403 regarding annexation requires that boundaries for annexation be drawn in the
following manner:
1. To eliminate islands and peninsulas of territory that is not receiving municipal-type services;
2. To facilitate the consolidation of overlapping functions of local government;
3. To promote the efficient delivery of services;and
4. To encourage the equitable distribution of community resources and obligations.
CHRONOLOGY:
The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed annexation.
Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details.
• July 10, 2001 City Council action formally accepting the annexation petition and referred to
the Administration and Planning Commission for further analysis and
recommendation.
• September 18,2001 End of annexation protest period
• September 20, 2001 Planning Commission hearing
cc: Jay Magure, Rocky Fluhart, D.J. Baxter, Roger Cutler, LeRoy Hooton, David Dobbins, Lynn Pace,
Max Peterson, Tim Harpst, Stephen Goldsmith, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,
Michael Sears, Janne Nielsen, Barry Esham
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division, Annexation, Red Gate
Properties/Peter Carroon
5
Synopsis- 1979 Salt Lake City Master Annexation P licy D claration
• 1979 State Legislature House Bill No. 61 required municipalities anticipating annexation to
adopt an annexation policy declaration
• Master Annexation Policy Declaration
o Citywide master annexation policy declaration and proposed future boundaries map
o Study areas:
• West Airport
• North Redwood Road
• Magna
• Emigration Canyon
• Brickyard Area
• Parley's
• East Millcreek
• Holladay—Olympus
• Holladay—Cottonwood
• West Valley
o Individual study area sections include:
• Geographical boundary description for each study area
• Land use and socio-economic characteristics
• Estimate of assessed property values
• Comparison of costs of government services
• Water, sewer, fire, and police
• Planning and zoning
• Refuse and garbage collection and disposal
• Streets and highways
Synopsis-City Resolution No. 34 of 2000
• Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and
• Declaration of Intent to annex the areas served by the City's water system in the
unincorporated Salt Lake County
• City's Public Utilities Department since the 1920's has provided culinary water service to
the eastern unincorporated portion of Salt Lake County
• Service is provided to approximately 30,500 water accounts
• Salt Lake County's tax base has been reduced through annexations and incorporations,
including Taylorsville and Holladay, requiring an increase in County taxes
• In 1979, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration that included the
intent to annex the portion of Salt Lake County served by the City's water system
• In 2000, the Salt Lake City Council commissioned an independent study that concluded:
o Annexation would produce long-term benefits for County residents if annexed into
the City through:
• Improved levels of water service
• A net reduction in the cost of water service
1
o Annexation would not significantly increase water rates currently paid by City
residents
• Annexation would provide Salt Lake City with benefits including:
o Relieve of potential conflicts between jurisdictions relating to:
• Service levels
• Water rates
• Watershed protection
• Planning and zoning issues
• Expressed the City's interest and willingness to:
o Enter into discussions with Salt Lake County and State of Utah representatives,
residents, property owners, and other elected representatives
o Explore the feasibility, desirability and potential for annexation implementation
Water Service provide outside the City limits
• Resolution 20 of 1982 (adopted February 2, 1982)
o Formalized policy for providing water service to development outside the City limits
• Requires annexation in order to receive City water services or
• Provide an agreement to annex when annexation becomes possible
Annexation Policy—Existing Community Master Plans
• Sugar House
o Salt Lake City encourages the annexation of areas between its boundary and 3900
South Street as a whole rather than in small pieces, to provide coordinated land us
development policies and comprehensive municipal services.
• East Bench
o Preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat, recreational use, and
accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill
development in the East Bench Community.
o To maintain control over foothill development, the city should:
• Amend its Annexation Policy Declaration to encompass the privately owned
East Bench foothills as the means to having control over future development
proposals.
• Restrict urban development beyond the one-half-mile area, to encompass all
of the privately owned foothill property. This could be accomplished through
an interlocal agreement, under the State Interlocal Cooperation Act.
• Seek an official agreement of resolution with the county to ensure that
smaller residential developments will also be referred to the city for
annexation and development approval. Annexation should even be required
for a single-family home. The city should refuse to provide water or sewer
services to accommodate development outside city boundaries.
• Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, & H Rock Small Area Plan
o It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will
not be provided to new developments unless they are located within the City limits.
2
• Jordan River—Airport Area Small Area Plan (short range)
o Facilitate Salt Lake City's Annexation of County land area west and north to the
Great Salt Lake.
o Annex lands west of and north toward the Great Salt Lake from Salt Lake County,
and zone appropriately according to land uses identified in the Plan
Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report
• Nesbitt Planning and Management, Inc. presented to the Salt Lake County Council of
Governments on December 8, 1999 "A Reconnaissance of Potential Annexations and
Incorporations Facing Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios". This
study attempted to define the cumulative impact on revenues and service delivery across
Salt Lake County.
• The study considered 28 scenarios for 10 unincorporated communities. The study presents
the information gathered in three main areas; Base Fiscal Parameters, Revenues and
Costs, and Remainders Analysis.
• For whatever reason, when the study projected the cumulative impacts upon the tax bases
and revenues of the County and the annexing Cities and discussed the challenges of
potential overhead increases for the County with declining service delivery demand, it
failed to address the impact to Salt Lake City.
• It was for this reason that the Administration of Salt Lake City at the time of the study,
asked City staff to review the study and using the same methodology present to the
Administration the impact of the various annexation and incorporation scenarios that are
outlined in the Council of Governments commissioned study.
• The resulting study was titled "Wall to Wall Cities"
Synopsis- 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study
• Salt Lake City Budget and Policy staff prepared a "Wall to Wall Cities" study at the same
time the City was supplying information for Council of Governments commissioned
Feasibility Scenario or Wall-to-Wall Annexation Study. The City staff reviewed the history
of annexation issues within the City and provided the following information in the Original
Study section of the report.
"Holladay, Salt Lake Commissioner Callaghan's efforts to have the State
implement legislation to facilitate wall to wall cities], some of the cities
surrounding the unincorporated area are beginning to propose extending their
boundaries, potentially, into Salt Lake City's annexation declaration boundaries.
In 1979, Salt Lake City created its' Master Annexation Policy Declaration which
states that Salt Lake City would annex the area containing its water distribution
system. The attached map highlights in yellow Salt Lake City's water distribution
area. As you can see from the map, the proposed annexation area for Salt Lake
3
City would ext nd Salt Lake City's current southern boundary out to Creek Road
and would go as far west as 1300 East. In 1982, the City Council passed a
resolution reaffirming the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration.
The wall-to-wall city initiative will have a significant impact on Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City has several concerns regarding this initiative. One major concern
revolves around Salt Lake City's water, and its'water distribution network."
• The report goes on to state what the different components of the study are and what will be
the impact of any annexation plans on the City. The staff chose 4 logical boundaries to
divide the potential annexation areas. The only areas discussed in this plan are along the
east bench of the Salt Lake Valley. The western potential annexation areas were not dealt
with in this report.
• City staff used Property Tax, Sales Tax, Sales Tax Distribution, and Franchise Tax, to
figure Revenue in this area. Services that are contained in Enterprise Funds were not
included into the calculation of revenue as it is expected that the services would pay for
themselves. The staff then attempted to quantify costs in each of the four service areas as
best possible.
• The Administration presented to the City Council in 1999 the results of their study. At that
time the Council thought it best to bring in an outside consultant to review the work of the
staff and help guide them as they reviewed what course the City should take. City staff lent
their expertise to the consultant and assisted in gathering and reviewing information as
needed. The resulting consultant study presented essentially the same findings as that of
the City staff.
Svn nsis-2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study
• The consulting firm of Rick Giardina &Associates, Inc. in association with BBC Research &
Consulting submitted a final report to the Salt Lake City Council in June of 2000. The study
incorporated the efforts and expertise of many City staff. The study kept the same
annexation study areas as the City staff report. The consultant did not review those ar as
on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley.
4
• The study reviewed all potential sources of revenue and expenses. The study took into
account what would be needed within the different areas to conform to current service
levels, both public safety and physical infrastructure. The consultant reviewed what capital
needs each of the areas had and what the cost of each area would be if the City were to
purchase existing County assets, purchase new assets, or rely on current equipment in the
City to provide services.
• The end result of the study indicated that even with the massive capital needs of the area
the City would be economically ahead if Salt Lake City were to annex all or part of the area
to City Creek Road.
• As follow-up to this study the Council adopted a resolution in year 2000 that reaffirmed the
City's intent to annex those communities served by the City's water and water distribution
area.
Additional Information
Other Cities such as Murray, Midvale, West Valley City and Holladay have completed
consultant and in house studies that identify potential areas of annexation. Some encroach
on the boundaries listed in the 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Of particular
note is the annexation studies of Murray and Sandy which advocated annexation to the
east of their present boundaries, and the incorporation of Holladay that incorporated a
significant portion of the unincorporated area along the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley.
Of particular note is that the boundaries of Holladay City do not correspond with their water
district boundaries.
5
Tuesday, February 5, 2001
City Council Agenda
Item D-3
Ordinance: Petition No. 400-01 - 16, annex
approximately .66 acres of property located at
3027 South 1100 East
Paperwork for this item was previously received.
Hard copies are available in the Council Office.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1,2002
SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-53- Mr. DeWayne Iverson representative for Iverson
Home L.C. - request to close a portion of Utah Street(1605 West)between
California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South)
STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use and Policy Analyst
Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Ordinance The Administration's The proposal is The Administration has
transmittal notes that the presented as a new clearly stated the
petitioner will be ordinance. positive aspects of the
required to purchase the proposal.
property at fair market
value.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance closing a portion of Utah Street(1650 West)between
California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South).
2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance closing a portion of Utah Street(1650 West)between
California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South).
KEY ELEMENTS
A. For the past several years,residents and property owners in the West Salt Lake area have consistently
contacted the Administration,Council Members and the Council office expressing the need to provide
new,affordable housing to encourage homeownership and increase a stable population base to support
new retail services in the community. The Community Councils and residents in the West Salt Lake
Planning Community have worked continuously over the past several years in order to achieve stability
and maintain the single-family character of their neighborhoods.
B. The Council approved two rezoning requests from Mr. Iverson for property located immediately to the
north across California Avenue in June and October of 2000. The rezoning facilitated development of a
similar residential planned development with a reduced street width and provided approximately 81 new
single-family homes(Madison Estates Phases#1 and#2).
1
C. The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed discussion of the proposed partial street closure
request. Major points are summarized below. Please refer to the Administration's transmittal, Planning
Commission minutes and Planning staff report for details.
1. This action would facilitate development of a residential scale streetscape, utilizing a reduced width
public street and provide additional property for a proposed 27-unit residential planned development,
Madison Estates Phase#3. Please see the attached maps for details.
2. The partial street closure area consists of a tapering parcel,that is 30 feet wide at the intersection of
Utah Street and California Avenue,tapering to approximately 10 feet wide at the south end of the
property. Total property area is 13,174 sq. ft. or 0.302 acres.
3. The Property Management Division recommended that the property be declared surplus and sold at
fair market value. Consistent with City policy,the petitioner has agreed to purchase the property at
fair market value.
4. The City's Transportation Division, Engineering Division, Fire Department, Police Department,
Public Utilities Department and Property Management Division have reviewed the request. All
departments involved in the review have recommended approval of the partial street closure request
subject to City standards and specific requirements. City Departments will continue to be involved
as development plans are finalized and approved.
5. The street closure and proposed development are consistent with applicable master plans.
6. The street closure will not have a negative effect on traffic circulation in the immediate area and the
City's ability to deliver emergency services.
D. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed partial street
closure request. Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for details.The Planning
Commission's motion notes that"the purpose is to close up to 30 feet of the existing 80-foot right-of-
way to provide for a more residential scale streetscape for a residential subdivision planned development
and to declare the area of the partial street closure as surplus property to be sold to the Petitioner for
inclusion in the subdivision lots." In addition,the Planning Commission approved a conditional use for a
reduced width public street and a planned development for a residential subdivision. Please refer to the
Planning Commission minutes for details and conditions for the planned development.
E. Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting focused on:
1. Density of the proposed development, reduced lot size, building scale and design, useable open
space, parking, lighting and fencing.
2. Traffic access, impacts and safety concerns relating to the immediate neighborhood and the
potential for future impacts to the neighboring streets.
3. Neighborhood impacts and compatibility.
4. Safety and transient issues relating to the vacant property and the surplus canal.
5. Zero lot line development concepts and design options to provide additional useable open space,
reduce the amount of hard surfaced areas and create more architecturally varied structures.
F. The Administration's transmittal notes that the project was reviewed and approved the West Salt Lake
Community Council on April 19, 2000 passing by a 26 to 5 margin. The Planning staff report includes a
letter from the West Salt Lake Community Council dated October 25,2001. The letter notes:
1. On April 29, 2000,the Community Council reviewed Mr. Iverson's proposal for building homes
on both sides of California Avenue.
2. Construction of three bedroom homes would increase the population and encourage developers
to build retail stores for convenient community shopping.
3. The development on the north side of California Avenue has turned vacant fields into a beautiful
residential area.
4. The Community Council has been anxiously awaiting City approval for Mr. Iverson's project on
the south side of California Avenue for over a year and would like to see the project begin as
soon as possible.
2
MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
> In a related matter, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use request from Mr. Iverson for a
reduced width public street and a planned development of a residential subdivision. Conditions of
approval included connection of Utah Street with High Avenue. (Please refer to the Planning
Commission minutes for details.) Mr. Iverson's proposed development that was reviewed by the
community council and area residents included a cul-de-sac at the end of Utah Street with no connection
to Utah Avenue.
Council Member Van Turner met with Mr.Iverson and Planning staff on December 12,2001 to discuss
the Planning Commission's action. Council Member Turner was concerned that the Community Council
and property owners on Utah Street and High Avenue may not be aware of the changes recommended by
the Planning Commission specifically the connection of Utah Street with High Avenue. Planning staff
indicated that they would notify the Community Council Chair and residents on Utah Street and High
Avenue regarding the Planning Commission action. In addition,Planning staff identified the option to
schedule an additional discussion with the Planning Commission.
Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration in further detail steps taken to address
these issues and to notify the Community Council and residents on Utah Street and High Avenue.
> In the past,Planning staff has indicated that the current street closure procedure does not require
Community Council notification and review. Currently,the Planning Commission agenda is mailed to
Community Council Chairs. A Planning Commission hearing notice is mailed to property owners within
a 300-foot radius of a proposed street closure. In this case,the Community Council review was required
as part of the planned development conditional use process.
During the Council's recent alley policy discussions, Council Members expressed support for including
neighborhood and community council review and comment as part of the public process prior to the
Administration formalizing their recommendation to the City Council.
In addition,the Council has recently received some street closures requests in which the Administration
has provided a recommendation from the City's Transportation Advisory Board. In other cases, the
Transportation Advisory Board has not reviewed street closure requests.
Council Members may wish to consider adjusting the Council's street closure policy to ensure a
consistent policy direction. (Please refer to the next section for the Council's street closure policy.)
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. This section of Utah Street is not designated in the City's master plans as a potential component of the
bicycle or trail"system or as a mid-block walkway.
2. The 1995 West Salt Lake Community Master Plan notes that the Community offers a full range of
residential uses including low, medium and high density. The plan contains statements, goals and
policies for maintaining and preserving the existing residential land use patterns, improve the quality of
existing housing and prevent further residential decline. The land use goals in the master plan include:
a. Promote compatible land uses—whether residential, commercial or industrial—while maintaining
the integrity of the Community.
3
b. Preserve the existing predominantly low-density character and related land use patterns in the
residential part of the West Salt Lake Community.
c. Encourage properly regulated new growth in areas of anticipated development, especially in the
West Salt Lake Industrial District. (The area west of Redwood Road.)
d. Propose a future land use plan that will minimize and eventually eliminate land use conflicts in
developed areas.
3. The Council's street closure policy includes the following:
a. It is Council policy to close public streets and sell the underlying property. The Council does not
close streets when that action would deny all access to other property.
b. The general policy when closing a street is to obtain fair market value for the land, whether the
abutting property is residential or commercial.
c. There are instances where the City has negotiated with private parties to allow the parties to make
public improvements in lieu of cash payment. The Council and the Administration consider these
issues on a case-by-case basis.
d. There should be sufficient public policy reasons that justify the sale and/or closure of a public street,
and it should be sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner that the sale and/or closure of the street
would accomplish the stated public policy reasons.
e. The City Council should determine whether the stated public policy reasons outweigh alternatives to
the sale or closure of the street.
4. Related Council policy statements contained in the City's Transportation Master Plan are summarized
below:
a. Focus on ways to transport people,not on moving vehicles at the expense of neighborhoods.
b. Support transportation decisions that increase the quality of life,not necessarily the quantity of
development.
c. Support the creation of linkages(provisions and incentives)to foster appropriate growth in currently
defined growth centers.
d. Support considering impacts on neighborhoods on an equal basis with impacts on transportation
systems.
e. Support giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions.
5. The City's recently adopted Community Housing Plan contains policies and implementation strategies
that address:
a. Creating a wide variety of housing types across the City.
b. Encouraging innovation in housing design compatible with neighborhoods that are creative,
aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces.
c. Creating affordable and transitional housing.
d. Supporting home ownership for a variety of income levels.
6. The Council's policy relating to maintaining a residential population base notes, "It is the policy of the
City Council to use its zoning power to maintain the residential population base within the City and to
encourage population expansion."
7. During the Council's recent discussions relating to growth, annexations and housing policy, Council
Members have expressed support for developments that promote livable community concepts such as:
a. Pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments
b. Compact,transit and pedestrian oriented developments
c. Neighborhood anchor areas or commercial and/or business uses that are necessary to the function of
residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity
d. Local services that are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot.
4
8. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in
Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria:
a. is aesthetically pleasing;
b. contributes to a livable community environment;
c. yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and
d. forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
9. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a
prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is
pedestrian friendly, convenient,and inviting, but not at the expense of minimizing environmental
stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and
developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly, safe environments.The documents
contain statements that support policies in the Transportation Master Plan that focus on an integrated
transportation system and urban design concepts that focus on people rather than the automobile.
CHRONOLOGY:
The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed street
closure. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's transmittal letter and
chronology for details.
> April 19,2000—West Salt Lake Community Council meeting
> December 6,2001 —Planning Commission public hearing
cc: Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,David Dobbins,Linda Cordorva,Tim Harpst,Stephen
Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Gregg Mikolash,Marge Harvey,Annette Daley
File Location:. Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Street Closures—Utah Street
(1605West)between California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South)—DeWayne Iverson
5
January 8, 2002
The Salt Lake City Planning Commission approved the partial street closure of Utah Street
between California Avenue(1330 South)and High Avenue(1450 South)on December 6,2002.
The purpose of this partial closure is to close up to 30 ft.of the existing 80 ft.right-of-way to
provide for a more residential scale streetscape for a Planned Development being proposed by
Iverson Homes L.C. The closed portion of Utah Street will be declared as surplus and sold to the
Petitioner for inclusion in the Subdivision lots within the proposed Madison Estates Planned
Development, Phase 3.
As part of the conditions of approval,the Planning Commission has required that the Petitioner
re-submit final drawings to the City,which show the physical connection of Utah Street and
High Avenue for vehicle access. As an adjacent homeowner,this may be of considerable
interest to you, due to all previous plans for the proposed Subdivision showing Utah Street
terminating in a cul-de-sac just short of High Avenue.
Planning staff will set a public hearing date for the final approval of the Madison Estates Planned
Development, Phase 3 shortly. You will receive a notice in the mail indicating the time and place
of this public hearing. If in the interim, you have any questions or comments regarding the
connection of Utah Street to High Avenue,please feel free in contacting me at 535-7932 and I
will be happy to assist you.
Sincerely,
Greg Mikolash
Principle Planner
,
Existing extent:
Of Utah St.
ii•-C--
---
'...
. :::=`---c Ca/if CJiFort4A AYE
---...„. - Goa Ave• Proposed Utah
` _tea. - St.Alignment
1— LarLi1 L0{14 ` •'•------- '•,«a I I fr�s =sas=ss��ona ses Eesssmc
.4k t
A s EPI €if
egi
t_oT 16 xLOT i7 LOT i8 LOT t9
9 9.966 SF 55.471 SF 15.220 5F 006 SF 5.4 ' kl ! i a'
11 II
11
_ ----______N" a.>r szy, .tom I I€ f8 I
\\ \ LOT 12 ;'
\ 4 '
\ i LQL 1 ;I' I i 3..634� i 4 I..h,�� 1
. \
•\ \ 4.75' ri7f .
\ te5►s sr ..,
\ \ 1 !AL IA
4 POTn 76 . rit_•� I z
1- . '—J.257 SF 4,$22 SF4,470
\ iv% \ , a— : E t— LOT 12~
it'k. . isaja t
A sass •
o
o
`\ I \ J,! r
IX 11 1 OT 74 /1/ m
• Q 4.420 SF 7.640s i/ Wm
\ I a WO 's•�, 44.45 .'�/ _
^ �pT—tt7 - _ _
1 z -} 1 'i j,out i
LOT/l
O \
\ I 4
3s
0 \I I Si LOT 9t: .-
o \ y_� 7222sF 41.4Lfl '
< i. I A 5.286 sr g6.136 I I
t.
N \. I .
, Y '`• 11
� —— LOT,yo `� LOT 7 �3-——-LSL_ 11 LOT,0
1- I 1`‘— 9.490 SF II
I II
0 172JY
N
= I 8 Ii
'.i �?a. OTr4 14%v\slil.:1.'. II Wasatch Commons
Condominiums
-� I- — LOT . $ _171JY.— ':i I I LOT 9
GRAPHIC SCALE \\ �iII
6.33041
l ,
(n 1fl1) I \\ \ o \ : \ �sF
1.
\ \ \ \ .. . _
I- -I I- \\ \\ LOT\79 \ ? fi i II LOT 8
\ \
\ \ \\ 1.i1a,, :: .-, ,�._
\\ \ . i fi 4.(';'; I
\I- -I I— \-- \ Lo>e 20 r,` I, LOT 7
•
\ , ` \t t \\ HIGH AVENUE SU 801 YISION
\ I \�`. \ LOTS LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2 f
North" \ \-1. *‘`\ \ :
L J L LOT \ \'\
r
/5-/0-4/
ri w ic "
) M.2 -,
e -•
V3 $ ; w Bo + 1 , 1 1 m I 1 1 1 39
\ • 1'4 �i� 1 1 .n vl hl 1 1 1 1 •
,6. \\ kca) 181ro81 $ ! II 11/4101 o "pk
Q9/ \ OHO JQO ! -- —1 1_ '.L 11 1 .
1�
w
•
\ \ /sso 1
- \ r, q .0/3 It -0/2 % - - —
11
i r
s00 0). /� a
24 .\ ''\ -007 ti -0/4 -017 t-
1 1 t
—
10 \ r -018 •
—1-------- s
i I.
201 1 1-044 1104si ; .
/8 -
_.24____v_x_.__
;��• /II24 T. 1 Tt ��1• \ 247
♦\ \-x4 . \ -- _ 030 «°
%
P' \,♦ 8 \\ \;�• /9 �B '� g 3 -oab�. q -047.., =4
\ •k7\ J ----- \ = s —4 —
\ 1 `\ 1 t" r) r 1 •• -oho � _000 1 ...4., �.
\ b \ \ ;'\ J iv Y f
\\ T♦.4. ,-- \3-008 0 .i -0/7 033 20 `,
1 1 -
b \ 6 ♦ 6 1�{ \�. '1 - -034 _vim
\\ \\ - \ \, � --in
6\4ic�c \ o\ Ao9, x e as ..••. •is Ls iacT--b,---
`��\ �.� \\ Zany ' KH �{ AVEN h g Y o 1_ _
of
A Q�i� 1 ` x+! sc ,. w s $1. 11 o9G
\\` CI. ♦ a N/GH - car ; o ..sr. ..,"
\ «. .a 1 sc .
1111
1 -015 s avatr •, ._. :..� aK ,ac all es ra` �'
6•oe Nr; $ u • -i. e N
i ' N.,
\ •\ B. ^ J R aPH s e
•
,� \ 1 it -CZ NO r,:\ 4\
_
2 ` -o// t. it \ o ,` ri' ar •
ri rt 1
= 3 24 \\ a ;\% ►�' o 0 =3°° ; -t--
2
r it i we s•!w \ =•a1 1 J• 2101 \1E' kc. a —31 yz-vac.�i' l .. . .r ` Ae ; /
, 1 Gr • 2 /,.o R 1G • 4 1► �` ors u•1 0.111 1
4 C 3 1,2 1 'go 11'. a1 3 2°N, 1� �'I Y y��;' :-1h•i+' 07
. ;1
1 r
4 5 1 43 c+ ,ij 5 •I Ago.: 1_e.• -. P ,\ x ,r.,/ I
,4 a n c n,�•e,7y fir{
1 7 ' ,G 4 I j :1 7 /GN7 1I MI/����lai ►� l'is -ON �1
Q $ t $ Om a d -004 \ ovi ��
r
tIb �� /3ir #.0 1 • ``�e \\/ : • $. //_ /2.5i R =MEC Li ..V.D is6 7d ,7C •,; 65.. .ao a.� k io as ....
,\ 1
v HARR/Sae; ,Yt ...-es, .e.�. AVE. u
Tuesday, February 5, 2001
City Council Agenda
Item D-4
Ordinance: Petition No. 400-01 -53 , close a
portion of Utah Street between California
Avenue and High Street
Paperwork for this item was previously received.
Hard copies are available in the Council Office.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Petition 400-00-29— Turville/Heugly/Sorenson
• Annexation of 60.56 acres located at approximately 1977 South
2800 Fast
• Zoning the property Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space
• Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia
HeightsBenchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master Plan
STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use and Policy Analyst
Document Type Budget-Related Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Facts
Ordinance The Administration's The proposal is The Administration has
transmittal notes the presented in compliance clearly stated the
project would result in a with State Code. positive aspects of the
positive fiscal impact. Property is contiguous proposal.
Please see the to the current City
Administration's boundary. The property
Annexation Impact owners representing
Analysis for details. 100%of the assessed
valuation listed on
• Total Service Cost current County Tax
is$914.00 per unit Assessment rolls have
• Total Revenue is agreed to the
$1,492.78 per unit annexation.
• Impact fees are
$890.00 per unit
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The County Planning staff provided the following information in response to a request from Council
Member Love:
a. 7/13/9-County Planning Commission meeting. Request-Rezone 29.87 acres from FR-20 to
FR-5/ZC(FCOZ)
o FR-20=Forestry and Recreation zone-20 acres
• Density allowed 1 dwelling unit per 20 gross acres
o FR-5/ZC=Forestry and Recreation zone- 5 acres
• Density allowed 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres
o FCOZ=Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone
1
b. Recommendation to the County Commission-rezone the property FR-5 (Forestry and
Recreation—5 acres)and FCOZ (Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone)with a maximum of four
residential lots. —
c. 10/99 County Commission meeting. Request to rezone-Continued action to next meeting
d. 11/99 County Commission meeting. Continued action to next meeting
e. 1/5/00 County Commission meeting. Continued action indefinitely
f. 10/5/99-letter from Mr.Turville to County Commission requesting that his rezoning request be
removed from the schedule and postponed and that he will notify the Commission office to
reschedule. Please see the attached documents for details.
g. The Planning Commission and County Commission did not take action on a subdivision
proposal. The petitioner's subdivision application would have been processed as a conditional
use with the Planning Commission after a final decision by the County Commission regarding
rezoning.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
1. Planning Commission Recommendation:["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance as
recommended by the Planning Commission:
• Extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Scott Turville,Trent Heugly,James
Sorenson and Salt Lake City Corporation properties,consisting of approximately 60.56 acres
located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East
• Zoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS,and
• Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master
Plan to allow limited,very low density,residential development in the area west of the current
terminus of Lakeline Drive, consisting of not more than six new lots, located on a private street with
a privacy gate extending west from Lakeline Drive.
(Please note that the Planning staff report includes a finding that the master plan "be amended to reflect
the total lots recommended as seven(six for Turville and one for Kontgis)."
I further move that the 55 acres to be zoned as Open Space be designated as perpetual open space by the
City through the use of a conservation easement or deeded to an approved non-profit open space
organization.
2. Support of the current master plan: ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance:
• Extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Scott Turville,Trent Heugly,James
Sorenson and Salt Lake City Corporation properties, consisting of approximately 60.56 acres
located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East,and
• Zoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS.
(Please note that this approach could be subject to some interpretation. The Master Plan states
"Development around the cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive should be completed with not
more than three to four additional homes; and...No more than four additional lots should be permitted
at the north end of Lakeline Drive."Specifically interpreted, this motion would result in three lots for
Turville and one for Kontgis)
I further move that the 55 acres to be zoned as Open Space be designated as perpetual open space by the
City through the use of a conservation easement or deeded to an approved non-profit open space
organization.
2
3. Opposition to all aspects of the proposal: ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance as
recommended by the Planning Commission:
• Extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to include the Scott Turville, Trent Heugly, James
Sorenson and Salt Lake City Corporation properties, consisting of approximately 60.56 acres
located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East
• Zoning the properties Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS,and
• Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master
Plan to allow limited,very low density,residential development in the area west of the current
terminus of Lakeline Drive,consisting of not more than six new lots, located on a private street with
a privacy gate extending west from Lakeline Drive.
> Two ordinances have been provided:
o An ordinance that would annex and zone the property and amend the master plan based on
the Planning Commission recommendation.
o An ordinance that would annex and zone the property and reaffirm the adopted master plan.
> Additional options for Council consideration:
a. Adjust the amount of property to be zoned Foothill Residential FR-2(1/2 acre lots)for
residential development to reduce the number of homes that could be built. (Note: This
approach would be the most specific—the actual legal descriptions of the property to be zoned
would be changed so that there can be no question of the Council's intent.)
b. Zone the property identified for residential development a lower density zoning classification:
1. Foothill Residential FR-1 -requires 1 acre lots
2. Foothill Preservation FP-requires 16 acre lots
3. Any combination of the foothill residential zoning classifications:
• Foothill Preservation
• Foothill Residential FR-1
• Foothill Residential FR-2
c. If option two or additional options a.or b.are adopted, specifically address the gate—confirming
the language in the master plan would indicate that a gate would not be supported.
d. Other options that may be identified by Council Members.
The following information was provided for the Council Work Session on January 8,2002.
KEY ELEMENTS
A. Action required by the Council includes:
1. Annexation of 60.56 acres located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East.
2. Zoning the property Foothill Residential FR-2 and Open Space.
3. Amending the East Bench Master Plan Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master
Plan to allow limited, very low density,residential development in the area west of the current
terminus of Lakeline Drive, consisting of not more than six new lots, located on a private street
with a privacy gate extending west from Lakeline Drive.
B. This action would facilitate development of approximately 6.31 acres of property for a proposed 6-lot
residential subdivision planned development with a gated, private street. One lot will be located on the
3
existing cul-de-sac on Lakeline Drive. The other five lots would be located inside a privacy gate on a
private street. Approximately 30 additional acres will be donated to the City or an approved non-profit
organization for preservation as open space.
C. The property is within the boundaries of the area identified in the City's Future Annexation Policy
Declaration area and reaffirmed by formal Council action in 2000 and 2001.
D. The Administration's transmittal, Planning Commission minutes and Planning staff report provide a
detailed discussion of the annexation request. Major points are summarized below:
1. Total annexation acreage is 60.56 acres:
a. 27.15 acres donated as open space to Salt lake City
b. 32.02 acres owned by Scott Turville
c. 1.0 acres owned by Trent Heugly
d. .39 acres owned by James L. Sorenson
2. Aspects of the development proposal would require modification of the Arcadia
HeightBenchmark/H-Rock Small Area Master Plan. Proposed modifications include:
a. Allowing development around the cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive to
include six new residential lots instead of three to four new residential lots.
b. Allowing the proposed residential planned development to include a reduced-width
private street rather than a reduced-width public street constructed to meet City
standards.
c. Allowing a privacy gate across the proposed private street to prevent unauthorized
vehicle entry rather than strongly discouraging gated developments.
3. Surrounding land uses include a mix of single-family residential uses and foothill open space.
4. The petitioner did apply to Salt Lake County for a 4-lot(5 acres each)residential planned
development. The petitioner has withdrawn his application pending outcome of his annexation
request to the City.
5. Final site development,transportation and utility service requirements,and development plans
including landscaping will be evaluated through the development review and building permit
processes.
E. The Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the properties be zoned Foothill
Residential FR-2 and Open Space OS. In addition,the Planning Commission granted conditional use
approval for the proposed planned development subject to the following conditions:
1. Annexation and zoning approval by the Salt Lake City Council.
2. Donation of the approximately 30 acres of open space,as shown on the site plan, be finalized
and deeded to the City or an approved non-profit organization for perpetual preservation as
open space.
3. Pedestrian easement for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail users is noted on the subdivision plat.
4. Hand graded improvement of the secondary use trails throughout the open space,providing
connections where trails are interrupted.
5. Attractive native landscaped entry feature be developed on the Lakeline Drive cul-de-sac,
noting the trailhead.
6. Privacy gate be no more than three feet high,with no signage indicating no trespassing etc.
allowed.
7. Encouragement for green building methods and materials, and fire retardant materials is
incorporated into the design guidelines of the CC&Rs.
8. Landscaping restrictions requiring 90%drought tolerant vegetation, with the exception of a
maximum of 5000 square feet of lawn be incorporated into the CC&Rs.
9. Final plat approval by the Planning Commission after annexation by the City Council.
4
F. The purpose of the Foothill Residential FR-2 Zone is to promote environmentally sensitive and visually
compatible development of lots not less than 21,780 sq. ft. in size, suitable for foothill locations. The
district is intended to minimize flooding, erosion and other environmental hazards;to protect the natural
scenic character of foothill areas not suitable for development;to promote the safety and well being of
present and future residents of foothill areas;and to ensure the efficient expenditure of public funds. The
purpose of the Open Space OS zone is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space
and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas.
Please refer to the attached Council staff report for additional details relating to specific zoning
requirements.
G. Discussion at the Planning Commission issues only meeting and public hearing focused on:
1. Trails and trail head access including the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.
2. The proposed privacy gate,private street and street name.
3. The number,location of lots and the use of the flag lot concept.
4. Sewer improvements including coordination and shared connection with the abutting Kontgis
development.
5. The proposed 30 acres of property for open space preservation and the City-owned 26 acre
parcel being donated to a non-profit land trust.
6. Protection of the foothills,wildlife,and significant steep slopes,erosion and water run-off
control.
7. Access and development potential for the abutting property owned by Ms.Victoria Hanson.
8. How the Commission would justify not following the small area plan.
H. The Administration has noted that Community Council review of annexation petitions is not required.
In this case,the Community Council review was required as part of the planned development
conditional use process. The Administration's transmittal notes,"This annexation and development
proposal was discussed at a number of Arcadia Heights/East Bench Community Council meetings. The
Planning staff report notes:
1. The Arcadia/Benchmark Community Council has met to review this project in November 1999
and November 2000.
2. At both meetings,there were concerns expressed about the number of lots proposed compared to
the number endorsed in the small area master plan. The group could not reach consensus about
this topic.
3. The group also voiced concerns about the optional gate shown on the site plan,the large
buildable areas identified on each lot and the issue of a public versus private street.
MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
➢ Council Members may wish to discuss in further detail with the Administration the rational and public
purpose for amending the Arcadia HeightsBenchmark/H Rock Small Area Master Plan to:
O Allow six new residential lots located on a private street with a privacy gate.
0 Not require shared public utility construction between Mr.Turville's proposed development and
the abutting Kontgis development.
➢ Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration options to provide improved coordination
between Mr.Turville's proposed development and the abutting Kontgis-development currently under
construction. For example,Council Member Saxton has suggested that the Administration consider that,
as a condition for amending the small area master plan to increase in the number of lots permitted at the
end of Lakeline Drive, Mr.Turville's development and the Kontgis development share street and sewer
access. This option would eliminate the need for a lengthy driveway to be constructed as part of abutting
5
Kontgis development, reduce the amount, costs and maintenance of utility and street improvements and
to preserve to the greatest extent possible the aesthetic qualities of the foothills and the City's natural,
undeveloped areas.
➢ Council Members may wish to discuss the Council's intent relating to future annexation requests to
ensure a consistent policy direction.
A. During the 2001 State Legislative General Session,the Legislature approved HB 155S1 -
Annexation Amendments. The bill modified provisions of the Utah Municipal Code relating to
municipal annexations. In part,the bill restricts annexations from taking place in first class
counties from April 30,to November 15,2001 with certain exceptions. The bill also requires that
first class counties and cities within first class counties prepare a plan for annexations within the
county and to submit the plan to the Legislative Management Committee at its first meeting after
November 15,2001.
1. The Council formally adopted a resolution on December 5,2000 that reaffirmed the City's
1979 declaration of intent to annex the remaining portion of unincorporated Salt Lake
County served by Salt Lake City's water system, excluding the newly incorporated City of
Holladay.
2. The Salt Lake City Council has fulfilled the 2001 Legislature's mandate that cities in Salt
Lake County prepare a master plan by November 15,2001,to show"how the remainder of
unincorporated areas within Salt Lake County are to be included within municipalities
through annexation or incorporation."The Salt Lake Council of Governments submitted a
series of maps to the Legislative Management Committee on behalf of Salt Lake County
and the cities within the County.
3. The City Council supports the concept of annexing areas outside the City's boundaries. Its
reasons are listed in the attached document titled Salt Lake City Council and Annexation.
B. In the past,the Administration has provided the following information relating to the City's
annexation policies:
1. The City does not have a citywide annexation policy.
2. Annexation policies have been developed based primarily on geographic locations and
existing land uses.
3. Annexation policies are identified in the applicable master plans prepared for affected
planning communities(i.e. East Bench, Sugar House,Northwest Community,Jordan
River/Airport area,City Creek,etc.).
4. Annexation policies in the Sugar House Master Plan are significantly different from policies
identified in the East Bench Master Plan.The Sugar House area is part of the older,fully
developed portion of the City. The East Bench area contains underdeveloped areas of the
foothills that are limited in development potential due to slope restriction and the cost of
providing municipal services.
C. In related matter, information provided by the Administration regarding a recent annexation request
from Mr. Peter Carroon with Red Gate properties noted that in May of 1998 the City Council denied
a similar annexation request in the same general area. The Council's motion to deny the resolution
noted:
1. The Council is interested in annexing the area south of Sugar House,
2. The petition represents a piecemeal approach to annexation that contradicts existing policy
in the Sugar House Master Plan,and
3. Providing City services to an isolated parcel is an unsound policy decision.
D. In response to questions raised by Council Members during discussions relating to accepting Mr.
Carroon's annexation petition, the City Attorney provided a legal perspective relating to individual
6
annexation requests versus annexation of designated areas as a whole. Information from the City
Attorney is summarized below.
1. Many years ago the City decided not to sell water to areas for development that was capable
of being annexed into the City in order to alleviate inconsistent land development and to
provide efficient and equitable delivery of services. (Resolution 20 of 1982—Water Service
provided outside the City limits)
2. State annexation laws were also amended to ban development within a half-mile perimeter
of cities unless property owners tried and failed to be annexed. The law has subsequently
been amended removing this requirement.
3. These actions served to prevent urban sprawl, substandard development and double-taxation
issues.
4. The Utah Supreme Court has affirmed the City's power to use City water resources in this
way.
5. Previous City Councils and Mayors have thought the policy appropriate.
6. It seems inconsistent with the City's long-range goals not to have the development occur
inside the City boundaries when the property abuts the City boundary and would further the
City's annexation policy.
7. The City needs to be consistent and uniform in the application of City water policy or the
City will lose the ability to use this asset under Equal Protection principles.
MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
A. There are several City master plans that apply to the area proposed for annexation. Applicable master
plans are: Arcadia Heights,Benchmark, &H Rock Small Area Plan;East Bench Master Plan;Open
Space Master Plan;and Salt Lake City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Please refer to the
attached Council staff report,dated August 4,2000,prepared for accepting the petition requesting
annexation and the Administration's transmittal documents for details. Key references in the master
plans are noted below.
B. Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H Rock Small Area Plan
1. The boundaries of the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark&H Rock Small Area Plan(the"Arcadia
Plan")are I-80 on the south, Foothill Drive on the west, 1700 South on the north,and the Wasatch
National Forest on the east.
2. Pages 3-4 New Foothill Development
• Development restrictions on slopes equal to or greater than 30%-Recommendations include
strict application of the City's Site Development Ordinance relating to interpretation of 30%
slopes as well as all other foothill development standards.
• Undevelopable land—Recommendations include acquisition,donation to a land trust,
establishment of conservation or access easements, and not permitting undevelopable land to be
included in calculating density or incorporated into individual building lots.
3. Pages 5-6 Residential Density/Zoning Classification for Annexed Land
• If additional development is considered, it should be very low density that does not impair the
natural qualities of the area and preserves the maximum amount of open space.
• Restrictions on development affecting slopes equal to or greater than 30%should be strictly
enforced and interpreted according to written administrative policies established by the City.
• Gated developments should be strongly discouraged.
• The following policies should be taken into consideration when determining the zoning
classification for properties which may be annexed in the future: a. Lots should be a minimum
of one half acre in size, b.Not more than four additional lots should be permitted ... at the north
end of Lakeline Drive, c.New lots should be oriented to ... the existing cul-de-sac at the north
7
end of Lakeline Drive, d. All new lots should conform to the dimensional and height standards
of the FR-2 Zone and to all established Foothill Development Standards.
4. Pages 6-7 Utility Service—water, sewer and storm drainage
• The developer should pay costs relating to increased impacts created by new development.
5. Pages 7-8 Annexation
• It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will not be
provided to new developments unless they are located with the City.
6. Pages 11-12 Open Space&Recreation
• Bonneville Shoreline Trail—The Bonneville Shoreline Trail section connecting Devonshire
Drive and Lakeline Drive should be established and signed as a pathway separate from the
existing and or future travel way of any public or private street.
• Other trails—Recommendations include additional trail developments in this area and a
trailhead park at the north end of Lakeline Drive.
• Open Space Preservation Strategies emphasize designating undevelopable land as open space,
acquisition and preservation of critical areas,establishing conservation easements,donations or
sales to a land trust or other public or non-profit organizations.
7. Page 16 Public versus Private Streets
• Require dedicated public streets in order to better integrate new developments into existing
neighborhoods and preserve public access to public lands.
• Streets should be designed recognizing specific soil and geologic conditions and constructed to
mitigate any potential adverse conditions.
C. Open Space Master Plan—The Open Space Master Plan established four goals: conserve the natural
environment;enhance open space amenities for all citizens;connect the various parts of the City to
natural environments, and educate the citizens on proper use of open space. A section of the master
plan relates to the Foothill Transitional Area,which it identifies as"the steeper slopes generally below
the 5200 ft.elevation at the eastern and northern edges of the urbanized area." The master plan states
that,"A major issue is the conservation of the natural environment for animal habitat,watershed and
views." An implementation action identified by the master plan is that Salt Lake City, "establish the
Open Space trust to receive and manage real property within the foothill transitional area."
D. East Bench Master Plan—The approximate boundaries of the East Bench Master Plan are the northern
City limits on the north, 1700 South and Parleys Way on the south,the eastern City limits on the east
and 1300 East on the west. The East Bench Master Plan section on annexation and Foothill development
states the planning goal to preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat,recreational use,
and accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill development in the East
Bench Community. Additional statements note:
1. Salt Lake City is the only government jurisdiction with the ability to provide urban services,and
annexation is a vital first step in the development process.
2. Slope is one of the most important factors in determining development potential.
3. The City should plan to either eventually accommodate development, expand regulations to
encompass aesthetic considerations as the means of precluding development, or acquire these
properties for public open space.
4. If property owners can document compliance with the site development and other applicable city
ordinances,the community and City should expect to accommodate development proposals.
E. The City's recently adopted Community Housing Plan contains policies and implementation strategies
that address:
1. Creating a wide variety of housing types across the City.
2. Encouraging innovation in housing design compatible with neighborhoods that are creative,
aesthetically pleasing and provide attractive public spaces.
8
3. Creating affordable and transitional housing.
4. Supporting home ownership for a variety of income levels.
5. Including public and neighborhood participation and interaction in the design process.
F. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in
Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria:
1. Is aesthetically pleasing;
2. Contributes to a livable community environment;
3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served; and
4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity.
G. State Code 10-2-403 regarding annexation requires that boundaries for annexation be drawn in the
following manner:
1. To eliminate islands and peninsulas of territory that is not receiving municipal-type services;
2. To facilitate the consolidation of overlapping functions of local government;
3. To promote the efficient delivery of services;and
4. To encourage the equitable distribution of community resources and obligations.
H. Council staff has attached a synopsis of City annexation policies prepared for the Council's Annexation
subcommittee. The synopsis summarizes the following documents:
1. The City's 1979 Annexation Policy Declaration
2. City Resolution No. 34 of 2000-Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration,and
Declaration of Intent to annex areas served by the City's water system in the unincorporated Salt
Lake County
3, Resolution 20 of 1982-Water Service provided outside the City limits
4. Existing Community Master Plans Annexation Policies
5. The 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report
6. 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study
7. 2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study
CHRONOLOGY:
The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed
annexation. Key meeting dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details.
• August 8, 2000 City Council action formally accepting the annexation petition and referred
to the Administration and Planning Commission for further analysis and
recommendation.
• November 1999& Community Council meetings
November 2000
• November 16,2000 Planning Commission Issues Only meeting
• June 7,2001 Planning Commission hearing
cc: Jay Magure, Rocky Fluhart, D.J. Baxter, Roger Cutler, LeRoy Hooton, David Dobbins, Lynn Pace,
Max Peterson,Tim Harpst, Stephen Goldsmith, Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Ray McCandless,
Michael Sears,Janne Nielsen, Barry Esham
File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept., Planning Division, Annexation,
Turville/Heugly/Sorenson
9
TURVILLE/HEUGLY/SORENSON/
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
Located in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 14
T.1 S., R.1 E., S.L.B. & M.
1
IL
OPEN SPACE
rR--P IR•
- 4114,4/4 •
11 aufu m mr
PIa and � �
Development
OPEN SPACE
Scenic Circle ubdiviaion
''
•
2100 South Street
SALT LAKE COUNTY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER 3, 1999
8:30 A.M.
IIIREASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES WILL BE
PROVIDED UPON REQUEST WITH THREE BUSINESS DAYS NOTICE. FOR ASSISTANCE,
PLEASE CALL V/468-2351: TDD/468-3600
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT-TO BE HEARD
1.1 PL-99-0003 -MILLCREEK COMMUNITY GENERAL PLAN.
AN UPDATE TO THE 1988 MILLCREEK COMMUNITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNED TO
CONSIDER CHANGES IN POPULATION,DEVELOPMENT,THE EFFECT OF NEW
ORDINANCES,TRANSPORTATION,OPEN SPACE,AND OTHER FACTORS.
2. ZONING-TO BE HEARD
2.1 17897-SCOTT TURVILLE- 1900 S.LAKELINE DR.(2950 E.)-'REZONE FROM FR 20 TO
FR 5/ZC ZONE(FCOZ)-29.87 ACRES
3. 808 HEARING-TO BE HEARD
3.1 18015 -ELAINE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION AMENDED-7562 W.JEM CIRCLE(13430 S.)-
2 LOTS-A-2 ZONE- SOUTHWEST
el. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION-TO BE SET
4.1 17939 - SALT LAKE COUNTY SPECIAL SERVICE DIST.#1 -3931 E. BIG COTTONWOOD
RD.(6900 S.)-PUBLIC USE(TRASH COMPACTOR)-FR-0.5 ZONE(FCOZ)-
COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS-APPROVED OCTOBER 12, 1999-APPLICATION
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
5. STREET VACATION-TO BE SET
5.1 15202 -MAGNA WATER& SEWER CO. - 1925 S. GAMMA ST. (7710 W.)-VACATE TEMPO
ROAD-A-20 ZONE-MAGNA
6. REZONING-TO BE SET
6.1 18022 -RICHARD N.BECKSTRAND-6401 S. HOLLADAY BLVD. (2830 E. ) -REZONE
FROM R-1-21 TO O-R-D ZONE- 1.308 ACRES -HOLLADAY/COTTONWOOD
1
RECEIVED
Scott R.Turville OCT 0 51999
3643 South Highland Drive,Suite SALT LAKE COUNTY I:ZD
Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 DEVELOPMENT SERVICE p'ht
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION OCTOBER5,1999
2001 STATE ST.#N3600
SALT LAKE ClY,UTAH 84190
•
RE: APPLICATION#17897
HONORABLE.COUNTY COMMISSION:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am the owner and petitioner for a project at 1900 south Lakeline Drive
scheduled to be heard before the County Commission tomorrow for
zoning approval.I am requesting that you remove my project from the
hearing scheduled for tomorrow and postpone it;I will notify you for any
rescheduling.
Thank you,
,46,/zY*2),(Avilt-a-tf
Scott R.Turville
OCT-05-1999 13:21 8014682266 96% P.02
ATTACHMENT 1
Salt Lake City Council and Annexation
The Salt Lake City Council is exploring the feasibility of annexing parts of
unincorporated Salt Lake County for several reasons. In exploring the feasibility of potential
annexations the Salt Lake City Council wants to preserve options for City residents and those
in outlying unincorporated areas to determine their mutual future.
Salt Lake City is a member of the Salt Lake County Council of Governments, an
organization made up of public officials from Salt Lake County and the 15 cities in the
county. The Council of Governments is determined to meet the intent of a Utah law that calls
for producing a map of potential future annexations by cities in Salt Lake County. However,
discussion is continuing on when the annexations portrayed on the map will be implemented.
REASONS FOR EXPLORING ANNEXATION FEASIBILITY:
1. State law passed by the 2001 Legislature directed that cities in Salt Lake County prepare
a master plan by November 15,2001,that will show "how the remainder of
unincorporated areas with Salt Lake County are to be included within municipalities,
through annexation or incorporation."
2. Although State law bars cities from initiating annexations of areas outside existing city
boundaries,another law mandates that cities cannot refuse petitions from areas that want
to be annexed if cities have lower property taxes than property taxes in the areas that
want to be annexed.
3. As Salt Lake County government continues to raise property taxes to meet increasing
operating costs and the loss of property tax revenue from incorporations of areas such as
Taylorsville and Holladay,the potential for property taxes in the County's unincorporated
areas to exceed Salt Lake City property taxes is growing.
4. Salt Lake City's culinary water delivery system extends far beyond the City's boundaries.
Currently,the water system operated directly by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Department extends along Salt Lake County's East Bench to Creek Road(about 7800
South)and is part of a part of an interconnected valley-wide system.However, residents
and businesses served by the Public Utilities Department outside Salt Lake City's
boundaries pay 1.5 times the amount City residents and businesses pay for their culinary
water.
5. Salt Lake County property tax growth coupled with the potential for paying on Salt Lake
City rates for culinary water may make annexation attractive to areas outside the City.
6. Although it has gone though several decades of fitful starts and stops, it has been the
long-term policy of Salt Lake City to expand its boundaries. In 1928 the City Water
Advisory Board recommended that the City develop its water delivery system to serve a
minimum population of 400,000 people, largely within the existing City boundaries and
along the east bench.
7. In recent decades the impetus to annex areas outside Salt Lake City has gained strength.
In 1979,the Utah Legislature passed a bill requiring all Utah municipalities to adopt a
policy about annexing areas outside their respective boundaries. The City's annexation
policy in 1979 foresaw the potential for annexing areas stretching in a crescent from
Magna through Salt Lake City and along the east bench to Creek Road.
8. On December 5, 2000,the Salt Lake City Council adopted a resolution reaffirming the
1979 policy required by the Legislature.
There were three reasons for reaffirming the 1979 policy:
• The policy comported with long-term City goals.
• The Salt Lake County Commission was pressing the Legislature to encourage
"wall-to-wall cities"within Salt Lake County.
• The population growth along the Wasatch Front was forcing government at all
levels to address issues such as transportation,planning,and economic
development regionally instead of piecemeal.
Before the City Council reaffirmed the 1979 policy,it hired Rick Giardina Associates
Inc.to study the potential impact to Salt Lake City of annexing unincorporated areas that used the
City's water delivery system.
The Giardina study reviewed all potential sources of revenue and expenses and took into
account what would be needed within the different unincorporated areas to conform to current
Salt Lake City service levels,including public safety and physical infrastructure.The report
assumed that existing infrastructure in the unincorporated areas would remain and that the City
would not impose construction of items such as curb,gutter and sidewalk in areas where they
were not wanted.
The Giardina study indicated that even with massive capital needs of the unincorporated
areas,the Salt Lake City would be economically ahead if it were to annex all or part of eastern
Salt Lake County to Creek Road.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ANNEXATION
If annexation occurred, residents and businesses in areas currently unincorporated:
• Would pay Salt Lake City property taxes.
• Would pay the Salt Lake City Library District property taxes instead of Salt Lake County
Library District property taxes.
• Would not pay Salt Lake County Municipal Services property taxes—one of the fastest
growing categories of property taxes in the County.
• Would pay Salt Lake City water rates for culinary water instead of 1.5 times City water
rates.
• Would remain within their respective existing school districts.
• Would continue working within their own community councils. Salt Lake City has a long
history of working closely with community councils on issues of mutual concern.
• Would elect representatives from their areas to the Salt Lake City Council.
2
ATTACHMENT 2
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 4, 2000
SuBJEcr: Petition#400-00-29: Turville/Heugly/Sorenson Annexation of 33.3964 acres
located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East
STAFF REPORT BY: Sally Knighton and Janice Jardine
Document Budget-Related Policy-Related Miscellaneous Facts
Type Facts Facts
Resolution The current proposal The proposal If the Council adopts the resolution and
has no immediate represents creation accepts the petition for review,the
budget impact of a new resolution Administration will conduct further study.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt a resolution accepting an annexation petition for approximately 33.4
acres of land located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East and forward the petition to the
Administration for review,analysis and recommendations.
I further move that the Council request that the Administration include the city owned property located at
approximately 1800 South and 2700 East as part of the proposed annexation.
2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt a resolution accepting an annexation petition for approximately
33.4 acres of land located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East.
3. ["I move that the Council"] Request additional information from the Administration prior to considering
the proposed resolution.
MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION:
The resolution before the City Council is requesting that the Council accept a petition for annexation
of 33.3964 acres of land located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East. If the Council adopts the resolution
and accepts the petition, a public process and analysis by the Planning Division will commence(see
Background section for further detail). The area proposed for annexation borders the H Rock Community
Council boundary. If annexed, it would be part of the Foothills Protection District,and subject to Foothills
Residential District and Special Foothills Regulations zoning requirements.
Many properties in the Foothills District have sloping terrain, and the area proposed for annexation is
no exception. Amendments to the City's slope ordinance have been drafted and recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission following its March 2, 2000 public hearing. The Council may wish to consider
requesting a status on the slope ordinance amendments from the Administration prior to accepting this
petition.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
The Council's adopted growth policy states that," It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that
growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: is aesthetically
pleasing; contributes to a livable community environment;yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an
overriding public purpose is served; and forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity."
Council Policy E.4,Maintaining a Residential Base, states that,"The Council supports using its
zoning power to ... encourage population expansion."
Council staff reviewed the"Wall-to-Wall Cities Annexation Study"that was prepared by Rick
Giardina&Associates and presented to the Council in June 2000. The focus of the Giardina study is on
areas other than the area currently proposed for annexation. As such, it does not appear to have any
relevancy to the resolution that is being presented to the Council.
While discussing an annexation in the H Rock area in October 1999,the Council identified the
following questions to be addressed during that annexation process. The Council may wish to request the
Administration review the same questions during its analysis of the proposed annexation. The October 1999
questions are:
Location Specific Questions:
1. To what extent are utilities available for this location?
2. Will this development pay all costs of extending water and sewer utilities?
3. Are there police and fire-related issues relating to extending development to this area?
4. Are there issues relating to the delivery of other City services(i.e.,snow removal,trash
removal)?
5. Are there issues relating to the School District(i.e., school bus access)?
6. Is this proposal in keeping with the master plans?
7. How many lots will be developed?
8. Will the development meet the City's existing and proposed slope ordinance?
9. Will any special exceptions be necessary in order to allow for development on the property
(i.e.,planned unit development)?
Desirable Growth Policy Questions:
10. What is the net fiscal impact to the City if this property were to be annexed?
11. If it yields a net negative fiscal impact, is there an overriding public purpose being served?
12. Does this action forestall negative impacts associated with inactivity?
13. Is it likely that the development will be aesthetically pleasing?
14. Does the development contribute to a livable community environment?
MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:
There are several City master plans that will apply to the area proposed for annexation if the Council
accepts the petition. Applicable master plans are: Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, &H Rock Small Area Plan;
East Bench Master Plan; Open Space Master Plan; and Salt Lake City's Master Annexation Policy
Declaration. Relevant portions of each are included below.
Arcadia Heights.Benchmark& H Rock Small Area Plan
Adopted by the City Council on October 6, 1998(amendment to East Bench Master Plan)
The boundaries of the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark& H Rock Small Area Plan(the"Arcadia Plan")
are I-80 on the south, Foothill Drive on the west, 1700 South on the north, and the Wasatch National Forest
on the east. This area contains some of the last parcels of undeveloped foothill property on the East Bench,
most of which are not currently within the City's corporate boundaries. The area proposed for annexation in
the current petition before the Council is referred to as the"Turville property" in the Arcadia Plan.
Pages 5-6 of the Arcadia Plan are entitled, "Residential Density/Zoning Classification for Annexed
Land." Portions relevant to the proposed annexation are:
Several factors may affect the ultimate development pattern and density of land within the Plan
Area that is currently vacant and is not under the City's jurisdiction. These factors include slope,
topographic features,orientation, natural hazards,availability of services,and/or the ability to
provide services that are not currently available. As the Steering Committee discussed this issue, it
soon became clear that the steepness of slope was the most critical of these factors in arriving at an
overall density.
Recommendations: 1.Residents and public sentiment have expressed opposition to any further
foothill development. Properties that are undeveloped should remain as they are in order to maintain
the aesthetic qualities of the foothills and the City's natural,undeveloped mountainous backdrop.
Public acquisition of these areas is encouraged. 2.If additional development is.considered,it should
be very low density that does not impair the natural qualities of the area and preserves the maximum
amount of open space. Restrictions on development affecting slopes equal to or greater than 30%
should be strictly enforced and interpreted according to written administrative policies established by
the City. Gated developments should be strongly discouraged. [#3 is not applicable to the Turville
property.] 4. Development around the cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive should be
completed with not more than three to four additional homes. 5.The following policies should be
-taken into consideration when determining the zoning classification for properties which may be
annexed in the future: a.Lots should be a minimum of one half acre in size;b.Not more than four
additional lots should be permitted... at the north end of Lakeline Drive;c.New lots should be
411 oriented to ... the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Lakeline Drive;d.All new lots should
conform to the dimensional and height standards of the FR-2 Zone and to all established Foothill
Development Standards.
The City's development code prohibits construction on slopes over 30%(a ratio of 3 vertical feet to
10 horizontal feet). "It is the intent of this plan to reaffirm the principles and standards pertaining to foothill
development contained in the Salt Lake City Site Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. This
recommendation applies to interpretation of 30%slopes as well as to all other foothill development
standards."
The Arcadia Plan further states,"Since it is in the City's best interest to have input in planning for
compatible land uses at its borders,the City should continue to require that undevelopable land be annexed
prior to development. It should continue to be the City's policy that undevelopable land be preserved
through acquisition,donation to a land trust,establishment of conservation or access easements, or other
mechanism. Undevelopable land within a proposed development should not be considered in calculating
permitted density. In order to better control encroachment and minimize potential enforcement,
undevelopable land should not, insofar as possible, be incorporated into individual building lots."
Utility service is addressed in the Arcadia Plan and in part it states,"Any costs relating to increased
impacts created by new development should be paid for by the developer." The Arcadia Plan specifically
addresses water and sewer service at the Turville property. Regarding water,the plan states,"This area can
be serviced from existing pumping and reservoir facilities in Carrigan Cove Subdivision. New distribution
water lines will need to be installed as part of the subdivision development." As to sewer service at Turville
property,the plan states that,"Sewer lines from this development are proposed to be routed through
easements and existing rights-of-way to 2100 South Street. All of this flow will be collected in an existing 8-
inch line crossing Foothill Drive. This collection line is currently overloaded and will require up-sizing in
order to accommodate the projected flow from this proposed subdivision."
Council staff contacted S.L.C. Department of Public Utilities for additional clarification and received
the following information:
Water: A typical east side residential user uses about 0.95 acre-foot per year. If the development of
the 33.4 acres yields 3 lots to the acre,then the water use would be approximately 95 acre feet. The
developer would need to extend a water line from the upper Carrigan Cove pressure zone.
Sewer: The development could generate approximately 85 gpm of sewage. There are some down
stream sewer problems that the City recently became aware of as a result of a large rainstorm on
May 25,2000. The City will have to evaluate the impact of this development on these problem areas
and would ask the developers to participate in the cost of fixing them.
Storm Drainage: The storm drain system in this area will need to be improved to handle the
potential run off from this development. The developer may need to extend a piped system into the
project and participate in downstream improvements.
The Arcadia Plan identifies existing zoning for properties surrounding the Turville property as
follows: To the north,County property and Foothill Preservation. To the south,FR-2 and R-1-12000. To
the east,two R-1-2000 properties;three FR-3 properties;FR-1 properties in Carrigan Canyon and Open
Space. To the west,Foothill Preservation.
The Arcadia Plan recommends zoning the majority of the Turville property as Open Space,with the
remaining portion(a small section of the northeast corner of the Turville property)recommended as FR-2
zoning. The Arcadia Plan indicates that a maximum of four lots can be developed at the northern end of
Lakeline Drive. If the developer wishes to increase this amount,the Arcadia Plan would need to be
amended.
Under Development Constraints,the Arcadia Plan notes that the area proposed for annexation has
predominant slopes that exceed 30%. Further,the Arcadia Plan recommends completing the Bonneville
Shoreline Trail and creating a small park contiguous to the northeast corner of the Turville property.
Open Space Master Plan
Adopted by the City Council in 1992
The Open Space Master Plan established four goals: conserve the natural environment;enhance
open space amenities for all citizens;connect the various parts of the City to natural environments, and
educate the citizens on proper use of open space. A section of the master plan relates to the Foothill
Transitional Area, which it identifies as"the steeper slopes generally below the 5200 ft.elevation at the
eastern and northern edges of the urbanized area." The master plan states that,"A major issue is the
conservation of the natural environment for animal habitat,watershed and views." An implementation action
identified by the master plan is that Salt Lake City, "establish the Open Space trust to receive and manage
real property within the foothill transitional area."
East Bench Master Plan
Adopted by the City Council in 1987
The approximate boundaries of the East Bench Master Plan are the northern City limits on the north,
1700 South and Parleys Way on the south,the eastern City limits on the east and 1300 East on the west.
The East Bench Master Plan has a section on annexation and Foothill development, which states that
its Planning Goal is to, "Preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat,recreational use, and
accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill development in the East Bench
Community."
The master plan states that,"Salt Lake City is the only government jurisdiction with the ability to
provide urban services,and annexation is a vital first step in the development process." Further,the master
plan states that"slope is one of the most important factors in determining development potential. Even
though development potential has not been conclusively determined[at the time of the master plan],the City
should plan to either eventually accommodate development,expand regulations to encompass aesthetic
considerations as the means of precluding development, or acquire these properties for public open space. If
property owners can document compliance with the site development and other applicable city ordinances,
the community and City should expect to accommodate development proposals."
In a separation area,the Arcadia Plan states,"The three areas [one of which includes the Turville
property]that have development potential should be limited to a maximum density of 4 units per gross acre
or less as physical conditions dictate. Single-family homes or planned-unit developments with single-family
home densities are recommended. This low-density recommendation is based on geologic constraints,
limited and narrow access roads,and public interest in protecting against larger structures that may interfere
with views of the City's natural mountainous backdrop. Limiting development to areas that are
geographically sound,and restricting development to low density is clearly in the best interest of the City and
its residents. Consistent with existing city policy,areas that are considered undevelopable from a geologic
standpoint should be preserved as natural foothill open space."
The Arcadia Plan lists three recommendations for methods in which the City can maintain control over
foothill development. The recommendations are:
• Amend its Annexation Policy Declaration to encompass the privately owned East Bench foothills as
the means to having control over future development proposals.
• Restrict urban development beyond the one-half mile area,to encompass all of the privately owned
foothill property. This could be accomplished through an interlocal agreement,under the State
Interlocal Cooperation Act.
• Seek an official agreement of resolution with the county to ensure that smaller residential
developments will also be referred to the city for annexation and development approval. Annexation
should even be required for a single-family home. The city should refuse to provide water or sewer
services to accommodate development outside city boundaries.
Master Annexation Policy Declaration
1979
"It is ... the policy of Salt Lake City that areas projected for development which lie in proximity to
Salt Lake City limits should annex to the City prior to receipt of municipal services from the City."
"It is the City's policy that all new development on areas requiring service must bear the financial
burden of providing the necessary facilities. This can be accomplished either by,or a combination of,
improved districts,development fees,connection fees, and contribution to aid for construction."
ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
On December 14, 1999,the Council adopted the General Fund Impact Fees ordinance,which went
into effect on June 1, 2000. If the area proposed for annexation is annexed into the City, any future
development on the annexed property will be subject to impact fees. As noted in the ordinance, impact fees
apply to all new development activity and are paid in full prior to issuance of a building permit. Residential
development in the Foothill area would be subject to park, fire and police impact fees totaling$890 per
single-family dwelling unit.
As noted in the Master Plan Considerations section above,the Arcadia Plan recommends zoning the
majority of the Turville property as Open Space, with the remaining portion recommended as FR-2 zoning.
The City's zoning requirements are included in Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Code. The zoning
ordinance states that the purpose of an open space zoning is to"preserve and protect areas of public and
private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open
space areas." The Open Space district allows permitted and conditional uses, as follows:
Permitted Uses Conditional Uses
Natural open space and conservation areas Public/private utility buildings and structures
Public/private nature preserves/conservation areas
Cemeteries and accessory crematoriums
Community and recreation centers
Pet cemetery
Country clubs
Golf courses
Parks(public)
Private recreational facilities
Zoological park
Some accessory uses
Public/private utility transmission wires, lines,pipes and poles
Requirements for the Open Space zone according to the City's zoning ordinance are:
Minimum lot size: 10,000 s.f. Minimum lot width: 50'
Minimum front yard: 30' Minimum corner side yard: 30'
Minimum interior side yard: 20' Rear yard: 30'
Maximum building height: 35' Front Yard landscape/buffer: 30'
Corner side yard landscape/buffer: 30' Interior side yard landscape/buffer: 10'
Rear yard landscape/buffer: 10'
According to Section 21 A.24.010,property zoned FR-2(Foothill Residential)has the following
permitted and conditional uses:
Permitted Uses Conditional Uses
Single family detached dwelling Community and reaction centers, public and
Small group home private on lots less than 4 acres in size
Accessory uses Bed and breakfast
Manufactured home Municipal service uses, including City utility
Public/private utility transmission wires, lines uses and police and fire stations
pipes and poles Offices and reception centers in landmark sites
Natural open space and conservation areas on Park and ride parking, shared with church
lots less than 4 acres in size parking lot on arterial street
Parks and playgrounds, public and private, Parking, off-site facilities
less than 4 acres in size Public/private utility buildings and structures
Pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways Accessory uses on accessory lots
Reuse of church and school buildings
Places of worship on lots less than 4 acres
Section 21A.24.010 also defines building height requirements for the FR-2 zone. It states that,"the
maximum building height shall be twenty eight feet(28'), except that the front and rear vertical building
walls shall not exceed twenty five feet(25'). On a corner lot, roof gable ends which face onto either the front
or corner side yard, but not both, ... are permitted to a height of twenty eight feet(28')." The ordinance
states that"all building heights shall be measured from the established grade." The zoning ordinance further
states that buildings in the FR-2 zone are limited to two and one-half stories. The Board of Adjustment may
approve a permit to exceed the maximum building height, but does not have the authority to grant additional
stories.
The zoning ordinance requires that a building permit is obtained prior to construction of any fence or
wall in the FR-2 zone and also requires a landscape plan,with proposed revegetation of any disturbed site
areas.
At present,the only FR-2 zone listed in the zoning ordinance is FR-2/21,780. Requirements for this
.zone are:
Minimum lot area: 21,780 s.f. Minimum lot width: 100'
Minimum front yard: 20' Minimum corner side yard: 20'
Minimum interior side yard: 20' Maximum building coverage: 25%
Minimum rear yard: 40' Required landscape,front and corner side yards
BACKGROUND:
Annexation requirements are set forth by Utah law. State law requires the area to be considered for
annexation to be contiguous to the municipality,and that the annexation does not leave or create an
unincorporated island or peninsula. According to 10-2-403,Utah State Code,"the process to annex an
unincorporated area to a municipality is initiated by a petition."
•
Section 10-2-405 of the Utah State Code states that a municipal legislative body may deny an
annexation petition,or accept the petition for further consideration. The resolution before the City Council is
requesting the Council accept the petition for annexation of 33.3964 acres of land located at approximately
1977 South 2800 East. If the Council does not accept the petition, within five days the City Recorder will
mail notice of the petition's rejection to the petitioner and the County Clerk. State law allows the petitioner
to refile the petition,with the refiled petition being treated as a newly filed petition. If the Council adopts the
resolution and accepts the petition, a public process and analysis by the Planning Division will commence.
If the Council accepts the annexation petition, within thirty days the City Recorder will certify that
the petition meets state law and deliver its certification to the City Council,the petitioner,the Planning
Commission of any township in which any part of the annexation is located and Salt Lake County
Commissioners. If the City Recorder determines that the petition does not meet state law,the same parties
are notified of the rejection. The petitioner may modify the petition to correct any deficiencies and refile the
petition with the City Recorder.
Upon receipt of the City Recorder's certification,the City Council Office will date stamp the
certification and return it to the City Recorder. Within ten days of receiving the certification from the City
Council office,the City Recorder will publish notice of the proposed annexation once a week for three
consecutive weeks in the newspaper. Within twenty days after the Council receives the certification,the City
Recorder will mail written notice of the annexation petition to the Salt Lake County Commissioners,the
board of a special district whose boundaries include all or part of the area proposed for annexation,the
legislative body of each municipality within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation, and each
school district whose boundaries include part or all of the area proposed for annexation.
If the Council accepts the annexation petition,the Planning Division will forward the petition to the
Planning Commission for a zoning recommendation on the area proposed for annexation. A public hearing
is scheduled before the Planning Commission and notice of the hearing will be sent to property owners
within 300 feet of the proposed annexation. The Planning Division performs staff analysis of the proposed
annexation and,working in conjunction with the City Attorney, prepares an annexation ordinance for
submittal to the Council.
Protests to the proposed annexation may be filed in writing with the County Clerk and must state a
reason for the protest. On the same day, copies of the protest must be delivered or mailed to the City
Recorder. The protest period begins on the date the City Council Office receives the City Recorder's
certification. The protest period is sixty days if the area proposed for annexation is developed;or forty days
if the area is undeveloped and less than 5%of the City's total land mass. According to state law,protests
may be filed by the Salt Lake County Commissioners,the board of a special district whose boundaries
include all or part of the area proposed for annexation,the legislative body of a municipality whose
boundaries are within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation,or owners of property that: is within
one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation, covers at least 25%of the land located in the
-unincorporated area within one-half mile of the area proposed for annexation,and is equal in value to at least
15%of all property located in the unincorporated area within one-half mile of the area proposed for
annexation. (Utah State Code, 10-2-407) If a protest is filed,at its next regular meeting the City Council
may deny the annexation petition or take no further action until receipt of the Boundary Commission's notice
of its decision relating to the protest.
After the protest period has expired,the City Council will set a date for a public hearing to consider
the annexation petition and the Planning Commission's zoning recommendations. The annexation notice of
public hearing will advertise at least seven days prior to the hearing and,to be in compliance with state
zoning laws,fourteen days prior to the hearing as required for a zone change. Following the public hearing,
the Council may grant or reject the annexation. If the ordinance is adopted,within thirty days the City
Recorder will attest to the action of the City Council,record a certified copy of the annexation ordinance and
annexation plat with the County Recorder,and provide written notice to the State Tax Commission in order
to place the annexed property on the City's tax rolls for the next tax year.
CHRONOLOGY:
1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration
1987 City Council adopts East Bench Master Plan
1992 City Council adopts the Open Space Master Plan
1997 Revisions to Utah law regarding annexations (major revisions in 1995,a series of
revisions have taken place since that time)
October 6, 1998 City Council adopts Arcadia Heights,Benchmark, &H Rock Small Area Plan
March 3, 1999 Letter to Scott Turville from Planning Division notifying Mr.Turville that the previous
owner's annexation petition for the property is no longer valid and the City is prepared
to accept development proposals for the Arcadia Heights,Benchmark and H Rock
neighborhoods
June 21, 2000 Memo from City Recorder to City Council notifying the Council that Petition No.
400-00-29,Turville/Heugly/Sorenson Annexation,was received by the City Recorder on
June 21, 2000
June 29, 2000 Council Office receives Administration's paperwork that includes a resolution to accept
a petition for annexation
cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Deeda Seed,Rocky Fluhart,Alison Gregersen-Weyher,David Dobbins,Stephen
Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Craig Hinckley,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer
File Location: CED/Planning/Annexations
ATTACHMENT 3
Synopsis- 1979 Salt Lake City Master Annexation Policy Declaration
• 1979 State Legislature House Bill No. 61 required municipalities anticipating annexation to
adopt an annexation policy declaration
• Master Annexation Policy Declaration
o Citywide master annexation policy declaration and proposed future boundaries map
o Study areas:
• West Airport
• North Redwood Road
• Magna
• Emigration Canyon
• Brickyard Area
• Parley's
• East Millcreek
• Holladay—Olympus
• Holladay—Cottonwood
• West Valley
o Individual study area sections include:
• Geographical boundary description for each study area
• Land use and socio-economic characteristics
• Estimate of assessed property values
• Comparison of costs of government services
• Water, sewer,fire, and police
• Planning and zoning
• Refuse and garbage collection and disposal
• Streets and highways
Syn psis-City Resolution No. 34 of 2000
• Reaffirmation of 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration, and
• Declaration of Intent to annex the areas served by the City's water system in the
unincorporated Salt Lake County
• City's Public Utilities Department since the 1920's has provided culinary water service to
the eastern unincorporated portion of Salt Lake County
• Service is provided to approximately 30,500 water accounts
• Salt Lake County's tax base has been reduced through annexations and incorporations,
including Taylorsville and Holladay, requiring an increase in County taxes
• In 1979, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration that included th
intent to annex the portion of Salt Lake County served by the City's water system
• In 2000, the Salt Lake City Council commissioned an independent study that concluded:
o Annexation would produce long-term benefits for County residents if annexed into
the City through:
• Improved levels of water service
• A net reduction in the cost of water service
o Annexation would not significantly increase water rates currently paid by City
residents
• Annexation would provide Salt Lake City with benefits including: -
o Relieve of potential conflicts between jurisdictions relating to:
• Service levels
• Water rates
• Watershed protection
• Planning and zoning issues
• Expressed the City's interest and willingness to:
o Enter into discussions with Salt Lake County and State of Utah representatives,
residents, property owners, and other elected representatives
o Explore the feasibility, desirability and potential for annexation implementation
Water Service provide outside the City limits
Resolution 20 of 1982 (adopted February 2, 1982)
o Formalized policy for providing water service to development outside the City limits
• Requires annexation in order to receive City water services or
• Provide an agreement to annex when annexation becomes possible
Annexation Policy—Existing Community Master Plans
• Sugar House
o Salt Lake City encourages the annexation of areas between its boundary and 3900
South Street as a whole rather than in small pieces, to provide coordinated land us
development policies and comprehensive municipal services.
• East Bench
o Preserve the present unique beauty, environmental habitat, recreational use, and
accessibility of the Wasatch foothills, and ensure city control over foothill
development in the East Bench Community.
o To maintain control over foothill development, the city should:
• Amend its Annexation Policy Declaration to encompass the privately owned
East Bench foothills as the means to having control over future developm nt
proposals.
• Restrict urban development beyond the one-half-mile area, to encompass all
of the privately owned foothill property. This could be accomplished through
an interlocal agreement, under the State Interlocal Cooperation Act.
• Seek an official agreement of resolution with the county to ensure that
smaller residential developments will also be referred to the city for
annexation and development approval. Annexation should even be required
for a single-family home. The city should refuse to provide water or sew r
services to accommodate development outside city boundaries.
• Arcadia Heights, Benchmark, & H Rock Small Area Plan
o It should continue to be the City's policy that municipal water and sewer service will
not be provided to new developments unless they are located within the City limits.
2
• Jordan River—Airport Area Small Area Plan (short range)
o Facilitate Salt Lake City's Annexation of County land area west and north to the
Great Salt Lake.
o Annex lands west of and north toward the Great Salt Lake from Salt Lake County,
and zone appropriately according to land uses identified in the Plan
Svn psis- 1999 Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios Report
• Nesbitt Planning and Management, Inc. presented to the Salt Lake County Council of
Governments on December 8, 1999"A Reconnaissance of Potential Annexations and
Incorporations Facing Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Feasibility Scenarios". This
study attempted to define the cumulative impact on revenues and service delivery across
Salt Lake County.
• The study considered 28 scenarios for 10 unincorporated communities. The study presents
the information gathered in three main areas; Base Fiscal Parameters, Revenues and
Costs, and Remainders Analysis.
• For whatever reason,when the study projected the cumulative impacts upon the tax bas s
and revenues of the County and the annexing Cities and discussed the challenges of
potential overhead increases for the County with declining service delivery demand, it
failed to address the impact to Salt Lake City.
• It was for this reason that the Administration of Salt Lake City at the time of the study,
asked City staff to review the study and using the same methodology present to the
Administration the impact of the various annexation and incorporation scenarios that are
outlined in the Council of Governments commissioned study.
• The resulting study was titled "Wall to Wall Cities"
Svn psis- 1999 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Study
• Salt Lake City Budget and Policy staff prepared a "Wall to Wall Cities" study at the same
time the City was supplying information for Council of Governments commissioned
Feasibility Scenario or Wall-to-Wall Annexation Study. The City staff reviewed the history
of annexation issues within the City and provided the following information in the Original
Study section of the report.
"Holladay, Salt Lake Commissioner Callaghan's efforts to have the State
implement legislation to facilitate wall to wall cities], some of the cities
surrounding the unincorporated area are beginning to propose extending their
boundaries, potentially, into Salt Lake City's annexation declaration boundaries.
In 1979, Salt Lake City created its' Master Annexation Policy Declaration which
states that Salt Lake City would annex the area containing its water distribution
system. The attached map highlights in yellow Salt Lake City's water distribution
area. As you can see from the map, the propos d annexation area for Salt Lak
3
•
City would extend Salt Lake City's current southern boundary out to Creek Road
and would go as far w st as 1300 East. In 1982, the City Council passed a
resolution reaffirming the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration.
The wall-to-wall city initiative will have a significant impact on Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City has several concerns regarding this initiative. One major concern
revolves around Salt Lake City's water, and its'water distribution network."
• The report goes on to state what the different components of the study are and what will be
the impact of any annexation plans on the City. The staff chose 4 logical boundaries to
divide the potential annexation areas. The only areas discussed in this plan are along the
east bench of the Salt Lake Valley. The western potential annexation areas were not dealt
with in this report.
• City staff used Property Tax, Sales Tax, Sales Tax Distribution, and Franchise Tax, to
figure Revenue in this area. Services that are contained in Enterprise Funds were not
included into the calculation of revenue as it is expected that the services would pay for
themselves. The staff then attempted to quantify costs in each of the four service areas as
best possible.
• The Administration presented to the City Council in 1999 the results of their study. At that
time the Council thought it best to bring in an outside consultant to review the work of th
staff and help guide them as they reviewed what course the City should take. City staff I nt
their expertise to the consultant and assisted in gathering and reviewing information as
needed. The resulting consultant study presented essentially the same findings as that of
the City staff.
Synopsis-2000 Salt Lake City Wall to Wall Cities Annexation Study
• The consulting firm of Rick Giardina &Associates, Inc. in association with BBC Research &
Consulting submitted a final report to the Salt Lake City Council in June of 2000. The study
incorporated the efforts and expertise of many City staff. The study kept the same
annexation study areas as the City staff report. The consultant did not review those areas
on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley.
4
• The study reviewed all potential sources of revenue and expenses. The study took into
account what would be needed within the different areas to conform to curr nt service
I vels, both public safety and physical infrastructure. The consultant reviewed what capital
n eds each of the areas had and what the cost of each area would be if the City were to
purchase existing County assets, purchase new assets, or rely on current equipment in th
City to provide services.
• The end result of the study indicated that even with the massive capital needs of the area
the City would be economically ahead if Salt Lake City were to annex all or part of the area
to City Creek Road.
• As follow-up to this study the Council adopted a resolution in year 2000 that reaffirmed the
• City's intent to annex those communities served by the City's water and water distribution
area.
Additional Information
• Other Cities such as Murray, Midvale, West Valley City and Holladay have completed
consultant and in house studies that identify potential areas of annexation. Some encroach
on the boundaries listed in the 1979 Master Annexation Policy Declaration. Of particular
note is the annexation studies of Murray and Sandy which advocated annexation to the
ast.of their present boundaries, and the incorporation of Holladay that incorporated a
significant portion of the unincorporated area along the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley.
Of particular note is that the boundaries of Holladay City do not correspond with their water
district boundaries.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002.
(An ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to
include property located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East,
amending the East Bench Master Plan, and amending the Salt Lake
City Zoning Map to zone the area upon its annexation to the City)
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY
TO INCLUDE THE SCOTT TURVILLE, TRENT HEUGLY, JAMES SORENSON AND SALT
LAKE CITY CORPORATION PROPERTIES,CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 60.56
ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1977 SOUTH 2800 EAST,
PURSUANT TO PE H l ION NO. 400-00-29,AMENDING THE EAST BENCH MASTER
PLAN,AND AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING MAP TO ZONE AND
DESIGNATE THE AREA AS FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL(FR-2)AND OPEN SPACE (OS)
UPON ITS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY.
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City by Scott
Turville, as property owner, requesting that the property described in said petition be annexed
within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the petition is signed by a majority of the owners of the real property and the
owners of more than one-third in value of all real property within the territory to be annexed as
shown by the last assessment roles; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner has caused an accurate plat to be made and certified by a
licensed engineer, or a licensed surveyor, to be approved by the City prior to filing; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has passed a Resolution accepting said petition
for purposes of review and hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council, after examining said petition, having the petition
reviewed by the administration staff, and having considered the circumstances thereof at a
properly advertised and noticed public hearing, found said proposed annexation to be consistent
and in keeping with the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration Projecting Municipal
Expansion; and
WHEREAS,no objection or protest to such annexation has been filed with Salt Lake
County Boundary Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Annexation. The Salt Lake City limits are hereby enlarged and extended so
as to include the property of Scott Turville,Trent Heugly,James Sorenson and Salt Lake City
Corporation, containing approximately 60.56 acres of unincorporated territory in Salt Lake
County, State of Utah. Said property is more particularly described as set forth on Exhibit"A"
attached hereto.
SECTION 2. Amendment of Master Plan. The East Bench Master Plan and the Arcadia
Heights/Benchmark/H Rock Small Area Plan, which were previously adopted by the City
Council, shall be and hereby are amended to allow limited, very low density, residential
development in the area toward the current terminus of Lakeline Drive, consisting of not more
than one additional lot and one additional flag lot located on Lakeline Drive, and consisting of
not more than five additional lots, located on a private street extending west from Lakeline Drive,
for a total of seven lots.
SECTION 3. Zoning. Be it further ordained and declared that the property described
under Section 1 is hereby designated and zoned Foothill Residential (FR-2) and Open Space
2
(OS), as set forth on Exhibit"A" attached hereto, and that the Salt Lake City Zoning Map is
hereby correspondingly amended.
SECTION 4. General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the said tract
described above in Section 1 shall henceforth be within the Salt Lake City corporate limits and
shall be zoned as provided in Section 2. All ordinances,jurisdictions, rules and obligations of, or
pertaining to, Salt Lake City are extended over, and made applicable and pertinent to the above-
described tract of land; and the streets, blocks,alleys and ways, of said track, shall be controlled,
and governed by the ordinances,rules, and regulations of Salt Lake City.
SECTION 5. Filings and notice. Upon the effective date of this ordinance,the City
Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the Salt Lake County Recorder, after
approval by the City Engineer, a copy of the annexation plat duly certified and acknowledged
together with a certified copy of this ordinance. The City Recorder is further directed to provide
notice to the State Tax Commission under the provisions of Section 11-12-1 of the Utah Code
Ann., as amended.
SECTION 6. Effective date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
the date of its first publication.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
CHAIRPERSON
3
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed.
MAYOR -
ATTEST: ,
ia,______
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2002.
Published: .
G:\Ordinance 02\extending corp limits of slc Feb I,2002.doc
9
TURVILLE/HEUGLY/SORENSON/ December 18, 2001
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
LOCATED IN SW I/4 Of SECTION 14, TIS, RIE,
SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Beginning of o point which is N 00'07'45" W 1335.05 feet along the 1/4 Section
line and N 89'51'06" W 122.030 feet from the South Quarter Corner of Section
14, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Loke Bose & Meridian, said point is also the
. Northwest Corner of lot 5 of Carrigan View Subdivision and o point on the existing
Salt Lake City Limits line, and running thence N 89' 51' 06" W 122.030 feet
along the boundary of the Carrigan View Subdivision and Salt Loke City limits line
to the quarter section line; thence N 00' 07' 45" W 935.212 feet along the quarter
section line to the Southerly boundary of Sunset Oaks Subdivision plat B and existing
Solt Lake City Limits line; thence the following (2) courses along said subdivision boudary line
and city limits line: West 760.685 feet thence N 48'42'28" W 233.733 feet more or less to the
Easterly boundary of the Devonshire Subdivision and existing Solt Lake City limits line; thence
S 32' 00' 00" W 707.562 feet along said subidivision boundary line and city
limits line to a point on the Easterly boundary of Devonshire Subdivision and
existing city limits line; thence S 00' 17' 39" E 486.016 feet more or less
along the said subdivision boundary and a projection thereof and city limits line
to o point on the 1/16th. line and existing Solt Lake City limits line; thence
N 89'51'06" W 645.96 feet along said 1/16th. line and city limits line to the -
existing Solt Lake City limits line; thence along said city limits line
S 18'24'07" E 955.902 feet to the Northerly boundary of the Scenic Circle
Subdivision and existing Solt Lake City limits line; thence along the said subdivision
boundary line and existing city limits line the following two courses: S 89'41'10" E
732.779 feet; thence S 0018'50" W 265.000 feet to the existing Salt Lake City
limits line and North boundary line of Arcadia Heights Plat A Subdivision Amended;
thence along said city limits line and subdivision boundary line S 89'41'10" E
374.176 feet to the existing Salt Lake City limits line and the Northerly boundary (7-Z"(
of Arcadia Heights Plot D Subdivision thence along said city limits line and subdivision
boundary line the following two courses: N 67'00'00" E 198.143 feet; thence
N 13'00'00" E 156.080 feet to the existing Salt Lake City Limits line and the
subdivision boundary of Volley Vista Subdivision; thence along the said city limits
line and boundary line the following two courses; North 108.470 feet and East
176.907' to the Salt Lake City limits line of the Corrigan Canyon Annexation
and a point around a 301.560 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle
of 14'32'12", an arc distance of 80.315 feet, a chord bearing of N O1'16'05" E
80.099 feet; thence N 06'00'00" W 162.639 feet along the existing Salt Lake City
limits line to a point on the Northerly boundary of the Corrigan view Subdivision
and Solt Lake City limits line; thence N 69'30'00" W 183.549 feet along said
subidivision boundary and city limits line to the existing Kontgis Planned Development and
Solt Lake City limits line; thence along said subdivision boundary line and city limits line
the following 5 courses: S 42'06'00" W 137.004 feet; thence N 47'54'00" W 360.000 feet;
thence N 11'30'30" W 131.450 feet; thence N 79'23'38" E 24.000 feet to a point around a
478.340 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 39'35'49",an arc distance
of 330.379 feet, a chord bearing of S 82'01'27" E 324.039 feet to a point on the Westerly
boundary of the Corrigan View subdivision and existing Salt Lake City limits line; thence
along said subidivision boundary and city limits line the following five courses:
N 24'30'00" E 142.000 feet to point around a 220.885 foot radius curve to the
right, through a central angle of 11'54'57", on arc distance of 45.937 feet,
o chord bearing of S 70'39'27" E o distance of 45.855 feet; thence
S 64'42'00" E 21.098 feet to a point around a 50 foot radius curve to the right,
through o central angle of 101'27'03", an arc distance of 88.532 feet, a chord
bearing of N 46'01'30" E 77.412 feet; thence N 30'32'00" E 165.474 feet to
the point of beginning.
Containing 60.56 acres.
TURVILLE/HEUGLY/SORENSON December 18,2001
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
Located in the SW '/A of Sec. 14,
T.1 S., R.1 E., S.L.B.& M.
FR-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point which is N 00°07'45" W 1335.05 feet along the 1/4
section line and N 89°51'06" W 122.030 feet from the South Quarter corner
of Section 14,Township 1 South,Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian,
said point is also the Northwest corner of Lot 5 of Carrigan View Subdivision;
running thence along the Carrigan View Subdivision the following(6)courses:
S 30°32'00"W 165.470'to the right-of-way line of Lakeline Drive;thence
along said right-of-way line along a curve to the left,through a central angle of
101°27'00",an arc distance of 88.530',a chord bearing and distance of
S 46°01'24"W 77.414';thence N 64°42'00"W 21.100';thence along a curve to
the left,through a central angle of 11°54'55",an arc distance of 45.936',a
chord bearing and distance of N 70°39'28"W 45.853';thence S 24°30'00"W
142.000'to a point on the north line of the Kontgis Planned development;thence -
along said development the following(4)courses:along a curve to the left,
through a central angle of 39°35'49",an arc distance of 330.579',a chord
bearing and distance of N 82°01'27"W 324.039';thence S 79°23'38"W 24.000';
thence S 11°30'30"E 131.450;thence S 47°54'00"E 257.187';thence
S 84°25'48"W 661.683;thence N 05°09'59"W 312.698';thence
N 80°46'45"E 320.351';thence along a curve to the right,through a central
angle of 86°05'47",an arc distance of 52.882',a chord bearing and distance of
S 89°52'53"E 48.045';thence around a curve to the left,through a central
angle of 122°19'43",an arc distance of 31.969',a chord bearing and distance
of N 66°14'21" E 26.233';thence N 71°33'23" E 142.750';thence along
a curve to the right,through a central angle of 52°14'02",an arc distance of
9.117',a chord bearing and distance of S 82°19'36" E 8.804';thence along
a curve to the left,through a central angle of 61°17'21", an arc distance of
10.697',a chord bearing and distance of S 86°51'15" E 10.194';thence
around a curve to the left,through a central angle of 21°00'52" an arc
distance of 40.868',a chord bearing and distance of N 51°59'39" E 40.639';
thence along a curve to the right'through a central angle of 18°50'00",an arc
distance of 51.513',a chord bearing and distance of N 54°52'57" E 51.281';
thence N 05°18'31" E 156.840'to a point on the 1/16 line; running thence
along said line S 89°51'06" E 444.097'to the point of beginning.
Contains: 274876 square feet or 6.31 acres
TURVILLE/HEUGLY/SORENSON December 18, 2001
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
Located in the SW '/4 of Sec. 14,
T.1 S., R.1 E.,S.L.B. & M.
OPEN SPACE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the NE corner of Carrigan View Subdivision ,said point being
located N 00°07'45" W 1335.05 feet along the 1/4 section line from the South
'Y4 Corner of Section 14,Township 1 South, Range I East, Salt Lake Base and
Meridian and running thence N 00°07'45" W 935.212' to a point on
the southerly boundary of Sunset Oaks Subdivision Plat"B";thence along
said subdivision boundary thew following(2)courses: West 760.685';thence
N 48°42'28"W 233.733' to the Easterly boundary of Devonshire Sub-
division;thence S 32°00'00" W 707.562'along said boundary line;thence
S 00°17'39"E 486.016';thence N 89°51'06"W 645.960'to the Salt Lake
City limits line;thence along said city limits line S 18°24'07"E 955.902';
to the northerly boundary line of Scenic Circle Subdivision thence
along the Scenic Circle Subdivision Boundary the following(2)courses:
S 89°41'10"E 732.779'to the NE corner of said subdivision thence
S 00°18'50"W 265.000';to a point on the Northerly line of Arcadia
Heights Plat"A";thence along said line S 89°41'10"E 374.176' to a
point on the North line of Arcadia Heights Plat"D";thence along said
line N 67°00'00"E 198.143';thence along the north line of Arcadia
Heights Plat"D"N 13°00'00"E 156.080'to a point on the Westerly line
of Valley Vista Subdivision thence along said subdivision the following
2 courses:North 108.470'and East 176.907'to a point on the right-of-way
line of Lakeline Drive;thence along said right-of-way the following 2
courses: along a curve to the left,through a central angle of 14°32'11",
an arc distance of 80.314', a chord bearing and distance of N 01°16'05" E
80.098';thence N 06°00'00" W 162.640'to the SE corner of Lot 1 of Carrigan
View Subdivision;thence along the south line of said lot N 69°30'00" E
183.549'to a point on the south line of the Kontgis Planned Development;
thence along said line the following 2 courses: S 42°06'00" W 137.003'thence
N 47°54'00" W 102.818';thence S 84°25'48" W 661.683';thence
N 05°09'59" W 312.698';thence N 80°46'45" E 320.351'to a point on a curve;
thence along a curve to the right,through a central angle of 86°05'47",an arc
distance of 52.882',a chord bearing and distance of S 89°52'53" E 48.045';
thence around a curve to the left,through a central angle of 122°19'43",an arc
distance of 31.969',a chord bearing and distance of N 66°14'2 I" E 26.233';
thence N 71°33'23"E 142.750';thence around a curve to the right,through a
central angle of 52°14'02",an arc distance of 9.1 17',a chord bearing and distance
of S 82°19'36" 8.804';thence around a curve to the left,through a central angle of
61°17'21",an arc distance of 10.697', a chord bearing and distance of S 86°51'15" E
10.194';thence around a curve to the left,through a central angle of 21°00'52", an
arc distance of 40.868',a chord bearing and distance of N 51°59'39" E 40.639';
thence along a curve to the right,through a central angle of 18°50'00",an arc
distance of 51.513',a chord bearing and distance of N 54°52'57" E 51.281'; thence
N 05°18'31" E 156.840'to the 1/16 line;thence S 89°5I'06" E 566.127'along
said line to the point of beginning.
Contains: 54.25 acres.
TURVILLE/HEUGLY/SORENSON/
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
Located in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 14
T.1 S., R.1 E., S.L.B. & M.
1
i
14A
OPEN SPACE
Pi ,..
fell11111111/11/1/1/11111111° �. ISV
iiEa':%ntgia
Pianned
Development �I
OPEN SPACE
Scenic Circle ubdivision.
1-- '........)----\
2100 South street
{
AFFIRMATION OF CURRENT MASTER PLAN
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2002.
(An ordinance extending the corporate limits of Salt Lake City to
include property located at approximately 1977 South 2800 East,
amending the East Bench Master Plan, and amending the Salt Lake
City Zoning Map to zone the area upon its annexation to the City)
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SALT LAKE CITY
TO INCLUDE THE SCOTT TURVILLE, TRENT HEUGLY, JAMES SORENSON AND SALT
LAKE CITY CORPORATION PROPERTIES,CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 60.56
ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1977 SOUTH 2800 EAST,
PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-00-29,AMENDING THE EAST BENCH MASTER
PLAN,AND AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING MAP TO ZONE AND
DESIGNATE THE AREA AS FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL(FR-2)AND OPEN SPACE(OS)
UPON ITS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY.
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City by Scott
Turville, as property owner, requesting that the property described in said petition be annexed
within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the petition is signed by a majority of the owners of the real property and the
owners of more than one-third in value of all real property within the territory to be annexed as
shown by the last assessment roles; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner has caused an accurate plat to be made and certified by a
licensed engineer, or a licensed surveyor, to be approved by the City prior to filing; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has passed a Resolution accepting said petition
for purposes of review and hearing; and
k
r
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council, after examining said petition, having the petition
reviewed by the administration staff, and having considered the circumstances thereof at a
properly advertised and noticed public hearing, found said proposed annexation to be consistent
and in keeping with the City's Master Annexation Policy Declaration Projecting Municipal
Expansion; and
WHEREAS, no objection or protest to such annexation has been filed with Salt Lake
County Boundary Commission;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah:
SECTION 1. Annexation. The Salt Lake City limits are hereby enlarged and extended so
as to include the property of Scott Turville,Trent Heugly,James Sorenson and Salt Lake City
Corporation, containing approximately 60.56 acres of unincorporated territory in Salt Lake
County, State of Utah. Said property is more particularly described as set forth on Exhibit"A"
attached hereto.
SECTION 2. Affirmation of Master Plan. The East Bench Master Plan and the Arcadia
Heights/Benchmark/H Rock Small Area Plan, which were previously adopted by the City
Council, are hereby reaffirmed.
SECTION 3. Zoning. Be it further ordained and declared that the property described
under Section 1 is hereby designated and zoned Foothill Residential (FR-2) and Open Space
(OS), as set forth on Exhibit"A" attached hereto, and that the Salt Lake City Zoning Map is
hereby correspondingly amended.
SECTION 4. General Jurisdiction. Be it further ordained and declared that the said tract
described above in Section 1 shall henceforth be within the Salt Lake City corporate limits and
shall be zoned as provided in Section 2. All ordinances,jurisdictions, rules and obligations of, or
2
pertaining to, Salt Lake City are extended over, and made applicable and pertinent to the above-
described tract of land; and the streets, blocks, alleys and ways, of said track, shall be controlled,
and governed by the ordinances, rules, and regulations of Salt Lake City.
SECTION 5. Filings and notice. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City
Recorder of Salt Lake City is hereby directed to file with the Salt Lake County Recorder, after
approval by the City Engineer, a copy of the annexation plat duly certified and acknowledged
together with a certified copy of this ordinance. The City Recorder is further directed to provide
notice to the State Tax Commission under the provisions of Section 11-12-1 of the Utah Code
Ann.,as amended.
SECTION 6. -Effective date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
the date of its first publication.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
, 2002.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed.
3
MAYOR
ATTEST:
•
f ,^ y. c.� TO�'.✓1M141
�� f �. .:.•:, l.. l':ttor,::•y':, Office
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER FM./ iproi,C37.
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2002.
Published:
G:\Ordinance 02\extending corp limits of slc Feb 01,2002.doc
4
TURVILLE/KEUCLY/SORENSON/ December 18, 2001
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
LOCATED IN SW 1/4 OF SECTION 14, T1S, R1E,
SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point which is N 00'07'45" W 1335.05 feet along the 1/4 Section
line and N 89'51'06" W 122.030 feet from the South Quarter Corner of Section
14, Township 1 South, Range 1 Eost, Solt Lake Bose & Meridian, said point is also the
. Northwest Corner of lot 5 of Corrigan View Subdivision and a point on the existing
Salt Lake City Limits line, and running thence N 89' 51' 06" W 122.030 feet
along the boundary of the Corrigan View Subdivision and Salt Loke City limits line
to the quarter section line; thence N 00' 07' 45" W 935.212 feet along the quarter
section line to the Southerly boundary of Sunset Oaks Subdivision plot B and existing
Solt Loke City Limits line; thence the following (2) courses along said subdivision boudary line
and city limits line: West 760.685 feet thence N 48'42'28" W 233.733 feet more or less to the
Easterly boundary of the Devonshire Subdivision and existing Salt Lake City limits line; thence
S 32' 00' 00" W 707.562 feet along said subidivision boundary line and city
limits line to o point on the Easterly boundary of Devonshire Subdivision and
existing city limits line; thence S 00' 17' 39" E 486.016 feet more or less
along the sold subdivision boundary and o projection thereof and city limits line
to a point on the 1/16th. line and existing Salt Lake City limits line; thence _
N 89'51'06" W 645.96 feet along said 1/16th. line and city limits line to the
existing Salt Lake City limits line; thence along said city limits line •
S 18'24'07" E 955.902 feet to the Northerly boundary of the Scenic Circle
Subdivision and existing Salt Lake City limits line; thence along the said subdivision
boundary line and existing city limits line the following two courses: S 89'41'10" E
732.779 feet; thence S 00'18'50" W 265.000 feet to the existing Salt Lake City
limits line and North boundary line of Arcadia Heights Plot A Subdivision Amended; /''1
thence along said city limits line and subdivision boundary line S 89'41'10" E 1,
374.176 feet to the existing Salt Lake City limits line and the Northerly boundary IZ-2.0`01
of Arcadia Heights Plat D Subdivision thence along said city limits line and subdivision
boundary line the following two courses: N 67'00'00" E 198.143 feet; thence
N 13'00'00" E 156.080 feet to the existing Salt Lake City Limits line and the
subdivision boundary of Volley Vista Subdivision; thence along the said city limits
line and boundary line the following two courses; North 108.470 feet and East
176.907' to the Solt Lake City limits line of the Carrigan Canyon Annexation
and o point around a 301.560 foot radius curve to the left, through o central angle
of 14'32'12", an arc distance of 80.315 feet, o chord bearing of N 01'16'05" E
80.099 feet; thence N 06'00'00" W 162.639 feet along the existing Solt Lake City
limits line to a point on the Northerly boundary of the Corrigan view Subdivision
and Salt Lake City limits line; thence N 69'30'00" W 183.549 feet along said
subidivision boundary and city limits line to the existing Kontgis Planned Development and
Salt Lake City limits line; thence along said subdivision boundary line and city limits line
the following 5 courses: S 42'06'00" W 137.004 feet; thence N 47'54'00" W 360.000 feet;
thence N 11'30'30" W 131.450 feet; thence N 79'23'38" E 24.000 feet to a point around a
478.340 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 39'35'49",an arc distance
of 330.379 feet, a chord bearing of S 82'01'27" E 324.039 feet to a point on the Westerly
boundary of the Corrigan View subdivision and existing Salt Lake City limits line; thence
along said subidivision boundary and city limits line the following five courses:
N 24'30'00" E 142.000 feet to a point around o 220.885 foot radius curve to the
right, through a central angle of 11'54'57", an arc distance of 45.937 feet,
a chord bearing of S 70'39'27" E a distance of 45.855 feet; thence
S 64'42'00" E 21.098 feet to o point around a 50 foot radius curve to the right,
through a central angle of 101'27'03", on arc distance of 88.532 feet, a chord
bearing of N 46'01'30" E 77.412 feet; thence N 30'32'00" E 165.474 feet to
the point of beginning.
Containing 60.56 acres.
TURVILLE/HEUGLY/SORENSON December 18,2001
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
Located in the SW '/4 of Sec. 14,
T.1 S., R.1 E., S.L.B. & M.
FR-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point which is N 00°07'45" W 1335.05 feet along the 1/4
section line and N 89°51'06" W 122.030 feet from the South Quarter corner
of Section 14,Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian,
said point is also the Northwest corner of Lot 5 of Carrigan View Subdivision;
running thence along the Carrigan View Subdivision the following(6)courses:
S 30°32'00"W 165.470'to the right-of-way line of Lakeline Drive;thence
along said right-of-way line along a curve to the left,through a central angle of
101°27'00",an arc distance of 88.530',a chord bearing and distance of
S 46°01'24"W 77.414';thence N 64°42'00"W 21.100';thence along a curve to
the left,through a central angle of 11°54'55",an arc distance of 45.936',a
chord bearing and distance of N 70°39'28"W 45.853';thence S 24°30'00"W
142.000'to a point on the north line of the Kontgis Planned development;thence -
along said development the following(4)courses:along a curve to the left,
through a central angle of 39°35'49",an arc distance of 330.579',a chord
bearing and distance of N 82°01'27"W 324.039';thence S 79°23'38"W 24.000';
thence S 11°30'30"E 131.450;thence S 47°54'00"E 257.187';thence
S 84°25'48"W 661.683';thence N 05°09'59"W 312.698';thence
N 80°46'45"E 320.351';thence along a curve to the right,through a central
angle of 86°05'47",an arc distance of 52.882',a chord bearing and distance of
S 89°52'53"E 48.045';thence around a curve to the left,through a central
angle of 122°19'43",an arc distance of 31.969',a chord bearing and distance
of N 66°14'21" E 26.233';thence N 71°33'23" E 142.750';thence along
a curve to the right,through a central angle of 52°14'02",an arc distance of
9.117',a chord bearing and distance of S 82°19'36" E 8.804';thence along
a curve to the left,through a central angle of 61°17'21",an arc distance of
10.697',a chord bearing and distance of S 86°51'15" E 10.194';thence
around a curve to the left,through a central angle of 21°00'52" an arc
distance of 40.868',a chord bearing and distance of N 51°59'39" E 40.639';
thence along a curve to the right'through a central angle of 18°50'00",an arc
distance of 51.513',a chord bearing and distance of N 54°52'57" E 51.281';
thence N 05°18'31" E 156.840'to a point on the 1/16 line; running thence
along said line S 89°51'06" E 444.097'to the point of beginning.
Contains: 274876 square feet or 6.31 acres
'l'URVILLE/1IEUGLY/SORENSON December IS, 2001
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
Located in the SW ''/ of Sec. 14,
T.l S.. R.1 E.,S.L.B. & M.
OPEN SPACE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the NE corner of Carrigan View Subdivision,said point being
located N 00°07'45" W 1335.05 feet along the 1/4 section line from the South
'/4 Corner of Section 14,Township 1 South, Range 1 East,Salt Lake Base and
Meridian and running thence N 00°07'45" W 935.212' to a point on
the southerly boundary of Sunset Oaks Subdivision Plat"B";thence along
said subdivision boundary thew following(2)courses: West 760.685';thence
N 48°42'28"W 233.733' to the Easterly boundary of Devonshire Sub-
division;thence S 32°00'00" W 707.562'along said boundary line;thence
S 00°17'39"E 486.016';thence N 89°51'06"W 645.960'to the Salt Lake
City limits line;thence along said city limits line S 18°24'07"E 955.902';
to the northerly boundary line of Scenic Circle Subdivision thence
along the Scenic Circle Subdivision Boundary the following(2)courses:
S 89°41'10"E 732.779'to the NE corner of said subdivision thence
S 00°18'50"W 265.000';to a point on the Northerly line of Arcadia
Heights Plat"A";thence along said line S 89°41'10"E 374.176'to a
point on the North line of Arcadia Heights Plat"D";thence along said
line N 67°00'00"E 198.143';thence along the north line of Arcadia
Heights Plat"D"N 13°00'00"E 156.080'to a point on the Westerly line
of Valley Vista Subdivision thence along said subdivision the following
2 courses:North 108.470'and East 176.907'to a point on the right-of-way
line of Lakeline Drive;thence along said right-of-way the following 2
courses: along a curve to the left,through a central angle of 14°32'11",
an arc distance of 80.314',a chord bearing and distance of N 01°16'05"E
80.098';thence N 06°00'00" W 162.640'to the SE corner of Lot 1 of Carrigan
View Subdivision;thence along the south line of said lot N 69°30'00" E
183.549'to a point on the south line of the Kontgis Planned Development;
thence along said line the following 2 courses: S 42°06'00" W 137.003'thence
N 47°54'00" W 102.818' ;thence S 84°25'48" W 661.683;thence
N 05°09'59" W 312.698';thence N 80°46'45" E 320.351'to a point on a curve;
thence along a curve to the right,through a central angle of 86°05'47",an arc
distance of 52.882', a chord bearing and distance of S 89°52'53" E 48.045';
thence around a curve to the left,through a central angle of 122°19'43",an arc
distance of 31.969',a chord bearing and distance of N 66°14'21" E 26.233';
thence N 71°33'23" E 142.750';thence around a curve to the right,through a
central angle of 52°14'02",an arc distance of 9.1 17',a chord bearing and distance
of S 82°19'36" 8.804'; thence around a curve to the left,through a central angle of
61°17'21", an arc distance of 10.697',a chord bearing and distance of S 86°51'15" E
10.194';thence around a curve to the left,through a central angle of 21°00'52",an
arc distance of 40.868',a chord bearing and distance of N 51°59'39" E 40.639';
thence along a curve to the right,through a central angle of 18°50'00",an arc
distance of 51.513', a chord bearing and distance of N 54°52'57" E 51.281';thence
N 05°18'31" E 156.840'to the 1/16 line;thence S 89°51'06" E 566.127'along
said line to the point of beginning.
Contains: 54.25 acres.
T URVILLE/HE UGLY/SORENSON/
SALT LAKE CITY ANNEXATION
Located in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 14
T.1 S., R.1 E., S.L.B. & M.
1
OPEN SPACE
1Illei ll irli U''♦n►
licsoanrvrsron
flannedvetopment
OPEN SPACE
Scenic Circle ubdiviaion
2100 South Street 0
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 1,2002
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL LABOR POLICY AND LABOR BARGAINING
PROTOCOL
STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford
Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts
Council policy and No budget impact To confirm or revise an The intent of these documents is
protocol agreement existing Council policy to help facilitate an orderly and
and a protocol meaningful interaction between
agreement with the the two branches of
Mayor. government with regard to
collective bargaining.
On January 22,2002,the Council held a discussion regarding the Council policies on labor
relations and on a proposed labor bargaining protocol agreement with the Administration. On
February 5,2002,the Council will consider supporting the labor policies and agreement
provisions without change from the previous year.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS:
The Council may wish to adopt a motion supporting the Councils policies on labor relations as
attached. The Council may also wish to authorize the Council Chair to sign the labor
bargaining protocol agreement with the Administration to guide the labor bargaining process.
I move that the Council adopt a motion supporting the Council's labor policy and
authorizing the Council Chair to sign the labor bargaining protocol agreement with
the Administration.
(Note: The following information was provided to the Council previously.
It is provided again for your reference.)
ANALYSIS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
This year's bargaining process will include negotiations with the International Association of
Firefighters,Local 1645(Fire Union) and the American Federation of State,County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME Union). The International Union of Police Associations,Local
75 (Police Union)signed a three-year contract last year;therefore,negotiation with this union is
not necessary at this time.
The City Council's Labor Policy is a document that the Council may wish to adopt to indicate to
the Administration, the unions,and the public the Council's philosophical and policy directions
with regard to labor relations. The Policy contains guidelines that will assist the Administration
Page 1
in preparing a labor package that meets the Council's goals and priorities and is,as a result,
likely to be supported by the City Council. The attached draft policy document contains the
following provisions:
• Salary surveys and market analysis should be based on local employers with whom the City
competes for qualified personnel.
• In years that salary surveys are not conducted,salary adjustments should be based on the
Consumer Price Index.
• General compensation adjustments should be based on recommendations of the Citizens
Compensation Advisory Committee.
• Contracts with bargaining units should be multi-year and staggered.
• The City should provide a cafeteria benefit plan to allow employees a variety of choice
within a fixed level of subsidy.
• The commuter vehicle fee is a non negotiable item.
• Total costing of full compensation including benefits and any compensation portions that
are absorbed within departmental budgets should be disclosed to ensure that a true total
compensation cost is considered during the City's negotiation process.
Each year the City Council has worked with the Administration to develop a Labor Bargaining
Protocol Agreement with the Administration to help ensure that the mutual needs of the City
Council and the Administration are met during the labor bargaining process.
• Prior to negotiations,the Mayor confers with the Council(closed session):
o The Mayor briefs the Council on revenue projections and expected labor issues.
o The Council may provide the Mayor with compensation issues the Council desires to be
considered in the negotiating process.
o The Council provides the Mayor with a tentative commitment of what the Council will
be willing to fund for employee compensation and benefits.
• The Mayor will undertake negotiations and seek to reach an agreement within the tentative
financial commitments given by the Council by May 20th.
• The Mayor will periodically keep the Council apprised of the status of the negotiations
(closed sessions). The Council may modify the Council's tentative funding commitment
• Once agreement with a union is reached within the Council's tentative commitment,the
Mayor will forward a proposed agreement to the Council for ratification.
• In the event agreement with a bargaining unit is not reached by May 20th,the Council
reserves the right to set compensation and employee benefits by ordinance.
Note: In the past, there were a few isolated attempts during the negotiation process by
representatives of bargaining units to lobby Council Members. According to Council Policy,
Council Members should refrain from discussing negotiation issues with union representatives
during the negotiation process. This allows each branch of City government to preserve and
respect their separate functions during the bargaining process.
cc: Rocky Fluhart,Jay Magure,Brenda Hancock,Jim Considine
Page 2
Effective Date: February 5, 2002
Subject: CITY COUNCIL POLICIES ON LABOR RELATIONS
Distribution: Council Members and Staff; Mayor, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Management
Services Director, Human Resources Director, City Attorney, Labor Relations Director,
Union Presidents, Citizen's Compensation Advisory Committee Chair
Re-Evaluation Date: January 1, 2003
Chair, City Council
I. POLICY
It is the intent of the City Council to document specific policies related to labor relations which
the City Council supports. It is also the intent of the City Council to review these policies each
year in January.
II PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this policy is to provide a forum for the City Council to express its position on
specific terms and conditions of employment which are listed in Section IV.
III. DEFINITIONS
Certified Employee Organization: A bargaining unit established under the Collective
Bargaining Resolution Section 7 that is authorized to represent employees in the negotiations
process.
Executive Session: Closed door meeting of the City Council, without the right of the public to
be present, pursuant to the Open Meetings Act.
Memorandum of Understanding: The jointly prepared, written agreement of the
representatives of the City and the certified employee organization which constitutes a mutual
recommendation jointly submitted to the Mayor by May 20th of each year. The memorandum of
understanding (MOU) is not binding upon the parties until: a majority of the members of the
certified employee organization, in attendance at the ratification meeting, has ratified it by a
majority vote; the City Council has approved it by a majority vote, enacted the necessary
ordinances or other changes required to implement it by general legislation, and appropriated the
necessary funds required to implement the full provisions of the MOU.
Negotiation: The performance of duly authorized management representatives of the
Administration and the duly authorized representatives of a certified employee organization of
their mutual obligation to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith (within a reasonable
length of time in order to freely exchange information, opinions, and proposals on matters
properly the subject of bargaining) with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment. This includes the mutual obligation to execute a written document incorporating any
agreement reached.
Nonunion, non represented employees: Groups of employees not represented by a certified
organization such as the employees in the"300" "600" "800", and"900"
professional/paraprofessional series, and executive level employees.
Terms and conditions of employment: Wages, salaries, working conditions, hours or benefits,
except as specifically modified.
IV. CITY COUNCIL LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES
(A) Indicators of financial condition
The City Council supports the preparation of various indicators of financial condition to
determine trends in both environmental factors outside of the City(i.e. cost-of-living index)
and in financial factors internal to the City(i.e. revenues, expenditures, debt structure, etc.).
The City Council further encourages the preparation of these indicators on an annual basis
with presentation and discussion focused on them during the Mayor/Council Winter budget
retreat or discussion.
(B) Staggered Contracts
The City Council supports the adoption of staggered contracts/agreements so that all
contracts/agreements are not negotiated during the same fiscal year.
(C) Multi-Year Contracts
The City Council supports the adoption of multi-year contracts/agreements so that they may
remain in effect for more than one fiscal year.
(D) Total Costing of Fringe Benefits
The City Council supports the total costing of all fringe benefits to ensure that a true total
compensation cost is considered during the City's negotiation process. The City Council
supports the preparation of a written description of all fringe benefits along with cost
information for each City employee so that they will know exactly how much their total
compensation package is worth.
(E) Cafeteria of Benefits Plan
The City Council supports the continuation of a cafeteria style of benefits plan which, within
a fixed level of subsidy by the City, allows employees a variety of choices to meet their
individual needs. The City Council supports a plan which offers expense reimbursement for
dependent care and other tax savings programs as provided under the Internal Revenue
Service Code Section 125 as well as conventional benefit options in lieu of health care
coverage (with restrictions to ensure that sufficient levels of protection are ensured.) The
City Council supports a plan which allows employees to enrich benefits or maintain certain
levels of benefits by assuming resultant costs themselves which might exceed funding levels _
available through the City.
(F) Commuter Vehicles and Commuter Vehicle Fees
The City Council intends that all issues relating to commuter vehicles and commuter vehicle
fees are non-negotiable items during the labor negotiation process. These issues are the
exclusive prerogative of formal Administrative and Legislative processes outside of any labor
negotiation process.
(G) Compensation Based on Recommendations of the Citizens' Compensation Advisory
Committee and on the Consumer Price Index
The City Council intends to review compensation recommendations made by the Citizen's
Compensation Advisory Committee(CCAC) and would like the Administration to provide
information detailing the area(s)wherein the Administration may be recommending a different
approach than that recommended by the CCAC. When the Administration's approach is not
consistent with CCAC recommendation, the City Council would like a letter from the CCAC chair
detailing the CCAC's opinion and position. Further, the City Council supports the philosophy that
salary adjustments should be based on the Consumer Price Index in years that salary surveys are
not conducted.
(H) Salary Surveys and Market Analysis should be Consistent
The City Council intends that for compensation practice comparisons the City will survey
those local employers with whom the City competes for qualified personnel.
(G) Total costing of the full compensation package presented for the fiscal year, including
those portions that aren't budgeted, but rather,will be absorbed within departmental
budgets
The City Council would like a written briefing outlining the total amount included for
compensation adjustments each year, including the amount that departments may be asked to
absorb.
•
LABOR BARGAINING PROTOCOL
AGREEMENT
THIS PROTOCOL AGREEMENT is entered into the day and year first written below by
and between the Executive Branch (hereinafter"Mayor") and the Legislative Branch (hereinafter
"Council") of the City government; and
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, that the City's labor negotiation policy has been memorialized in a Resolution
passed by the City Council as Resolution No. 41 of 1984 and, may, hereafter, be adopted as a City
ordinance, which writings delineate, among other relevant matters, bargaining processes, impasse
resolution mechanisms and the functions and duties of the Executive and Legislative branches of
government with regard to collective bargaining; and
WHEREAS, each branch of City government desires to preserve and respect their separate
functions, but each desires cooperative interaction during the bargaining process to minimize
misunderstandings and delays which may prejudice rather than foster desired labor harmony; and,
WHEREAS, the Council and Mayor desire the labor bargaining process to be fair and
deliberative;yet, it must be conducted in a timely manner that comports with orderly budget
development; and
WHEREAS, in mutual respect for their separate but equal roles in City governance, they
desire to memorialize a protocol to facilitate their orderly and meaningful interaction in this volatile
area of labor bargaining;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and City Council mutually agree to the following
procedural protocol:
1. Winter Consultation. The Mayor and Council will meet in a strategy session as a
closed meeting under the Utah Open Meetings Act, and a Council budget briefing before February
28 of each year. Among the matters presented and discussed will be the following:
(a) The Mayor or the Mayor's designee will brief the Council on revenue projections for the
coming fiscal year and the projected budgetary impact of employee compensation;
(b) The Mayor or the Mayor's designee will present the expected labor issues for the coming
bargaining year and anticipated compensation demands by City employees. The Mayor or
designee will discuss Executive Branch negotiating objectives;
(c) The Council may provide the Mayor a summary of labor and compensation issues the
Council desires to be considered in the negotiating process and those it wishes to be included in
the employee compensation package. In addition, the Council will provide the Mayor a copy of
the City Council Policy on Labor Relations which is updated each year; and
(d) The Council will provide the Mayor a tentative commitment concerning what the Council
would be willing to fund for employee compensation and benefit program for the coming City
fiscal year.
2. Negotiations with Joint Understandings. The Mayor will undertake negotiations
with the Certified Bargaining Units, consistent with City law, and seek to reach an agreement within
the tentative financial commitments given by the Council by May 20th;provided, however, that if no
such funding commitments or objectives are given by the Council, the Mayor will still negotiate, in
order to reach an agreement with the Certified Bargaining Units. In these negotiations, the Mayor
will give due consideration to each of the stated Council negotiating objectives. However, the
parties mutually acknowledge their separate roles and responsibilities under the City's optional form
of government and that neither is legally bound by these understandings or positions.
3. Complete Negotiations by May 20: Cost Disclosure
(a) May 20 Deadline. The Mayor will use her/his best efforts to complete all negotiations with
the Certified Bargaining Units on or before May 20th of that year and forward agreements to the
Council for ratification, consistent with City law.
(b) Disclosure, if Labor Proposal Exceeds Council Tentative Approval. If the proposed
Agreement negotiated by the Mayor exceeds the tentative Council funding approvals,the Mayor
shall include with the aggregate transmittal, a letter: (1)providing an estimate of the aggregate
cost of the agreement; (2) identifying the deviations from any tentative understanding of the
Council; and(3) specifying the cost of each such deviation(including disclosure of non-cash
benefits such as vacation, leaves of absences and the like, and pension, insurance, overtime,
compensatory time, and matters requiring cash payments separate from employee salaries).
(c) Disclosure, if Labor Proposal is Within Council Tentative Approvals. If the compensation
package negotiated is at or under the funding level tentatively approved by the Council, the
Mayor shall state the estimated total cost of the compensation package and include disclosure of
all non-cash benefits such as vacation, leaves of absences, etc.
4. Periodic Council Briefing During Negotiations: Modification of Council Positions.
(a) Mayor Duty to Inform Council. As negotiations proceed towards agreement or impasse,the
Mayor shall periodically keep the Council apprised of the status of the negotiations and areas of
likely impasse.
(b) Council Duty to Notify Mayor of Policy Change. The Council will notify the Mayor, in
writing, as soon as practicable of any change in its earlier position on labor issues.
(c) Duty to Meet and Confer. Should said modifications to the Council's tentative funding
commitment(or in the package previously presented by the Mayor) occur, the parties shall meet
as soon as practicable and seek to arrive at a mutually acceptable negotiating position for the
City. Either party to this protocol may calendar and call a meeting for this purpose, upon
reasonable notice and at mutually convenient times.
(d) Written documentation for briefings. The Administration agrees to provide written briefing
documentation to the City Council and its designated staff members before each labor briefing
session. It is mutually understood and agreed that the records provided to the Council during
negotiations are"protected" under Section 63-2-304(22) of the Government Records Access
Management Act(GRAMA)and Section 2.64.070 of the Salt Lake City Code. Since the records
are"protected,"they shall not be disclosed unless otherwise required by law. The records may be
shared internally among the Council Members and staff on a need-to-know basis, provided that
they maintain the"protected" classification and are not given to others, including City employees
or their representatives. As provided in Section 51-4-5 of the Open and Public Meetings Act,
Council meetings scheduled to discuss the records shall be closed. This provision applies only to
periodic written briefings to the City Council during negotiations. It is understood that the final
2
Memorandum of Understanding and records discussed in (e) below may be disclosed.
(e) Briefing on total compensation package at the end of negotiations. The administration will
provide a full written briefing that outlines the total compensation package, including those
portions that the administration intends to be absorbed within the departmental budgets at the
end of the negotiation process.
5. Council Initiated Compensation Ordinances. In the event agreements with the
certified bargaining units of the City are not completed and presented to the Council by May 20th or
any later impasse date prescribed by City law,the Council reserves the right to set compensation and
employee benefits by ordinance. The City Attorney will prepare the necessary legislation to
implement a compensation package, as directed by the Council; this employee compensation
package will become effective on the first day of the applicable fiscal year.
6. Termination. Either party to this protocol may terminate it upon 30 days prior
written notice.
DATED this day of 2002.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By
CHAIRPERSON
MAYOR
ATTEST
CITY RECORDER
3
City Council Announcements
February 5, 2002
A. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff
1. The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and the Council of Governments (COG)
each have a seat for a member of the Salt Lake City Council, as well as the Mayor's
seat. Council Member Saxton has served on both of these boards for the past two
years. She indicates it has been a good experience and she now wants to give
another Council Member the same opportunity. Would the Council select a
representative to these boards?
B. Council Office Policies
C. For Your Information
1. Attached you will find tickets to the Medals Plaza as well as wallet-sized Phone Cards.
D. Meetings
•