Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01/07/2003 - Minutes (2)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 7 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert. Absent: Councilmember Nancy Saxton Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Larry Butcher, Zoning Administrator; Wayne Mills, Urban Design/Alleys Planner; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Nazar Mohamed, Mayor's Policy and Research Analyst; Daniel Andrus, Fire Marshal; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:29 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Councilmember Saxton would participate in executive sessions by phone. She said Item B-2, the International ITE Transportation Operations Award, would be presented by Tim Harpst, Transportation Director. She said Councilmember Christensen wanted to take a point of personal privilege during the formal meeting. No announcements were discussed. #2. INTERVIEW JULEE ATTIG PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Ms. Attig said she had a degree in political science. She said she had been in the design/build industry for seven years and was employed as a marketing manager for a local construction firm. #3. TAKE A STRAW POLL TO NOMINATE THE COUNCIL CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. Councilmember Christensen was nominated as Council Chair and Councilmember Love as Council Vice-Chair for calendar year 2003. #4. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON ICE CREAM VENDING. View Attachment Edwin Rutan, Nazar Mohamed, and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with the attached handouts. Mr. Weeks said the handouts included a memorandum to the Council from Jim Anderson. He said Mr. Anderson was concerned about the proposal and might address the Council during the formal meeting. Councilmember Buhler asked if Mr. Anderson was a vendor or was representing someone else. Mr. Weeks said he was not a vendor and was representing himself. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 7 , 2003 Councilmember Love said the subcommittee addressed most of the issues but noise and fees needed further discussion. Mr. Weeks said another issue for Council consideration dealt with the number of felonies an applicant could have. Councilmember Buhler asked the Administration about the conflict with the County concerning the City' s ability to regulate noise. Mr. Rutan said if noise was viewed as a health regulation, the City would agree with the County. He said City ordinances provided for noise abatement and he felt this issue should be viewed as such and not as a health issue. Councilmember Turner asked if the taxicab ordinance was being used as a model, why the proposed license fee ($80) was higher than taxi drivers ($30) . Mr. Weeks said the Police Department said the $80 fee was closer to the actual cost of performing multiple background checks. He said the fee also included fingerprint processing and photo identification. Councilmember Jergensen said the subcommittee felt a $30 fee could be maintained through subsidies. He said the subsidy would depend on the number of annual applicants but would probably run between $2,000 and $3, 000. He said the subcommittee felt the $80 fee would be prohibitive. Councilmember Lambert said he was also concerned about the license fee discrepancy. He said he felt noise abatement might be necessary due to health concerns or just livability. Mr. Rutan said he felt distinctions existed between health and livability issues. Councilmember Lambert asked if restrictions, applied exclusively to ice cream vendors, would withstand constitutional challenges. Mr. Rutan said he thought they would because the application was for a specific situation and would not fall under equal protection claims. Councilmember Buhler asked if ice cream vendors could be completely prohibited. Mr. Rutan said he felt noises could be prohibited but he was not certain the City could absolutely ban a specific business activity. Mr. Mohamed said a ban implemented in a township in New Jersey was later reversed because it was regarded as a violation of constitutional rights. Mr. Weeks said the proposed ordinance required two $25 inspections per year. He said the subcommittee recommended one per year. Councilmember Buhler asked about the inspection process. Mr. Mohamed said inspections performed by the Business License Division would check items such as mirrors, lights, and other safety requirements dictated by ordinance. Councilmember Jergensen suggested advancing the proposed ordinance with the following exceptions: 1) changing the license fee to $30, 2) reducing annual inspections to one per year, and 3) reducing felony convictions to one. He said he felt the noise issue might be a legal concern which needed to be addressed. Councilmember Buhler said the proposal could be advanced with a request for additional input on the noise issue prior to the next meeting. Council Members expressed concerns about how many felonies vendors could have. Comments included: prior convictions, varying degrees of felonies, intent to protect the public, protecting children, sexual abuse, solicitation, drug dealing, felonies of moral turpitude, and excluding vendors with one felony. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the Council could legally set a felony limit. Mr. Rutan said yes. Mr. Weeks said the ordinance addressed felonies involving moral 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 7 , 2003 turpitude. Council Members were in favor of modifying Section 5.64.640-A6 from three or more felonies, to two or more felonies. Council Members were in favor of advancing the issue to a public hearing with proposed changes. Councilmember Buhler asked the Administration to get back to the Council on the legal question regarding noise. Councilmember Buhler asked when the public hearing could be held. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the public notice requirement would delay the hearing until the first part of February. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF TIME A TEMPORARY TENT MAY REMAIN ERECTED. View Attachment Brent Wilde, Doug Dansie, Janice Jardine and Daniel Andrus briefed the Council with attached handouts. Councilmember Love asked about tents and canopies. Mr. Dansie said the ordinance included both. Councilmember Buhler asked if the ordinance should be applied City wide or to specific locations such as the Central Business District. Mr. Dansie said the ordinance addressed time limits, not location. Councilmember Buhler asked if a large amount of revenue was generated. Mr. Andrus said no. Councilmember Jergensen asked about the 45-day limit. Mr. Dansie said if applicants wanted to exceed the 45-day limit, they would be required to go through a conditional use process. He said this gave the City an opportunity to review parking issues, fire codes, health and safety concerns, neighborhood impact and other regulations. Ms. Gust-Jenson said this was a policy issue which had impacts on transportation, traffic, and neighborhoods. She said conditional use applications were typically approved so the Council needed to review the issue and decide if tents and awnings, etc. should be allowed for a 180-day period. Councilmember Christensen said these facilities were not equipped for long-term safety and there were aesthetics issues. He said he was concerned about temporary structures becoming a permanent part of an existing business. Mr. Dansie said under the fire code, structures were considered permanent after 180 days. He said the conditional use process allowed the City to review proposals and make decisions to regulate business activities and protect neighborhoods. Councilmember Christensen asked if life safety issues were reviewed for every 45-day permit. Mr. Andrus said yes. Councilmember Turner said he was concerned about the length of time tents could remain in a given area. He asked if a tent could be erected and then sub-leased to another party. Mr. Dansie said typically the City did not interfere in ownership issues but the conditional use process allowed that aspect to be reviewed. Councilmember Turner asked if an applicant could get another permit when the 180 day period expired. Mr. Dansie said no. Councilmember Turner asked if the structure could be moved across the street. Mr. Dansie said yes but the applicant would be required to go through another conditional use. Councilmember Turner said he was concerned about applicants maintaining a structure indefinitely just by moving around. Mr. Dansie said that situation could happen under the current ordinance. Councilmember Turner asked about tent use in other areas. Ms. Gust-Jenson said several vending companies indicated requests were typically for 45-day permits. Councilmember Turner asked if there was a size limit on temporary structures. Mr. Wilde said no but the issue could be reviewed. Councilmember Turner said he was concerned about community impacts from year-around usage and potential unfair competition. Councilmember Love said she shared Councilmember Turner' s concerns but was also 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 7 , 2003 concerned about requiring permits when a business such as Squatters, wanted to put a canopy over their own patio. Councilmember Jergensen said he was concerned about requiring continuous permits from private property owners when residential areas where not impacted. Mr. Dansie said without a process the potential existed for year around tent businesses. He said the proposed regulations also interfaced with other sections of the City code involving temporary uses. Councilmember Love asked if all users were being monitored for permits. Mr. Andrus said for the most part people were being responsible and obtaining permits. He said the majority were event companies who knew the requirements. Councilmember Christensen said loopholes in the ordinance needed to be corrected but he was concerned about the right solution. He said he liked the 45-day proposal but was concerned about the 180-day process. Mr. Wilde said if Council wanted, his staff could draft language to extend limits for existing businesses, shorten limits for special events, and address size restrictions. Council Members wanted the Administration and Council staff to prepare additional options. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE USE OF FACILITIES. View Attachment Michael Sears and Rick Graham briefed the Council with attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen asked if conditions were attached to the money given by the School District. Mr. Graham said yes. He said the term of the original agreement was ten years. He said due to their initial construction contribution, the School District paid one-half the standard rental rate, received priority use and was entitled to use the facility for the useful life of the building. Mr. Graham said the new agreement continued the commitment for the School District to pay a third of the cost and entitled them to use the facility for the useful life of the building. He said it also continued reduced rental fees and gave them priority use (early morning or mid-afternoon) depending on the needs of the school. Councilmember Christensen asked if the operating costs were being covered. Mr. Graham said no. He said subsidizes had to be made because the swimming pool and ice facility lost money. He said as part of the negotiations, he felt the City should honor the intent of the original agreement. Councilmember Christensen asked if the County would absorb the loss. Mr. Graham said yes. Councilmember Christensen asked about the City's involvement. Mr. Graham said the City was a party to the agreement because it owned the facility. He said the County administered the program for the City and was responsible for all expenses and subsidizes. Council Members were in favor of advancing the proposal. #7. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH THE UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS PENDING/REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED §52-4-4 AND §54-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED §78-24-8. An Executive Session was held. See file M 03-2 for sworn statement and tape. #8. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH THE UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, JANUARY 7 , 2003 §78-24-8 WITH ITS OUTSIDE COUNSEL. An Executive Session was held. See file M 03-2 for sworn statement and tape. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. sc 03 — 5 • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 2,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance Regulating Mobile Ice Cream Vendors —Subcommittee Recommendations CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Ed Rutan,Alison Wehyer,David Dobbins, Roger Evans,Edna Drake,Larry Spendlove, Gary Mumford,Nazar Mohamed This memorandum is intended to address a proposed ordinance to enact regulations for mobile ice cream trucks.The City Council first was briefed on the proposed ordinance in July 2002.A City Council Subcommittee met in August and on November 19 to discuss the proposed ordinance. The Subcommittee has decided to forward the proposed ordinance to the full City Council for a further briefing at the Council's work session January 7. The Subcommittee has proposed some changes to the proposed ordinance. However, during preparation of this memorandum Citouncil staff was informed by the Administration • that one of the Subcommittee's recommendations-retaining a restriction in which sound from a mobile ice cream vending vehicle can be plainly audible at no more than 330 feet from the vehicle—does not comport with Salt Lake Valley Health Department noise regulations.The Administration also has apparently been notified by the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office that regulations adopted by boards of health supersede municipal regulations in matters involving noise restrictions.The Administration is expected to address the issue during the January 7 briefing. ISSUES/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • The City Council may wish to clarify with the Administration whether sound decibel levels should be the standard of measuring noise instead of linear feet. • The City Council may wish to consider whether driver's qualifications should be more restrictive than the ones in the proposed ordinance. • The City Council may wish to consider whether—if the proposed ordinance is amended— companies that would be regulated by the ordinance be notified of the Council's intent to consider the ordinance and whether a public hearing should be held. It has been the City Council's practice when a new fee is proposed to request that the Administration notify-, • parties affected by the fee and to hold a public hearing. 1 • Over the last five years the City has made efforts to quantify licensing and regulatory costs and charge at least a percentage of the costs to those who are licensed and regulated. Given apparent differences in licensing and regulatory rates for professions that seem to have some similar components,the City Council may wish to request that the Administration review and compare the fees and the percentage of administrative costs covered by each. SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. The Subcommittee was comprised of City Council Members Eric Jergensen,Jill Love, and Van Turner.The Subcommittee met twice—on August.15 and November 19—with members of the Administration to review the proposed ordinance.The owner of one ice-cream vending company—Dad's Ice Cream—also attended the August 15 meeting. Overall,the Subcommittee said it was comfortable with the bulk of the proposed ordinance that would regulate the mobile ice cream vendors and vending equipment. However, the Subcommittee focused on two aspects of the proposed ordinance—fees and noise restrictions for the operators of mobile ice cream vending trucks. FEES The ordinance proposes: Three fees—a standard$70 business license; an$80 operator's license fee; and a$25 i vehicle inspection fee that would be charged every six months because the,ordinance contemplates two inspections per year. The Subcommittee recommended that the vehicle inspection fee be cut to one$25 fee based on one inspection per year..(Section 5.64.740)It is the Subcommittee's understanding that the Division of Building Services and Licensing would inspect vehicles for conformance with vehicle safety requirements listed in the proposed ordinance.The inspection would not include refrigeration systems.Those inspections are done by the Utah Department of Agriculture. The Subcommittee also recommended exploring a lower fee for an ice cream truck operator's application. Section 5.64.580 says,"At the time the ice cream truck operator's application is filed,the applicant shall pay to the Business License Office a fee, in an amount determined by the Mayor or his or her designee, but not to exceed eighty dollars($80.00). According to the Administration,the$80 fee would pay the costs of an applicant's background check.-The check would include research of an applicant's local criminal history, Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification records,Federal Bureau of Investigation records,and driver's license records.The fee also would cover the cost of obtaining fingerprints and issuing an identification card with a photo of the ice cream vending truck operator. A couple of things should be noted. First,the application requirements and driver's qualifications in the proposed ordinance are identical to application requirement and driver's qualification in the City's ordinance regulating taxicabs. However, Section 5.72.74 titled . Application Fee Required in the ordinance regulating taxicabs sets the cost of the application fee for a taxi driver's license at"no more than$30."City ordinances also set the cost of issuing an identification card to solicitors—including those who sell door-to-door—at$25. Second, 2 r aordinances regulating mobile ice cream vending businesses in Bountiful and West Valley City require mobile ice cream vending truck drivers to obtain their own copies of criminal record reports from the State Bureau of Criminal Identification at a cost of$10. West Valley City also charges a$25 fee for vendors to obtain a"work card." The Subcommittee suggested contacting Bountiful and West Valley City to see how many mobile ice cream vending truck drivers a year apply for permits to operate in their respective cities,and,after that,multiplying by 1.5 to determine an approximate cost to Salt Lake City, if the City charged an application fee of$30 for ice cream truck operator's licenses instead of$80. However,Bountiful officials indicated that Bountiful issued one ice cream truck vendor license in the past year,and West Valley City officials said it would be difficult to obtain a count of the number of mobile ice cream vendor licenses it issued. Consequently,Council staff contacted Don Ganser,who owns Dad's Ice Cream and a number of ice cream vending vehicles.He estimated that about 100 mobile ice cream vending vehicles operate in Salt Lake County.Of that number,between 30 and 50 vending vehicles operate in Salt Lake City. Given that,an$80 charge for an application fee would result in about$4,000 in application fees.($80 x 50 operators).If the proposed ordinance were amended to charge the same application fee as taxi drivers,the fee would result in about$1,500 in application fees.($30 x 50 operators).The lesser fee probably would result in a potential City subsidy of about$2,500, if the number of mobile ice cream vending vehicle operators is correct. • NOISE RESTRICTIONS The Subcommittee agreed on three item pertaining to noise restrictions.It agreed-to _. - - ° recommend amending Section 5.64.720&to c€ nge the word"seven"to the word"eight"to- : . allow mobile ice cream vending vehicles to operate an extra hour,particularly during the summer. The full text of Section 5.64.720 currently reads: No person shall use,play or employ any sound,outcry,amplifier,loudspeaker or any other instrument or device for the production of sound from an ice cream truck: A.When the ice cream truck is stationary; B. Earlier than ten a.m.,nor later than seven p.m.or one-half hour aftersunset, whichever occurs first.Sunset shall be determined on any particular day by the time listed that day in any newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake County; C.In such a manner that such sound is plainly audible at more than 330 feet from such vehicle;or D.Along the same block face traveling in either direction on the street more than once every two consecutive hours. The Subcommittee agreed to let stand two items in the section—items A and C. The Subcommittee agreed to let item A stand because it was the Subcommittee's understanding that item A not only would regulate mobile ice cream vending vehicles on streets but also in City parks. 4110 The Subcommittee's decision to let Item C stand was based to a certain extent on the Administration's-position that linear feet could be used as a limit to how far sound could travel. 3 • Other's—the Salt Lake Valley Health Department and a Salt Lake City constituent—have argued • that Item C does not mesh with Salt Lake City Code and Health Department regulations in part because the City Code and Health Department regulations restrict sound based on decibel measurements. Again,during preparation of this memorandum the Administration informed Council staff that the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office informed the Administration that the 330-foot limit does not comport with Salt Lake Valley Health Department noise regulations. The Administration also has apparently been notified by the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office that regulations adopted by boards of health supersede municipal regulations in matters involving noise restrictions.Council Members may wish to clarify with the Administration the status of Item C at the briefing. DRIVER'S QUALIFICATIONS Section 5.64.640 titled Driver's Qualifications contains three items the Subcommittee was unable to address during its November 19 meeting.The section lists people who would not be issued a permit to operate a mobile ice cream vending vehicle or have a permit renewed. Included among those who would not receive a permit or have a permit renewed are: "A.3.Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,narcotic or dangerous drugs,a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property,unless a period of not less than five(5)years shall have elapsed since the date of conviction or the date of release from confinement for such offense, whichever is later;" "A.6.Any person who has been convicted of three(3)or more felonies;" • The section ends with the following paragraph: B.Notwithstanding the provision of subsection A3 or A6 of this Section,if the hearing examiner receives letters or testimony at a hearing,as provided in Chapter 5.02 of this Title,which proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant has reformed his/her moral character so as to pose no threat to members of the public,the license shall be issued.Part of the letters or testimony used to establish the preponderance shall come from the applicant's parole officer,if the applicant is still on parole.Failure to provide a recommendation from the applicant's parole officer,if the applicant is on parole, shall be grounds to deny the request. The language in the section is taken from City ordinances regulating taxicabs.The City Council may wish to consider whether, in the operation of mobile ice cream vending carts,any of the three paragraphs should be more restrictive—particularly the limit on the number of felony convictions. BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance would add mobile ice cream vending truck companies to businesses regulated by Salt Lake City. It is City Council staff's understanding that various community councils and residents have sought for some time to have ice cream vending trucks regulated in at least some manner. Of particular concern are potential safety hazards created by children's attraction to the ice cream vending trucks and the level of music coming from ice 4 • cream trucks as they travel through residential neighborhoods.There also apparently have been complaints about mobile ice cream vendors in City parks.The complaints largely appear to have involved the length of time vendors stay in one location in City parks while playing music from amplified systems. According to statistics compiled by the Salt Lake City Police Department,the department's dispatch center has received calls on 87 incidents involving mobile ice cream vendors in the last five years—an average of 17.4 incidents per year.Here is a breakdown of calls to the dispatch center: Suspicious behavior—32. Ice cream vendor as victim— 19. Loudness— 16. Traffic accident— 10. Miscellaneous offenses—7. Officer traffic stop—3. Notes accompanying the figures indicate that many of the suspicious behavior incidents involved,calls reporting ice cream vendors selling controlled substances. However,as of June 27, the research indicates that no criminal cases resulted from the calls. A copy of incidents involving ice cream vending vehicles between January 1998 to October 25,2002 is attached. The incidents involving mobile ice cream vendors as victims involve reports of assaults and robberies of mobile ice cream vendors, vandalism of ice cream vending vehicles and people following ice cream vending vehicles. -1, • The incidents involving loudness centered on mobile ice cream vending vehicles playing loud music to attract potential customers.Insine cases vendors were reported to have stayed.at one location for extended periods of time as the music played and to have refused to turn down the music when residents have asked them to do so. Traffic accident incidents involved vehicles colliding with other vehicles or vehicles colliding with fixed objects:The research notes indicate that there do not appear to be any incidents involving auto-pedestrian accidents directly related to mobile ice cream vendors. Miscellaneous offenses involved incidents such as trespassing,theft of ice cream money and disputes between ice cream vendors over territory. Three ice cream vending vehicles have been stopped by police officers enforcing traffic laws.There do not appear to be any reports of incidents involving sexual assaults on children by operators of mobile ice cream vending vehicles. PROPOSED ORDINANCE Under current ordinances, ice cream truck vendors located in-Salt Lake City are required to obtain a City business license. According to the City Attorney's Office,the City acknowledges other cities' business licenses under City Code 5.04.040-C titled Reciprocal Agreements. However,the proposed ordinance would require mobile ice cream vending companies located in other cities to obtain ice cream truck operators' licenses for drivers and have ice cream trucks inspected by Salt Lake City. • Besides the$70 business license fee for mobile ice cream vending companies located in Salt Lake City,the proposed ordinance would require that each person who would drive a 5 vending vehicle to obtain an ice cream truck operator's license.The license requires an • administrative fee determined by the Mayor or his designee"but not to exceed$80." The proposed ordinance would require each ice cream truck to be inspected"by an authorized representative of the City"every six months.There would be a$25 fee for each inspection. The ordinance also would require a business license applicant to obtain a health permit from the Utah Department of Agriculture. According to the Administration,the Salt Lake Valley Health Department stopped inspecting mobile ice cream vending vehicles two years ago.The Utah Department of Agriculture continues to inspect the refrigerated compartments in the vehicles but nothing else,according to the Administration. Perhaps the most prominent feature of the proposed ordinance is the information required in the operator application form(Section 5.64.600). Information required in the application would include: • An employment history dating back three years from the time the application is filed. • A history dating back five years from the time of the application to indicate whether the applicant has ever had any professional or vocational license or business license or permit"denied,revoked or suspended."The applicant also would have to say why any of those licenses were denied,revoked or suspended and provide a copy of the order from the agency or government that took the action. • A history dating back five years from the time of the application of all criminal convictions or no-contest pleas to criminal complaints. • The names and addresses of three residents of Salt Lake City"who have known • the prospective applicant for a period of thirty days and who"will vouch for the sobriety,honesty and general good character of the.applicant." • A photograph and two sets of fingerprints taken at the Police Department headquarters. The proposed ordinance would prohibit the following from operating a mobile ice cream vending vehicle: • People under age 21. • Anyone required to register as a sex offender. • Anyone convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,narcotic or dangerous drugs,and a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property within a five-year period of the time of the permit application. • Anyone convicted of reckless driving or driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance or convicted of being in or about a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance with the intent of driving the vehicle within a five-year period of the time of the permit application. • Anyone convicted of three or more felonies. The application requirements and driver's qualifications in the proposed ordinance are almost identical to application requirements and driver's qualifications in the section of the City Code regulating taxicabs.However, Section 5.72.74 titled Application Fee Required sets the cost of the application fee for a taxi driver's license at"no more than$30." 6 . 411 The proposed ordinance also would enact several requirements(Section 5.64.730)for a mobile ice cream vending vehicle and its operation. Requirements include: • A clearly audible back-up warning device that will activate whenever the vehicle is shifted into reverse. • At least two flashing yellow beacons on the vehicle's roof that will activate"whenever merchandise is being sold,offered for sale or displayed for sale." • An operable swing-arm attached to its left side of"a type,size,and description approved by the City."The arm would be activated whenever the vehicle stops to sell,offer to sell or display merchandise. • A prohibition of selling items on streets where the speed limit is more than 25 miles per hour. Salt Lake City generally has three categories of streets—local,collector,and arterial.The limit generally would confine selling ice cream to local streets. Collector and arterial streets generally have speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour. • A requirement that the vehicle be completely stopped and parked before selling or displaying wares. • A prohibition against moving the vehicle backwards to sell or display merchandise. It should be noted that the insurance requirements in the proposed ordinance(Paragraph 9)are the same general liability requirements as those of sidewalk vendors. Section 5.64.740 of the proposed ordinance requires ice cream vending vehicles to be inspected every six months for compliance with the regulations for back-up warning device, flashing lights,swing-arm and other items.According to the Administration,the Business Licensing Division would conduct the inspections.The proposed fee for the inspections would be $25 per truck"for each inspection."It should be noted that,at this time,the office at the Department of Airports which inspects ground.transportation vehicles and taxicabs for - inspections required by City ordinances does_=hnt charge for the inspections.However,taxicabs.. and other ground transportation vehicles that routinely operate at the airport pay fees for entering the airport.The fees help defray the cost of inspecting the vehicles. Section 5.64.720 titled Noise Restrictions would limit the use of amplified music or other noises.Limitations include: • No music while an ice cream vehicle is stopped. • No playing of music earlier than 10 a.m.or later than 7 p.m. or a half-hour after sunset, "whichever occurs first." • No playing of music in a way that the sound can be heard more than 330 feet away. • No playing of music along the same block face traveling in either direction on a street more than once every two consecutive hours. • ICE CREAM VENDOR INCIDENTS-JAN 1998 THRU OCT25 2002 • 1998 18 1999 11 2000 18 2001 14 2002ytd 9 total 70 yr case date , LOCATION Type Vendor Name ELEM STUDENTS REPORTED SUSP ICE CREAM TRUCK THAT GIVES THEM CANDY AND WATCHES THEM,OFFICERS WATCHED AND DID NOT FIND ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS,OFFICERS 1998 30929 2/19/98 1953 S 2100 E FIELD CARDED,TALKED TO SUSPECT MR FROSTY REPORT OF ICE CREAM MAN FOLLOWING DILWORTH STUDENTS HOME, NFD PROVIDED 1998 31898 2/20/98 1943 E WILSON AVE BY COMPS UNK VENDOR JUVENILE HIT BY CAR AFTER BUYING ICE CREAM AND ATT TO CROSS STREET FROM REAR OF ICE CREAM TRUCK,SUSP VEH AT 15MPH, DID NOT SEE CHILD COME OUT FROM 1998 37003 2/28/98 541 STARCREST BEHIND TRUCK MR FROSTY 14 YR OLD FEMALE FOLLOWED BY ICE CREAM TRUCK,MR FROSTY,DRIVER ASKED GIRLS WHERE THEY LIVED, IF THEY WANTED A RIDE HOME ETC,SUBJ CONTACTED,SAID HE ASKS WHERE THEY LIVE SO HE CAN DRIVE DOWN 1998 66194 4/13/98 2248 E GARFIELD AVE THEIR STREET ETC, FYI MR FROSTY ICE CREAM TRUCK BROKEN INTO, ICE CREAM 1998 72624 4/23/98 2700 E SUNNYSIDE AVE STOLEN MR FROSTY DILWORTH ELEM ALERT,COMP CALLED IN TO REPORT SUSP IN ICE CREAM TRUCK DRIVING •1998 76194 4/28/98 1300 S 1500 E TOO SLOW AND FOLLOWING PEOPLE MR FROSTY •BURGLARY OCCURRED AT THIS RES, SUSPECT DESC POSSIBLY MR FROSTY DRIVER,CRIME 1998 95339 5/26/98 2100 E COUNTRY CLUB DR LAB RESPONDED FOR PHOTOS MR FROSTY SUSPICIOUS PERSON,SITTING ON STREET,NO LIGHTS OR MUSIC ON,VICTIM FELT SUSPECT DRIVER/OCCUPANT WAS WATCHING HER, COMP&NEIGHBORS STATE TRUCK DRIVES 1998 97213 5/28/98 2257 E COUNTRY CLUB TOO FAST TO SELL ANY ICE CREAM MR FROSTY 1998 98496 5/30/98 756 S JEREMY REAR PLATE STOLEN UNK ICE CREAM TRUCK ROBBERY-APPROACHED VENDOR,ASKED IF HE CARRIED A GUN,APPROACHED A BIT LATER AGAIN AND DEMANDED ALL THE ICE CREAM 1998 99929 6/1/98 305 N TAURUS CIR AND MONEY.SUSPECT ARRESTED. DADS ICE CREAM Ice cream driver following young girl,suspicious person,COMPS STATE HE COMES THERE AS EARLY AS 0700 AND LATE AS MIDNIGHT,NO LIGHTS OR MUSIC,SITS IN TRUCK IN FRONT OF UNK VENDOR(BLUE 1998 102549 6/5/98 2300 E 2100 S HOUSES AND WATCHES BUNNY??#24??) Drug sales from ice cream truck,OFFICER VIEWED VENDOR SIGNALLING DRUG DEALER TO COME TO HIS TRUCK WINDOW, SUSPECT ARRESTED, PORNOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE ALSO FOUND IN 1998 129025 7/10/98 250 W NORTH TEMPLE THE TRUCK UNK VENDOR AP PUSHING ICE CREAM CART THRU PARK AT 900 S 900 W,'NO LIC TO DO BUSINESS, SELL ICE 1998 135983 7/18/98 920 W 950 S CREAM OR OTHER, SUSPECT ARRESTED PALETERIA CAROUSEL* slcpd crime analysis ice cream chief mayor summary 1n/2a/n2 1 of 4 • yr case date LOCATION ,. Type Vendor Name YOUNG GIRL TOOK MOTHERS MONEY($70)TO BUY A POPSICLE,GAVE IT ALL TO THE ICE CREAM MAN,COMPANY,SUSPECT,JUV SMOTHER WANTED NO ACTION,VENDOR RETURNED THE MONEY;CLAIMING HONEST • 1998 139895 7/21/98 929 N CATHERINE MISTAKE MR FROSTY SUSP DRIVER OF ICE CREAM TRUCK ASKED GIRLS TO DANCE FOR HIM FOR ICE CREAM; 1998 144199 7/28/98 618 S 1200 W COMP TO CALL CO MAIN OFFICE MR FROSTY • ICE CREAM TRUCK/VENDOR ROBBED, SUSPECTS ACTED AS CUSTOMERS, DIVERTED • 1998 146260 7/31/98 235 N NEWSTAR DR HER ATTENTION,STOLE HER MONEY BAG DADS ICE CREAM 1998 167169 8/26/98 343 E 700 S NO BUS LIC CERT ON PERSON AS REQ MR FROSTY KELLY STATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN APPROACHED BY PERSON'S IN THE PAST _ (WHILE IN THE ICE CREAM TRUCK)AND BEEN ASKED IF SHE SELLS MARIJUANA.KELLY STATED THAT SHE BELIEVES THAT THERE MUST BE OTHER ICE CREAM TRUCKS DEALING • 1998 16769 8/26/98 343 E 700 S IN THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY MR FROSTY 1999 SL97470• 5/16/99 SUGARHOUSE PARK 'SELLING IN PARK W/O PERMIT • UNK VENDOR SELLING IN PARK W/O PERMIT,R/O OBSERVED TRANS OF CASH AND ICE CREAM BARS, DRIVER STATEDHE WAS JUST TAKING . ' DONATIONS AND GIVING ICE CREAM AWAY FOR FREE,MENU ONSIDE OF TRUCK,DRIVER • 1999 SL102360 5/23/99 LIBERTY PARK ARGUMENTATIVE,CITED/RELEASED SAMIS ICE CREAM _ 651 E 1300 S•(S SIDE OF SELLING IN PARK W/O CITY PERMIT, 1999 SL107342 • 5/30/99 LIBERTY PARK CITED/RELEASED • UNK VENDOR :. - • SELLING IN PARK,SUSP DL SUSPENDED, 1999 S• L107377 5/30/99 LIBERTY PARK CITED/RELEASED UNK VENDOR 300 N 1800 W(STAR DADS FEMALE DRIVER SEXUALLY ASSAULTED 1999 SL109854 '••6/3/99 CREST) BY PATRON IN NEIGHBORHOOD • . DADS ICE CREAM 1",_'.: . 1999 SL123462 6/22/99 1460 S 1200 W ICE,CREAM TRUCK PROWLED:BY JUVENILES_' ='bAD-SACEtREAM SELL IN PARK W/O PERMIT, CITED/RELEASED,ALSO CITED FOR POSS OF 1999 SL126879 6/27/99 LIBERTY PARK MARIJUANA UNK VENDOR - SELLING IN PARK W/O PERMIT,CITED AND 1999 SL139463 7/13/99 LIBERTY PARK • RELEASED DADS ICE CREAM . POSSIBLE DADS ICE SUSPICOUS VEH(ICE CREAM TRUCK)PARKED CREAM(based on 1999 SL141948- 7/16/99' 140 W APRICOT IN.COMPS DRIVEWAY address of co) • ICE CREAM TRUCK BROKEN INTO WHILE VICTIM"IN 7-11,COIN AND ICE CREAM STREWN 1999 SL168167 8/19/99 910 N 900 W ABOUT ' ' DADS ICE CREAM 1999 SL178674 9/3/99'876 E 800 S REAR LIC PLATE-STOLEN MR FROSTY • TRAFFIC/AUTO-PED/VICTIM RAN INTO STREET FROM FRONT OR BEHIND ICE CREAM 2000 55275 3/25/00 1379 W 500 S TRUCK VENDOR UNK 2000 577521 3/29/00 LIBERTY PARK • SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED, RELEASED DAD'S ICE CREAM 2000 69570 . 4/16/00 LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED, RELEASED VENDOR'UNK 2000 69537 4/16/00 LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED,RELEASED VENDOR UNK 2000 • 71896 4/20/00'LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED,RELEASED DAD'S ICE CREAM 2000 71896 " 4/20/00 LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED, RELEASED DAD'S ICE CREAM -. 2000 78323 4/30/00 LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT VENDOR UNK 2000 - 80328 5/3/00 LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED, RELEASED VENDOR UNK 2000 95006 5/25/00 LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT DAD'S_ICE,CREAM ,2000 969661 5/28/00 SUGARHOUSE PARK SELLING IN PARK W/O PERMIT MR FROSTY 2361 S 900 E,FAIRMONT • - - 000 969521 5/28/00 PARK SELLING,W/O PERMIT.CITED, RELEASED ' VENDOR UNK 2000 96929i 5/28/00 LIBERTY PARK SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED,RELEASED DAD'S ICE CREAM mot.. r•,.. �., __ _�: .,,.,,,,, . h yr case date LOCATION Type Vendor Name SUSPECTS YELLILNG AT VICTIM DRIVER, ACCUSING HIM OF RIPPING HIS KIDS OFF, VICTIM STATED,YOU MUST HAVE THE WRONG GUY,SUSPECT GRABBED VICTIMS THROAT, • 2000 101941 6/4/00 561 N 1400 W THREATENING HIM TO STAY AWAY VENDOR UNK VICTIM USED TO WORK FOR THE SUSPECT VENDOR OWNER,SUSPECT THREATENING HOMMIE'S ICE CREAM& 2000 125086 7/6/00 531 S 900 W VICTIM DRIVER ANOTHER VENDOR UNK HATE CRIME,ICE CREAM TRUCK DRIVER, BMA, SUSPECTS INTIMIDATED,YELLED RACIAL SLURS,THREW TOOLS AT,DRIVER,REF 2000 131496 7/15/00 847 S 400 E PROSECUTORS OFFICE VENDOR UNK ICE CREAM TRUCK DRIVER ROBBED, 2000 136455 7/22/00 140 N 900 W STRONGARM KAY'S ICE CREAM ICE CREAM TRUCK DRIVER BEING HARRASSED ON HIS ROUTE BY SUSPECTS IN UPCOMING HATE CRIME COURT CASE, POSSIBLE WITNESS 2000 147443 8/6/00 816 S 400 E TAMPERING HOMY ICE CREAM CO ICE CREM TRUCK DRIVER OFFERED RIDE TO CHILD,CHILD RAN TO HIS HOUSE, DRIVER WARNED AGAINST OFFERING RIDES TO CHILDREN,DRIVER STATED.HE WAS NOT 2000 187099 10/4/00 750 W 200 N ACCUSTOMED TO U.S.WAYS FRUIT FRENTA 2001 57616 4/1/01 1-80 &700 E TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RUBY'S ICE CREAM SELLING W/O LICENSE IN PARK,CITED, . 2001 67268 4/17/01 LIBERTY PARK RELEASED DAD'S ICE CREAM SELLING W/O LICENSE IN PARK,CITED, 2001 75869 4/30/01 LIBERTY PARK RELEASED VENDOR UNK _ SELLING W/O LICENSE IN PARK,CITED, 2001 79703 - 5/6/01 LIBERTY PARK RELEASED VENDOR UNK SELLING W/O LICENSE,CITED/RELEASED, DRIVER CLAIMED OFFICER WAS ONLY DOING IT 2001 89413 5/20/01 LIBERTY PARK BECAUSE HE WAS HISPANIC VENDOR UNK • 2001 94680 5/28/01 SUGARHOUSE PARK +SELLING W/O LICENSE,CITED/RELEASED DAD'S ICE CREAM VICTIM ICE CREAM TRUCK DRIVER ROBBED AT 2001 `102396 6/8/01 190 E 900 S GUNPOINT DAD'S ICE CREAM SUSPECTS ASKED FOR ICE CREAM,REFUSED TO PAY,VICTIM DRIVER ASSAULTED.BY SUSPECTS,VICTIM HIT A VEH WHEN FLEEING " 2001 103430 6/9/01 EMERY&INDIANA FROM SUSPECTS VENDOR UNK TRAFFIC ACCIDENT,VEH WAS TRAVELING SB ON UTAHNA ST.THE PEDESTRIAN 4 YR OLD, HEARD THE ICE CREAM TRUCK AND WENT RUNNING OUT INTO THE STREET.MATHEW RAN INTO THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE OF 2001 103303 6/9/01 1404 S UTAHNA VEH VENDOR UNK VICTIM MOTHER GAVE CHILD$100 TO BUY A $1.25 ICE CREAM,CLAIMS SHE RECEIVED NO CHANGE,NO SUSPECT, ICE CREAM VENDOR 2001 109093 6/17/01 1784 W 400 N OR OTHER DETAILS AVAILABLE VENDOR UNK SELLING W/O PERMIT IN PARK,CITED 2001 109062 6/17/01 LIBERTY PARK RELEASED VENDOR UNK ICE CREAM TRUCK OWNER CLAIMS HIRED 2001 122821 n 7/5/01 1422 S RICHARDS ST DRIVER TOOK MONEY AND MERCHANDISE VENDOR UNK REPORT OF ICE CREAM TRUCK DRIVER TAKING 2001 152865 8/14/01 1841 W MORTON KIDS MONEY VENDOR UNK ICE CR WITROCK PARKED IN"NO PARKING" 2001 1881981 , 10/6/01.50 W NORTH TEMPLE ZONE SELLING ICE CREAM DAD'S ICE CREAM 5 YR OLD PED RAN OUT FROM BEHIND ICE 2002 58761 4/6/02 429 N PAMELA ICREAM TRUCK AND WAS HIT .VENDOR UNK VICTIM ICE CREAM TRUCK DRIVER • 2002 97136 6/5/02 1074 S 900 W THREATENED VENDOR UNK SELLING W/O PERMIT IN PARK,CITED, 2002 113242 6/23/02 600 E 900 S LIBERTY PARK. RELEASED - VENDOR UNK SELLING W/O PERMIT IN PARK,CITED, 2002 1206551 7/3/02 LIBERTY PARK RELEASED VENDOR UNK yr case I date LOCATION Type Vendor Name 2002 134723 7/23/02 700 S 200 E SELLING W/O PERMIT,CITED,RELEASED VENDOR UNK SELLING W/O PERMIT,SUSPECT&OWNER CITED,RELEASED,OWNER SHOWED A SSL BUS LIC AND SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD 2002 134722 7/23/02 700 S 200 E FOR ALL OF SLC VENDOR UNK SELLING W/O PERMIT IN PARK,CITED, 2002 135259 7/24/02 LIBERTY PARK RELEASED VENDOR UNK WINDOW OF ICE CREAM TRUCK SHATTERED 2002 143574 8/5/02 269 S MONTGOMERY BY FEMALE JUV WITH A BB GUN VENDOR UNK CASH BOX TAKEN FROM ICE CREAM TRUCK WHILE DRIVER WENT TO GET MECHANICAL 2002 161337 9/1/02 1743 S 300 E HELP RUBY'S ICE CREAM Iv • ?>Y T-' r Item A-4 • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 7, 2003 TO: City Council Members and Staff FROM: Jim Anderson RE: Mobile Ice Cream Vendors and Noise Concerns in General This memorandum is intended to address the proposed ordinance regarding regulations for mobile ice cream vendors, as seen in the broader context of noise concerns in general. Numerous studies(including a very exhaustive one by the U.N.'s World Health Organization)have extensively documented the adverse effects of noise pollution upon individuals and communities. These studies, by detailing such negative impacts upon the IIIpublic health and welfare, have provided the basis for noise regulations implemented across the country, including our own Regulation#21 of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department. Specifically addressing here the noise regulations found in the proposed ordinance, there are several issues that warrant the Council's consideration: • Constitutionality concerns • Noise levels and their measurement • Alternatives for effective sound and noise regulation Constitutionality concerns The City might err by adopting an ordinance specifically regulating the noise produced by ice cream trucks. Courts have previously found similar language to be unconstitutional, by essentially placing"content-based"restrictions upon the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. A noteworthy example is to be found in the case of People v. Jones, 188 Ill. 2d 352, 721 N.E.2d 546, 242 Ill. Dec. 267 (1999). Curiously, this case involved an individual who was cited for being in violation of the local noise statute by playing the stereo in his car too loudly. He ultimately prevailed upon the grounds that the very same statute provided an exception for advertising III I Item A-4 purposes. In any event, noise regulations should be more generalized so as to avoid any such content-based restrictions or subsequent challenges. • Also, as the Subcommittee is correct to point out,the proposed language is in conflict with the existing Regulation#21 of the Salt Lake Valley Health Department. Noise levels and their measurement The proposed ordinance includes language that prohibits noise"plainly audible at more than 330 feet" from the vehicle. This is clearly a gross defect, as it is almost seven times the distance normally used in most modern-day ordinances(i.e., 50 feet). One can only wonder how loud sound would need to be at its source so as to be plainly audible a full 330 feet away(even more than a regulation football field). Thus, it is in clearly in conflict with the current Health Regulation. That regulation contains language referencing sound levels in decibels. Any sound heard at such a long distance away would exceed the Regulation's decibel-based prohibition many times over. There is, however, a further problem in adopting noise regulations that exclusively use such sound level measurements. The almost universal experience is that they are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce because of the need for specialized measuring equipment and the training required for properly operating that equipment. The police department can hardly be expected to issue a citation on the basis of such when the equipment is simply not available. (Fortunately, other noise and nuisance laws • are available.) Many communities across the nation have addressed such problems by adopting a "plainly audible" standard. As mentioned, the usual distance implemented is 50 feet. Please see the"Sample Code Provisions" later in this document, which have been widely enacted across the country. These avoid the problem of content-based restrictions. They also avoid the need for specialized (and expensive) sound level measurement equipment and training. Further, they have been held to be neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad(see State v. Ewing, 914 P.2d 549,Haw. 1996). The Salt Lake Valley Health Department regulation has inherent defects of its own, but the City can easily adopt a complementary noise ordinance(that falls within the regulation's scope, and is not in conflict with it) simply by using the"Sample Code Provisions" below as a working model. Alternatives for effective sound and noise regulation Salt Lake City would serve its citizens better by enacting a much more generalized noise ordinance, one that skirts such constitutionality concerns, and one that can be more readily enforced by the police without the need for specialized sound level measurement equipment and associated training. • 2 Item A-4 • The Noise Consultancy, LLC, has proposed a model that is currently finding much favor among local communities across the country. Curiously, it was originally formulated to combat the noise pollution created by"boom boxes" and"boom cars." Its beauty, however, lies in its simplicity and the fact that it is broad enough to be applied across the spectrum, without infringing upon anyone's individual constitutional rights. Now submitted for the Council's consideration are these: SAMPLE CODE PROVISIONS DEFINITION "Plainly audible" means any sound that can be detected by a person using his or her unaided hearing faculties. As an example, if the sound source under investigation is a portable or personal vehicular sound amplification or reproduction device,the enforcement officer need not determine the title of a song, specific words, or the artist performing the song. The detection of the rhythmic base [sic] component of the music is sufficient to constitute a plainly audible sound. RESTRICTED USES AND ACTIVITIES IIII (1) Personal or commercial music amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated in such a manner that it is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet in any direction from the operator between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., sound from such equipment shall not be plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet in any direction from the operator. • (2) Self-contained, portable, hand-held music or sound amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated on a public space or public right-of-way in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet in any direction from the operator between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., sound from such equipment shall not be plainly audible by any person other than the operator. Please note that this language is submitted as a proposal for an ordinance specifically addressing electronically produced sound. It is not intended to conflict with, or to override, any other existing laws, ordinances or regulations. Indeed it is intended to supplement them. Nor would it be desirable to ignore other forms of noise pollution. Consideration of this Memorandum by the City Council members will be greatly III appreciated. 3 Item A-4 Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 2003, • /s/ JIM ANDERSON 1416 N. Mandalay Road Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Home: 801-595-0402 Cell: 801-634-6471 Email: • 0 4 JUN 1 4 2002 °OP ROSS C."ROCKY"ANDERSON r G�ET�y COR1P©°a� rIOi�( MAYOR ».. ._._� .,._. �. ..r`.�..���..,ii SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Q29 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: June 14, 2002 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Mobile Ice Cream Vendors STAFF CONTACT: Nazar Mohamed DOCUMENT TYPE: Proposed Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Business License fee ($70.00), Operator's License fee ($80.00), and Inspection Fee ($25.00). DISCUSSION: • Salt Lake City Corporation does not have regulations for mobile ice cream vendors. Currently, a business license is the only requirement for ice cream vendors to operate in our city. Beyond that, the City does not have requirements such as: • Ice cream truck operator's license. • Criminal background check for operators. • Safety requirements for the trucks. • Certificate of insurance. We have received various complaints from residents of our city, summarized as follows: • Business name/license/telephone number not displayed on some vendor trucks. • Loud noise. • Some vendors park improperly, while selling,thereby compromising the safety of our children. • Lack of time frame for vendors to do business in our neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATION: Passage of the proposed ordinance will protect the residents of Salt Lake City, especially children, from unnecessary health and safety risks, as well as preserve the peace. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 F1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2002 (Mobile Ice Cream Vendors) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 5.64, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO MOBILE ICE CREAM VENDORS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Article VI of Chapter 5.64, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to mobile ice cream vendors be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Chapter 5.64 Article VII. Mobile Ice Cream Vendors Sec. 5.64.510 Purpose and intent. • The city council expressly finds that vehicles in which ice cream, confections and other frozen dessert products are carried for purposes of retail sale on the public streets pose special dangers to the public health, safety and welfare of children and residents in the City of Salt Lake City. It is the purpose and intent of the city council, in enacting this article, to provide responsible companies and individuals who engage in the operation of ice cream trucks with clear and concise regulations to prevent safety, traffic and health hazards, as well as to preserve the peace. safety and welfare of the community. Section 5.64.520 Business License Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of mobile ice cream. confection or other frozen dessert vending unless he/she has first obtained a business license • from the Business License Office. All business licenses shall be issued according to regulations established by this ordinance and all other applicable ordinances of the City. In addition to the business license. any person who operates an ice cream truck shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect a valid ice cream truck operator's license issued by the Police Department of the City. The use of the term "ice cream" in this Article shall include confections and other frozen desserts. Section 5.64.530 Application for Business License. The application for a mobile ice cream vending business license shall contain all information relevant and necessary to determine whether a particular license may be issued, including. but not limited to: (1) The full name, current address, telephone number, and proof of identity of the • applicant and all persons who will be operating an ice cream truck as a part of the applicant's business; (2) A brief description of the nature, character, and quality of goods, wares. or merchandise to be offered for sale; (3) The specific routes, if any, along which the vendor intends to conduct business; (4) If the applicant is employed by another, the name and address of the person, firm, association, organization, company, or corporation; and (5) A description of all ice cream trucks to be used in the business, together with the motor vehicle registration number and license number. 4111 2 Section 5.64.540 Health Inspection Certificate. 41, Any application for a mobile ice cream vending license shall require a health permit from the Utah Department of Agriculture or its successor agency requiring such health permit in addition to the regular business license. The applicant's equipment shall be subject to inspections by the Utah Department of Agriculture or its successor agency requiring such inspections at the time of application and at periodic intervals thereafter. Section 5.64.550 Permitting Unlicensed Operator Unlawful. It is unlawful for any person who owns or controls an ice cream truck to permit it to be driven, and no ice cream truck licensed by the City shall be so driven at any time in the operation of the business, unless the ice cream truck is operated by a driver who has then in force a valid • ice cream truck operator's license issued under the provisions of this Article. Section 5.64.560 Driver's License-Application: An application for an ice cream truck operator's license shall be filed with the Business License Office of the City on forms provided by the City. Section 5.64.570 Application-Verification: The application for a mobile ice cream vendor business license and for an ice cream truck operator's license shall be verified by the applicant under oath, and he/she shall be required to swear to the truthfulness of the matters contained upon the application. Section 5.64.580 Application-Fee Required: • 3 At the time the ice cream truck operator's application is filed, the applicant shall pay to • the Business License Office a fee. in an amount to be determined by the Mayor or his or her designee. but not to exceed eighty dollars ($80.00). Section 5.64.59O State Motor Vehicle Permit Required: Before any application is finally_passed upon by the City.the applicant shall be required to show that such applicant has a current Utah motor vehicle permit and shall provide a conforming copy of such permit with the operator application referred to in Section 5.64.100 herein, or its successor section. Section 5.64.600 Operator Application Form Requirements: The prospective applicant for an ice cream truck operator's license shall be required to • complete an operator application form containing the following information: A. The correct legal name of each applicant; B. For each applicant,the application must also state: 1. Any other names or aliases used by the individual. 2. The age, date and place of birth. 3. Heights 4. Weight, 5. Color of hair. • 4 6. Color of eyes. • 7. Present business address and telephone number, 8. Present residence and telephone number, 9. Utah drivers license or identification number, and 10. Social security number; C. A statement of the business, occupation or employment history of the applicant for three years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application; D. A statement detailing the license or permit history of the applicant for the five- year period immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application, including whether • such applicant previously operating or seeking to operate, in this or any other county, city, state or territory, has ever had a license, permit or authorization to do business denied, revoked or suspended, or has had any professional or vocational license or permit denied, revoked or suspended. In the event of any such denial, revocation or suspension, state the date, the name of the issuing or denying jurisdiction, and state in full the reasons for the denial, revocation or suspension. A copy of any order of denial,revocation or suspension shall be attached to the application; E. All criminal convictions or pleas of nolo contendere_ except those that have been expunged, and the disposition of all such arrests for the applicant for five years prior to the date of the application. This disclosure shall include identification of all ordinance violations, • 5 excepting minor traffic offenses (any traffic offense designated as a felony. a class A • misdemeanor. or an alcohol-related offense shall not be construed as a minor traffic offense), stating the date.place. nature of each conviction or plea of nolo contendere and sentence of each conviction or other disposition; identifying the convicting jurisdiction and sentencing court and providing the court identifying case numbers or docket numbers. Application for an ice cream truck operator's license shall constitute a waiver of disclosure of any criminal conviction or plea of nolo contendere for the purposes of any proceeding involving the ice cream truck operator's license; F. The names and addresses of three(3) residents of the City who have known the prospective applicant for a period of thirty(30) days and who will vouch for the sobriety, honesty and general good character of the applicant; • G. A written certification from the mobile ice cream vending business by which the applicant operator is employed that the applicant operator has received training from the said ice cream vending business as to operational requirements of this Article. Section 5.64.610 Photographs Required: The applicant for an ice cream truck operator's license shall be required to have a photograph taken of him/her at police headquarters; applicants for renewal of such licenses shall fiunish an up-to-date photograph or have an additional picture taken at police headquarters, as shall be determined and directed by the Chief of Police. Section 5.64.620 Fingerprints Required: • 6 The prospective applicant for an ice cream truck operator's license shall be required to • file with the Chief of Police two (2) sets of fingerprint impressions, which shall be taken under the supervision of the Chief of Police. Section 5.64.630 Investigation Of Applicant: A. The Police Department shall conduct an investigation of each applicant for each ice cream truck operator's license, and shall review all of the information filed by the applicant as required by this Article. Upon completion of the investigation, the Chief of Police shall recommend approval or disapproval of the proposed application to the Business License Administrator on the operator application form. B. It shall be the duty of the Chief of Police to report in writing to the Business • License Administrator any misrepresentation or falsification by the applicant on the police recommendation form which may be uncovered by the police investigation, and any such misrepresentation or falsification will constitute just cause for the Business License Administrator to refuse to issue an ice cream truck operator's license, or to suspend or revoke the same if it has been issued. C. The Police Department's recommendation required by subsection A of this Section shall be based upon: 1. Findings of the criteria specified in Section 5.64.140 of this Article, or its successor; 7 2. The Police Department's recommendation may take into account the length of 40 time between any criminal conviction and the application for the license and may also take into account the applicant's rehabilitation efforts. if any. Section 5.64.640 Driver's Qualifications: A. Except as hereinafter set forth, no permit or renewal of an ice cream truck operator's license shall be issued to any of the following persons: 1. Any person under the age of twenty-one (21)years; 2. Any person who is currently required to register pursuant to the Utah Penal Code, section 77-27-21.5, Utah Code Annotated, sex offender registration, or its successor; • 3. Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, narcotic or dangerous drugs, a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property,unless a period of not less than five (5) years shall have elapsed since the date of conviction or the date of release from confinement for such offense, whichever is later; 4. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle recklessly within the five (5) years immediately preceding application for a permit; 5. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or of being in or about a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance with the intent of driving such vehicle, within the five (5) years immediately preceding application for a permit; • 8 6. Any person who has been convicted of three (3) or more felonies: • 7. Any person who does not comply with the requirements of Section 5.64.600 of this Article, or its successor. B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A3 or A6 of this Section. if the hearing examiner receives letters or testimony at a hearing, as provided in Chapter 5.02 of this Title, which proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant has reformed his/her moral character so as to pose no threat to members of the public, the license shall be issued. Part of the letters or testimony used to establish the preponderance shall come from the applicant's parole officer, if the applicant is still on parole. Failure to provide a recommendation from the applicant's parole officer, if the a plicant is on parole, shall be grounds to deny the request. • Section 5.64.650 Hearing Upon Rejection: If the application either for a business license or for an ice cream truck operator license is rejected, the applicant shall be entitled,upon request, to a hearing before a hearing examiner as provided in Chapter 5.02 of this Title. or its successor. Section 5.64.660 Issuance of License. (1) The Business License Administrator shall notify the applicant in writing of the City's decision to issue or deny either the business license or an ice cream truck operator's license,not later than thirty(30) days after the applicant has filed a completed application as provided herein. In the event the city's review of the business license application or the operator application has not been completed within thirty (30) days of the filinu of a completed application,the Business • 9 License Administrator shall send written notification to the applicant that the review period has • been extended to a date no later than forty-five (45) days from the filing of the completed application. If the license has not been denied within forty-five (45) days of the filing of the completed application. the license for which the application was filed shall be deemed to be issued. (2) All licenses,,permits, and identification cards issued pursuant to this Article are valid for one year, unless suspended or revoked, and shall be both non-assignable and non-transferable. Section 5.64.670 Business License Fees. Any vendor granted a vending license under this Chapter shall pay the annual business license fee established in Section 5.04.070 or its successor. • Section 5.64.680 Display of Identification cards and Other Permits. (1) Any license or permit issued by the Business License Office shall be carried with the licensee whenever he/she is engaged in vending. Identification cards and health permits shall also be properly and conspicuously displayed at all times during the operation of the vending business. (2) An identification card shall be deemed to be properly displayed when it is attached to the outer garment of the vendor and clearly visible to the public and law enforcement officials. A health permit shall be deemed to be properly displayed when attached to the ice cream truck and clearly visible to the public and law enforcement officials. • to ( ) In addition to the foregoing. there shall be printed on both sides of the exterior of the • vehicle being used for vending, in letters or numbers at least 3 inches high and 3 inches wide the name and current business telephone number of the mobile ice cream vending business for which said vehicle is operating and the Salt Lake City business license identification number of the business. Section 5.64.690 Notification of Name, Address or Telephone Change. All vendors shall assure that a current and correct name, residence address, mailing address. and business telephone number are on file with the Business License Division. Whenever the name or address provided by a licensed vendor on his/her application for a vending license changes, the licensee shall notify the Business License Administrator in writing within 14 days of such change and provide the same with the name, address. or telephone number • change. Section 5.64.700 Exemptions. The provisions of this Article do not apply to: (1) Goods, wares, or merchandise temporarily deposited on the sidewalk in the ordinary course of delivery, shipment, or transfer; (2) The placing and maintenance of unattended stands or sales devices for the sale, display. or offering for sale of newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and paperbound books; or • 11 • (3) The distribution of free samples of goods. wares, and merchandise by any individual from his/her person. Section 5.64.710 Claims of Exemption. Any person claiming to be legally exempt from the regulations set forth in this Article or from the payment of a license fee shall cite to the Business License Administrator the statute or other legal authority under which exemption is claimed and shall present to the Business License Administrator proof of qualification for such exemption. In the event such claim is asserted.the Business License Administrator shall review the claim with the city attorney's office. Section 5.64.720 Noise restrictions. No person shall use, play or employ any sound, outcry, amplifier, loudspeaker or . any other instrument or device for the production of sound from an ice cream truck: A.. When the ice cream truck is stationary; B. Earlier than ten a.m., nor later than seven p.m. or one-half hour after sunset, whichever occurs first. Sunset shall be determined on any particular day by the times listed that day in any newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake County; C. In such a manner that such sound is plainly audible at more than 330 feet from such vehicle; or D. Along the same block face traveling in either direction on the street more than once every two consecutive hours. Section 5.64.730 Use of Public Streets. • 12 A. Each person or business selling, offering to sell. or displaying for sale ice cream or similar frozen desserts from or on motorized vehicles on public streets shall abide by the following conditions and requirements. Failure to comply may result in the suspension or revocation of a business license or police identification card. and is a Class B misdemeanor: (1) The motorized vehicle shall have a clearly audible backup warning device that activates whenever the vehicle is shifted into reverse gear. (2) The motorized vehicle shall have a convex mirror mounted on the front of the vehicle so that the driver, in a normal driving position, can see the area in front of the vehicle that is obscured by the hood. (3) The motorized vehicle shall have at least two flashing yellow beacons on the • roof of the vehicle, one at the front and one at the rear. at least one of which is visible from all sides of the vehicle. These beacons shall be activated whenever merchandise is being sold, offered for sale, or displayed for sale. (4) The motorized vehicle shall have an operable swing-arm attached to its left side. This swing-arm shall be of a type, size, and description approved by the City, and shall be activated whenever the vehicle stops to sell. offer to sell, or display merchandise on a public street. (5) The motorized vehicle shall be prohibited from pulling any type of trailer. • .13 • (6) Retail merchandise may not be sold, offered for sale. or displayed for sale from or on motorized vehicles on public streets where the speed limit exceeds 25 miles per hour. (7) The operator of the motorized vehicle shall not sell to any person standing,- in the roadway. (8) The operator of the motorized vehicle shall sell, offer to sell, or display for sale retail merchandise only when the vehicle is completely stopped and lawfully parked, and shall sell only from the rear or side of the vehicle nearest to the curb or edge of the roadway. (9) The motorized vehicle shall not be moved backwards in order to sell, offer to sell, or display for sale retail merchandise. (10) Each applicant for a license or renewal under this section shall submit, with its application. a certificate of insurance executed by an insurance company or association authorized to transact business in this State, approved as to form by the City Attorney, that there is in full force and effect general liability insurance in an amount not less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) for one person in any one occurrence, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) for two (2) or more persons in any one occurrence and one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for property damage, or such greater amounts as set forth in section 63-30-34, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. or its successor. Such policy or policies shall include coverage of all motor vehicles used in connection with applicant's business. A current certificate of insurance • 14 shall be kept on file with the City Recorder at all times that applicant is licensed by the • City verifying such continuing coverage and naming the City as an additional insured. The certificate shall contain a statement that the City will be given written notification at least thirty(30) days prior to cancellation or material change in the coverage without reservation of nonliability for failure to so notify the City. Cancellation shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued hereunder unless another insurance policy complying herewith is provided and is in effect at the time of cancellation/termination. (11) All motorized vehicles of the applicant and operators shall comply with all other requirements of this Article and any other requirements of ordinance or statute that may be applicable. B. The prohibitions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit vehicles from carrying business markings or advertising not otherwise prohibited by law. Section 5.64.740 Vehicle Inspection Prior To Licensing- Fee Required: Prior to the use and operation of any vehicle under the provisions of this Chapter, and every six months thereafter while being operated by the business licensee hereunder, the vehicle shall be thoroughly examined and inspected by an authorized representative of the City, and found to comply with the requirements of this chapter. In addition, the vehicle shall at all times in which it is in operation as an ice cream truck within the City be maintained in conformity with the safety inspection requirements of Utah and Federal law. The licensee shall pay to the City an inspection fee of$25.00 per truck for each such inspection. • 15 • Section 5.64.750 Suspension and Revocation of License. (1) In addition to any penalties that may be imposed. any license issued under this Chapter may be suspended or revoked for any of the following reasons: (a) Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement contained in the application for the license: (b) Fraud, misrepresentation. or knowingly false statement in the course of carrying on the business of vending; (c) Conducting the business of vending in any manner contrary to the conditions of the license; • (d) Conducting the business of vending in such a manner as to create a public nuisance: cause a breach of the peace; constitute a danger to the public health. safety, welfare, or morals; or interfere with the rights of property owners: or (e) Cancellation of Utah Department of Agriculture authorization. or of the required authorization of any successor agency, for a food or beverage vending unit due to uncorrected health or sanitation violations. (2) The Business License Administrator shall provide written notice of the suspension or revocation in a brief statement setting forth the complaint, the grounds for suspension or revocation, and notifying the licensee or permittee of the appeal procedure. Such notice shall be • 16 mailed to the address shown on the license holder's application by certified mail. return receipt requested. (3) If the City revokes a vending license or permit. the fee already paid for the license or permit shall be forfeited. A person whose license or permit has been revoked under this section may not apply for a new license for a period of one year from the date that the revocation took effect. Section 5.64.760 Appeals. If the Business License Administrator denies the issuance of a license or permit, suspends or revokes a license or permit, or orders the cessation of any part of the business operation conducted under the license or permit. the aggrieved party may appeal the Administrator's • decision in accordance with Sections 5.02.260, 5.02.280, and 5.02.290 of the City Code. Section 5.64.770 Renewals. A mobile ice cream vending license may be renewed, provided an application for renewal and license fees are received by the City no later than the expiration date of the current license. Any application received after that date shall be processed as a new application. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2002. • 17 • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHTFF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G.\ordina02\Mobile Ice Cream Vendors—6-14-02 draft doe • 18 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 3,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No. 400-01-66—Larry H.Miller Management Company request to amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Temporary Uses and the maximum time limit for tents associated with outdoor sales(Sec. 21A.42.070.F) STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Land Use and Public 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 regulation or policy. proposal. KEY ELEMENTS: A. The proposed text change would extend the current maximum 10-day time limit for tents associated with outdoor sales as temporary uses to remain in place: • 45 days per calendar year through an over-the-counter permit,and • • allow an extension of time(over the proposed 45 day limit)up to a maximum 180 days through the Planning Commission conditional use process. B. The Administration notes that the proposed change was initiated due to the Delta Center operating an outdoor food concession throughout the summer to provide restaurant services primarily for construction workers working on the Gateway shopping center. The management company wished to have the tent in place for the duration of the summer but the ordinance currently only allows a maximum of 10 days. The petitioner notes that it is expensive to put up and take down temporary tents and that the proposed change would: • Eliminate the need for tents to be taken down and put up several times. • Allow an opportunity to recover some of the costs for setting up and dismantling tents,and • Allow a more equitable treatment for businesses that wish to use temporary tents. (The petitioner notes that the tent erected behind the centerfield wall at Franklin Covey Field appears to operate under a different set of rules.) C. Other examples of businesses that would benefit from the proposed text change identified by Planning staff include the Outdoor Retailer's Convention that uses temporary tents for 19 days during the convention and Bricks Club(private club)intent to enclose a patio area during the winter months. D. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance Temporary Use section is to provide general regulations,applicable in all non-residential zoning districts,for uses and structures that have only a seasonal or temporary duration, such as uses and structures associated with carnivals and fairs,the Christmas season,or construction projects. The intent is to regulate all temporary uses conducted on private property. (Sec..21A.42) • Page 1 E. Art festivals,neighborhood fairs,vending carts and other similar activities, authorized by other City regulations to operate on public or private property or within the public way,are not subject to the temporary use zoning regulations. • F. Other uses permitted separately in the Temporary Use section of the Zoning Ordinance(Sec. 21A.42.070) include: • Outdoor sales of plant products during spring and summer—permitted April through October • Christmas tree and other seasonal item sales-permitted a maximum of 45 days • Festivals,bazaars,outdoor sale events,carnivals,circuses and other special events—permitted a maximum of 14 days • Farmers'markets—permitted June through October • Movie or film locations—no maximum time limit • Construction trailers and temporary contractor's storage yards—no maximum time limit • Outdoor sales of fireworks—no maximum time limit • Relocatable offices—no maximum time limit • Bus shelters,kiosks and other temporary buildings—permitted a maximum of 6-months G. Temporary uses may be approved by the Zoning Administrator subject to the applicable requirements and conditions identified in the Zoning Ordinance or identified by the Zoning Administrator including: • Use limitations applicable in the district in which the temporary use is located • Hours and days of operation • Mitigation of traffic and parking impacts • Limitations on temporary signage H. In addition,temporary tents are regulated through the Fire Department and must comply with specific Fire Code requirements. I. The Administration notes major issues raised during the review process and the Planning Commission • hearing included: • Fire Code compliance,tent size,height and visual compatibility,traffic and parking impacts, compliance with Health Department regulations,and potential impacts on surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. • Modification of the Planning staff recommended time frame. Staff recommended 21 to 180 days approved by the Zoning Administrator with input from affected City departments/divisions. (the Planning Commission is recommending 45 days with an over-the-counter permit and up to 180 days through the conditional use process.) • The potential for temporary uses and tents to by-pass the normal review and code compliance processes and create an unfair competition advantage impacting surrounding businesses. • The potential for tents to be used as permanent structures. • Restricting the types of uses that would be permitted in temporary tents to uses that would not be in direct competition with surrounding businesses. MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: Council Members may wish to consider or discuss with the Administration steps taken or options to address the following issues and concerns. A. Has the Administration and the Planning Commission considered using an overlay zone in very specific areas rather than applying the proposed changes on a citywide basis? This could limit the use of temporary tents to commercial areas within a specific geographic boundary or to commercial areas that do not abut residential neighborhoods similar to the regulations for sidewalk vending carts. What are the pros and cons? Page 2 B. The Administration's transmittal notes that comments relating to the proposed text changes were requested from Community Council Chairs by letter. Were the City Boards or Commissions and various business 411 organizations such as the Business Advisory Board,Transportation Advisory Board, Downtown Alliance, Chamber of Commerce and the Vest Pocket Business organization involved in the review process? If so, what type of comments or input were received? C. The Planning Commission's minutes reflect a major focus on issues relating to the Delta Center and the surrounding area. Because the proposed change would be applied on a citywide basis,what steps have been taken to address potential unintended impacts on other areas and neighborhoods of the City? D. One Planning Commissioner inquired as to best practices,standards or ordinances from other cities. Planning staff indicated that other cities had not been contacted. Would Council Members like Council staff to contact other cities and provide additional information? E. The two examples used relating to the potential for the 180-day conditional use appears to be commercial expansion opportunities(such as the Delta Center food service and the private club patio enclosure). 1. The Council may wish to discuss the policy implications and equity issues that might be associated with allowing businesses and organizations to expand their activities for six months of the year using temporary structures. 2. The Council may wish to evaluate whether the use of temporary tents for 6 months per year is the best approach for business expansion opportunities,or whether these opportunities should be considered using the City's existing ordinances. (i.e. should a private club patio be enclosed for use in winter months using this ordinance or the existing ordinances,building and fire codes.) 3. It should be noted that the 180-day conditional use would not be limited to business expansion opportunities. Automobile tent sales,parking lot retail sales and other activities are also potential uses. 4. While parking and transportation issues are to be considered as part of the approval process,there is no requirement specified that the City's parking requirements be followed for the special 180- day conditional use. As such,there could be an impact on abutting businesses and/or neighborhoods. 5. Beyond parking impacts due to more customers or visitors, it would be possible to use a portion of the parking lot for a temporary tent thus further reducing the available parking. 6. The use of temporary tents may increase the walkable nature of communities and bring additional activity and a festive atmosphere to surrounding areas. 7. While conditional uses are issued at the discretion of the Planning Commission,the Council has previously noted that nearly all conditional use requests are approved,either as submitted or with modifications. F. In a related matter,the Temporary Use Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance provides separate regulations and maximum time limits for a variety of uses. (Please refer to the Key Elements section, Item F.of this staff report.) The ordinance states"Bus shelters, kiosks and other temporary buildings are permitted in all commercial, manufacturing and downtown districts. Such uses shall be limited to a period not to exceed six(6)months. Such facilities shall not be located in any required yard or any required parking area and sales from these facilities shall be prohibited. (Sec. 21A.42.070.J) Council Members may wish to clarify with the Administration what types of bus shelters are governed by these regulations. Council Members may wish to request that the City Attorney prepare a new ordinance that would clarify this issue. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report contain statements that support creating • attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses, but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality.The documents Page 3 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. B. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, 411 neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Applicable policy concepts include: • Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. • Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability and building restoration and new construction enhance district character. • Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. • Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. • Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. C. 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: • pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments • compact,transit and pedestrian oriented developments • neighborhood anchor areas or commercial and/or business uses that are necessary to the function of residential neighborhoods or are compatible with residential activity • local services that are conveniently available or can be provided and are accessible on foot CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • January 17,2002 Letter and draft ordinance sent to all Community Council Chairs requesting input and comments. • March 21,2002 Planning Commission Hearing cc: Dave Nimkin,Rocky Fluhart,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Roger Evans,Brent Wilde, Harvey Boyd,Craig Spangenberg,Enzo Calfa,Cheri Coffey,Doug Dansie,Council Constituent Liaisons File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Text Amendment, Temporary Uses—tents associated with outdoor sales • Page 4 NOV 1 3 2002 SALT =e\ _ GITYI CORPORATIONI ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR . COUNCIL TRANSMy. --) II,, TO: Rocky Fluhart, hief Administrative Officer'k ATE: October 28, 2002 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition 400-01-66: A request by Larry H. Miller Management Company for an amendment to the zoning ordinance text to extend the ten-day maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected to a period of 180 days. STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner 535-6182 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None • DISCUSSION: Larry H. Miller Management Company initiated this petition for an amendment to the zoning ordinance text to extend the ten-day maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected to a period of 180 days. The company had been operating an outdoor tent concessionaire on the plaza of the Delta Center during the construction of the Gateway shopping center and wished to have the tent erected the duration of the summer, but the current ordinance did not allow this. Analysis: The proposed text changes would alter the existing ordinance, which presently limits temporary tents to a limit of ten-days, to allow temporary tents to be erected up to 45 days with an "over-the-counter"permit. The Planning Commission could extend the 45-day period as a conditional use to180 days. The ordinance only allows the tents in non-residential zoning districts. Major issues raised during the review of this petition included compliance with fire codes if the tent were to remain for an extended period of time, the permanence of structures, visual compatibility and parking demand created by the temporary use. On March 21, 2002, the Planning Commission deemed that tents erected for 45 days during a calendar year, either consecutively or sporadically, were not a problem,but tents erected up to 180 days could become an urban design feature and tents erected over 180 days conflicted with fire and building codes. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ��i REo,aEo P.PEa The Planning Commission recommended changing the existing 10-day period that tents are allowed to 45 days. They also recommended that any extension beyond the 45-day period,but less than 180 days, should come before the Planning Commission for a • conditional use permit. Master Plan: Various master plan policies support the hosting of events and festivals, which employ the use of tent structures (please refer to the Planning Commission staff report). Public Process: January 17, 2002 The Community Council Chairs were notified of this issue by mail. No responses or concerns were expressed. March 21, 2002 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-01-66. Relevant Ordinances: Title 21A.50 of Salt Lake City Code: Amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning map. • • • CONTENTS Chronology Proposed Ordinance City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark Staff report Agenda Minutes Original Petition • Chronology Chronology 0 December 5, 2001 Formal petition initiated by Larry H Miller Management Company. January 17, 2002 The issue was presented to the Community Council Chairs by mail. No responses or concerns were expressed. March 21, 2002 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the issue. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition No. 400-01-66. March 22, 2002 The staff delivered the proposed changes to the Attorney's office. June 28, 2002 Staff received final ordinance. July 2002 Staff requested a clarification of the ordinance. August 9, 2002 A new ordinance was delivered to Planning Staff. • III 0 Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2002 (Amending Chapter 21A.42 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code regarding Temporary Tents,pursuant to Petition No. 400-01-66) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21A.42 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY TENTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-66. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code currently contains provisions regarding various temporary uses; and WHEREAS, the City Code currently ostensibly limits the use of temporary tents associated with outdoor sales to a maximum time period of ten days; and WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City has determined that the maximum time period for temporary tents should be • clarified and modified as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Chapter 21A.42.070.F of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Tents: Tents associated with outdoor sales are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain or, a maximum of 45 days,per calendar year. Any extensions beyond this 45 day period may only be approved by the Planning Commission, for up to a maximum of 180 days, as a conditional use,pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.54. Unless waived in writing by the Zoning Administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. III SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHTFF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re Temporary Tents-Clean-June 25,2002.doc • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE . No. of 2002 (Amending Chapter 21A.42 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Code regarding Temporary Tents, pursuant to Petition No. 400-01-66) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21A.42 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY TENTS, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-66. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code currently contains provisions regarding various temporary uses; and WHEREAS, the City Code currently ostensibly limits the use of temporary tents associated with outdoor sales to a maximum time period of ten days; and WHEREAS, after hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City has determined that the maximum time period for temporary tents should be • clarified and modified as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is in the best interest of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Chapter 21A.42.070.F of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F. Tents: Tents associated with outdoor sales are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain or, a maximum of ten (10)45 days..-,per calendar year. Any extensions beyond this 45 day period may only be approved by the Planning Commission, for up to a maximum of 180 days, as a conditional use,pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.54. Unless waived in writing by the Zoning Administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district • in which it is located. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on • the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. • ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: . G:\Ordinance 02\Amending Code re Temporary Tents-June 25,2002.doc III Staff report SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • By Larry H Miller Management Company requesting a text amendment to extend the length of time a temporary tent may remain erected, from 10 days, to a period of 180 days. 400-01-66 March 21, 2002 REQUEST 400-01-66, a request by Larry H Miller Management Company for an amendment to the zoning ordinance text to extend the ten-day maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected to a period of 180 days. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL(S) REVIEW: On January 17, 2002, Community Council Chairs were notified of the proposed changes by mail. No responses/concerns were expressed. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW • Applicant: Larry H Miller Management Company Purpose of proposal and proposed amendment: To allow temporary tents to remain a maximum of 180 days,rather than 10 days. Previous Case Files: Not Applicable Existing Zoning and Applies to all areas where temporary tents are allowed Overlay Districts: Existing Master Plan Policies: Various master plan policies support the hosting of events and festivals,which employ the use of tent structures, as outlined in the following staff report. 'Affected areas and parcel numbers: The amendment would apply to non residential zoning districts throughout the City IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Issues that are being generated by this proposal. Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-66 1 March 21,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division The petition was routed to the appropriate City departments for their input. While there was no general opposition to 180 days, issues that arose include the need to meet parking requirements, adequate public utilities and consistency with other ordinances. The following departments or divisions were contacted: Transportation, Engineering, Public Utilities,Fire, Police, Business Licensing, Building Services, Housing, and Inspection. Responses were received from Public Utilities, Transportation, and Building Services CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT Current city code generally restricts temporary uses to 14 days and tents to 10 days. The following paragraphs represent the exact verbiage of the ordinance: 21A.42.070.C: Festivals,Bazaars, Outdoor Sale Events, Carnivals, Circuses and Other Special Events: Festivals, Bazaars, Outdoor Sale Events, Carnivals, Circuses and Other Special Events are permitted in any commercial, manufacturing, institutional and downtown districts. Such use shall be limited to a period not to exceed fourteen (14) days. Such use need not comply with the yard requirements of this title except that structures or equipment that might block the view of operators of motor vehicles on any public or private street shall not be located within the "sight distance triangle"defined in Part VI, Chapter 21A.62 of this Title. Such use need not comply with the maximum height requirements of this title. The concessionaire responsible for the event, carnival or circus shall submit at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the event date a site layout displaying adequate ingress and egress plan for emergency vehicles with no dead- end aisles. • F. Tents: Tents associated with outdoor sales are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain or, a maximum of ten (10) days. Unless waived in writing by the Zoning Administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The Downtown Master plan encourages festivals and bazaars,which enliven the area. Traditionally tents have played an important part of such festivals(Utah Arts Festival, Living traditions festival). Tents are also used at the farmers market in Pioneer Park. In most cases, the current ordinance accommodates the need of these festivals supported by these plans. The Downtown Master plan encourages festivals and events as part of a stated goal of enlivening downtown. The Sugar House Business Master Plan District Goals and Objectives state: Promote public art in the area with sculpture, infrastructure design and murals on existing blank walls, as well as cultural activities, such as art fairs, festivals, concert series and open-air markets. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-66 2 March 21,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division S Findings: The City's applicable master plans are generally supportive of festivals and events, many of which use temporary tents to accommodate their needs. In some instances allowing temporary tents to remain erected for more than 10 days is desirable, although the existing 10-day limitation accommodates most existing festival type events in Salt lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: While there are occasions where using a tent for a longer period of time would be desirable, there are also instances where long-term tents could become a distraction. There are areas within the City where more permanent tents may be compatible with adjacent land uses, such as near the Delta Center, however such tent structures in a more neighborhood oriented commercial districts may not be as compatible because of traffic,noise, services, etc. A general increase in limitations to accommodate all tents will have differing impacts on differing areas. The City may wish to instigate a gradient or discretionary decision making process based upon impacts. Traditionally this has included the conditional use process, however, such a process is time burdensome and may not be responsive to the needs of festival or entertainment sponsors. Another alternative is to authorize increases in time as an administrative function. This may be accomplished by making time extensions a prerogative of the zoning administrator with prescribed conditions of approval. These conditions may include providing adequate parking,utilities, fire protection, and landmark review . (where appropriate). The staff has suggested 21 days as the"break"between short-term and long-term. This is in response to the needs of the Outdoor Retailers and other large conventions. Findings: A straight forward extension of time for tents will create as many problems as it solves, however a gradient approval process to accommodate truly temporary tents while providing more thorough review process for long term tents may be used to eliminate most conflicts. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: Temporary tents were originally envisioned to be used for brief festival periods. The portion of the zoning ordinance, which allows tents, is within the same section that defines temporary uses (bazaars, festivals etc). These periods often have intense activity,but do not become a permanent part of the landscape. In practice, not all tents have been associated with festivals. The current petition was the result of the Delta Center providing a tent restaurant throughout the summer for(primarily geared towards gateway construction workers). The Outdoor Retailers convention also used tents for 19 days. Bricks, a private club, has built a custom tent to enclose a patio section of the businesses. The current regulations do not address these desires. Increasing the time limit to 180 days will accommodate the Bricks proposal. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-66 3 March 21,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division The staff asked the petitioner if they intended to use a tent to extend the Delta Center 500 auto sale. They stated that they did not. A simple increase from 10 days to 180 days would allow for an extension of the car sale,however,because it • impacts Delta Center parking, a more intensive review process may be used prohibit a long term sale, even if a time extension were adopted. Findings: The staff finds that there are legitimate situations where tents may be appropriate for longer periods than 10 days. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: Some of the zoning districts where temporary tents are presently allowed are also located within historic districts. Traditionally,the Historic Landmark Commission has not reviewed temporary tents because of their transitory nature. Allowing temporary tents to remain for 180 days would make them more permanent; therefore they may need to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission (or minimally approval of Landmark staffO. Findings: Tents within historic districts are generally not an issue on a short- term basis but should be reviewed for longer-term installations. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Fire code regulates temporary tents, over 200 square feet in size,to • insure fire safety. It also defines temporary as being less than 180 days. The proposed change would be consistent with fire code. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has expressed concern that temporary tents,which are erected for one half of the year, are merely extensions of the adjacent business. Outdoor seating/patio is available the other half of the year. Transportation has expressed concern that large tents could result in permanent parking issues. For example: Bricks, a private club,has an outdoor patio in the summer,but a custom tent enclosure during the winter. In effect it is expanding without required off-street parking. The business presently has significant parking issues at certain hours of the day. Public Utilities expressed concerns that they do not differentiate between short or long-term tents and that all utility connection must be accomplished according to code regardless of temporary or permanent status. Business licenses for most tents are an expansion of the existing business, however, some independent licensing occurs for festivals and other independent events. Findings: There is a need to differentiate short-term small tents from long-term large tents because they usually have differing needs and requirements. The proposed change is consistent with fire code. • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-66 4 March 21,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division RECOMMENDATION: 411/ Based upon the findings of fact, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council supporting ordinance changes, which would accomplish the following: • Change the 10-day period that tents are allowed to 21 days, • Allow the Zoning Administrator to allow tents for periods longer then 21 days, but no more than 180 days,per calendar year, upon receiving positive input from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing, Fire Department, Police Department and Historic Landmark Commission (when located within an historic district or on a landmark site). Doug Dansie Community Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1— Draft Ordinance. Exhibit 2— Other Division Recommendations. Exhibit 3—Other Correspondence. • • Staff Report, Petition Number 400-01-66 5 March 21,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division • • Exhibit 1 Draft Ordinance. Tents: Tents associated with outdoor sales and/or displays are permitted in all nonresidential districts. No tent shall be allowed to remain for a period of more than two • (2) days longer than the period during which the use with which it is associated is allowed to remain or, a maximum of ten (10)twenty-one(21) days. Unless waived in writing by the Zoning Administrator, every tent shall comply with the bulk and yard requirements of the district in which it is located. The Zoning Administrator may approve tents for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, per calendar year, upon receiving a positive recommendation from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department,Business Licensing, Fire Department, Police Department and Historic Landmark Commission (when located within an historic district or on a landmark site). • • • • Exhibit 2 Other Division Recommendations. • Dansie, Doug _ From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Tuesday,January 22, 2002 12:28 PM To: Dansie, Doug 0 Subject: Pet 400-01-66 January 22, 2002 Doug Dansie Planning Division 451 South State St, Rm. 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition No. 400-01-66 to amend zoning text -Lb extend the ten day maximum time for a temporary tent to 180 days. Dear Doug: The city Transportation Division has completed its review of the Proposal from Larry Miller to extend temporary tents from 10 days to 180 days. Review comments are as follows: Our concern are basically for impacts with in the public way and pedestrian & vehicular circulation on site and parking requirements. Usually these tents are located in existing parking lots. With out further information as to the specific premise for the Larry Miller petition, we recommend denial of a blanket change in the zoning text to extend the time from 10 days to 180 days. We would be concerned about the specific location of a temporary tent and its effect on existing parking lots. Does the proposal impact existing required parking and circulation needs, and is there an added traffic generation subject to the proposed tent . Where the 41111 tent is proposed, and what size and what use, would make a difference to the transportation system. Please feel free to call me at 535-6630, if you have any questions or concerns about these comments. Sincerely, Barry D. Walsh Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J. Young, P.E. Scott Vaterlaus, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Lt . Sam Hemingway, Police File • 1 SALT r t. _ GIB 1° fti r4F II,OI TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. �-_ RDSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION ^. ::::002 ; n (1M1 "( Planning Division _ 451 South State St,Rm.406 ' + `` "' >z?` Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 - - Re:Petition No.400-01-66 to amend zoning text to extend the ten day maximum time for a temporary tent to 180 days. Dear Doug: The city Transportation Division has completed its review of the Proposal from Larry Miller to extend temporary tents from 10 days to 180 days. Review comments are as follows: Our concern are basically for impacts with in the public way and pedestrian&vehicular circulation on site and parking requirements.Usually these tents are located in existing parking lots.With out further information as to the specific premise for the Larry Miller petition,we recommend denial of a blanket change in the zoning text to extend the time from 10 days to 180 days. We would be concerned about the specific location of a temporary tent and its effect on existing parking lots.Does the proposal impact existing required parking and circulation needs,and is there an added traffic generation subject to the proposed tent. Where the tent is proposed,and what size and what use,would make a difference to the transportation system. • Please feel free to call me at 535-6630,if you have any questions or concerns about these comments. Sincerely, - ,emu Barry D.Walsh'J Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J.Young,P.E. Scott Vaterlaus,P.E. Craig Smith,Engineering Lt.Sam Hemingway,Police File • 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6630 FAX: B01-535-6019 elRECYCLED PAPER LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. SALT' { A. a l GICI CORM °tA' 1I0N1 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER `,.., V L7 4 January 22, 2001 Doug Dansie ' � G '; Community and Economic Development,Planning Division ELF . ` t 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Re: Petition for temporary tent time extension to 180 days, Petition No. 400-01-66 Dear Mr. Dansie: Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments for the above-mentioned petition. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department is not opposed to the requested time extension from 10 days to 180 days, for temporary structures, if Public Utilities has the opportunity to review all requests for temporary structures. Health issues dictate that all water and sewer connections be made in a permanent way. There is no "temporary"standard for water and sewer connections. Public Utilities will review for: • u Appropriate water and sewer connections, if needed. Connection and impact fees will be assessed. u Grease traps(in the case of food service)or other special sewer connection requirements. u Storm drainage. u Tent location so as not to block access to water,sewer,or storm drainage appurtenances. Please have all requests for temporary structures be sent to Brad Stewart for Public Utilities review. Sincerely, -14 LeRoy . Hooton, Jr. Director VI/ BDS w 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: B01.4E13-6900 FAX: BO1-4B3-6B1B �� nccvcco o.ocn S`_` .Th Ie` �'(flWYrGI3RjPr0 '{: EION STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH .�a�ta -�: �. --� -. tiF�s�.���#�-1 ROSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION 1111 DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR R ig N 0 W i4 1L7r L,Jr U 'L7` I �F MEMORANDUM tAN 9 2002 TO: Barry Walsh, Transportation ANNING Craig Smith, Engineering Brad Stewart, Public Utilities Brad Larsen, Fire Sergeant Larry Thorum, Police Edna Drake, Business Licensing Harvey Boyd, Building Services LuAnn Clark, Housing Craig Spangenberg, Inspection FROM: Doug Dansie, Planning Division DATE: January 10, 2002 RE: Petition No. 400-01-66: The amendment of zoning text to extend the ten day maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected to 180 days. • Larry Miller has petitioned the City to extend the time frame where temporary tents may be allowed from 10 days to 180 Days. Temporary tents are normally associated with special event such as the Utah Arts Festival or Living Traditions, but are also used for temporary sales (Delta 500) or other private activities. Do you have any recommendations or concerns regarding such a proposal? If you have any question please call me at 535-6182. -/e/Lc_k__ 1/4,19 -- 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:B01-535-7757 FAX:801-535-6174 ��� wec.cco r.rc„ • • Exhibit 3 Other Correspondence. • Dansie, Doug From: Cindy Cromer [CindyC@vmh.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:06 AM To: 'Dansie, Doug' Cc: 'dadufo@aol.com' Subject: RE: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 2 1st Doug-Thanks for the info which I am forwarding to Dennis Guy-Sell. I think that he will be attending the meeting. What you are recommending sounds reasonable. I think that the outdoor retailers' needs serve as a good yardstick. All I have to do is think about the appearance of Washington Square during the event of to be concerned. c ----Original Message From: Dansie, Doug [mailto:Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us] Sent: Wednesday March 13, 2002 8:58 AM To: 'CindyC@vmh.com' Subject: FW: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 2 1st fyi Original Message From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:38 AM To: 'h-and-p-forever@juno.com' Subject: RE: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 21st The request was motivated by the outdoor kitchen at the Delta Center (it was up most of the summer) Also, the outdoor retailers convention has tents for 19 days and Bricks has a tent they want to use in the winter. The draft staff report(which will be finalized this week)suggests increasing only from 10 to 21 days, and • only longer upon review of parking, utilities, etc. Your concerns are this types of items we wrestled with. I will pass your comments on to the Planning Commission Thank You Doug Original Message From: h-and-p-forever@juno.com [mailto:h-and-p-forever@juno.comj Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:03 PM To: doug.dansie@ci.slc.ut.us; douglas.dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Cc: zapatama@aol.com Subject: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 21st Mr. Dansie, Reference: 6:15 PM public hearing for Petition No. 400-01-66 by Larry H. Miller Mgt Company requesting a zoning ordinance text amendment to extend the maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected for outdoor sales in ALL nonresidential districts from 10 days to 180 days. Comments: 1. I am opposed to such outdoor tents erected on parking lots for extended stays. I could see 30 to 45 days perhaps and grudgingly go 60 days. As a former car salesman(less than successful though I was), tents put a lot of stress on sales people for either a warm or cool working environment depending on the season,bathroom facilities for customers and sales personnel,possibly unsightly and smelly portable johns, unusual vehicle and foot 11110 traffic congestion and so forth. 2. Selling cars ought to be a business rather than a prolonged circus. Are there any 3/14/02 r 0.b'G L. vl statistics or past experience with other businesses as to the impact of tent sales lots enhancing or degrading surrounding businesses? Request for feedback: I would appreciate any information or insight you might have on such sales. Businesses need to have visibility and location and I'm all for businesses • making a buck but only if it doesn't create a problem. Regards, Howard McCosh Vice Chair Jordan Meadows Community Council • • 3/14/02 Dansie, Doug From: Dadufo@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:06 PM To: CindyC@vmh.com; Doug.Dansie@ci.slc.ut.us Subject: Re: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 2 1st Cindy and Doug, Thanks for the inclusion on the tent issue. My thought on the subject? 1) What Larry Miller gets will apply to all other dea,l"erships. 2) I can't think of any dealership that has sales for 180 days. I think the 180 day limit was chosen so that they could leave the tents up all year and argue that the 5 days remaining will be used to move vehicles off the lot then back on. 3) Are you able to share their rationale for 180 days? Are there similar ordinances in other cities and what have been the experiences in those cities? 4) I think the 21 day limit would be tolerable, but tents set up for long periods of time would not be compatible with existing architecture or appearance of the city. Thanks, Dennis Guy-Sell s • 1 STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH ` 4 N A v.,a�[j r c. LA. to BOSS C.ANDERSON • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Community Council Chairs FROM: Doug Dansie, Planning Division • DATE: January 17, 2002 RE: Petition No. 400-01-66. By Larry Miller requesting a text amendment to extend the ten-day maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected, to a period of 180 days. • Salt Lake City has received a petition to extend the time limit that temporary tents may be erected in the City. Presently there is a ten-day limit. The petition asks that the limit be extended to 180 days. The Planning Staff is presently reviewing the proposal and has not yet made a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The staff is seeking input from City departments and other interested parties. The Planning Commission has tentatively scheduled the issue for March 2002 (subject to change). If you have any concerns, comments or questions you may call me at 535- 6182. Thank You. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX: 8O1-535-61 74 ..Ec.cEo P.Pc.. b•-v -- �� VC► no .. • • [}i (}(3fi j4j4fltiffs!i�[Essl`�jtfFS�{llikt{�}EiEStS3[Ffyt �{ L` L b L i 4=O t b a • Agenda and Minutes AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, March 21, 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 - January 31, February 28, and March 7 of 2002. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m. - Petition No. 410-563, by Rock Schutjer representing Western Telcom, Inc., requesting Conditional Use approval to replace the existing 60 foot high wireless telecommunications monopole with an 80 foot high monopole and install associated electrical equipment at approximately 1085 West North Temple Street, in an Industrial "Ml" Zoning District. (Staff- Janice Lew at 535-7625) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:00 p.m. - Petition No. 410-578, by Mike Miller for The Brooklyn Condominiums, requesting a Conditional Use for a 32-unit Multi-family • Residential Planned Development and Condominium approval in an "MU" Mixed Use Zone, located at the South West corner of 700 North and 300 West Streets, on 1.36 acres of property. (Staff- Greg Mikolash at 535-7932) c. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:15 p.m. - Petition No. 400-01-66, by Larry H. Miller Management Company, requesting a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to extend the maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected, when associated with outdoor sales in all nonresidential districts, from a period of ten (10) days to one hundred eighty days (180)days. (Staff- Doug Dansie at 535- 6182) d. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:30 p.m. - Petition No. 400-99-61, by Salt Lake City Transportation Division, requesting that 500 North Street be closed to vehicular traffic at the 500 West railroad crossing. (Staff- Doug Dansie at 535-6182) 3. OTHER BUSINESS • SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Thursday, March 21, 2002, 5:45p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Robert "Bip" Daniels, Kay (berger) Arnold, Andrea Barrows, Aria Funk, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kent Nelson, and Laurie Noda. Tim Chambless and Jeff Jonas were excused. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Stephen Goldsmith, Deputy Planning Directors Brent Wilde and Doug Wheelwright, and Planners Janice Lew, Greg Mikolash, and Doug Dansie. A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased. PUBLIC HEARINGS . PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-66, by Larry H. Miller Management Company, requesting a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to extend the maximum length of time a temporary tent may remain erected, when associated with outdoor sales in all non-residential districts, from a period of ten (10) days to one hundred eighty (180) days. Planner Doug Dansie stated that when he received this petition, he had the same knee- jerk reaction as many of the callers he had heard from. The question was why Larry Miller needs to have a car sale all summer. Mr. Dansie explained that when he called the management group to clarify why they were submitting this petition, they indicated that the Delta 500 Auto Sale was not the driving force for this petition. The petition was driven by the outdoor kitchen that was on the Delta Center Plaza all summer. There is food service in the Delta Center, and this past summer a tent was placed on the Plaza to serve lunch to construction workers and others. This became an enforcement issue because a tent is only allowed to be up for 10 days. Mr. Dansie stated that his initial response was whether they would want tents everywhere for a long period of time, but the more he researched the matter, he realized there are tents up for different periods of time. The Olympics was 17 days, and the Outdoor Retailers have tents for 19 days. He reported that Brick's Tavern has an interest in this petition because they have built a custom tent structure for dining in the winter which would be removed in the summer for an outdoor patio. He cited examples of other tent uses for extended periods of time. He suggested that a 10-day maximum was not working and there could be more flexibility. Mr. Dansie explained that Staffs recommendation is to increase the 10 days to 21 days as an over-the-counter approval but allow up to 180 days per calendar year. He noted that the 180 days is tied to the fire code, which defines temporary as anything under 180 days. Neither 10 nor 21 days are tied to any code. There was a question as to whether approval of long-term tents should be handled administratively or by the Planning Commission, and Staff recommended that it be an administrative function with the • Zoning Administrator receiving input from other Departments. Mr. Dansie noted that the most significant issue is a parking issue raised by the Transportation Department. They believed that a tent technically expands a business and that the business should meet the parking requirement that goes with the expansion. Mr. Dansie distributed copies of an e-mail he had received during the field trip from concerned citizens. Ms. Arnold asked for an explanation of the tent used at the Delta Center. Mr. Dansie explained that the Delta Center has a kitchen which serves people during Jazz games. A tent was placed on the northwest corner of the Plaza between 4th West and South Temple which was left up most of the summer. Because there is a kitchen in the building, they served lunch every day to construction workers. He stated that he was unsure how the tent was approved, but approval was the issue that was enforced upon and prompted this petition. Mr. Muir stated that he did not think there was a differentiation between tent structures and permanent structures, because it is possible to have permanent tent structures. He cited the Denver airport and San Diego Convention Center as examples of tent structures and noted that they meet all building codes, safety, and health issues. However, temporary structures bypass the normal regulations. Mr. Dansie explained that there is special consideration for tents in the ordinance. Mr. Muir questioned what would keep someone from shutting down after 180 days and reopening in five or six days. Mr. Dansie replied that the language states 180 days per calendar year. Mr. Muir did not think this situation was dissimilar from other restaurant providers who have covered patios, and he believed they could tie approval to use. The tent could be used • for one purpose, and any other use would require conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. Ms. Arnold expressed concern about Board of Health and other related issues because the tent at the Delta Center was never formally approved. Mr. Dansie stated that he did not know the details of how the tent was approved, but he did not think it was much different from other off-site food sales operations. Off-site food sales, such as vending carts, are required by the Health Department to have a commissary to work from. The Delta Center has an indoor kitchen where they can store food and wash items. Ms. Arnold expressed concern about the competition the Delta Center food tent presents for restaurants in the area. She referred to Barry Walsh's comments contained in the staff report and noted that they were very negative toward this petition. He had stated that tents are usually put up in parking lots, which creates other issues. Mr. Dansie explained that Mr. Walsh's comments were the reason for his including review by the Transportation Department in his recommendation. Ms. Funk asked Mr. Dansie about ordinances in other cities and how they handle such situations and asked if the tent size is limited. Mr. Dansie replied that the current ordinance does not limit tent size. In terms of fire code, nothing is regulated under 200 square feet. He stated that he did not know how other cities handle these situations. Mr. Wilde responded to concerns about food and food safety. He noted that the ordinance is structured such that there is a review if it goes beyond 21 days. They could insert a clause in the ordinance stating that business licensing approval must be documented before the start of the 21 days. He suggested including language in the • first paragraph that a petitioner must document a business license, and that would take care of the health issues. Mr. Daniels discussed a scenario where an individual might set up a tent for one purpose and return to request another tent in such a way that they could have an ongoing establishment. Mr. Dansie explained that the tents are managed by address, so someone could set up a tent on State Street and another One on Main Street. If the tent moves from parcel to parcel, it would be hard to track. Mr. Daniels stated that he could not think of a good reason for a temporary structure to be used for as long as six months. Ms. Funk asked if there is currently a procedure for erecting a tent. Mr. Dansie stated that he believed they go through the permits counter. Robert Tingey, representing Larry H. Miller Management Company, commented on the specific issues related to the tent at the Delta Center. He explained that the tent was on the northwest corner of the plaza and did not affect the parking lot at all. In terms of food handling, he was certain that they had Board of Health approval for what was done last summer. With regard to the likelihood of moving forward, he noted that they would not be doing lunch like last year because there are other restaurants in the area. Last summer was a one-time opportunity because of the Gateway construction. He did not want to be precluded from doing it again, but that was not the current thought behind the request. The current notion is more a series of events. The Starzz play basketball in the summer, and the tent would be used as a hospitality venue for pre-game events. People coming to the tent would be coming to the game anyway, so there would be no increase 0 in traffic or parking. He clarified that they would not be using the tent for 180 days continually but rather for a series of events that may span 180 days. He discussed the expense of putting up and taking down tents. Mr. Muir asked Mr. Tingey if he would be opposed if the Planning Commission prescribing what uses would be permitted, such as special events, hosting events, and pre-game functions. Mr. Tingey replied that he was not opposed as long as it would not preclude them from branching out a little. Mr. Muir expressed concern for the restaurants around the Delta Center which depend on Jazz games for their survival and noted that they are committed to the community and provide nightlife downtown when the Jazz are off. They are an amenity to the City, and he would hate to see something that would put them out of business. If they could enhance the visitor experience for the Starzz and get more people downtown through the tent events, it could be a win-win situation. Mr. Tingey pointed out that the Delta Center already has a food court inside the Delta Center, so the competition with other restaurants may already exist. Chair Daniels asked why they could not have the hospitality center for these events inside an existing structure. Mr. Tingey replied that there is no room inside to host these events, and people like to be outdoors during the summer. Ms. Arnold underscored Mr. Muir's comments about the restaurants. She noted that the closing of one establishment was due to the timing of Jazz games and food. With all the other places in Gateway, she believed they would be doing a disservice to the restaurants and merchants to allow an extended food service on the patio at the Delta III Center. The Delta Center already has a number of food courts, and they should be mindful of the people who have taken a risk in Gateway and support them as much as possible. She stated that she could not envision six months of tent. • Ms. Noda noted that Mr. Tingey had stated that the tent would be up for six months and that the events would occur during the summer. She asked if the six months would include fall or spring since summer is only three months. Mr. Tingey stated that he was not certain. The Starzz season starts in June, and they hoped to have it up by then. He believed the Jazz would make it to the playoffs, so they night want it as early as mid- April. Ms. Noda addressed liability issues and structural integrity of the tents. She mentioned the tornado that occurred several years ago and the outdoor event that was held in a tent. Fortunately, although there were injuries, there was only one death, but the City should think about occasions when Salt Lake could easily have high wind gusts and major storms. She stated that she understood the use of tents for special events, but her concern was with the length of time. Mr. Tingey stated that the tent is high quality and structurally sound. He believed the liability issue would be present with any length of time, because in Salt Lake you never know what kind of weather you will get. Chair Daniels opened the public hearing. Dan Andrus, Salt Lake City Fire Marshall, offered a brief prospectus of regulating tents in Salt Lake and how they came to the table with this issue. The Fire Department has regulated tents for many years on an informal basis because the number of tent-based events is small each year. Mr. Andrus stated that on August 11, 1999, a tornado hit Salt Lake, and even though those tents were approved and structurally stable, they were not able to withstand an F2 tornado. After that, they established a formal permitting system on July 1, 2001. The Delta Center tent was erected before that with their knowledge and approval, but it did not fall under the permit system. After establishing the permit • system, they discovered the portion of the zoning code which restricts tents to 10 days. Mr. Andrus stated that any tent erected in Salt Lake City must meet Exposure C for wind, which is 70 mph. Any tent erected during the winter must meet a 15 lb. per square foot snow load. There are additional construction requirements. and he was confident that any structure erected and permitted by the Fire Department would meet those requirements. He pointed out that they made it through the tent event of the century with the Olympics with a very good record in terms of stability and safety. Regarding length of time, he believed 10 days was too short for many of the events which come to Salt Lake. 180 days may be too long, but they should look at something longer than the 10 to 14 days currently allowed. Ms. Funk asked Mr. Andrus what authority allows the Fire Department to regulate tents and whether the Planning Commission would be duplicating that authority with their action. Mr. Andrus replied that the authority comes from State Code Chapter 53 which allows the State Fire Prevention Board to adopt a statewide fire code. All cities are required to adhere to that as a minimum standard and may adopt more restrictive standards. The current fire code is the International Fire Code, which addresses such issues as structural stability, cooking, and tents. Mr. Andrus explained the permitting process. Chair Daniels asked how many people hold permits for temporary tent structures. Mr. Andrus replied that usually they issue 25 to 30 permits per year, and he anticipated that number could grow to 40 or 50. He noted that this was an unusual year due to the Olympics. Chair Daniels closed the public hearing. Mr. Muir felt that a 10-day limit may be too restrictive and was willing to consider 30 or possibly 45 days. He believed anything beyond that time frame would be a permanent structure and should meet the normal requirements of a permanent structure. Mr. Wilde referred to the five standards for a text amendment outlined in the staff report and reminded the Commissioners that, if they make a motion which deviates from the Staff's recommendation, it needs to wrap around those standards. Ms. Arnold stated that she was uncomfortable doing something for a single entity. Ms. Funk commented that Larry Miller has put in this petition, but any decision made by the Planning Commission will affect the entire community. She stated that she liked the language in the staff report which refers to festivals, bazaars, outdoor sales events, carnivals, circuses, and other special events. She stated that she was not aware that the tents were as controlled as they are, and the Planning Commission has the prerogative to strengthen what the Fire Department is already doing. She felt that they should specify that use of the tent is non-competitive and that it does not compete with restaurants. She was concerned about tent size, because the length of time it stays up may also have some bearing on the size of the tent. She recommended sending this back to Staff for consideration of the ideas presented this evening. Mr. Goldsmith stated that he would like to consult with the City Attorney before taking • any non-compete action. Mr. Nelson suggested setting a maximum time period with the option of extending that time based upon standards for the use to continue. Motion for Petition No. 400-01-66 Laurie Noda moved to adopt Petition #400-01-66 based upon the findings of fact recommended by Staff to forward a positive recommendation for an ordinance change with a modification to change the 10-day period for tents to 45 days rather than 21 days as recommended by Staff, and to allow the petitioning party requesting the tent to petition the Zoning Administrator for determination of use beyond the 45-day period. Chair Daniels asked Ms. Noda if she would include input from various official bodies such as transportation, public utilities, business license, etc. Ms. Noda replied that she would. Mr. Muir asked for clarification that the motion follows the Staff recommendation with the exception of allowing 45 days instead of 21 days. Ms. Noda explained that an additional change is to allow the Zoning Administrator to approve anything beyond 45 days. Mr. Nelson asked if they should define guidelines for a time extension. Mr. Goldsmith stated that it would be helpful to have Planning Commission input on what would warrant a 180-day extension. Mr. Muir reiterated his argument that 180 days constitutes a • permanent structure. Mr. Wilde stated that, as the ordinance is currently written, there is a presumption that it would be approved unless one of the approval bodies has concerns based on their realm of authority. Ms. Funk felt they should consider tents being erected on parking lots, because that would preclude leaving a tent for a longer period of time. Mr. Nelson suggested that they leave that decision to the City Traffic • Administrator. Ms. Funk agreed but felt it should be included as a criterion. Mr. Nelson suggested that weather-related and other safety issues be part of the guidelines, noting that safety of the people is something the Zoning Administrator needs to consider in order to extend the time period. Ms. McDonough asked if they really wanted any tent for six months. She felt the motion was more liberal than the suggested language. She liked the idea of 45 days but nothing beyond that. If extensions are allowed, they should be a conditional use in rare circumstances rather than default to a systematic approval by City agencies. Mr. Goldsmith stated that a 45-day cap makes sense, but he would like to see a conditional use option for extensions. Mr. Muir agreed and felt that, for the benefit of the applicant, it was important to draw a distinction. Ms. Noda stated that the issue comes down to permanency of the structure, and the focal point of her motion was to put a cap of 45 days and allow the Zoning Administrator some flexibility if a unique situation arises. She agreed that allowing 180 days would constitute a permanent structure and would have an impact on surrounding restaurants and businesses. Chair Daniels clarified that the motion proposes a 45-day cap with a conditional use to extend beyond 45 days. He asked if they should have a final cap of 180 days. Ms. Noda stated that she did not want anything beyond 180 days. Ms. Funk noted that the Fire Department currently handles tent approvals and asked if it would make more sense • for the Fire Department to continue to administer everything rather than have the Staff and Planning Commission involved. The Fire Department doing one part and the Zoning Administrator doing another part would only comnlicate the matter. Mr. Nelson stated that he was willing to direct Mr. Goldsmith to allow as much work as possible to be done by the Fire Department but still maintain some responsibility. Mr. Wilde stated that there is a land use implication, and the zoning ordinance does clarify that tents are allowed in non-residential zones only. If everything is diverted to the Fire Department, this body would lose all control Mr. Goldsmith requested that Mr. Andrus be allowed to give his opinion on the matter. Mr. Andrus stated that he would prefer to continue with the current process. The petitioner would bring his plans to the front counter, and they would first be handled by Zoning to identify issues unique to their scope of supervision. The Fire Department's concerns deal with fire and life safety aspects. The tents they have seen pose a number of land use issues, and he preferred that Zoning continue to handle them because they are outside his scope. In terms of permitting, the permit is transferred to his Department, and a permit is issued within a few days of the original application. The Commissioners discussed the 180-day cap and whether the conditional use should come from the Planning Commission rather than Staff. Ms. Funk felt that allowing the Staff to make a decision would expedite the process. Mr. Daniels clarified that anything in excess of 45 days would need a conditional use, and he did not think there would be many of them. It was Mr. Muir's opinion that the reasons for allowing a time beyond 45 days must be very restrictive. A petitioner would need a very persuasive argument before an extension would be considered. • Laurie Noda restated her motion. She moved to approve petition 400-01-66 and the recommendations of Staff that the petition be sent to the City Council according to ordinance changes which would change the 10-day period that tents are allowed to 45 days instead of the 21 days recommended by Staff. Any extensions beyond the 45-day period would come before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. There would be input from the Transportation Division, Public Utilities Department, Business Licensing, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Historic Landmark Commission. Kay (berger)Arnold seconded the restated motion. Ms. Arnold, Ms. Funk, Ms. Noda, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. Muir voted "Aye." Ms. Barrows, Mr. Chambless, and Mr. Jonas were not present. Mr. Daniels, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 3, 2003 SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with the Salt Lake City School District for the use of the City's aquatic facilities for school related athletic activities STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous Facts Type Facts Resolution The proposed Interlocal Agreement This resolution The Interlocal with the Salt Lake City School authorizes the Agreement specifies District allows the District to use Mayor to that the Salt Lake City the City's aquatic facilities at the approve the School District will have Steiner East and West complexes. interlocal new priority use and This agreement does not require agreement on scheduling/fee funding nor will it result in budget behalf of the structures relating to impacts. City. the use of the City's aquatic facilities. • The Salt Lake City School District participated in the construction of the Steiner Aquatic Center located at the Salt Lake City Sports Complex on Guardsman Way by contributing $857,172 toward the cost. In return for the School-Dist-riot's'firrancial " - contribution to the project, the School District in entitled to priority use for two hours per school day for the useful life of the facility at a reduced rate of 50% of the standard fee. The proposed agreement expands the priority use to include an additional two hours per school day at the Sorenson Multi-Purpose Cultural Center (Steiner West) and increases the fee charged to the school district for use of both facilities to 68% of the standard fee. The Administration is recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City School District. KEY ELEMENTS: • The proposed agreement is for a 10-year period. The City and School District have continued to operate under the same terms of the 1990 interlocal agreement that expired in fiscal year 2000. This new agreement will remain in effect through June 30, 2012. • The agreement provides for increased School District use of the City's swimming facilities. The School District currently schedules the two hours at Steiner East during the early afternoon of each school day, which is a time • under used by the general public. The District generally uses about half of the swimming lanes thereby leaving the remaining lanes available for other groups or the general public. School District use of Steiner West will allow for greater use of this swimming facility and provide a closer location for students located in the west section of the City. The proposed agreement provides that the School District can request some priority use on Saturdays "as jointly agreed • by the parties." • The proposed interlocal agreement provides for a higher fee to be paid by the School District. Under the terms of the 1990 agreement, the district paid a per lane fee of 50% of the standard rate charged to other institutions, swim clubs or groups. The proposed interlocal agreement specifies that the school district will pay $8.50 per lane per hour, which is 68% of the current standard lane fee. If the School District requests additional hours and the managers of the swimming facilities are able to accommodate the request, the fee for any additional hours will be $9.50 per lane, which is 76% of the current standard lane fees charged to other groups. • Salt Lake County is the City's agent/manager of the City's recreation facilities. A separate operating agreement establishes the duties and responsibilities of the County and City with regard to the City's recreation facilities. Salt Lake County participated in the negotiations of the proposed agreement. The increased fees and additional use by the School District will help the County to cover more of the operating costs of the swimming facilities than they are currently covering during the School District's reserved time. The proposed interlocal agreement will not require funding, nor will it result in an increase or decrease of revenue to the City. Specific details relating to the proposed school district use of the City's aquatic facilities are included in the transmittal from the Administration. III The School District contributed construction funds to the Steiner East facility, but did not contribute to the construction of the Steiner West facility. Salt Lake City occasionally rents Salt Lake City School District facilities and pays the regular rental fees. Salt Lake City has not contributed to the construction of any of the school facilities, but does participate in funding school resource officer and crossing guard programs. School Board Members have periodically mentioned the possibility of working with the City to provide reduced rental rates for after school or other programs sponsored by the City. The Council may wish to inquire about this possibility. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Ed Rutan and Rick Graham 0 • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Ann., 1953, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: AGREEMENT FOR USE OF CITY OWNED FACILITIES (STEINER EAST AND STEINER WEST SWIMMING FACILITIES) BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY COPRORATION AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to such minor changes that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City 0 thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: SENIOR SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY S NOV 1 3 2002 SAHA ^�,, Y R T ,�17 RICHARD GRAHAM SAIA ``vJT c o Rpo a _ 1�01'�,\ "' ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administration Officer SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement Between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City School District RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve this Interlocal Agreement which allows the Salt Lake City School District to use the City's aquatics facilities at the Salt Lake City Sports Complex (Steiner East) and Sorenson Multi-Purpose Cultural Center(Steiner West) for school related athletic activities. FUNDING: No funding requirements or budget impacts. BACKGROUND/DISCISSION: The Steiner Aquatic Center located on Guardsman • Way was constructed by the Municipal Building Authority in 1990. Construction of the facility was financed through the issue of Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1990. The Board of Education of the Salt Lake City School District was a one-third funding partner of the project. Ori July 13, 1990 the School District signed an Agreement with the City that required it to pay the City$700,000,plus its proportionate share of interest and insurance costs for the construction of the facility. A total of$857,171.84 was paid to the City over a ten-year period,which ended in FY 2000. In return for is financial contribution,the School District received priority use and scheduling privileges at the swimming facility at a reduced fee for the useful life of the facility. The reduced fee the School Board has been paying is one-half the rate charged to other groups and institutions that use the facility. The City was obligated to hold that fee for a 10-year period. Since 1990,the City, School District and Salt Lake County,which is the City's Agent/Manager of the facility,have been negotiating an amended agreement and fee schedule. During the period between 1990 and 2002,the School District has continued to use the facility under the terms and conditions of the original agreement. The City and the School District have agreed on a new priority use, scheduling and fee structure. The School District continues to be entitled to use and schedule the Steiner East facility, and now,the Steiner West facility on a priority basis of two (2) hours per school day and on some Saturday's. Additionally,the School District will be entitled to request additional periods of use based on availability. In return for the priority use, the School District will pay a fee of$8.50 per lane,per hour of use, or 68 percent of the rate charged • to the general public. If additional time is needed beyond the priority use,the fee will be 76 percent of the standard rate. The term for this use and fee period is 10 years. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 14B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-7775 FAX: BO1-535-7789 ®REcc�Eo PAPER • The School District is entitled to use Steiner East aquatic facility for the useful life of the facility. At the request of the School Board the City is agreeing to allow use of the Steiner West aquatic facility in support of the public schools located in the west section of the City. Having the School Board as a partner in the use of these facilities allows the City to , maximize use and to provide a needed public recreation service. STAFF CONTRACT: Rick Graham, Director of Public Services 535-7774 Bruce Henderson, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation, Salt Lake County 468-2555 SUBMITTED BY: Rick Graham, Director of Public Services 535-7774 • • 0 CITY CONTRACT NO. 04-1-03-6916 AGREEMENT FOR USE OF CITY-OWNED FACILITIES THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the day of , 2002 by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ("City"), a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah, and the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District"). This Agreement supercedes and replaces the agreement dated as of July 13, 1990,by and between the City and the District. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a swimming facility located at 645 South Guardsman Way, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Steiner East Facility") and another swimming facility located at 855 West California Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah(the "Steiner West Facility") (the two facilities shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Swimming Facilities"); and WHEREAS, the District desires access to the Swimming Facilities for use in its regular school programs; and • WHEREAS, the District was a funding participant in the initial construction of the Steiner East Facility and, subject to the payment of the applicable use fees, has a right to use the Steiner East Facility for the useful life of such facility; and WHEREAS, although the district was not a funding participant in the construction of the Steiner West Facility, the City is willing to allow the District to use the Steiner West Facility during the term of this Agreement for the same fee structure and priority scheduling privileges as for the Steiner East Facility, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below; and WHEREAS, the Utah Interlocal Cooperation Act, Utah Code Ann. §§11-13-1 to 11-13- 37 (2001) (the "Act") authorizes two or more governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise the powers,privileges or authorities vested in them individually; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to utilize the opportunities provided in the Act; and WHEREAS, each party is authorized by its governing board to enter into this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Priority Use and Additional Use Scheduling Rights Granted to District. A. Priority Use. The District shall be entitled to first priority to schedule and use the IIISwimming Facilities for (i) two (2)hours per school day and on some Saturdays as jointly agreed upon by the parties, and (ii) four(4)hours on one Saturday per • school year(the "Priority Use"). The District shall exercise such priority scheduling rights by providing the manager of Swimming Facilities (i) on a monthly basis a written schedule of the District's two(2)hour Priority Use periods of the Swimming Facilities, and (ii) a six (6)month written notice for the four(4)hour Saturday Priority Use period. B. Additional Use. The District may schedule additional periods for the use of Swimming Facilities (the "Additional Use")by providing the manager of Swimming Facilities a written request for such Additional Use. The managers of the Swimming Facilities will make reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of the District for Additional Use periods. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the needs and programs of each other and schedule their respective programs in a manner that will provide the most efficient use of the Swimming Facilities by the largest number of participants. 2. Term. The Term of this agreement shall begin July 1, 2002 and continue for ten (10) years, through and including June 30, 2012. The parties agree that the District shall be entitled to use the Steiner East Facility for the useful life of such facility upon terms and conditions to be negotiated between the parties. Upon the expiration of the term of this agreement, the parties agree to use their best efforts to review and renegotiate the terms and conditions of the District's use of the Swimming Facilities. 3. Fees Paid by District to City("Use Fees"). In recognition of the District's status as a funding participant in the Steiner East Facility, the City agrees that the terms for the use of the Swimming Facilities extended to the District during the term of this Agreement shall be more favorable than the terms for the use of the Swimming Facilities extended by the City to other educational institutions. The District shall pay to the City the following Use Fees for the use of the Swimming Facilities within 30 days after the District receives an invoice covering a three- month period of District use: A. Use Fee for Priority Use. During the term of this Agreement, the District's Use Fee for the use of the Swimming Facilities during Priority Use periods shall be the lesser of(i) $8.50 per lane,per hour, or(ii) 68 percent of the rate charged by the City to the general public for use of the Swimming Facilities (the "City's Standard Rate)." B. Use Fee for Additional Use. During the term of this agreement,the District's Use Fee for the use of the Swimming Facilities during Additional Use periods shall be the lesser of(i) $9.50 per lane,per hour, or(ii) 76 percent of the City's Standard Rate. C. Cancellation Fee. The District shall pay Use Fees for all scheduled Priority Use and Additional Use periods,unless such scheduled use periods are cancelled at least two (2)weeks prior to the scheduled use by giving written notice of cancellation to the Swimming Facilities manager. 4. Supervision, Safety and Indemnification. The District shall maintain adequate supervision over all persons using the Swimming Facilities pursuant to this Agreement and ensure that such persons comply with the rules and regulations of the Swimming Facilities, as 2 • well as with all applicable federal, state and municipal laws,rules and regulations. The District's liability shall be limited to damage or injury that results from negligence or failure to provide adequate supervision. 5. City-Owned Property. Except as otherwise provided herein, City or its designated assignee, shall exercise exclusive control over the operation, maintenance, scheduling and programming at the Swimming Facilities, including without limitation the following: A. Management, maintenance and operation of the Swimming Facilities in a safe, clean manner as City or City's assignee deems appropriate and in compliance with and all applicable federal, state and local laws, including without limitation the Americans With Disabilities Act; and B. Staffing of the Swimming Facilities; and C. Establishment and collection of fees in accordance with City policies and procedures. D. Programming and scheduling the Swimming Facilities in the most efficient manner to maximize the use of the Swimming Facilities. • 6. Revenues. A. To City. City or City's assignee shall retain all revenues, admission fees, program fees, concession operations fees and other revenue from the Swimming Facilities, except as provided in paragraph B, below. B. To District. The District will retain all revenues, admission fees,program fees, concession revenues (excluding food and drink concessions which will be retained by the City) associated with District sponsored events. District-owned equipment and assets used in the Facility shall remain the property of the District. 7. Independent Contractor. The parties are independent contractors, and are not employees of each other for any reason. 8. Assignment. The District may not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. City may assign or transfer all or a portion of its rights and or responsibilities, title and interest in, to and under this Agreement to an assignee or transferee ("Assignee"). • 3 9. Notices. A. Notices to City provided for herein shall be sufficient if sent certified mail, postage prepaid or overnight delivery services for which a delivery receipt is required, addressed to: Property Management Division City and County Building, Room 245 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Fax No. 535-6190 Notices to District, if sent by mail,postage prepaid, or overnight delivery service for which a delivery receipt is required, addressed to: Kent G. Stephens Business Administrator Salt Lake City School District 440 East 100 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 B. Effectiveness of Notice. Notices sent by certified mail or overnight express 411 delivery as provided in subparagraph A above shall be effective on the date on which such notice was sent. C. Facsimile Notice. Notice may be sent by facsimile. Facsimile notice shall be effective on the date of transmission provided that a confirmation establishing the successful transmission of the notice is sent by first class mail,postage prepaid, along with a copy of the notice no later than 24 hours after the facsimile notice is transmitted. D. Facsimile Notice Required. If any notice is required under this Agreement with a period of less than seven (7) days, notice shall be sent by facsimile as provided in subparagraph(C) above. E. Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. If the time for response to any notice expires on Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday in the State of Utah, the time shall be extended to 5:00 p.m. local time on the next working day. 10. Third Party Beneficiaries. The District assumes no duty or responsibility under this Agreement that may be construed as being for the benefit of and/or thereby enforceable by any third party. District 's obligations are solely to City. This Agreement shall confer no third party rights whatsoever. 11. Government Records Access and Management Act. City is subject to the requirements of the Government Records Access and Management Act, Chapter 2, Title 63, Utah Code Annotated or its successor("GRAMA"). All materials submitted by District pursuant to • this Agreement are subject to disclosure unless such materials are exempt from disclosure pursuant to GRAMA. The burden of claiming an exemption from disclosure shall rest solely 4 with District. Any materials for which District claims a privilege from disclosure shall be submitted marked as "Confidential" and accompanied by a statement from District explaining District's claim of exemption from disclosure. City will promptly notify District of any requests made for disclosure of documents submitted under a claim of confidentiality. District may, at District's sole expense, take any appropriate actions to prevent disclosure of such material. District specifically waives any claims against City related to disclosure of any materials required by GRAMA. 12. Ethical Standards. The District represents that it has not: A. Provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; B. Retained any person to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; C. Knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or D. Knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. • 13. Miscellaneous Provisions: A. Capitalized Terms. Terms capitalized in this Agreement that are defined in this Agreement shall have the meaning specified in this Agreement. Other terms are capitalized solely for convenient reference. B. Captions. The headings of this Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provisions of this Agreement and will not be construed to affect in any manner the terms and provisions hereof or the interpretation or construction thereof. C. Severability Clause. Every provision of this Agreement is severable, and the illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability for any reason of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the legality,validity, or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement or any other provision thereof. D. Nonwaiver of Rights. No waiver of breach by either party of any of the terms, covenants, and conditions hereof to be performed, kept, or observed by the other party will be construed as, or will operate as, a waiver of any subsequent breach of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions herein contained to be performed, kept, or observed by the other party. E. Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations,representations or agreements either written or oral, and cannot be altered, amended or modified except in • writing signed by both parties. 5 . F. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah, and venue shall be in Salt Lake County,Utah. The parties hereto have signed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By Mayor ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BOARD OF EDUCATION OF • SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Title: ATTEST: ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION: As required by the Utah Interlocal Cooperation Act, Utah Code Ann. §§11-13-1 to 11-13-37 (2001), attorneys representing both governing • 6 • bodies shall approve the Agreement as to form. CITY ATTORNEY BOARD ATTORNEY ,Uii1n CII3'9-7Wkey STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 2002,personally appeared before me and ,who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the MAYOR and CITY RECORDER, respectively, of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County,Utah My Commission Expires: • STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On the day of , 2002,personally appeared before me and ,who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the BOARD VICE PRESIDENT and BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR of SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, and that the foregoing instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of a resolution of its board of directors; and said persons acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County,Utah My Commission Expires: G:\KM0159\Contracts\Steiner Aquatic Center Agmt-Clean-Oct 21,2002.doc 7