Loading...
03/13/1990 - Minutes PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 13, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Wayne Horrocks Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Nancy Pace Tom Godfrey Don Hale Councilmember Whitehead was absent. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting. David Svikhart was inter- Ms. Gust-Jenson indicated viewed prior to consideration of that Council may wish to clarify his appointment to the Historical for the record how their action on Landmark Committee. He indicated Block 57 might relate to the he had been involved with the Redevelopment Agency' s action; development of a master plan for a this could be done during the community in Colorado and would hearing. like to be involved with historic preservation. Regarding item G-4, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, would be Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive present to answer any questions. Director, reviewed the evening' s agenda noting that due to the Ms. Gust-Jenson reviewed the heavy schedule of public hearings, Council ' s events calendar, and the sound system would be set up requested that items for the in the hallway to accommodate any Mayor-Council roundtable discus- overflow. sion, scheduled for March 20th, be submitted to her by Friday. Regarding F-2, she said changes in this improvement dis- She then indicated that Mac trict and an error on the part of Connole of the city' s police Council staff required this hear- department had informed her of a ing to be set again. class on verbal communications that would be open for the Regarding item G-1, Steve Councilmembers to attend. Mayor Meyer and Scott Vaterlas from DePaulis described briefly how transportation had been working this contact was made. The meet- with citizens on this lighting ings would be held on March 27th district. Some specific concerns and March 28th. had been raised and Councilmember Kirk was working to form a commit- Ms. Gust-Jenson reminded tee in order to resolve the prob- Councilmembers of the tour of the lems. Northwest Community Master Plan areas scheduled for Thursday, Regarding the street name fee March 15. She told them to meet changes, Janice Jardine, planning in the Council Office prior to staff, would be present to answer departure. any questions that Council might have and was prepared to make a The briefing session was brief statement at the beginning adjourned. of the hearing if the Council requested. 90-65 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITE, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, March 13, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale Nancy Pace Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and Beverly Jones, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES Historical Landmark Committee. (I 90-9) #1. There was no invocation. #3. RE: Approving the ap- #2. The Council led the pointment of John Gates to the Pledge of Allegiance. Historical Landmark Committee. (I 90-9) #3. Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, #1: RE: An ordinance amend- February 20, 1990, and Tuesday, ing Section 14. 12.080, Salt Lake February 27, 1990, which motion City Code, to eliminate the re- carried, all members voted aye quirement of bonds or insurance on except Councilmember Pace who was encroachments for fences or land- absent for the vote. scaping improvements. (M 90-1) ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey referred this to the consent CONSENT AGENDA agenda without objection. (0 90-9) Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the consent agenda, UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember #1. RE: A resolution autho- Pace who was absent for the vote. rizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement #1. RE: Approving the ap- between Salt Lake City, the United pointment of Mark Hafey to the States Olympic Committee (USOC) Board of Adjustment. and the Salt Lake City Bid Commit- (I 90-3) tee for the Olympic Winter Games (SLOBC), expressing the terms and #2. RE: Approving the ap- condition relating to the Olympics pointment of Stuart Loosli to the bid process. 90-66 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 ACTION: Councilmember Hardman State of Utah Sports Authority moved and Councilmember Hale agreed to post $250,000 in con- seconded to adopt Resolution 26 of nection with the contract. He 1990, which motion carried, all said if Salt Lake City did not members voted aye. receive the Games, the Sports Authority would have the option of DISCUSSION: Councilmember forfeiting the $250,000, which Godfrey referred to Section 3. 5 on they accepted. He said if Phase page 6 of the interlocal agree- II was not completed, Phase I ment, which mentioned financial would complete facilities so they and organizational responsibility would be usable. for the Games. He asked Roger Cutler, city attorney, if this Councilmember Pace asked for wording committed the city to clarification about the Sports future financial obligations. Authority' s pledge of $250,000. Mr. Peterson said this was pledged Mr. Cutler said it was not out of revenues from the Games. intended to do that. He referred He said it would be a loan from to the resolution authorizing the sales tax revenue. execution of the agreement which stated that the Council would Councilmember Horrocks asked approve the contract as generally if Salt Lake City would be held described therein. He said the harmless. Mr. Cutler said the resolution was intended to only contract was drafted so that Salt advise the Council as to the Lake City did not have financial contents of the contract and responsibilities other than assur- authorize the Mayor to approve the ing that bonds and insurance contract. policies were submitted. He said if there was a breach of contract, Councilmember Godfrey asked it would be against the escrow about the Sports Authority' s deposit. position on this issue. Mr. Peterson said it was his Craig Peterson, Salt Lake understanding that Salt Lake City Olympic Bid Committee, said the would not be held liable. Sports Authority Board considered (C 90-136) and reviewed this contract last Friday and unanimously voted to #2 RE: A resolution declaring accept construction schedule H of the intention to create Special the contract. He said they were Improvement District No. 38-864 in not a party to this agreement per the Central Business District. se. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk Councilmember Godfrey asked moved and Councilmember Pace about private fund raising. Mr. seconded to adopt a revised and Peterson said private money would restated resolution, Resolution 27 be use for Phase II of the con- of 1990, declaring the intention struction schedule; no private of the City Council of Salt Lake money would be used for Phase I, City to construct improvements in which would be funded by the State the Central Business District of Utah Legislature. He said including curb, gutter, sidewalks private monies for Phase II would with brick pavers, driveways, come from television and sponsor- drainage, trees, planters, tie-in ship revenues. He also said the paving, irrigation, vault abandon- 90-67 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITTC", UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 ment or rebuilding, electrical thereon to assessable costs, which systems, street lighting and motion carried, all members voted operation and maintenance of aye. street lighting for one year, and drains and all other miscellaneous DISCUSSION: John Naser, work necessary to complete the engineering division, said the improvements; to create Special bids for this project were opened Improvement District No. 38-864; at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. He to defray the cost and expenses of said they received eight bids and a portion of said improvement he read the lowest three bids. district by special assessments to The low bidder on the project was be levied against the property McNeil Construction - $1,330, - benefited by such improvements; to 843.71; the second low bidder was provide a revised notice of inten- Western Quality Construction - tion to authorize such improve- $1,331, 636. 55; the third low ments and to fix a time and place bidder was Workman Construction - (April 17, 1990, 6:00 p.m. , City $1,395, 415. 65. He said the engi- and County Building) for protests neer' s estimate was $1,393, 809. against such improvements or the (Q 89-9) creation of said district; to authorize advertisement of con- struction bids and related mat- PUBLIC HEARINGS ters, which motion carried, all members voted aye. #1. RE: A public hearing at (Q 90-1) 6:20 p.m. to receive comment and consider protests concerning the #3 RE: Accepting a bid intention of the City Council of for construction of Special Im- Salt Lake City to create Lighting provement District No. 38-758, District No. 1; to operate, main- (400-500 South Connector. ) tain, patrol and power lighting improvements; to defray a portion ACTION: Councilmember Kirk of the original capital cost of moved and Councilmember Whitehead lighting improvements, and the seconded to accept the tabulation operation and maintenance expenses report and adopt Resolution 28 of of said improvement district by 1990, conditionally accepting a special assessments to be levied bid for construction work and, against the properties benefited subject to approval of the City by such lighting and improvements; Engineer, authorizing the execu- and related matters. tion of a construction contract for improvements of Salt Lake ACTION: Councilmember Hardman City, Utah, curb and gutter exten- moved and Councilmember Horrocks sion, Special Improvement District seconded to close the public No. 38-758 providing for construc- hearing and refer the protests to tion of designated widths of the transportation engineering roadway pavement, concrete curb division for tabulation, which and gutter, pavement where it does motion carried, all members voted not now exist and related driveway aye. improvements and other improve- ments and modifications, and all DISCUSSION: Steve Meyer, other miscellaneous work necessary deputy transportation engineer, to complete the improvements; for said there were 14 extensions in issuance of interim warrants and Street Lighting District #1 which for the addition of the interest included the Rose Park area, the 90-68 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 West Downtown area, and the Yale- create the district for a lower crest area. He said they held cost. two public hearings to address Yalecrest citizens' concerns and Mayor DePaulis asked if a there would be an additional property owner who protested out meeting on March 27. He said they of the district could change their received some protests from seven position before the district was of the extensions but not enough created. Roger Cutler, city to remove any of the extensions attorney, said a property owner from the lighting district. He could withdraw their protest said owners of over 50% of the before the district was created. front footage would have to pro- Councilmember Godfrey asked when test in order to remove the exten- the end of the protest period was. sion. Mr. Cutler said this meeting ended the protest period. Brent Cameron, 1618 Yale Avenue, asked the Council to delay Mr. Cameron asked for another establishing the district until protest period after more informa- after additional meetings were tion was available. He said he held and there was further study. was not able to decide at this He said he was not sure whether time and said he signed a peti- the total dollar amount or the tion which asked for further methodology was acceptable. He analysis. He asked the Council to said he didn't believe that resi- delay action and allow for addi- dents fully understood their tional protests. options and the information they received in the mail did not Councilmember Godfrey indi- specify all the options. cated that the Council and trans- portation division had committed Councilmember Godfrey clari- to further analyzing this situa- fied that the Council would not tion. take action until about May. Councilmember Kirk said they would Councilmember Kirk said not create the district for about according to the petition, people two months. wanted the lights to remain but wanted to consider other alterna- Mr. Cameron asked if there tives. She added that the Council would be additional citizen could make deletions and changes meetings. Councilmember Kirk until the district was created. said she hoped to have a problem solving meeting to consider many Mr. Cutler said he under- options. stood that Mr. Cameron wanted the Council to continue the formal Mr. Cameron protested the protest period. He said the creation of the district at this hearing tonight allowed people to time without more information legally protest out of the dis- about options. He said the trict and if more than 50% pro- information he received in the tested, then the Council couldn't mail reflected a 400% increase in create the district. He said if the rate and he wanted to know more than 50% did not protest, the what additional options were Council had the legal authority available. He said he was willing but was not obligated to create to pay for the lighting but wanted the district. He said the Council to find out if there was a way to couldn't increase or enlarge the 90-69 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 district but could decrease the ment and consider adopting an assessment or delete areas out of ordinance enacting section 14.08. - the district. He said the Coun- 015, Salt Lake City Code, relating cil could probably continue the to Street Name Change Fees. hearing but if they decided to do so, he suggested they state their ACTION: Councilmember Kirk intentions clearly. moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to close the hearing, Mr. Cutler said if the Coun- which motion carried, all members cil continued the protest period voted aye. as desired by Mr. Cameron, then owners could protest out of the Councilmember Whitehead moved district if they didn't agree with and Councilmember Kirk seconded to the Council ' s ultimate decision. adopt Ordinance 11 of 1990, which He said Mr. Cameron' s request motion carried, all members voted would leave all of his options aye. open to challenge the legality of the district. DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, planning and zoning staff, said Mr. Cameron said he asked for that about 1 and 1/2 years ago the a delay because of the substantial city experienced a large increase rate increase. in the number of requests for street name changes. She said Councilmember Pace asked from there was not an established which budget year this district policy to deal with these re- would be paid and she asked about quests, so the Council requested the rationale behind the time the planning division to develop frame of this project. Mr. Meyer some recommendations for policy said the new assessment district guidelines. She said the staff would begin in July, Budget Year contacted various city departments 1990-91, and they were under a requesting information and also deadline since they would have no received detailed information from revenue to pay for the power after the county address coordinator. the old district expired. He said they would also do construction She said the city' s cost this season. breakdown from individual depart- ments totaled approximately $450. Councilmember Kirk said if She said the staff recommended a the Council closed the hearing and fee of $250 since the new applica- referred the protests to transpor- tion process would require the tation, the formal protest period petitioner to provide the city would end although property owners with information which staff had would have the opportunity to been gathering. She also said negotiate the options. She reit- they recommended this fee because erated that the petition did not that was what the county charged. state that people wanted to pro- test out of the district. She Lastly, she said the proposed said out of 89 people who signed ordinance would apply to prefer- the petition, three told her they ence or honorary name changes. wanted to get out of the district. Legal name changes to clarify (Q 90-2) street locations or eliminate duplicate names were handled #2 RE: A public hearing at through the city engineer under a 6:30 p.m. to receive public com- different procedure. 90-70 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 Randy Dixon, 726 Wall Street, Councilmember Whitehead sug- said the Capitol Hill Neighborhood gested putting such requests in a Council had talked in the past file and when a street sign needed about restoring some of the origi- to be replaced, the new name could nal names to streets in that area. be added at that time. This way He said this would be a way of the city wouldn' t have to charge reinforcing the traditions of the people. area and restoring its distinc- tiveness. Ms. Jardine said the honorary street name was put on a separate He also said about 10 years sign of a different color. Mr. ago the city installed new street Wright added that generally when signs that listed the neighborhood people requested changes they on the sign, such as Capitol Hill. wanted immediate action. In their area the word "Capitol" was misspelled on all the signs Councilmember Pace asked if and he suggested that when this the new ordinance would preclude error was corrected, perhaps the historical name changes because new signs could also reflect the of cost. Mr. Wright reaffirmed original street names. his opinion that if changes occurred on a neighborhood basis, In reference to the proposed they would handle the situation fee schedule, he was concerned differently. that their neighborhood would be unable to afford to change the Mayor DePaulis said if the street names back to what they city wanted to change street were originally. names, that would be an adminis- trative decision. This ordinance Councilmember Pace said there would apply to single streets and didn't appear to be a provision in individual requests. the proposed ordinance to address (0 90-7) historical street name changes. Ms. Jardine said she did not #3 RE: A public hearing at separate this issue in the ordi- 6:40 p.m. to receive public com- nance. ment and consider an ordinance, pursuant to Section 10-9-21, Utah Bill Wright, deputy planning Code Annotated, 1953, adopting the director, said the street name Block 57 Master Plan as part of changes in the Capitol Hill area the Downtown Master Plan. were a comprehensive approach and were analyzed on the basis of ACTION: Councilmember Hardman historical merit. He said exten- moved and Councilmember Horrocks sive changes could go before the seconded to close the public Historical Landmarks Committee for hearing, which motion carried, all a recommendation that such changes members voted aye except would be a historical element of Councilmember Pace who was absent the streetscape and neighborhood for the vote. identity. He said the proposed ordinance would apply to single Councilmember Hardman moved requests but name changes in a and Councilmember Horrocks second- whole neighborhood would go ed to approve the ordinance adopt- through a different process to be ing the Block 57 Master Plan as evaluated on historical merit. part of the Downtown Master Plan, with the following modifications: 90-71 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 1 ) Aggressive efforts should Building, however, if no economi- be made to save the Utah Savings cally viable adaptive reuses for and Trust Building and the Clayton the buildings are found by the Building, however, if no economi- time major demolition on the block cally viable adaptive reuses for occurs, the buildings should be the buildings are found by the removed with the other existing time major demolition on the block buildings which are located within occurs, the buildings should be the public infrastructure areas removed with the other existing (parking, urban park and plaza) , buildings which are located within which motion carried, all members the public infrastructure areas voted aye except Councilmember (parking, urban park and plaza) . Hardman who voted nay and Councilmember Pace who was absent 2) If the decision is made for the vote. to remove the USTB, that the parking infrastructure plans shown DISCUSSION: Councilmember on the Master Plan include public Godfrey asked Allen Johnson, parking on levels 2 and 3 under planning director, if anything in the former Utah Savings and Trust the master plan would preclude Building site, allowing for ap- what the Redevelopment Agency proximately 65 additional parking voted for in concept. stalls. Mr. Johnson said he didn' t 3) That the Master Plan think the master plan would affect depict new retail use on the the RDA' s motion which directed former Utah Savings and Trust the RDA staff to pursue marketing Building site. This retail pad, the preservation of structures on as with other retail pads shown on the block. He said the Planning the Interim Plan, should be tempo- Commission' s position paper also rarily landscaped as shown until made similar statements about development occurs. preserving buildings. He said tonight' s issue was to add the Councilmember Kirk moved and Block 57 Master Plan, as prepared Councilmember Hale seconded to by FFKR, and the Planning Commis- amend the motion to delete points sion' s position paper as elements 2 and 3, which motion carried, to Salt Lake City' s Comprehensive Councilmembers Whitehead, Kirk, Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. Godfrey and Hale voted aye, and Councilmembers Horrocks and Councilmember Kirk referred Hardman voted nay; Councilmember to the Planning Policy Position, Pace was absent for the vote. #5 of the Land Use and Development Density Policies, which made Councilmembers Hardman and statements about preserving his- Horrocks withdrew the motion. toric structures on the block. She was concerned that this para- Councilmember Whitehead moved graph was more specific than the and Councilmember Kirk seconded to RDA' s intent. adopt Ordinance 12 of 1990 approv- ing the Block 57 Master Plan as Mr. Johnson said it was part of the Downtown Master Plan, inherent in the Planning Commis- with the following modification: sion' s position paper and the 1 ) Aggressive efforts should be conceptual nature of the Block 57 made to save the Utah Savings and Master Plan that through the Trust Building and the Clayton process if situations changed, the 90-72 411 PROCE DINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 plan would come before the Council meeting and it didn't appear that for revision. He said they were they considered the RDA's posi- working on a planning process from tion. Mr. Johnson said they the conceptual phase through didn't directly address that issue actual construction and during since they assumed the RDA' s that continuum the process was action was a directive to the RDA open for change. staff. Councilmember Godfrey ex- Councilmember Whitehead said pressed concern about Council the RDA' s intent was to proceed, action (adopting the master plan) either by selling the buildings or contradicting the RDA' s position demolishing them. They didn't regarding the historic buildings want this issue to extend over a on the block. number of years. He said he was not against preserving the build- Mr. Johnson said the master ings if indeed they could actually plan was a guiding document and be utilized. He said the RDA the RDA' s action was much more wanted to proceed with a demoli- regulatory and binding than the tion and during that process there master plan. He referred to the would be time for the city to look last sentence in the Planning for buyers. Commission' s position paper which stated that this was a process and Councilmember Hale said he amendments would occur. thought the Utah Savings and Trust Building, and possibly the other Councilmember Horrocks said two buildings, should be demol- the Planning Policy Position ished. didn't refer to demolition taking place in the event that the his- Bill Wright, deputy planning toric structures were not redevel- director, said the Planning Com- oped. Mr. Johnson said their mission did not reconsider the objective was to move positively RDA' s actions because staff be- toward the preservation of the lieved the RDA' s actions were as buildings and if this was not a property owner of the USTB possible then they would talk to building. He said they thought the Council about the options for the RDA was directing the time the structures. Councilmember period in which to market the Horrocks said he thought the building, consistent with #5 in option of demolition should be the Planning Commission' s policy specified since the RDA had made statement, and if there was no that motion. response then demolition was to occur. He said the time frame was Councilmember Hardman said if linked to when the last demolition the Council was serious about the occurred on the block for the RDA' s recommendation which was plaza parking structure. He said adopted last month, that motion the overall goal was to preserve either needed to appear by refer- the structures if they could be ence in the ordinance or the marketed, as stated in #5. If Council needed to make a similar they couldn't, then the RDA had motion. Mr. Johnson said they established the action to proceed could do that if they so desired. toward demolition. Councilmember Kirk said she Councilmember Kirk said she attended the Planning Commission thought the RDA had directed 90-73 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 immediate action on the demolition buildings but was concerned about since they understood that it the limited amount of money avail- would take 12 to 15 months to go able to spend on the block. She through the process. said they had committed to many developments on the block and they Mr. Wright said he believed may not have the money to save the the master plan did not conflict buildings. with the RDA' s motion which gave a more specific direction to their Councilmember Whitehead asked staff. He also reiterated that how much time would be needed to the Council could amend the master find a buyer. He was concerned plan throughout the process. about having vacant buildings on the block for years. He suggested Grace Sperry, former chairman having a deadline so improvements of the Preservation Development would proceed on the block. He Committee and member of the His- wanted to find out if people were torical Landmarks Committee, said interested in saving the buildings the USTB building and the Brooks but didn't want to wait 2 or 3 Arcade building had been listed by years. the Preservation Development Committee as being two important Randy Dixon, vice chair of historical structures. She said the Landmarks Committee, rein- they considered the Clayton build- forced their support for the ing for its possible significance master plan. He encouraged the but it had considerable damage. Council to allow enough time for She said there was nothing wrong the buildings to be saved and with the USTB and there was very marketed correctly. He said little wrong with the Brooks overall the master plan was good Arcade. and would have a great impact on the city. He said the committee She said a city history felt the historic buildings would included the old as well as the improve the master plan and make new. The history of Salt Lake City it better. was unique in the state and coun- try but would be lost unless the Ray Kingston, FFKR Archi- old buildings were saved. She tects, said the demolition could said old buildings shouldn't be be accommodated now or after the demolished because they didn't entire Block 57 parking structure match new buildings. She pointed and park were completed. He said out that several years ago the he didn't know how long it would City and County Building was in take to market the buildings but the process of being demolished referred to the Pierpont Building but the city saved it because it on Pierpont Avenue which went was part of history. She also through 4 or 5 attempts at rede- said she knew people who were velopment. He said the structure interested in saving the historic now existed as a viable business buildings on Block 57 and was which created a thriving street. concerned that the buildings would be demolished while people were in He said there had been vari- the process of obtaining financ- ous forces interested in tearing ing. down the historic structures on Block 57. He said the Boyer Councilmember Kirk said the Company was interested in the Council was not against saving old demolition since the buildings 90-74 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITst', UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 interfered with their parking Plan and reopen the master plan to structure and views. He said address issues as they arose. He providing an addition to the encouraged the Council to approve north side of the USTB building the plan. would make it a more viable, marketable historic structure. He John Pace, Babcock Pace and said he was not sure why there was Associates, referred to the pressure to issue a demolition Planning Commission' s Position permit. Paper and recommended that it be adopted as part of the master John Jones, owner of the plan. He said his company was Travel Zone at 324 South Main, negotiating with the RDA to pro- said he was interested in historic vide the final planning for the preservation and thought enough implementation of Block 57 and he historical buildings had been supported the master plan. He demolished. He said the Council ' s said having subsurface parking, intent was not clear since they which would be less obtrusive, was wanted to market the buildings and a strong element of the master at the same time file for a demo- plan as was the development of the lition permit. He said marketing plaza. the buildings aggressively would depend on the price and he urged He said consideration of the the Council to make the price of historic structures was an element the buildings attractive to devel- but shouldn't be outweighed in the opers. overall consideration. He sup- ported preserving the buildings Cindy Cromer, member of the and said there was no advantage to Planning Commission, said she was demolish them at this point. He aware of the RDA' s action but did recommended the Council take the not move to change the Planning position that any action to ini- Commission' s documents because she tiate demolition would be done preferred emphasizing preservation only to expedite the process so rather than presupposing demoli- further development would not be tion. She said she thought the delayed. Concurrent with that only constituency interested in action he suggested the Council the buildings on the block would voice their support of preserva- be those concerned with historic tion if economically feasible. preservation. She suggested that the city needed to build on that Councilmember Pace said she constituency for Block 57 since didn't know that Mr. Pace would be she thought it was important to present at this meeting to speak. keep those structures. She asked She declared a conflict of inter- the Council to consider the mar- est and left the dais. ketability of historic Salt Lake and how it attracted people. Councilmember Kirk said the RDA considered that additional John Schumann, member of the parking could be provided if the Planning Commission, said on many buildings were demolished. She instances the Planning Commission said the downtown merchants were had forwarded to the Council concerned that there would not be neighborhood master plans when enough parking. Mr. Kingston said issues were still in limbo. He there was no need for additional said the Council ' s opportunity was parking which would be added by to approve the Block 57 Master demolishing the USTB building. He 90-75 All PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 said the number of parking spaces street wall. She said it was that would be added was between 60 important that the USTB building and 70. He said there was a be part of a street wall along sufficient number of stalls in the Main street so there was not a public parking structure to accom- hole. modate the ordinance requirements and there was also added capacity Lamont Felt, owner of Felt underneath each of the three new Electric, said he thought the development parcels. He said master plan would have a positive there was no need to demolish the effect on retail sales downtown. building because of parking. He expressed concern that during construction the traffic flow not Councilmember Horrocks said be restricted to the businesses. he was not adverse to saving good He asked that the impact be mini- buildings. He said he had not mized as much as possible. heard of anyone interested in buying the USTB building but heard Ed Sperry, real estate agent, it would not be economically said the USTB building had not feasible to operate a business in ever been properly marketed. He that building. said a price was not established and there was no well defined Linda Edeiken, 70 P Street, marking plan. He said until this addressed three issues. First, she was done they should not discuss said Block 57 was important to the demolition, which should be the downtown area and there were many last option. Instead he said they issues involved other than the should be developing a marketing demolition of the USTB building. plan and looking for a buyer. He She said issues to be discussed said it was basically a sound included the parking allocated to structure. public use, size and scale of the park, and whether or not the city Councilmember Kirk spoke on was willing and capable of commit- behalf of one of her constituents, ting to making the park a full MaryAnn Webster. Ms. Webster had community asset. expressed concern about the open space design in the center of the Second, in reference to the block. She said there could be USTB building, she said the future problems if the area was not open and past could exist side by side enough since people would be and be an asset to the city. She fearful about entering the park said there didn't seem to be a during certain hours of the day. feeling among the majority of the She said the police would not walk Council that historic preservation through the park and it could not could be an economic development be adequately patrolled from a tool. She said preservation was police car. not an obstacle but was a strong economic incentive to making a Councilmember Hardman said it vital city. She said before the was unfortunate that much of the RDA bought the USTB building it discussion had revolved around had been renovated and was market- demolition. He said most of the able and viable. She said if the Councilmembers would like to see building was an eyesore it was the building saved if someone was because of the RDA stewardship. willing to come forward and restore it. He said restoration Her third issue was the of the building would require 90-76 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 further public subsidies and he buildings are unsuccessful, before wasn't sure that the RDA was major demolition is finished on prepared or able to do this. the block, that the buildings be demolished. " He said the reason He said he thought it was they moved from ordering demoli- important to establish a time tion to marketing first was to put frame for the building and its the effort on saving the building. future. He said they needed to He said if that was not possible allow for the active marketing of then along with major demolition the building but said he thought of other buildings, this demoli- in the marketing plan they needed tion could be considered. to establish a deadline in connec- tion with the major demolition Roger Cutler, city attorney, which would occur on the block. expressed concern with having the He said he wanted to maximize the plan so detailed and block specif- number of public parking stalls on is that it was more of a condi- the block and said if they were tional use than a master plan. He going to construct underground said a master plan was a policy parking, then he thought it should statement of general direction. all be done at the same time. He said the intent of the master plan was to have a policy state- In reference to Councilmember ment and not a legislative action. Hardman' s motion, modification #1, Councilmember Horrocks expressed Councilmember Hardman said concern about using the word the word "should" was appropriate "should" in the following sen- because this was a policy direc- tence: " . . .the building should be tion. He said the demolition removed with the other existing issue would have to go before the buildings. . . " . He suggested that Historical Landmarks Committee and this was vague and the word should the Planning Commission. be changed to "shall" . Councilmember Kirk moved to Mayor DePaulis said when the amend Councilmember Hardman' s RDA discussion occurred, motion to delete points 2 and 3. Councilmember Whitehead's initial She said she didn't want to be comment was to direct the demoli- specific at this point because tion process rather than make a there could be other alternatives. policy statement. The Mayor said She wanted to maintain flexibili- he was concerned about a potential ty. conflict between the legislative and administrative branches in Councilmember Hardman said he terms of who would order the thought if the building was demol- demolition. ished then public parking should be constructed under it. He said Mayor DePaulis read the it would be more practical to motion from the RDA minutes, construct all the underground " . . .resolution approving the parking at the same time. conceptual design of the master plan for Block 57 as recommended Councilmember Godfrey said by the Planning Commission, sub- the opportunity would be available ject to the reservation that the to the private sector to construct size of the plaza area may vary parking under the pads they devel- and if attempts to market the Utah oped. He said the master plan Savings and Trust and Clayton addressed the public parking issue 90-77 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 and he thought Councilmember to construct parking under the Hardman was suggesting that the plaza and also allow other parking city extend its commitment to where buildings currently existed. parking. (T 90-6) Councilmember Whitehead #4 RE: A public hearing agreed with Councilmember Kirk at 6: 50 p.m. to receive public because he didn't want to mandate comment and consider adopting an the parking underneath the build- ordinance rezoning property locat- ings. He said he wanted parking ed at 409, 411, and 429 South 800 if it was feasible but didn't want East, from "C-1" and "R-7" classi- parking mandated. Councilmember fications, to an "R-5" classifica- Kirk thought Mr. Hardman' s motion tion, and amending the East Cen- applied too many conditions for a tral Neighborhood Plan, pursuant conceptual plan. to a Planning Commission Initia- tive. Councilmember Godfrey said the demolition process would not ACTION: Councilmember coincide with construction of the Whitehead moved and Councilmember public parking. He said it was Pace seconded to close the public incorrect to assume that parking hearing, which motion carried, all underneath the USTB building could members voted aye. be constructed at the same time as the public parking. Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Whitehead sec- Mayor DePaulis expressed his onded to adopt Ordinance 13 of concern about being too specific 1990, which motion carried, all in terms of the master plan. He members voted aye except suggested adding language that Councilmember Hale who voted nay. would allow the parking to be evaluated on an economically DISCUSSION: Bruce Parker, feasible basis. He said this planning and zoning staff, said would give him a direction in this item was a Planning Commis- terms of policy yet would not be sion initiative to evaluate the too specific. long-range land use planning policies for properties located on Councilmember Godfrey said the east side of 800 East between the master plan already allowed 400 and 500 South. He said the the flexibility of constructing Council needed to evaluate the parking when it was economically appropriateness of the master plan feasible. for this area, and also evaluate and review the present zoning Councilmember Hardman said he situation for the properties on thought there wouldn't be flexi- the east side of 800 East. bility to put public parking under the building unless it was con- Mr. Parker oriented the structed at the same time as all Council to the area in question by the other parking. He said it pointing out the location on a wouldn't be feasible to build map. He said early last year a three levels of parking 37. 5 feet developer approached the planning wide. division in order to develop a Jiffy Lube on the corner of 800 Councilmember Godfrey said a East and 400 South. He said the major point of the master plan was developer proposed reestablishing 90-78 PROCANGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 the Mr. Brake building as a Jiffy ly with no unifying dimension to Lube and remodeling the existing other developments in the area. office building to the east as a Also the development of the Jiffy Mr. Brake facility. Lube and Mr. Brake (now a Pegasus Records store) precluded the Mr. Parker said as staff possibility of direct access to reviewed the site plan, it became the parcels from 400 South. obvious that a number of variances were required in order to develop He said this did not promote the property as proposed. He said the most desirable development staff also identified that the pattern and could possibly promote homes directly south were zoned land use conflict. He said the "C-1" , so encouraged the developer Planning Commission directed city to include them as part of a staff to evaluate the appropriate- commercial PUD. He said staff ness of the master plan for the wanted to develop a coordinated location as well as the present and unified development which zoning situation. He said the would function and have primary master plan for the area was the direct access on 400 South. He East Central Neighborhood Plan of said this would minimize conflicts 1984, and the overriding goal of between the commercial PUD and the that plan was to encourage the school which was directly to the preservation of good housing and south. to encourage redevelopment of residential dwelling units. He said on May 11, 1989, this However the East Central Neighbor- request was reviewed by the Plan- hood Plan also recommended that ning Commission and at that time the location in question be devel- they expressed concern with the oped for commercial business-type site plan. They directed the uses. developer to reevaluate the site plan since they were concerned He said the Planning Commis- about the transition between the sion evaluated three alternatives commercial PUD and the school. in the master plan to establish Mr. Parker said the neighborhood future long-range planning policy also expressed concern about for this location. They first removing the two homes. He said considered the existing busi- during May and June the developer ness/commercial direction of the withdrew the commercial PUD appli- master plan and evaluated the cation and decided to only devel- appropriateness of that direction. opment the Jiffy Lube and the Mr. They also reviewed the appropri- Brake. ateness of amending the master plan to reflect medium density He said the Planning Commis- residential uses for the two sion reviewed this application on homes. Lastly they evaluated the June 8 for a conditional use for a appropriateness of low to medium specialty-type auto center, and density residential use for the they also recognized that the two property. homes remained with a "C-1" zon- ing. He said the homes would not He said following the Plan- be included as part of the devel- ning Commission' s review, they opment but had the potential to moved to amend the East Central develop into any "C-1" permitted Neighborhood Plan of 1984 to or conditional use. He said these reflect medium density residential properties could develop separate- use for the homes located at 409 90-79 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 and 411 South 800 East, and they island if the zoning was changed. reviewed the "C-1" zoning. He said if the two homes developed Cindy Cromer, East Central independently of the uses on 400 Neighborhood resident, focused her South, there would be no direct comments on the individual hard- access from 400 South. Additional ship associated with this case. signage, building styles, nature She said hasty decisions by those of use and hours of operation involved and not the city's re- could impact the residential quirements had created the hard- amenity for 800 East. ships. She said the public inter- est clearly supported the down- He said the Planning Commis- zoning and those in favor included sion determined this was an unde- the principal and the PTA of sirable situation for Bennion Bennion Elementary School, the school and undesirable for pre- Salt Lake City Board of Education, serving the neighborhood character the East Central Community Coun- of the area. He said the Planning cil, and the planning staff and Commission recommended rezoning Planning Commission of Salt Lake the properties at 409, 411, and City. She said supporting docu- 429 South 800 East to "R-5" in ments included the East Central order to promote residential Master Plan, the draft housing amenities, ensure compatibility policy, the draft East Downtown with Bennion Elementary School, Master Plan, and a proposed 10th and ensure conformity with the Ward Historic District. She urged East Central Neighborhood plan as the Council to base their decision amended by the Planning Commis- on the city's policies and plan- sion. ning documents. Councilmember Pace said she F.C. Stangl, 6270 South received a letter from Steven Vancott Road, said the issue he Boyden, president of the Salt Lake wanted to address was the confis- City Board of Education, which catory nature of rezoning the "C- stated that they wanted to convert 1" property, to which the owners Bennion school to offices should objected. He said the property the population change. She asked owners had paid taxes for 10 years if they would lose that option if on property zoned "C-1" and they the zoning changed from "R-7" to had the right to use the property "R-5" . Mr. Parker said if the as zoned. He expressed his opin- zoning changed to "R-5" they would ion that this was a discriminatory lose some of the conditional use zoning since only two homes would rights, but they could take their be included. request back through the condi- tional use and rezoning process if He said people had the right the situation changed dramatically to use their property or be com- enough to warrant use of the pensated for the property taken school as an office use. away from them. He expressed his opinion that the property as zoned Councilmember Pace asked if had a significant value and the their request would be considered owners should be compensated for spot zoning. Mr. Parker said the that value. He said he thought property would be incorporated Councilmember Pace's question into the adjoining "C-1" zone at regarding the school was signifi- that time. Mrs. Pace said this cant. He said before the school would leave the two homes as an was built, they indicated their 90-80 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 intention to use the building for preferred to stay their. office space if at some point there was no longer the need for a Nancy Saxton, 164 South 900 school in the area. East, supported the downzoning. She said the "C-1" zone was incon- He said he thought proper sistent with the other residential planning would not allow two zoning in the area and was incon- houses, 41 feet wide and 100 feet sistent with the master plan of deep, to be zoned "R-5" . He said 1984. She said it was important the properties would not accommo- to be consistent and have a con- date the uses allowed in an "R-5" sistent message in the East Cen- zone. He said they would be an tral Neighborhood so businesses island and unusable. knew the limits. Councilmember Godfrey pointed Ed Leeflang, 771 East 600 out that property taxes were based South, supported the commercial on use and not zoning. zoning. He said the neighborhood was depressed and housing was Councilmember Pace asked Mr. boarded-up, which caused transient Stangl if he had an interest in traffic in the area and depreciat- either of the houses. Mr. Stangl ed the property values. He said said he had an option to purchase there was recently a fire in a the home at 409 South. He said he vacant home on Hawthorn Avenue and took this option after the Plan- he was concerned for the safety of ning Commission ratified the his children when they were play- existing "C-1" zone. He said he ing in the neighborhood. He said then took out a permit to change the area needed development in the Mr. Brake to a Pegasus Record order to improve the community. Store, from a conditional use to a He said he had a large investment permitted use. He said he was in his property and supported a acting sympathetically with the development which would improve neighborhood since the record the community. store wouldn't have a driveway on to 800 East or cause increased Johan Leeflang, 409 South 800 traffic. East, said the people who wanted the rezoning had changed strategy Councilmember Pace asked Mr. several times over the last 11 Stangl if he purchased the option months. He said last spring they before or after he withdrew his protested because they said a petition for a PUD. Mr. Stangl business at 409 South would said he had an option previously increase danger to children who but let it expire. He said after walked to school. He said traffic the Planning Commission ratified estimates of between 80 to 100 the "C-1" zone he reinstated the cars a day concerned the petition- option to purchase. He said he ers, yet they requested a teacher then pursued obtaining a permit to parking lot and student drop-off add parking to his project. zone at 409 South, which proposal would increase traffic three Councilmember Horrocks asked times. about the other house at 411 South since Mr. Stangl only had an He said at the next meeting option to buy the house at 409 their arguments were that low- South. Mr. Stangl said Mr. income housing needed to be pre- Leeflang lived in the house and served. He agreed that housing 90-81 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITt, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 was important but questioned why refund his earnest money on his the petitioners targeted his new home, the fees to hold his new property. He said during the last home were nonrefundable, and the 10 years the city allowed 19 homes fees paid for the survey on his to be removed from his block in present home were nonrefundable. order to improve business opportu- He said he would lose in excess of nities and school expansion. He $1,200. He said the Veterans said his home and his father' s Administration would hold his new home were the only two remaining home until March 19, 1990. He homes on their portion of the asked the Council to either table block. the petition to rezone his proper- ty or deny the request. He said during the past 10 years 70 dwellings were destroyed Sybren Leeflang, 411 South within a one-block radius of his 800 East, opposed the downzoning home. He said Salt Lake City of his property. He said he Corporation owned much of the intended to reopen his business at vacant land and there were dozens the end of the year and if his of boarded-up duplexes and homes. property was rezoned he would have He said if low-income housing was to leave the neighborhood. He a problem, he suggested that steps supported the business use in the would have been taken long ago to area. place the existing buildings back into service. He also said if Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. low-income housing was important, Leeflang how long his business had why was his property zoned "C-1" been closed. He said it had been in the 1970s. closed about 1 and 1/2 years but he planned to reopen as soon as he He said at a third meeting, retired. He said the business had petitioners wanted the homes to been at 409 and 411 South. be recognized as historical land- marks. He said during the meeting Councilmember Hale asked Mr. of December 7, 1989, the Zoning Leeflang which home he lived in. Commission denied the request to Mr. Leeflang said he lived at 411 rezone the property, and comment- South. ed that the land had been commer- cial and was intended to be com- Councilmember Godfrey asked mercial. He said after waiting 8 if Mr. Leeflang' s business would months for the Planning Commis- still be allowed. Allen Johnson, sion' s decision, he sold his home planning director, said if it was to F.C. Stangl Construction Compa- a legally constituted business in ny and purchased a new home. current operation, the business could continue as a nonconforming Mr. Leeflang said on January use if the property was downzoned. 18, 1990, the Planning Commission He said if the zoning changed and reconsidered their decision. He there was no business then it said he explained to them that couldn't become nonconforming. He downzoning the property would said the business could possibly place him in an awkward position operate under the home occupation and financial jeopardy. The ordinance. Planning Commission overturned their previous decision and recom- Councilmember Hale said both mended downzoning. He said the of the homes are now zoned "C-1" Veterans Administration refused to and could be used for business 90-82 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO', UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 so Mr. Leeflang could reestablish Stangl on variances that he want- his business at 411 South. But if ed. He said the only problem was the property was downzoned, he when the Planning Commission in wouldn' t be able to operate his December voted to not downzone the business. property according to their own initiative. Josephine Platt, PTA presi- dent of Bennion Elementary School, Nick Colessides, attorney said she was concerned about the representing Mr. Stangl, said in safety of children going to and his opinion the proceedings before from school. She said with an the Salt Lake City Council were added parking lot and another improper. He referred to Salt driveway, there would be a lot of Lake City Ordinances, Sections 21- traffic. She said children were 08-010 through 21-08-040 which currently picked up and dropped stated that a petition had to off and the traffic generated was first come before the Council and static. She said she had no then be referred to the Planning objection to the Leeflang's use of Commission. He said this process the property for their business was not followed and he suggested but expressed concern that Mr. that the only proper action would Stangl ' s development would cause be to refer the matter. He said increased traffic. She supported he presented his concerns to city the downzoning and said if the attorney Bruce Baird. school was later closed, she did not object to the area being up Roger Cutler, city attorney, zoned. said Mr. Colessides was suggesting that petitions could not be initi- Councilmember Whitehead ated at the Planning Commission pointed out that the Council could and then brought to the Council; not control what allowable busi- the petition had to be filed first ness went into a commercial zone. with the Council and then referred back to the Planning Commission. Tony Reiter, 842 East 500 He said Mr. Baird did not agree South, Chairman of the East Cen- with that argument and believed tral Community Council, said one the Planning Commission could year ago the community was con- initiate a petition. Mr. Cutler fronted with the construction of said apparently this issue came up an auto mini-mall in the area, before the Planning Commission which would remove two houses and without a formal petition identi- be next to an elementary school fying who originated the request. and across the street from a He indicated that he would have to church. He said the community, research the facts. the PTA, and school officials opposed the project. Mr. Colessides suggested that the petition must fail because the He said Mr. Stangl scaled jurisdictional elements had failed back the project to only include causing a denial of due process. the two properties on 400 South, which pleased the neighborhood. He Teresa Piele, 363 South 1000 said the Planning Commission East, said neighborhood represen- initiated the downzoning in order tatives appeared several times to preserve the two houses and before the school board for sup- keep the project on 400 South and port to downzone Bennion school. the neighborhood supported Mr. She said the school board listened 90-83 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITE, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 to their appeal and voted unani- cil voted for the downzoning, he mously to support the downzoning. wanted the decision to be condi- tional upon a legal review. Virginia Byrd Reiter, 842 East 500 South, expressed her Councilmember Hardman asked opinion that this issue should Mr. Johnson to clarify the issue have been dealt with in the Plan- regarding the parking lot at 409 ning Commission. She said their South. Mr. Johnson said the initial decision caused a period planning staff determined that the of uncertainty in which Mr. Leef- parking lot addition constituted lang proceeded with his plans. an amendment to the conditional She said had the Planning Commis- use. He said the original sion initially supported the project, Mr. Brake and Jiffy Lube, downzoning, Mr. Stangl could have had been approved as a conditional had what he wanted and the two use in a "C-1" zone. He said Mr. homes would have been saved. She Stangl filed a request to add a asked the Council to support the parking lot after it was decided downzoning. that Pegasus Records would become the tenant rather than Mr. Brake. Councilmember Hale said this He said the parking lot would was a highly commercialized area affect the design criteria imposed and as he saw the situation, the by the Board of Adjustment for the only thing that would happen was project and legal staff upheld the that 409 South would be converted planning staff's interpretation to a parking lot and 411 South that the parking lot would be an would be used by Mr. Leeflang for amendment to the conditional use an allowable business. He said it which had been approved. was inconsistent to downzone an area with only two houses when the He said under the zoning adjoining area (400 South) was ordinance Mr. Stangl had the right commercial. He said two people to seek an administrative review would be highly injured by down- by the Board of Adjustment, which zoning this property and in the was in the process. Mr. Johnson future Bennion school may possibly said Mr. Stangl also filed a be used as a commercial use. He request to amend his conditional suggested that downzoning the use approval. He said if the area seemed like a move in the Board of Adjustment ruled that the wrong direction. parking lot did not constitute an amendment to the conditional use, Councilmember Hardman said he the city could issue a building supported the comments made by the permit for the parking lot. Or if East Central Community Council, the Board of Adjustment recommend- the school board, the PTA, and the ed that the conditional use expan- majority of the residents living sion be approved, the city could in the area. also issue a building permit. Councilmember Whitehead ex- Councilmember Godfrey asked pressed his concern about how the how the rezoning would affect this downzoning would affect the prop- situation since it was already erty value. He said he also felt before the Board of Adjustment. uneasy about the procedure that Mr. Johnson said if the Board of this petition followed. Adjustment upheld the administra- tive appeal or approved the expan- Mr. Cutler said if the Coun- sion of the conditional use, the 90-84 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 city would issue a building permit Mr. Johnson said the based on the Board of Adjustment' s Planning Commission action to decision. request the downzoning preceded Mr. Stangl filing applications to Mr. Cutler said that Mr. amend the conditional use and Stangl had a nonconforming use requesting an administrative because he had a vested right to appeal. proceed under the old ordinance even if the Council downzoned the Councilmember Pace said she area. He said if the Council basically supported the East downzoned the area and the Board Central Master Plan but had of Adjustment denied Mr. Stangl' s difficulty with the fact that the requests, there could be no devel- two houses were isolated. She opment as proposed. He said Mr. also mentioned that the board of Stangl' s point was that he would education wanted an option to use suffer economic loss because the the school as an office building. value of the property he optioned She asked the planning staff how would be worth less as a non- they arrived at the "R-5" zoning. conforming use on a downzoned parcel than on a parcel zoned "C- Mr. Parker said the staff 1" . He said Mr. Stangl may choose recommended "R-5" because the area not to proceed which would leave south of the school and the two Mr. Leeflang with a financial homes was zoned "R-5" . He said loss. the school and the homes would be included in a large "R-5" area Mr. Cutler said Mr. Baird which encompassed the residential informed him that Mr. Stangl had property to the south, east, and filed his option and application west. for permits before the Planning Commission voted to downzone the Councilmember Pace asked Mr. property so the Scherbal Decision Parker about the long-term future was not applicable. This meant of the homes if the property was that Mr. Stangl had a vested rezoned. Mr. Parker said if the right. parcels were developed indepen- dently, they would each accommo- Councilmember Kirk asked why date a duplex or 3-plex; if the the Council should consider this properties were combined, an 8- issue until it was resolved before plex could be constructed. He the Board of Adjustment. said this issue was before the Councilmember Godfrey said the Council because staff believed it Council felt compelled to act but was appropriate for the City wasn't getting a clear indication Council to give a clear direction about what would happen if they to the Board of Adjustment. He did. Councilmember Pace said the said they also wanted to establish Council had not received a copy a clear land use policy for the of Mr. Baird' s opinion or re- future on these two properties as sponse. Councilmember Horrocks well as for the school. He said said Mr. Leeflang only had six they wanted to avoid a disjointed days until he would lose money on commercial development at this his new home. Councilmember Hale location with access on 800 East. asked why the Council would want to downzone the property if Mr. Councilmember Horrocks said Stangl could get what he wanted he couldn't equate why it was through the Board of Adjustment. important to save the two homes 90-85 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 when one property owner wanted to Mr. Stangl withdrew his applica- sell. He said conceivably someone tion it left the commercial zoning could construct an 8-plex but he oriented to 800 East, which was a wondered who would do it and when potential historic district. He they would do it. He asked if the said to let that property develop property would become an eyesore independently of the 400 South for several years. commercial strip was to encourage commercial stripping of 800 East. Mr. Johnson said the direc- tion that his office had received Councilmember Pace asked if from the administration and the the proposed parking lot was Council, through its adoption of required for the record store. various planning documents, was to Mr. Johnson said it was not. save every dwelling unit in the city. He said Salt Lake City had Councilmember Kirk referred more vacant commercial and indus- to the Curtis School issue, which trial property than the county caused a major problem in her could absorb in 20 years, but area, and said she didn't want to housing was under extreme stress. base a decision on what the school He said the trend in commercial board might do if the school was expansion had been to buy cheap closed. residential property instead of using the vacant commercial prop- Councilmember Hardman said erty which already existed. He the school board was a major said within 2 blocks of this site property owner which supported the there were 15 acres of vacant downzoning. commercial property. Councilmember Pace said she He said they were in the wanted to keep the development on process of adopting a housing ele- 400 South from turning the corner ment to address vacant dwellings onto 800 East. She said having and provide incentives to property the parking lot wouldn't be a bad owners to put the units back on idea but she didn't want the the residential market. He said buildings to encroach. She asked Salt Lake City needed to bring if it was possible to allow the people back in because currently parking lot but keep the buildings the city was losing 1,000 people from turning the corner. Mr. per year. He said every action Johnson said if the homes were regarding rezoning or land use not downzoned, development could change from now on would have take place within the confines of either a positive or negative the "C-1" zone. If the Board of impact on the residential environ- Adjustment amended the application ment in this area. to allow the parking lot, it would be linked to the development on He said the 400 South commer- 400 South so any change would cial strip was a vital use but the require a revision to the condi- concern with the property in tional use. question was that the commercial use would turn the corner and Councilmember Hale said that extend down 800 East. He said many commercial developments along when the planning staff first 400 South had "tuned the corner. " supported the project, which Mr. Johnson said that was correct included the two homes, it was and it caused instability because oriented toward 400 South. When others wanted to do the same 90-86 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 thing. He said if the city con- issue before the Council was tinued to allow commercial devel- whether or not to rezone the area opment along 400 South to "turn in keeping with the East Central the corner", this would eventually Neighborhood Plan. He said he lead to a complete policy change thought it was critical to do so with respect to the central commu- in order to preserve the neighbor- nity. Mr. Parker said they didn' t hood and the housing that existed want past land use policies to in the area. He said his area had direct future land use policies, a problem with commercial en- croachment out of the central Councilmember Godfrey said business district, along 400 the two houses were in a "C-1" South, and into the residential zone but southward was zoned neighborhood. He said he hoped residential. He said the resi- the houses at 409 and 411 would dents' request was not inconsis- remain as single-family dwellings. tent and they wanted consistency (0 90-6) and clear land use policy in this area. He said if the city allowed NOTE: Because of the late development to encroach on resi- hour and the fact that the issues dential use it would continue, were related, the Council held In regards to financially injuring public hearings 5 and 6 simulta- people, he said he would have neously expected the city attorney' s office to bring that to the Coun- #5 RE: A public hearing cil' s attention, which they had at 7:00 p.m. to receive public not done. He said people assumed comment and consider adopting a that because the property was resolution approving the 1988-1992 zoned "C-1" the owners paid more Community Development Plan. taxes, which wasn't true. He said taxes were based on use and not #6 RE: A public hearing at zoning. 7: 10 p.m. to receive public com- ment concerning general housing He said the issue was wheth- and community development needs er or not the Council could accept which can be addressed by Communi- the "R-5" zone as a way to protect ty Development Block Grant funds. the integrity of the residential area. In reference to the Curtis ACTION: Councilmember Kirk school issue, he said it was a moved and Councilmember Hardman mistake that the city ever zoned seconded to continue the public it commercial because when the hearing to Tuesday, March 20, school closed it was used for 1990, at 6:00 p.m. , which motion commercial purposes. He said in carried, all members voted aye. the best interest of the neighbor- hood Bennion school had to be DISCUSSION: Stephanie Harpst, rezoned too. He said the area community and economic develop- beyond the homes and the school ment, said the purpose of to- was zoned "R-5" . night's hearings were to receive public comment on the three-year Councilmember Hardman said community development plan, and to according to the sequence of receive public comment regarding events it seemed clear that the general community development Planning and Zoning petition took needs. precedence over Mr. Stangl' s petition. He reiterated that the She said although HUD no 90-87 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 longer required the three-year people back into the city. She plans, Salt Lake City thought it also said money was needed to help was sound planning to prepare with the food pantries. them. She said the date on the plan was 1988 because they were Jacqueline Greb, executive including 14th year. director of the Children' s Museum, said they needed funding to im- She said the crux of the CDBG prove their space and provide more plan was found on pages 9 and 10 programs. She said there was a which summarized current and problem with children finding proposed target areas. She said things to do and the Children' s they proposed reopening the Museum provided that opportunity. Jackson, Northwest, and Central City target areas. She said the Patrick Poulin, executive stabilization in those areas director of Travelers ' Aid, said seemed to be slipping so they he was pleased that Central City wanted to protect the city' s was being reopened as a target investment with sidewalk programs, area because he had been concerned housing rehab, etc. She said they about the homes closing in that proposed closing the East Central area. He said CDBG funding was and People' s Freeway target areas critical to provide services to in July of 1991, and they proposed the homeless. He said an average closing the South Central target of 379 homeless people per day area and the Sugar House areas were provided shelter. He also this year. She said they suggest- said funding was needed to rehab ed opening the Glendale and Onequa single-room facilities for people areas for limited housing and who were ready to move from the sidewalk repairs. She summarized shelter. He said a lot of single- by saying that the plan was a room units were being replaced by guide for the target areas. commercial units. She said HUD required the Steve Blackman, director of hearing concerning general housing the New Hope Multicultural Center, and community development needs. said they served refugees in order She said they wanted public input to meet their basic needs as well about how the CDBG program was as educational needs. He said doing and what kind of needs were there were 9,000 to 10, 000 in the community that could be refugees living is Salt Lake addressed with CDBG funds. County. He said the New Hope Center needed $23,000 to finish Councilmember Godfrey asked their basement renovation which if it would be appropriate to would allow recreational facili- continue both hearings since so ties or potentially a day care many people had left. Cindy Gust- center. He said refugees were low- Jenson, Council Executive Direc- income people and New Hope helped tor, recommended that the Council them become self sufficient. accept the comments from those who stayed and continue the hearing Norma Matheson, board member next week. of the Children' s Museum, asked for funding to help modify their Mary Allen, 364 East 700 building. She said the building South, said more funds were needed was a significant part of the city to upgrade, remodel, and rehab landscape and improved the north older homes in order to bring end of the city. 90-88 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 Wilfred Simpson, 1159 South Kim Anderson, Community 400 East, supported funding to Development Advisory Committee, purchase property adjacent to the said they received $10 million in Nettie Gregory Community Center. requests and had $4 million to He said Salt Lake County was in allocate. He briefly outlined the process of selling the proper- goals, objectives and policies of ty adjacent to their center which CDAC which included: 1 ) using CDBG they used for parking. He said funds for street improvements and the county abandoned the property parks for neighborhood level in the 1970s but they were not services only; 2) funding planning willing to donate it to the cen- division proposals that were not ter. He said in 1981 they asked neighborhood oriented from general for a long-term lease which the funds; and 3 ) using CDBG funds to county denied. He said the Black benefit lower-income people and Community had worked diligently to not to fund projects that benefit- build the center and needed the ed the city as a whole. use of this parcel. He said the county was selling the property He said no single-room pro- for $54, 500 and he requested posals were submitted to CDAC but consideration for funding so they funding had been requested from could purchase the land. the RDA. He said the requests were turned down because RDA said Jeff Fox, executive director funds were not available. He for Cross Roads Urban Center, said suggested that single-room facili- there were trends in housing that ties could be funded from tax the city needed to address. He increment money. said the downtown area was reviv- (T 90-8) ing but the neighborhoods were suffering. He said land below The meeting adjourned at 1300 East decreased in value as 11: 15 p.m. did land on the west side and in the north west area. He said there was a problem with boarded- , PCt up housing and a drop in popula- COU C CHA R( VICE tion. Lastly, he supported funding for the food pantry. Wyllis Dorman, 634 East 700 I RDER South, suggested that when the Council considered the projects they look at the guidelines. She said she thought the financial ��,•�»��:uT�lt guidelines for funding allocations .............. were too high ( $28,000 for a r •t family of four) . She suggested '��e that funds should be allocated -'��1''(�*:-` errr• • *t"6Rt . o6 : r accordingto the verylow income "t1„ ++ 1•• -, ;;PIRE►fj.ne ma ; guidelines ( $18,000 for a family ���• ", . 0� of four) . In a neighborhood ��y .• :�` receiving funding she said at ''�• ;�M$A1CS.:72 least 50% of the families should meet the low-income criteria. She also said affordable neighborhood amenities needed to be funded. 90-89 »iT. Ar) p $.1ff0° eiiON1 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmembers Press City Attorney Mayor DePaulis Emilie Charles Mike Zuhl City Recorder FROM: Lea Shepherd, Staff Assistant DATE: March 13, 1990 SUBJECT: Agenda Packet for March 13, 1990 An error was made in copying the agenda packet for March 13, 1990. Attached, please find a copy to replace the illegible copy in Section F - Unfinished Council Business, Item #F-1 , pages one and two of the Resolution Agreement for the Salt Lake City Olympic Bid Committee. Please replace the old copy with the one I am providing. I apologize for this inconvenience. If you have any questions, please contact e at 535-7600. AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into as of the — day of , 1990 by and among: THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, incorporated by Act of Congress (herein "USOC"), 1750 Fast Boulder St., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909; THE SALT LAKE CITY BID COMMITTEE FOR THE OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES, a Utah nonprofit corporation (herein "SLOBC"), 420 Fast South Temple Street, Suite 340, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111; and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation (herein the "City"), c/o Mayor's Office, City-County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. WHEREAS, the USOC is authorized by the International Olympic Committee (herein "IOC") to designate a United States city to apply to the IOC with the USOC for the right to host the 1998 Olympic Winter Games (herein the "Games"); and _ • WHEREAS, the USOC entertained proposals from certain U. S. cities submitted in response to USOC invitation, criteria and requirements and, on June 4, 1989, the USOC Executive Board selected the City as its designee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to such criteria and requirements, the parties hereto are required to enter into this Agreement expressing the terms, conditions and undertakings upon which such designation was granted and is to continue. NOW THEREFORE, this Agreement is entered into in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the grant of authority to the City to apply for the Games, the terms and conditions hereof, and the undertakings of the parties set forth herein: i, �Y.Qom'tNobsia daft e..d2t21/ 1202pm -1- I. BID CHRONOLOGY I ) November 12-13, 1988 The USOC Executive Board at its meeting in Minneapolis, adopted resolutions expressing prerequisites to award as the designated U.S. Olympic Winter Games bid city. March 23. 1989 Bid Seminar held at USOC Conference Center in Colorado Springs with six (6) prospective candidate cities present. April 19-May 2, 1989 The USOC Inspection Team visited each of the five (5) candidate cities, one city having withdrawn. May 19. 1989 Candidate cities' response to USOC Bid Seminar questionnaire and other information forwarded by each candidate city to the USOC and each Executive Board member for study. June 3, 1989 USOC Executive Board at its meeting in Des Moines adopted four (4) Cresolutions proposed by the USOC Site Inspection Team concerning the bid city selection process. The adopted resolutions were substantially the same as the "Proposed Rules" presented to prospective candidate cities at the Bid Seminar. June 4. 1989 Final presentations were made to the USOC Executive Board in Des Moines by four (4) candidate cities, a second city having withdrawn. The City was selected by vote of the Executive Board as the U.S. Candidate City. November 7. 1989 The Utah electorate voting in a special state-wide election approved by 57% a referendum regarding the City's bid efforts and the public funding of winter sports facilities. January 27. 1990 The Winter NGB Council approved a construction schedule substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibits H-1 and H-2. N.e.,a deet Orel:a,Ao 11132 -2- CD Aciold _ Ch 4?-s g `wi‘ccdp inee.t U h.o417._ a)/ o� SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA S POT, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER t W r ROOM 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, March 13, 1990 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , Room 325 City and County Building, 451 South State. 1 . Report of the Executive Director. Q The Council will interview David Svikhart prior to consideration of his appointment to the Historical Landmark Committee. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1 . Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. D. CONSENT: 1 . Board of Adjustment Consider approving the appointment of Mark Hafey to the Board of Adjustment. (I 90-3) Staff recommendation: Approve. 2. Historical Landmark Committee Consider approving the appointment of Stuart Loosli to the Historical Landmark Committee. (I 90-9) Staff recommendation: Approve. 3. Historical Landmark Committee Consider approving the appointment of John Gates to the Historical Landmark Committee. (I 90-9) • 3. Resolution Re: Special Improvement District #38-758 400-500 South Connector Consider adopting a resolution conditionally accepting a bid for construction work and, subject to approval of the City Engineer, authorizing the execution of a construction contract for improvements of Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter extension Special Improvement District No. 38-758 providing for construction of designated widths of roadway pavement, concrete curb and gutter, pavement where it does not now exist and related driveway improvements and other improvements and modifications, and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements; for issuance of interim warrants and for the addition of the interest thereon to assessable costs. (Q 89-9) Staff recommendation: Accept tabulation report and adopt resolution. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:20 p.m. 4111 Special Improvement District for Street Lighting YYleter Receive public comment and consider protests concerning the intention of the 11 ' City Council of Salt Lake City to create Lighting District No. 1; to 0 operate, maintain, patrol and power lighting improvements; to defray a hiAlas., portion of the original capital cost of lighting improvements, and the operation and maintenance expenses of said improvement district by special --1.01e0Dassessments to be levied against the properties benefited by such lighting and improvements; and related matters._ annt5uace . (Q 90-2) Comm- - -n d(Sc&3S 0(7hcnc ta251151\5 for 31 a') : DC P.m • Staff recommendation: Close hearing and refer to Transportation Engineering for tabulation. 6:30 p.m. 90,, , , e Ordinance: Street Name Fee Changes Ir\o " Receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting section 14.08.015, Salt Lake City Code, relating to Street Name Change Fees. (0 90-7) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 6:40 p.m. Block 57 Master Plan Receive public comment and consider an ordinance, pursuant to section 10-9-21 , Utah Code Annotated, 1953 adopting the Block 57 Master Plan as part of the Downtown Master Pla (T 90-6) �(� ril��j `rl �l(;S '� �ll/ / Staff recommends ion: Close hearing and adopt. Ztiald • 18,11 3//3 /4d o/6 S��t lr fke�Tlii'( is p41 zfa-t/ DATED: March 9, 1990 BY: � 1 Or .. �/Li ,./ CITY'RE • "DER STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 9th day of March, 1990 I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 343. Y EC R Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of March, 1990. to Public residing in the Stat of Utah My Commission Expires:0i , r::�: C &county Notary Pubic . Building I ssion �'' ��yy 1of Utah 1 1 APPROVAL: • '••° StEte 0 ‘>i - (61/7 ,pi\ EXECLLTIVE DIR CTOR I move that we approve the ordinance adopting the Block 57 Master I Plan as part of the Downtown Master Plan, with the following 1111 modifications: ��� / l S • r iMIi y 1 - --t `ttF- Utah Saving and Tru t Building bei,r moved with ;t .the/ existing b�u ldings which ar locate within the ,p bli (a--tru"ct re ar as y'par ing, ur a ark and /la a) ,TI cano icall iab e apt-ilar a-u e or th i ng is o nd by t e t' i- 'air d ems tion on the b ck occur4. 2F€ 2. That the parking infrastructure plans shown on the Master Plan include public parking on levels 2 and 3 under the former Utah Savings and Trust Building site, allowing for approximately 65 additional parking stalls. 3 . That the Master Plan depict new retail use on the former Utah Savings and Trust Building site. This retail pad, as with other retails pads shown on the Interim Plan, should be temporarily landscaped as shown until development occurs. • ititi witr— aci--(t Af_A)A-c4- us'4A--°-14/j GV - C2-/Lit,ti 1 'f-1,:, ,r-_-.J.ws9:7i,[10P.'!. -1,;:ivel-.9:k7P41..-i-',7. : l.-t-•"-;:;."50.Ti_-2.'cgd-''-.1.-Acii.G -' L' •incinal- . ft' .; . 1 gs-5.2,± rilotif.- .t .OPLY) 1.0 71 dr:10 g SOUTH 4IMPLE STREET SOUTH 1 -r: r__:---- • lt, r 9 - -ID i'''. 1 ' -'sP. '...... El— E ' -----1 - ,--1 -,---4. !. •---.--- . .... LF-L&., !:"4.4i:. ••-• i is.;-- . ___ --- 1 .-..,,J=.-----,1 1,,,- , ,------ ...._,,,,'E- ig •••' , ,.... •::3-...17.,,,47,&.,:q.., - E i _ ;ii t_.:-.1.L, -;LI --;• ; _r-_ i , --: - •-, ----I u r.,+• :-. • .:.:•:,.,:13F--.:: •-lir''" 1" - --:;.=.-.,=.1.: ",'4.-H ; t I LLIAJ L.i,S..;.i.4.N.As':::;c:2 rf_1:-A:':`:g.:*:;12:A. ,''-• ,,,.: A_ 61 [ 1—, :1CXE0•—4-, Li n I--ua-4.- 10 4 — s 4,.1•464•404=.44 if ...raw.tx.,;.*gff}... .........-isie 1 , . • __.. - ---., I .•,•••:,,,,k,••=4:ter:F.,..4-tP*.tgri%':':115:,?•`" ': 100 SOUTH SOUTH K 'll'h---. i ---'13 j---,f-- 'c'" r•'' DR-j-i 11,77- 1 -.4"...: i:W1!).:::tlt*-7:: ::7.72AtF.51: *Fj '"E-----4 -7; ''': • -t::.:::. *:'::',4F,, 7 "-3' . ..E '4c---.__, 11---'-'.,jp.AF7,--7 -, pli -. 1 i:i;i::::sigfp 01.W•ii : ....I -01 --•-7:t7=1A-1 1 . Z":47.•ifq !-:!4•3?•.° 11r1:;k1 itr. . .=. ::::::.:,N [ F 1-17--;,,--r . , v L c c 601W-P-1 1.-2ku4g' 6 .--L- 1! ,.41.-:;:4....—•ii=41 (rcg5:ValA3Lik14'1 200 SOUTH f;3 STREET ,. 200 . SOUTH ---=--1:. STREET 4-44 -SD= ffin oF4,1 , (1 P 9 1.,..4.- I-Fli=q4 . 4 C '.j4'' 4 PR.P*RI:›t4S.0 1.. .i.i...P411.•- 1 e•'• '''4-4 --, _IL:;:•-• ,_F.:1 1 . -p- „„q:.-,r,,.tzao.'_-_'-____42.... .e.,..0...e-'4..--, ,:,.......,:••:::::•.,'VIO '" .r: A i.-:-t-'• KC-...j-::-:•-- • - •:".'" - 1 '._ ;r."--1!--77.-- ;ciprJ r--, .1 4,L.:.....E i_ :r4%.4.4.,,',-;:.,...; :•:-1.: •• •-4.-Tr''..t ...::1./.- -; r.c1,- ..- 'ST-%FR: r-- , 1; 7. ,t,z,---17,....,pn„, .,,,,,,r.4.... ,...,-=.:„.r.t..,, ,_ r.-,,,_ .....A.:.,:•...„, ......„, 2, -.--. _....,..i...,-...,4,..-_-,, ,,....-: F.--ifr ..2 ....,. ,,-7' . .... t.2.C5.1 e•ovi. ,c.r.,-: -..,'-• vv. Ce.. rP"'• • CC1(11 LO -111 : .50,-.C.-'1a,i0Cet] .i.....• 2 nt: - tadn,gkaia.:0 '-'51-7A:c: P.±,-- lif :.•••• .4 iiii-fc-cl '•: ._.. . ..... •.-_. . •-• 200 SOUTH 300 SOUTH STREET E711Lq.:: (1 -:.': E6t3 L'''IT9'_''rq ' ;:'444. :::r.fe 5 P-41.'..-:-qit: :3- .::,:)..`" P•11.,?:i:: .11P:1*19:554:11 i.11.:70; • - [r.?..$4. ti-1,1-10 ..4.: : ' . .::: 1'• -•.:-Ar.'kt...c. '''.'Zig4i • T13 ri4--ret- ----1 - ,-...... til , -7 :-__-c-7 r.„-pz,,,,,,,. "...v.:_r: :c.-,, :::::--........, :::::::" ''''';4::-:„-7:4.'::-#.• .77,':----47,-=,.:-,ivx L$ - •-•2 ttc„i',..!M _ _ :•,-7.:-..._;, r.'=' ..., „, 1„___,_„ __.- :-:.;:i:--sn,:*,,-' 8ssal ....2,:z-g ii-,-,‘T. AT ::1;t: i'Lf-r-:::42t • --X g% . :-...it -:•::24, ,- - , r/MOM C:f4'.".:-W P..,'-'r.*: •-' e;lat.4:0.-/,,, ';'' co: •=:-..- .46:erc, L 1 400 SOUTH STREET 400 SOUTH I-270v, ,,'0 r pr4yz ,4 _ ti :,'1' L., . , 0 -...— .1,- ::.1.,........:.:,..*.:5,.:r: ..;.-. A wwiexi. 1,,_ ! . __=. L 1 4FAVAV' Art ..* • ;:.:.:::1: :;[;;;:.... .Di ;-3:...a::,;.:At Via7 1_ i L t 0 -.,_ .,,,1. . . .2 :!X-'-o- . :.:. - :.s,:-..-1--.11.e•-•:+:41i: ;2,4 t14 c.•:.-., . ]_..,7-.zi ;-.-g -- ? - •,---"- : _.:... .i,,,,;_,.. -...... 1...f.r,. .1,0,...1--,-- :--.1.t•„:::::::::::::klz 4 :, . ..3.,.,.., .... , --•:-..7.--1 -,-...;_,, .i..-_1; ;1, .T.,_. --,f—j .,Kgeo ;•-x.:.• v •:,•!• • ,..,-w•--, „T. . ..„: ,-....mg .7 .1 a'-"--7; Lti—TacrrY, k),__5,V, '.' . : ,..:::•;;;;.45. .14"?' ':::i::-.?•7;1707,::.; :A .`"" -:.:.4.-,3,71: '4- .A.V4,' uz-.4431.___ 400 STREET 2.]:400 SOUTH .• • - •-• 7ciii 1--. 2- .X0r [P7,,.71:_=- ..:_.=j- A *titi.A., .441:4`r,16L44-y..,:,,,t,'t',4••4'•g-w. •:::!:::!:::::::::::i:::i::$g,.1?,-.4:T 1Iii-.7••••r•4••'.:*•.••0.4. ..,..,....: % 1 3,7:q:••7T•:—4r.-.xf,.`IP::•?r•.-7.2•.11 W17.:.--A.-..•:i,2,-.3,.t;, 0 = [i r'- --71---1-7 I ' .,...;. .,„..v. :.-X , :•:•:•:.:...x.;•...., :._ •••: ....* :•-x., .. . . • • --.:-I:•.:•:.:„. c,_ =---,-Aot.„-- i ,._:4,ii. .A 0 4 r.. .... ..••......... 17: ._.j .01 •-•.:. 7. .p4. t-,:- ..,-.....E. _. =5020CLICICO.33n ' r r: ".":"" 1 &>_:_4_4g.40.4.•Y.• : .."4"." i:e_:!....:::;.g_,T;411,,,,,,, 16:44....P..431. F44' ...zelX Int:loA.0 R.1,..:.+ ......,A . 600 •UTH STREET 600 SOUTH Generalized Future Land Use Low/Medium Density Residential 10-20 UNITS PER NET ACRE :::::::::: Medium Density Residential 20-50 UNITS PER NET ACRE V A Business / Commercial I I Public / Semi-Public Medical Services ..—,.. ..,. East Central Neighborhood Plan SALT LAKE CITY 140 1,1U CITY PLAIIIIINO COIldlIIISPON SEQUENCE OF EVENTS SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF 800 EAST 400 SOUTH, 409 SOUTH, 411 SOUTH 800 EAST AND 429 SOUTH 800 EAST (BENNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) DATE ACTION 3-2-89 Planning Staff met with representative of Stangl 2112 Assoc/F.C. Stangl III (Larry Burton) . Discussed proposed uses and site plan issues for S.E. corner 800 East 400 South. 3-8-89 Application from Stangl requesting Conditional Use for specialty auto center (C-1 zone) , Petition 410-009. 3-21-89 Informal meetings with Planning Staff and 4-5-89 Stangl representatives. Discussed/reviewed 4-6-89 site plan. Planning Staff proposed including 4-24-89 all C-1 property in development (improved plan 4-25-89 and avoided variances) . Commercial "PUD" site 4-26-89 plan received. 4-12-89 Letter from Stangl - Legal interpretation of Conditional Use status of 804E 400So. Is it neccessary for Petition 410-009 to be reviewed/approved by Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment? 5-4-89 Law Department response to Planning Division; re Stangl letter. It is necessary for 410-009 to be approved by Board of Adjustment, following Planning Commssion recommendation. 5-11-89 Planning Commission consideration of Petition 410-009; i . A commercial PUD in a C-1 zone, and ii. A specialty auto center in C-1 zone. ACTION: Tabled to allow developer to meet with neighborhood. Site plan to address transition of uses. 5-15-89 Letter from Stangl withdrawing commerrial PUD. 409So. and 411So 800E not to be part of Stangl project. 6-8-89 Planning Commission review of Petition 410-009 , specialty-type auto center. ACTION: i. Recommend approval to Board of Adjustment (with conditions) . ii. Initiate rezone of 409So. , 411So 800E from Commercial C-1 to Residential R-5 or R-7. Sequence of Events, Page Two 6-22-89 Planning Commission reviews zoning alternatives. ACTION: Schedule informal hearing to amend East Central Plan (1984) and rezone of 409So. , 411So, and Bennion Elementary School (429So. ) . 7-10-89 Board of Adjustment considers specialty type auto center 804E 400So. ACTION: Approved with conditions. 7-27-89 Planning Commission informal hearing. Consider rezone of 409So. , 411So. , 429so. , from C-1 and R-7 to R-5. ACTION: Tabled to allow consideration of Master Plan and Community Council review. 9-18-89 Board of Adjustment considers variance to the required setback from 400 South (Mr. Brake building) . ACTION: Approved with conditions Oct. 89 Community Council review. Support rezone from C-1 to residential zone. 12-7-89 Planning Commission informal hearing continued. ACTION: Leave existing zoning in place; C-1 on 409So. and 411So. and R-7 on 429So. (Bennion School) . 1-4-90 Planning Commission moves to reconsider action taken 12- 7-89. 1-18-90 Planning Commission reviews present zoning. ACTION: Recommend to City Council rezone from C-1 and R-7 to Residential R-5. 1-26-90 Application from Stangl Const. requesting Conditional Use at 409So. 800E for parking lot (C-1) . Petition 410- 032. 3-1-90 Planning Commission considers Petition 410-032. ACTION: Transmit unfavorable recommendation to Board of Adjustment. Bruce Parker March 12, 1990 I move that we approve the ordinance adopting the Block 57 Master Plan as part of the Downtown Master Plan, with the following modifications: 1. That the Utah Savings and Trust Building be removed with the other existing buildings which are located within the public infrastructure areas (parking, urban park and plaza) , if no economically viable adaptive re-use for the building is found by the time major demolition on the block occurs. 2. That the parking infrastructure plans shown on the Master Plan include public parking on levels 2 and 3 under the former Utah Savings and Trust Building site, allowing for approximately 65 additional parking stalls. 3 . That the Master Plan depict new retail use on the former Utah Savings and Trust Building site. This retail pad, as with other retails pads shown on the Interim Plan, should be temporarily landscaped as shown until development occurs . SALT LAKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION • ,- 440 East First South/Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 1898/(801)3221471 March 12, 1990 MAR 1 2 1990 Ms. LaVone Liddle-Gamonal, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission SALT LACE CITY COUNCIL Room 406 City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Zoning at Bennion School, 429 South 800 East Dear Ms. Liddle-Gamanol: In its regular meeting Tuesday evening, the Salt Lake City Board of Education passed a motion voicing support of the recommendation for R-5 zoning at the school. Board members expressed optimism that the neighborhood will remain viable, warranting the support the Board has given in the past by providing the new building and landscaped grounds. A very fine educa- tional program is functioning in the school which gets full support from = the administration and Board of Education. The current zoning (R-7) for Bennion came about at the time of the building of the facility because the Board needed assurance it would be able to sell or lease the building for office space if the student population continued downward to the point where we could not sustain a regular elementary school. Student population has not increased but we have a strong family component in the neighborhood that brings us a fine, metropolitan studentbody. We again emphasize that the district wishes to maintain this facility and its educational program as part of the vital family neighborhood. Should conditions change dramatically at a future time which would require alternative use of the building, we hope the city would be cooperative in assisting us in any zoning changes that may be necessary or required. Equal Opportunity Employer i n ti r.' Planning and Zoning Commission March 12, 1990 Page 2 Your project for a re-zoning master plan, explained to us by Alan Johnson at our February 20 meeting, intrigues us and we would like your consideration in being included in plans for reevaluating zoning in the city. We would appreciate exploring liaison possibilities so that we might participate in some way and have an overview of the entire city plan. Call me at 581-9305 or Superintendent Bennion at 328-7347 for information and/or discussion. Sincerely, r . Stephen G. Boyden, President SLC Board of Education SGB:jk cc:Alan Johnson Councilpersons, City Council Phyllis White, Principal jk:3/10 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 Schedule of City Council Meetings and Public Hearings March and April 1990 The following meetings and public hearings are scheduled for the City Council agenda. In May, 1989, the City Council moved back into the historic City & County Building at 1451 South State, Suite 3014. Parking is available on the North, West and South sides of Washington Square. All Tuesday evening Council meetings are held in the Council Chambers, Room 315. Thursday evening meetings are generally held in the Council Conference Room, Room 325, across the hall from the Council Chambers. Occasionally, agenda items and hearing times are changed for various reasons, so please call the Council Office at 535-7600 a few days before the meeting for confirmation. Tuesday, March 13 5:00 P.M. Policy Session 6:00 P.M. City Council Meeting Board Appointments The City Council will consider approving the appointment of individuals recommended to City Boards. Ordinance/Permit Bond Requirements The City Council will consider adopting an ordinance eliminating the requirement for bonds or insurance on encroachments for fences and landscaping improvements. Resolution/Special Improvement District The Council will consider adopting a resolution regarding Special Improvement District #38-8814 to construct improvements in the Central Business District. Resolution/Special Improvement District #38-758 The City Council will consider a resolution regarding Special Improvement District #38-758, 400-500 South Connector, to accept construction bids. 6:20 P.M. Public Hearing: Street Lighting Special Improvement District The City Council will receive public comment regarding Street Lighting District #1 . 6:30 P.M. Public Hearing: Street Name Fee Changes The City Council will receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance regarding collecting a fee of $250.00 for Street Name Change Petitions. 6:40 P.M. Public Hearing: Block 57 Master Plan The City Council will receive public comment and consider adopting the Block 57 Master Plan. 6:50 P.M. Public Hearing: Rezoning 409, 411 and 429 South 800 East The City Council will receive public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning the property at 409, 411 and 429 South 800 East from "C-1" and "R-7" classifications to "R-5" classification, and the East Central Neighborhood Plan be amended to reflect "Medium Density Residential" use for 409 and 411 South 800 East. 7:00 P.M. Public Hearing: 14th - 17th Year Community Development Plan The City Council will receive public comment and consider adopting a resolution approving the 1988-1992 Community Development Plan. 7: 10 P.M. Public Hearing: HUD/Community Development Housing Needs The City Council will receive public comment concerning general housing and community development needs that can be addressed by Community Development Block Grant funds. Thursday, March 15 5:00 P.M. Committee of the Whole The City Council will tour the Northwest Quadrant and Northwest Community Master Plan areas. The City Council will receive a Housing Authority Status Report . The City Council will receive a briefing from the Public Works Department on policy issues. The City Council will receive a briefing on the Public Works Audit. The City Council will receive a briefing regarding Budget Amendment #5. (tentative) Tuesday, March 20 5:00 P.M. Policy Session 6:00 P.H. City Council Meeting Resolution of Appreciation The City Council will present a resolution of appreciation. Setting Dates The City Council will consider setting dates for public hearings for Panther Way Street Name Change (April 3, 6:30 p.m.) and Alley Vacation Petition #1400-764 (April 17, 6:20 p.m. ) . 6:00 P.M. Public Hearing: Budget Amendment 15 The City Council will receive public comment and consider an amendment to the City's Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget. 6:20 P.M. Public Hearing: TEFRA/Health Care Facility Bonds The Council will receive public comment concerning Health Care Facility Bonds. 6:30 P.M. Public Hearing: Petition #400-582 John Sharr Annexation The City Council will receive public comment and consider accepting an amended annexation petition #400-582-87. (Carrigan Subdivision) Thursday, March 22 5:00 P.M. Committee of the Whole The City Council will receive information regarding Rental Rehabilitation. The City Council will receive a briefing from the Fire Department regarding policy issues. The City Council will hold a discussion regarding negligently caused fires and hazardous materials recovery ordinances. The City Council will receive a briefing from the department of Human Resources and Administrative Services regarding policy issues. Tuesday, April 3 5:00 P.M. Policy Session 6:00 P.M. City Council Meeting Proclamation/Earth Day The Mayor will read a proclamation, presented by Hawthorne Elementary Students, declaring a day for city clean up. Resolutions/Steiner Aquatics Center The City Council will consider adopting resolutions authorizing the purchase and issuance of bonds for the Steiner Aquatics Center. 6:20 P.H. Public Hearing: Northwest Community Master Plan The City Council will receive public comment concerning the adoption of the Northwest Community Master Plan. 6:30 P.M. Public Hearing: Street Name Change The City Council will receive public comment concerning the Panther Way Street Name Change petition. Thursday, April 5 No Committee of the Whole Meeting The Councilmembers will be attending the NAHRO conference. Tuesday, April 10 5:00 P.M. Policy Session 6:00 P.M. City Council Meeting Special Improvement District #38-864/Central Business District The Council will consider construction bids regarding improvements for the Central Business District Special Improvement District. Thursday, April 12 5:00 P.M. Committee of the Whole The City Council will receive a briefing on the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils' budget recommendations. The City Council will meet as the Board of Directors for the Redevelopment Agency. Tuesday, April 17 5:00 P.M. Policy Session 6:00 P.M. City Council Meeting Special Improvement District #38-864/Central Business District The City Council will consider a resolution to create Special Improvement District #38-864, and awarding the construction contract . Setting Date/CDBG Hearing The City Council will consider adopting a resolution setting the date to hold a public hearing regarding Community Development Block Grants. 6:00 P.M. Public Hearing: Special Improvement District #38-864 The City Council will receive public comment concerning the creation of Special Improvement District #38-864 in the Central Business District . 6:20 P.M. Public Hearing: Alley Vacation Petition #400-764 The City Council will receive public comment concerning petition #400-764 for alley vacation between K and L Streets, from 11th to 12th Avenues. f** The City Council will convene as the Committee of the Whole • immediately following the City Council meeting to receive a briefing from the Parks Department regarding the Golf program. Thursday, April 19 5:00 P.M. Committee of the Whole The City Council will hold budget discussions concerning the Public Utilities Department and the Refuse Collection fund. Thursday, April 26 5:00 P.M. Committee of the Whole The City Council will hold budget discussions concerning Data Processing, Fleet, Risk Management and Governmental Immunity. The City Council will receive a briefing regarding the Human Resources and Administrative Services audit. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, February 20, 1990, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale Nancy Pace Council Chair Hardman presided at the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Regarding the league meeting Executive Director, reviewed the in conjunction with NAHRO, Ms. evening' s agenda noting that the Gust-Jenson indicated that each resolution on item B-4 would be conference was at a different read by Councilmember Whitehead. hotel and any member who requested different hotel accommodations She indicated the hearing should contact her. She further date for the budget amendment indicated there would be coordina- would have to be changed if any of tion with RDA on the payment. the members planned to attend the NAHRO conference which would be For the Washington confer- out of town. No member indicated ence, packets with tickets would they would be attending. be passed out at the district meeting. Regarding the Steiner Aquat- ics action, she indicated motions Finally, she indicated that had been included in the packets Sydney Fonnesbeck would be at the for this item. NAHRO conference to talk about Salt Lake City' s housing policy. Regarding the hearing for the This was in draft form only and Block 42B Master Plan, she said Mrs. Fonnesbeck wanted the Council Bruce Parker and Bill Wright from to be aware that this would be the planning department would be occurring. present. Comments from the audi- ence would be limited to two The briefing session ad- minutes, with exceptions for journed. spokespersons of a group. Ms. Gust-Jenson then reviewed the Council ' s events calendar. She indicated that there would be a special agenda for the February 27th district meeting to take Council action regarding the airport revenue bonds. This needed to be handled because of the market. The Council agreed to convene for this at 6:45 prior to the district meeting so as not to interfere with the regular agenda. 90-45 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, February 20, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale Nancy Pace Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES city of Geislinger an der Steige to Mayor DePaulis. #1. There was no invocation. Councilmember Godfrey moved #2. The Council led the and Councilmember Kirk seconded to Pledge of Allegiance. adopt Resolution 23 of 1990, which motion carried, all members voted #3. Councilmember Godfrey aye except Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Kirk who was absent for the vote. seconded to approve the minutes of (R 90-1 ) the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, CONSENT AGENDA February 13, 1990, which motion carried, all members voted aye Councilmember Godfrey moved except Councilmember Horrocks who and Councilmember Whitehead sec- was absent for the vote. onded to approve the consent (M 90-1) agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye except #4. The Mayor and Council Councilmember Horrocks who was presented a resolution to the Utah absent for the vote. Air National Guard. #1. RE: Adopting Resolution Councilmember Whitehead read 19 of 1990 authorizing the execu- the resolution which recognized tion of an interlocal cooperation the extraordinary commitment to agreement between Salt Lake City duty, country and community dis- Corporation and the Utah Depart- played by the members of the 109th ment of Public Safety Driver Tactical Control Squadron, Salt License Division, allowing Salt Lake City' s own hometown Air Lake City Fire Department to Force. conduct Commercial Driver License (CDL) skill tests. Barry Esham, commander of the (C 90-83) 109th Squadron, thanked the Coun- cil and Mayor for this resolution. #2. RE: Setting a date to He presented a plate, which repre- hold a public hearing on March 13, sented friendship, from the German 1990, at 7:00 p.m. to consider 90-46 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 adopting a resolution approving on first reading adopt Resolution the 1988-1992 Community Develop- 20 of 1990, which motion carried, ment Plan. all members voted aye except (T 90-8) Councilmember Horrocks who was absent for the vote. #3. RE: Setting a date to (T 90-7) hold a public hearing on March 13, 1990, at 7:10 p.m. to receive #3. RE: Set a date for a comments concerning general hous- public hearing to receive comment ing and community development and consider adopting an ordinance needs which can be addressed by relating to street name change Community Development Block Grant fees. funds. (T 90-8) ACTION: Councilmember Pace moved and Councilmember Godfrey #4. RE: Ratifying the seconded to set the public hearing selection of Coopers and Lybrand for March 13, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. , as the city' s financial audit firm which motion carried, all members for Fiscal Years 1990-91 through voted aye except Councilmember 1992-93. Horrocks who was absent for the (C 90-84) vote. (0 90-7) NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS #4. RE: Set a date for a #1. RE: A resolution ac- public hearing to receive comment cepting Annexation Petition 400- and consider adopting an ordinance 582-87 by John Schaar, as amended, rezoning property located at 409, for purposes of City Council 411 and 429 South 800 East, and review and setting a public hear- amending the East Central Neigh- ing date for March 20, 1990 at borhood Plan, pursuant to a Plan- 6:30 p.m. ping Commission initiative. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to suspend the rules and seconded to set the public hearing on first reading adopt Resolution for March 13, 1990, at 6:50 p.m. , 24 of 1990 and set the date for which motion carried, all members the public hearing, which motion voted aye except Councilmember carried, all members voted aye Horrocks who was absent for the except Councilmember Horrocks who vote. was absent for the vote. (0 90-6) (P 90-45) #5. RE: An ordinance making #2. RE: A resolution autho- technical amendments to Title 5, rizing the execution of a grant Chapter 61 of the Salt Lake City agreement between Salt Lake City Code, regarding sexually oriented Corporation and the U.S. Depart- business licensing. ment of Housing and Urban Develop- ment for an Emergency Shelter ACTION: Councilmember Kirk Grant. moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to suspend the rules and ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey on first reading adopt Ordinance 9 moved and Councilmember Hale of 1990, which motion carried, all seconded to suspend the rules and members voted aye except 90-47 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Councilmember Horrocks who was Councilmember Godfrey moved absent for the vote. and Councilmember Whitehead sec- (0 90-8) onded to adopt Resolution 21 of 1990, which motion carried, all UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS members voted aye. #1. RE: An ordinance amend- Councilmember Godfrey moved ing the Fiscal Year 1989-90 bud- and Councilmember Whitehead sec- get. onded to adjourn as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey Authority of Salt Lake City, which moved and Councilmember Hale motion carried, all members voted seconded to hold a public hearing aye. on March 20, 1990, at 6:00 p.m. , which motion carried, all members Councilmember Godfrey moved voted aye. and Councilmember Whitehead sec- (B 89-5) onded to reconvene as the Salt Lake City Council, which motion #2. RE: A resolution autho- carried, all members voted aye. rizing the issuance of not more (Q 90-3) than $2, 000, 000 Lease Revenue Bonds, (Steiner Aquatic Center #3. RE: A resolution of the Project), Series 1990 A, (the Municipal Council of Salt Lake "Bonds" ) , of the Municipal Build- City directing the Municipal ing Authority, on behalf of Salt Building Authority of Salt Lake Lake City, fixing the maximum City to undertake a certain aggregate principal amount of the project relating to a recreation Bonds, the maximum number of years facility located at approximately over which the Bonds may mature, 675 South Guardsman Way; approving the maximum interest rate which the plans, specifications and the Bonds may bear and the maximum estimate costs of such project to discount from par at which the be financed with the proceeds of Bonds may be sold; providing for sale of certain Lease Revenue the publication of a Notice of Bonds, (Steiner Aquatic Center Bonds to be issued with respect to Project), Series 1990 A, of said the Bonds; selecting an underwrit- Municipal Building Authority; er for the Bonds and appointing approving the selection of an bond counsel for the bonds; and underwriter and the appointment of providing for related matters. bond counsel for the Bonds; and providing for related matters. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Whitehead ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey seconded to recess as the Salt moved and Councilmember Kirk Lake City Council, which motion seconded to adopt Resolution 22 of carried, all members voted aye. 1990, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Godfrey moved (Q 90-3) and Councilmember Whitehead sec- onded to convene as the Board of PUBLIC HEARINGS Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, which #1. RE: A public hearing at motion carried, all members voted 6:20 p.m. to receive comments and aye. consider adopting an ordinance approving the Block 42B Master 90-48 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Plan as a part of the East Central clarity to the 984 East Central Neighborhood Plan. Neighborhood Plan and to give direction to the Salt Lake Clinic ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey in regards to their recent devel- moved and Councilmember Hardman opment request. He said the plan seconded to close the public presented a desirable future hearing, which motion carried, all character for Block 42B and ad- members voted aye. dressed the issues of land use, land use transitions, traffic Councilmember Hale moved and circulation, and design amenity. Councilmember Kirk seconded to delete recommendation D on page 9, He said this master plan was which motion failed, all members considered a supplement to and a voted nay except Councilmember companion document for the East Hale who voted aye. Central Neighborhood Plan of 984. He said the basis of the plan was Councilmember Hardman moved found in the East Central Neigh- and Councilmember Godfrey seconded borhood Plan which had a strong to adopt Ordinance 10 of 1990 and overriding principle of pre- approving the Block 42B Master serving residential amenities in Plan as part of the East Central this neighborhood. He said the Neighborhood Plan with the follow- Housing Element of Salt Lake City ing: 1 ) On page 9, recommendation and the Central Community Master E, add, "In the event the Phil- Plan of 974 were also the basis of lips ' property is sold to the this plan. Clinic, that Baddley Place be closed or vacated and disposed of He then outlined the plan. and that the 10th East properties Starting with Page 3, he described be returned to residential uses. the present character and future 2 ) On page 4 under Townscape character of Block 42B. In re- Context, change the last sentence gards to the future character he to read, "300 South and 1000 East said Block 42B should primarily streets should be exclusively accommodate low-medium residential residential or Baddley Place development, although appropriate should be. . . " 3 ) On page 9, nonresidential activities should recommendation D, change the first be considered and directed toward sentence to "Any new construction, 400 South. He said Block 42B south of the existing facil- should also provide an area of ity. . . " , which motion carried, all transition in activities and scale members voted aye except from that allowed along 400 South, Councilmember Hale who voted nay. with a lesser scale and intensity residential environment towards DISCUSSION: Council Chair 300 South and 1000 East. Hardman turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Pace since this He then referred to Page 4 of issue affected his district. Vice the plan which outlined the use of Chair Pace then conducted the land and built form. He pointed public hearing. out that the primary use of land on Block 42B should be for resi- Bruce Parker, planning staff, dential activity. The maximum said the Block 42B master plan was height allowed should be four the result of a directive from the stories or 45 feet and all future Planning Commission. They asked development should achieve a the planning staff to give greater coherent, unified character, and 90-49 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 attractive streetscapes. He riding principle was to preserve pointed out that the plan called and provide residential opportuni- for 300 South and 1000 East to be ties and strengthen residential exclusively residential and Badd- character. He also pointed out ley Place should be reestablished that the zoning ordinances pre- as a residential enclave. sented the approval criteria for any Salt Lake Clinic expansion. He said Page 5 discussed He referred to Page 8 of the movement: Vehicle access and plan which recommended the follow- parking, and pedestrian access. ing: He said the major traffic pattern should be directed towards the A) Clinic expansion be di- intersection of 9th East and 400 rected towards the southwest South and parking should be con- corner of Block 42B. structed behind main buildings. B) No clinic expansion result Page 6 discussed the envi- in the net loss of residential ronment and signage, and landscape floor space or residential units. open space. He said the plan required that all signs be compat- C) Any addition to the exist- ible with the residential charac- ing building recognize the scale ter of the block. He said land- of adjoining structures. Specifi- scaping was required to enhance cally, any addition to the exist- the residential setting and to ing building' s north, west or east buffer residential and nonresiden- facade should be designed and/or tial uses. terraced down to blend with ad- joining residential structures. He referred to Page 7 which The visual impact of all clinic outlined the directions for the buildings must be considered. expansion of the Salt Lake Clinic. He said presently the clinic had D) Any new building, south approximately 71, 000 square feet of the existing facility, be re- on about 4.3 acres. He said Salt stricted to one level above grade. Lake Clinic was allowed on Block A basement level is appropriate. 42B as a conditional use in an "R- In total, a building and connect- 7" zone. He outlined the zoning ing walkway of approximately on the block which consisted of 27,000 square feet is appropriate. Commercial "C-1" on the corner of 400 South and 900 East, Residen- E) As part of any increase tial "R-7" along the frontage of in clinic activity, Baddley Place 900 East and Commercial "B-3" on be returned to residential use. the corner of 300 South. The 300 Baddley Place should not provide South frontage was Residential "R- access to the Salt Lake Clinic. 5" and "R-3A" , which continued This is an ameliorative action to along 1000 East and became Resi- assist in achieving the residen- dential "R-6" at a certain proper- tial character of block 42B. Four ty line. He said the Salt Lake buildable lots are available on Clinic parking lot and the interi- Baddley Place and all four should or of the block was Residential be made available for residential "R-5" . uses. He said the master plan F) All clinic parking be recognized that the clinic was a provided at or below grade, mini- valuable amenity but the over- mizing the negative impacts of a 90-50 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 substantial parking demand in a Mr. Phillips seemed positive about residential area. Any above grade such an exchange and they would parking structure would be partic- continue the negotiation process. ularly detrimental to the desir- ability and stability of the Councilmember Whitehead said residential character sought for three homes in the area would be Block 42B. torn down in order to build two. He said this seemed contradictory G) Where possible, the to the plan. Councilmember Pace clinic should avoid creating said she understood that there "major gaps" in street frontages. were three building lots once To maintain continuity of the Baddley Place was vacated. Mr. street edge, all clinic parking Parker said if Baddley Place was should be located behind build- vacated there was a potential for ings, screening walls and land- three separate building lots with scaping. The 400 South street 150 feet of frontage on 1000 East. building edge should be maintained with clinic parking screened Councilmember Kirk said there behind building facades. was a small home behind another home and the neighborhood was not H) Extensive landscaping, adverse to losing it. She said setback and screening be estab- she understood that housing would lished surrounding the parking lot not be lost. Mr. Parker said and clinic buildings. This action viable residential stock would be will promote compatibility with maintained. The home to which adjoining structures and uses. Mrs. Kirk referred was in deterio- rated condition and he didn' t know I ) All building materials if it was of any value. and design be sensitive to the residential character of Block Councilmember Pace asked how 42B. the parking structure would be constructed relative to the slope In conclusion he said the of the terrain. Mr. Parker said master plan did not address all the grade ran from 300 South to the concerns of the Salt Lake 400 South with 400 South being Clinic nor the interests of the lower. He said the parking struc- neighborhood. But the Planning ture would be perceived as 15 Commission and planning staff feet above grade on 400 South and believed this was an appropriate would be screened behind a build- policy position for the city which ing facade. He said at the rear gave direction and security in the property line of the Lake City neighborhood, and provided an Motel, the structure would be at outline for future expansion grade. potential of the Salt Lake Clinic. Mrs. Pace asked why the Councilmember Pace asked Dr. driveway from 300 South was being Price, Salt Lake Clinic medical maintained. Mr. Parker said director, to comment about his this would be principally for negotiations regarding property on delivery and fire access. He Baddley Place. Dr. Price said he said there would be no parking had been in contact with Mr. available and 10 foot landscape Phillips (home owner on Baddley setbacks would be required on both Place) to discuss the possibility sides. of a property exchange. He said 90-51 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Councilmember Kirk asked how plan focused development toward many parking places would be the commercial strip on 400 South. available. Mr. Parker said pres- ently there were 357 spaces and Councilmember Hardman said the expansion would require one the clinic expressed concern space for every 200 square feet. regarding the "Baddley Place" With the expansion potential of recommendation. He asked if the the clinic and below grade park- plan was flexible enough to allow ing, they could have approximately 1000 East to be residential and 640 spaces. allow the clinic additional park- ing space if the clinic and Mr. Councilmember Horrocks Phillips worked out an agreement referred to the Built Form section regarding the Baddley Place prop- on Page 4 of the plan, which erty. Mr. Parker said the plan stated the maximum height allowed was flexible enough to allow that on the block would be 4 stories scenario to occur and he believed or 45 feet, and said another part it would be the best situation for of the plan stated that only one the clinic, the neighborhood and story would be allowed. Mr. Salt Lake City. He said the plan Parker explained that the clinic listed two alternatives in order would be allowed 45 feet as a to maintain options for the conditional use. He said because property owner who presently owned this was a conditional use, it was a home on Baddley Place. appropriate to put additional requirements or limitations on the Councilmember Kirk asked if height in order to maintain the the Planning Commission voted residential integrity of the area. unanimously to approve the plan. Bill Wright, deputy planning He said the existing facili- director, said one member ab- ty was 71,000 square feet and the stained from voting based on a expansion potential provided an conflict of interest, two members additional 53,000 square feet. He voted against the plan because of explained that the clinic proposed the Baddley Place issue, and the the following expansion: 14, 000 four remaining members voted in square feet to their existing favor of the plan. He said if the facility, 27, 000 square feet to Council supported an option on the south and 12, 000 square feet Baddley Place, it might benefit on the 400 South frontage. He everyone to indicate that option said if the clinic was allowed to in a motion. He said the closure proceed as they planned, they of Baddley Place, with the issue would effectively double the scale of the Phillips property resolved, of the building on the block. was an appropriate solution for Limiting building to one level the block. above grade would increase the scale of buildings by only 50%. Councilmember Whitehead asked how many existing parking stalls Councilmember Horrocks re- were on Baddley Place. Mr. ferred to the corner which was Parker said he thought there were zoned "C-1" and said the clinic approximately 60 or 65 . Mr. was not the landlord, so if they Whitehead asked if the clinic did expand they would have to would have enough parking if purchase two pieces of property. Baddley Place were not used. Mr. Mr. Parker said that was correct Wright said the appropriate and he reiterated that the master number of parking stalls could be 90-52 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 supplied in the parking structure could expand under the master on 400 South which would allow plan. Mr. Parker said the exist- 1000 East to be returned to a ing facility could be expanded by residential use. Mr. Wright said 14,000 square feet to the north- if two large buildings were con- west and northeast. The 27, 000 structed, parking would have to square-foot expansion would be a be accommodated in an underground two-level addition on the new structure on the interior of the building to the south plus a block. walkway. They could possibly expand on the 400 South frontage Mr. Whitehead referred to the by approximately 12,000 square 45 foot maximum height and asked feet. This would total 53, 000 if the clinic could build a two- square feet of expansion potential story building on top of the under the proposed master plan and parking structure. Mr. Wright present conditions. said the planning staff believed the best way to balance the clinic Tony Reiter, Chair of the construction on the south end of East Central Community Council, the block was to keep the scale of said the two issues for the East new construction consistent with Central Community Council were the block, including the residen- traffic and preservation or loss tial structures. of housing stock. He said there was constant pressure on the Councilmember Hardman said neighborhood from commercial the only building space where the development on 400 South along 900 clinic could expand was zoned "R- East, on 900 South along 1300 7" and the expansion would be as a East, and along the east side of conditional use. He said since 700 East. He said traffic tray- the parking structure would be eled through their neighborhood to built on a portion of the block the University of Utah, University zoned "R-6" , additional construc- Hospital, Holy Cross Hospital, tion on the top of the parking Salt Lake Clinic and many other would not be allowed. medical offices. Mr. Parker confirmed that the He said in the last year the "R-6" zoning would control the use neighborhood had lost 240 dwelling of the property on 400 South. He units. He added that if they were said the clinic could not expand going to maintain a strong resi- their offices on 400 South without dential component with a popula- changing the zoning to at least an tion large enough to keep schools "R-7" zone. He said with the open, they needed to keep housing expansion proposed by the clinic, intact. He explained that the parking would increase from 357 to community council had been working 667 and the vehicle trips per day with the clinic since 1988 regard- to the clinic would increase from ing their expansion. He said 1, 600 to 3, 200. Councilmember after several meetings between a Pace suggested that the building neighborhood subcommittee and the height would also be limited by clinic, they were unable to agree the cost of providing additional on the type of development that parking. would be suitable to both the clinic and the neighborhood. Councilmember Hardman asked Mr. Parker to specify the total square footage that the clinic 90-53 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 He said that throughout the which they owned along this area negotiation process the subcommit- and pledged to further divest as tee contacted clinic neighbors it became possible. who preferred limited or no expan- sion. He referred to the 1985 He said the clinic disagreed expansion plans which had called with three areas of the proposed for a 10, 000 square foot surgical master plan. First, he said they center, and said they supported felt it was not in the best this original plan. He said the interest of the Salt Lake Clinic clinic' s current plan called for a nor Salt Lake City to mandate the 13, 000 square foot expansion to restoration of Baddley Place to the present facility with future residential use. He said they expansion southward which would be proposed deleting any mention of limited to two levels of approxi- Baddley Place from the master plan mately 27, 000 square feet. in favor of alternative solutions. He said they accepted and Second, he said they under- supported the master plan even stood that a master plan should though the compromised square outline general principles. He footage was closer to the clinic' s said they had not requested a position than the neighborhood' s. building to the south of their He said they thought it was impor- existing facility nor did they tant to have a master plan in have plans for a specific building place so everyone would know the in that location at this time. He direction and extent of expansion said they thought it was inappro- on the block. Also that the priate for the master plan to expansion would be of a scale address size limitations for a which would not discourage future nonexistent building. He said home buyers from considering this they proposed deleting these neighborhood. He said the message specifics from the general scheme needed to be that this was a of the plan. He said if a build- neighborhood clinic and not a ing was proposed on this site in clinic neighborhood. the future, they would expect it to comply with all building and He said another issue of zoning requirements at that time. great importance was the return of viable housing to 1000 East and Third, he quoted the state- they supported the master plan' s ment in paragraph three on page requirements. He said they pre- seven, "Indeed, to more fully ferred moving the two houses from serve area residents the Salt Lake 400 South to 1000 East. Clinic is proposing to expand its facility to approximately 133, 000 Dr. Price, Salt Lake Clinic, square feet on a 5.0 acre site. " supported the concept of master He said this was an incorrect planning in Salt Lake City and statement and asked that it be supported the need for a master deleted. plan on the block in question. Specifically in regard to the Councilmember Hardman asked proposed master plan for their Dr. Price if the clinic had satel- block, he said the clinic support- lite offices. Dr. Price said ed maintaining the residential they had offices at Foothill character of 300 South and return- Village and on 3300 South and ing 1000 East to residential use. Highland Drive, as well as in He said they had divested property Sandy, Draper, Taylorsville, and 90-54 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Rose Park. Mr. Hardman asked if Councilmember Pace said she these locations were comparable in understood that master plans were size to the Salt Lake Clinic. Dr. designed to consider a whole plan Price said the Sandy facility was and not one property owner. She larger than the other satellite said to delay master planning clinics and the others were small, until the clinic decided future primary care general medical expansion plans was contrary to clinics with only one or two the concept. Dr. Price reiterated physicians. that there were already limita- tions imposed because of the Councilmember Hardman asked clinic's location and current if some of the proposed expansion zoning requirements. could occur at the satellite clinics. Dr. Price said some Councilmember Kirk said it expansion could occur at the other seemed that the only area of locations, but the mission of the disagreement was the building main Salt Lake Clinic, which was height since the Baddley Place tertiary care for complicated issue could be resolved with cases, could only be met in one alternative language. She asked facility where specialists could Dr. Price if he would be satisfied confer about complex medical if the height restriction was issues. He said this was differ- deleted from recommendation D. Dr. ent from primary medical care and Price said that was correct and said they couldn' t deliver complex reiterated that the statement on medical care if they were frag- page seven was incorrect since the mented. clinic had not applied for 133, 000 square feet of total space. He Councilmember Hardman asked said applying restrictions to a if there were plans to expand the building which the clinic had not satellite sites. Dr. Price said proposed, seemed unwarranted. there were plans for expansion as the need arose and demands in Councilmember Godfrey asked those areas increased. for clarification regarding the 133, 000 square feet. Mr. Wright Councilmember Godfrey said said the clinic' s original appli- Dr. Price supported the concept of cation submitted under the condi- master planning but was uncomfort- tional use process requested a able with a size limitation on four-story surgical center south future building. He suggested of the existing structure. He that such limitations would help said the reason for the master the clinic with future expansion planning process was because of plans. Dr. Price said there were the number of iterations that the already limitations because of clinic's request went through. He parking requirements and the 45 said there were many different foot height restriction. He also expectations and a master plan for said the clinic had agreed in the block was the best way to principle to stay off 300 South balance all the issues. and 1000 East. He added that the commercial property on the corner He said the key was to make of 400 South and 900 East was an appropriate public policy under a 20 year lease and was not statement to the Salt Lake Clinic available for purchase by the Salt about their expansion and to the Lake Clinic. owners of residential property about their investments. He said 90-55 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 the plan was fair to both the Cindy Cromer, 816 East First neighborhood and the clinic and South, supported the master plan. set good policy. She said in 1985 she represented the neighborhood in an agreement Councilmember Godfrey asked with the Salt Lake Clinic regard- if the Planning Commission could ing its future expansion. The automatically allow a four-story agreement was for a one-story, building if the Council removed 10, 500 square foot surgical center recommendation D. Mr. Wright and that was all the expansion the said the clinic was a conditional clinic wanted. She said the use and had no rights in the "R-7" neighborhood didn' t want any more zone in terms of scale, mass, expansion but they compromised so square footage, and height. He their downzoning petition could said limitations could be applied proceed. to scale, square footage, and height since this was a condi- She said four years later the tional use. clinic renewed its expansion plans but this time to ultimately double He said the Planning Commis- the size of the facility. She sion could address this issue said the residents in the East without a policy direction, but it Central Neighborhood had developed was better to have a policy direc- solutions to tough land use prob- tion in the plan as a clear signal lems with other businesses and it to the neighborhood and clinic was not because of the lack of about the parameters against which good ideas that they had failed to expansion would be judged. He reach an agreement with Salt Lake recommended that the Council keep Clinic. She supported the master a square footage requirement in plan so property owners could the plan since it sent a clearer improve their homes with confi- signal. He suggested they could dence. change the language to approximate the square footage if that was Councilmember Hardman said more desirable. He said they part of the 1985 agreement was to wanted to define the intensity of allow the clinic to build a one- expansion. story surgical center in return for an "R-7" zone. He asked what Councilmember Hale said the the previous zoning had been. Ms. clinic was not asking to expand Cromer said it had been zoned "R- northward and at this time was not 6" . Mr. Hardman reaffirmed that asking to expand to the south. He the neighborhood allowed the said he thought expansion hinged clinic to increase the zoning on upon the number of parking stalls the current site from "R-6" to "R- and said traffic was regulated by 7" in return for a 10, 500 foot the appointments. surgical center. He asked Ms. Cromer if she thought the neigh- Councilmember Kirk suggested borhood made a significant compro- that recommendation D could be mise at that time. She said they restated to allow expansion based did and they wouldn' t have made on what could be accommodated by that compromise except that the parking on the block. Mr. Parker city told them the downzoning said with that wording they would petition would not proceed until then have to discuss limiting they reached an agreement with the parking. Salt Lake Clinic. 90-56 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Allen Cole, 225 Iowa Street, been frustrating and difficult for expressed two major concerns. the Salt Lake Clinic as well as First, he said traffic on 900 the neighborhood. He said he East was already busy. He said thought they could live with the the surgical center which they master plan but appealed to the approved in 1985 was low impact Council to generate a process with only a few patients a day. whereby business and residential He said general purpose office needs could be met and negotiated space could generate many more equally. patients. Second, he said on 300 South 1000 East the Salt Lake Councilmember Godfrey asked Clinic had purchased properties on Dr. Cannon if he supported the those streets and let them deteri- master plan. Dr. Cannon said he orate. In regards to Salt Lake supported it with the removal of Clinic divesting the property, he the Baddley Place issue. He also said they had sold it IHC. He said he received the master plan said residents couldn't feel good on January 2 to be discussed about investing in their property before the Planning Commission on under those circumstances and January 4. He said no one had hadn' t felt good faith during the discussed this master plan with negotiations with Salt Lake Clin- the clinic. ic. Councilmember Kirk asked Dr. Theresa Piele, 363 South 1000 Cannon if he agreed with the East, said she was excited that concept of the height limitation. families were starting to move Dr. Cannon said in his opinion he into the neighborhood. She said thought the construction of a when homes were demolished the second building would fit better area lost families which caused if it were two levels with parking the elementary school to fall underground. below the 70% mandated enrollment. In regards to the height issue she Councilmember Hale asked if said there wasn't any transition the surgical center requested in because the clinic was out of 1985 was no longer needed. Dr. character and she said the neigh- Cannon said the original 1985 borhood had tried to work with the petition did not materialize. He clinic in good faith. expressed his opinion that at this time their needs could be met with Richard Cannon, Salt Lake their current petition which Clinic physician, said the clinic, requested expansion to the exist- in good faith, had spent ample ing facility. money in redesigning the block to meet the intensity criteria which Stephanie Harpst, community the city had given to them. He development planner for Salt Lake said they were not interested in City, said the East Central Commu- having their clinic in a slum and nity Council asked her to convey a were interested in a program that point about the impact that resi- would effectively put money into dential components made on future the restoration of decent housing. federal funding. She said the residential component related to He said the 1985 agreement the city' s population, and the addressed the needs at that time population which would be ascer- and in no way implicated future tained by the 1990 census would needs. He said the process had affect the community development 90-57 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 block grant funding level the city feet of landscape set back area would receive. with a masonry decorative screen- ing wall between the residential She said they had been re- properties on 1000 East and the ceiving around $4 million for the clinic parking. last 10 years but the adjusted population estimates for the last Nancy Saxton, 164 South 900 few years had gone down. She said East, said that according to house CDBG was based on a formula relat- movers, both properties on 400 ed to number and condition of South could be moved to 1000 East housing units, income of people, and Mr. Phillips ' property could minority population, and popula- also be moved. She then referred tion of the city. She said as the to a drawing of a 16-block city population dropped it was radius which showed the number of possible that Salt Lake City would medical facilities in the area. lose CDBG funding. She said there were several with space available to lease and two She also said a drop in were for sale. She said it was population would affect sales tax interesting that a conditional use distribution and class "C" gas property could expand when there tax. She said last fall the city were other facilities available in lost $100, 000 in class "C" gas tax the area. because of a downward adjustment in population. She said the basis She said she had worked in for CDBG planning was vital neigh- the medical profession for 17 borhoods and a loss in population years and said it was not neces- would also affect Title 20 ( social sary to have all services under services block grant) and communi- one roof. She said a building 1/2 ty services block grant. block from the Salt Lake Clinic was for rent which could house Robert Arbogast, 970 East 300 their eye clinic. She said it South, said this was a viable wasn't necessary for an eye clinic community and residential area. to be adjacent to other medical He expressed his concern about services. She said some medical increased traffic in the neighbor- services could be separate. hood. She reiterated that a condi- Jerry Miller, 322 South 1000 tional use did not guarantee the East, supported the master plan. clinic a right to build a four- He said he had purchased his story building which would be out property from IHC and the other of character. She said the neigh- two homes to the north had also borhood was viable and when the been purchased. He expressed his clinic divested, the houses sold concern with the set back require- quickly. She said major renova- ment behind his property and said tion and remodeling was taking he would prefer to have 15 or 20 place and old homes in this area feet and would prefer a solid wall were selling for between $70, 000 rather than a chainlink fence. and $90, 000. Councilmember Pace asked if Ray Phillips, 954 Baddley the set back requirement could be Place, supported the master plan negotiated. Mr. Parker said it and said this was the first plan could but as established by the neighborhood had seen. He ordinance the requirement was 10 opposed Dr. Price' s statement 90-58 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 regarding the mandate on Baddley He said the neighborhood didn' t Place. He said the Salt Lake want any growth but had compro- Clinic had made expansion requests mised from the beginning. He since the 1960s and traffic had supported the plan because it increased from 10, 000 cars per would define the boundaries and month to their current request limits. which would handle 3, 200 cars per day. He said his home on Baddley Councilmember Pace said that Place was not for sale although he Sara Hunt, 225 South Iowa Street, had met with Dr. Price about a didn't wish to speak but supported proposal for a property trade and the master plan. he was considering this option. Nedea Blumenthal, 326 South Councilmember Godfrey asked 1000 East, said her property was Mr. Phillips if Dr. Price' s offer surrounded by the Salt Lake Clinic was a suggestion or a firm offer. parking lot. She supported the Mr. Phillips said Dr. Price master plan. offered a proposal and then asked him if he would be interested. Virginia Reiter, 842 East Mr. Phillips said he was checking 500 South, said Neighborhood into all the ramifications. Housing Services had indicated their interest in being involved Councilmember Godfrey asked with upgrading the houses in this Mr. Phillips when he would have a area. firm offer. Mr. Phillips said he was anxious to see what action the Robert Smith, Salt Lake Council would take regarding the Clinic, supported the master plan master plan. Mr. Parker said they with two objections: The Baddley could include either option for Place issue and the concept of Baddley Place in the master plan specifying a square footage limi- based on the disposition of the tation on building. He said he Phillips property. thought the issues should be what the building would be used for an Councilmember Pace asked how it would affect the neighbor- Roger Cutler, city attorney, if hood. In regards to Baddley the Council could make a master Place, he said there didn't appear plan contingent upon a two-party to be a lot of latitude for com- buy/sell agreement. She didn't promise. He said if they restored want to give leverage to either Baddley Place to residential then party. Mr. Cutler said that a they would have to provide under- master plan was a planning docu- ground parking, the construction ment and the Council ' s policy of which would disrupt their objective could be met in several operation. He asked that the alternative ways depending on the Baddley Place language be flexi- wording. ble. Jan Bartlett, 164 South 900 Councilmember Whitehead said East, said the Salt Lake Clinic until there was a master plan doctors met with the residents in outlining expansion in this neigh- December of 1988 with a specific borhood, the clinic and the resi- plan. He said since then the plan dents would continue to battle had changed several times. He about this issue. He said he said his primary concern was not thought it would be better for the design but the traffic increase. clinic, the neighborhood and the 90-59 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 city to have guidelines regarding Place be closed and sold to the expansion in this area so everyone clinic and that the 10th East understood what to expect. Mr. properties be returned to residen- Smith said if there was a ceiling tial uses. " on their expansion and the clinic needed to expand more, then at Councilmember Hale wanted to some point they would have to further amend the master plan by relocate. He suggested allowing striking the following wording on for enough flexibility. page 4, last sentence: "and Badd- ley Place should be reestablished Councilmember Whitehead said as a residential enclave. " at some point the clinic may need the entire block which wasn't what Councilmember Hardman said the neighborhood wanted. He said Mr. Hale's amendment would elimi- the purpose of the master plan was nate an option whereas his motion to specify how much expansion would provide two options. He could occur at this location and said he thought if the Council at that point the clinic would deleted the sentence on page 4, have to expand at a different they would have to delete recom- location. Mr. Smith indicated mendation E. that they were willing to live with the Council 's decision wheth- Councilmember Pace said if er or not they thought the deci- the property exchange between the sion was based on correct crite- clinic and Mr. Phillips occurred, ria. then Baddley Place would not be a residential enclave. She suggest- Ms. Saxton said the neigh- ed at that point the language borhood and community council could changed. supported the master plan and encouraged the Council to make a Mr. Parker suggested that the decision. She said businesses Council change the word "and" to like the Salt Lake Clinic needed "or" so the sentence would read, to consider expanding into commer- "300 South and 1000 East streets cial property. She said none of should be exclusively residential their expansion had ever been into or Baddley Place should be rees- commercial property and they had tablished as a residential en- allowed commercial options to pass clave. " them by. She said they didn't look at expensive commercial The Council accepted the property but looked at cheap wording change from "and" to "or" . residential property. She said the neighborhood needed a firm Councilmember Hale referred statement for the Salt Lake Clinic to page 9, recommendation D and as well as other commercial condi- moved to delete this paragraph. tional uses that they must limit Mr. Hale said the clinic would growth in residential areas. have to go before the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission Councilmember Hardman moved to get a permit so the square to adopt the ordinance approving footage issue could be negotiated the Block 42B Master Plan with the at that point. following addition as part of recommendation E (page 9 ) : "In the Councilmember Whitehead said event the Phillips' property is deleting this paragraph would sold to the clinic, that Baddley cause a conflict between the 90-60 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 neighborhood and the clinic. He piece of equipment may need a lot suggested that rather than delete of space but would have a low the entire paragraph, the Council intensity of use. She asked if delete the word "new" . He said the use of the structure would be the paragraph was not specific taken into consideration in re- about construction to the existing gards to the parking requirements. building; it only addressed new construction. Mr. Parker said one parking space was required for every 200 Councilmember Kirk said she square feet of expansion. Mrs. talked with people in the neigh- Pace reiterated that no one knew borhood and it appeared that the what future technology would bring neighborhood and clinic had and she wondered if the plan was negotiated to a point of impasse. flexible enough. Mr. Parker said She agreed with Councilmember they may have to go back to the Whitehead that it was time to make Planning Commission and the Board a decision. of Adjustment but staff believed they had identified the maximum Councilmember Whitehead said use the clinic could achieve based the clinic didn' t know what their on doctors examination rooms. He future expansion would be. He added that they tried to achieve said if the Council left it open a balance between the neighbor- the issue would be before them hood' s desires as well as the again in a few years. He reiter- expansion potential of the clinic. ated that establishing a direction would be better for the clinic and Councilmember Kirk asked if the neighborhood. He said he the clinic would get 53, 000 square thought the Council needed to feet with an addition to the restrict the amount of expansion present building plus the con- in this area. struction of a two-level building. Mr. Parker said the clinic would Councilmember Pace said she get 41,000 square feet. He said didn't know if the wording in the master plan supported an recommendation D was appropriate additional facility on 400 South and asked if this would allow for of approximately 12, 000, which negotiation. Mr. Parker said the would total 53,000 square feet. wording was "approximately 27, 000 square feet" , which was based on Mrs. Kirk asked how much the design from the clinic' s square footage a four-story build- architect. He said staff estimat- ing, as originally proposed, would ed that 27,000 square feet would allow the clinic. Mr. Parker said be the potential in a two-level that would give them 48, 000 square structure. He said the plan was feet. Mrs. Kirk pointed out that flexible if they limited the the clinic was actually getting building to one level above grade. more square footage potential under the master plan. Mr. Parker Councilmember Pace said the said this was correct because the Salt Lake Clinic' s needs had master plan focused expansion changed in the last 5 years. She toward 400 South whereas the said given the rapid rate of clinic was going to use that area change in this industry, it was as surface parking. Mr. Parker hard to guess what the technologi- also said the trade off was to cal advances would be in the next maintain the residential character 5 years. She said perhaps one on 1000 East and 300 South. 90-61 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Councilmember Hardman opposed asked if the clinic was planning Mr. Hale' s motion. He said the to expand this building. Mr. crux of the master plan hinged on Parker said the addition would be limiting the growth of the clinic. constructed outward from the Without limitations, the clinic existing roof line. could expand to the maximum al- lowed under the "R-7" zone. He Councilmember Hardman said suggested the only way to address the Planning Commission had ap- the limitation issue was to ad- proved the clinic' s petition for dress square footage or parking. this addition and he asked if that He said the 27, 000 square-foot was grandfathered. Mr. Parker requirement only referred to said the approval of the clinic' s adding a building to the south; conditional use was in harmony they could actually expand on the with the direction of the master site to 41, 000 square feet and plan. He said their request had expansion beyond that would re- to go before the Board of Adjust- quire a zoning change. He said he ment, which actually approved the thought 41, 000 square feet was a expansion of the building in an reasonable compromise between what "R-7" zone. He said the Planning the neighborhood wanted and what Commission dealt with the parking the clinic wanted. in a residential zone. Councilmember Whitehead Councilmember Whitehead said referenced the height and scale he didn' t want to restrict their under Built Form on page 4. He addition to the south but wanted said this referred to a maximum the limitation to apply to future height of 45 feet or four stories. expansion. He said the only place they could build a structure that size was on Councilmember Pace asked what the corner of 400 South and 900 could be constructed that would be East and asked if this would cause 45 feet. Mr. Parker said con- an imbalance with the neighbor- struction on the northwest corner hood. He asked if the Council could be 45 feet, which would should restrict that corner now. allow for apartment buildings. Mr. Parker said it was restricted by the present zoning which was After a vote on Councilmember "C-1" . Hale' s motion, Councilmember Hardman restated his motion which Mr. Whitehead asked why the was to adopt the ordinance approv- master plan referenced 45 feet. ing the master plan with an amend- Mr. Parker said a 45-foot building ment to recommendation E regarding could be constructed directly the closure of Baddley Place. south of the existing building. Councilmember Whitehead suggested In reference to closing limiting construction to two Baddley Place, Councilmember Pace stories or 25 feet. asked if the property should be vacated. Councilmember Godfrey Councilmember Pace asked if suggested stating that Baddley expanding the existing building Place would be closed or vacated. would exceed the 25-foot limit. Mr. Parker said the existing Mr. Wright said there would facility approached 45 feet, which be two portions of Baddley Place was allowed as a conditional use if it were closed. The interior in the "R-7" zone. Mrs. Pace portion adjacent to the clinic, 90-62 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 and the east portion which would Phillips sold his property. He be vacated or closed and hopefully said he believed they were not returned to the residential prop- putting Mr. Phillips or the clinic erties on 1000 East. He said the in a more powerful position but city could keep the property were acknowledging alternatives. until all private transactions had (T 90-4) occurred at which time the city could dispose of Baddley Place. The meeting adjourned at 9: 10 Councilmember Hardman said he p.m. accepted the wording change on page 4 from "and" to "or" as part of his motion. COUNCIL CHAIR Councilmember Whitehead asked about amending recommendation D. Councilmember Hardman suggested changing the word "building" to CITY RECORDER "construction" so it would read, "Any new construction. . . " He said this would include construction to the existing facility as well as construction apart and separate from that building to the south. In regards to recommendation E, Councilmember Kirk asked if Baddley Place would be restored to a residential use in the event that Mr. Phillips decided to keep his property. She expressed con- cern that the Council would put Mr. Phillips in a powerful posi- tion. Mr. Wright said it was in the best interest of Salt Lake City to deal with Baddley Place. In reference to the clinic' s expan- sion petition, he said the Plan- ning Commission required that the Baddley Place property currently used for parking be landscaped. He said the Planning Commission also wanted to ensure that houses would be constructed on this site. He said the home east of the Phillips' property would also need to be landscaped since the exist- ing parking could not be accessed. Mr. Wright said there would be an immediate change of use regardless of whether or not Mr. 90-63 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1990 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, February 27, 1990, at 6:45 p.m. at Washington Elementary School, 420 North 200 West. The following Council Members were present: Ronald Whitehead Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Don Hale Nancy Pace Mayor Palmer DePaulis and Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, were present. Council Chair Hardman presided at and conducted the meeting. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS 1990 authorizing the issuance and confirming the sale of $20, 640, 000 #1. RE: A public hearing on Airport Revenue Bonds, which Tuesday, March 20, 1990, at 6:20 motion carried, all members voted p.m. , to receive comments and aye. consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an DISCUSSION: Cindy Gust- interlocal cooperation agreement Jenson, Council Executive Direc- consenting to the issuance of tor, said the amount of the bonds industrial revenue bonds (Health listed on the agenda was wrong and Care Facilities Revenue Bonds, should be $20, 640, 000. Series 1990) by Weber County to (Q 89-8) facilitate the acquisition and improvement of health care facili- ties throughout Utah. The meeting adjourned at 6: 50 p.m. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to set the date, which motion carried, all members voted COUNCIL CHAIR aye. (C 90-102) UNFINISHED BUSINESS CITY RECORDER #1. RE: A supplemental resolution authorizing the issu- ance and confirming the sale of $2,310, 000 Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 1990, of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, and relat- ed matters. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hale seconded to adopt Resolution 25 of 90-64 01/ MAYOR-S BOARD APPOINTMENT RECOMENDATION NEW APPOINTMENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Nark Hafey to be appointed to replace Nancy K. Pace for Mr. Hafey's first term, ending December 31, 1994. Mr. Hafey worked in Salt Lake City"s Planning Department. for 30 years and was a staff member for the Board of Adjustment for many of those years. fir. Hafey does not live in the City. There are no specific residency requirements for membership on the board. If Mr. Hafey is appointed, one member of the board will live in District 1, none in District 2, two in District 3, one in District 4, none in District 5, one in District 6 (alternate) and none in District 7. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE CITATION: 21 .06.010 MEMBERSHIP: 5 with 3 alternate members TERM: 5 years, staggered terms QUALIFICATION: Non-required ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes OATH OF OFFICE: No PURPOSE: The Board has three basic powers: ( 1) Hears appeals on applications of zoning ordinances. (2) Reviews, grants, or denies all applications for special exceptions to the ordinances (conditional uses). (3) Grants variances from the zoning ordinance in specific cases where there are special conditions attached to the ,property not generally applicable to other properties. The Board cannot grant a use variance. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Dorothy Pleshe 3 4/84(ALT) 1st Full Term 641 6th Ave. 7/86(12/86) 12/31/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 12/86 Phone: (W)530-7367 (H)539-9704 2. Jerry Fenn 1 12/88 1st Term 905 North 1500 West 12/31/93 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: 359-7597 3. Robert Lewis 4 1/81(12/82) 2nd Term 806 Blair Street 12/82( 12/87) 12/31/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 12/88 Phone: (H) 363-8331 4. Nancy Pace - RESIGNED 3 (12/84)1/85 1st Term 1524 Arlington Drive 12/31/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: (W)364-4461 (H)322-2348 5. I. J. Wagner 3 10/83(ALT) 1st Term 445 Northmont Way 10/87 12/31/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (W)322-4141 (H) 364-6870 Board of Adjustments Page Two ALTERNATES 1. Rick Howa 6 09/00/89 1st Term 1039 0akhills Way 1/00/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (H) 583-9210 (W) 328-0678 (Planning Commission Liason) She is filling in until 9/89 2. Kent Money N/A 1/87 Unexpired Term 1897 West 11700 South 12/31/91 South Jordan, Utah 84065 3. Faun Hansen RESIGNED 6 7/88 1st Term 2245 East 1700 South 12/31/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Phone: (H)583-1311 (W)328-1633 Meeting Schedule: Every other Monday, 4 p.m. Community and Economic Development Board Room Room 126 City and County Building Staff Support: Randolph P. Taylor 535-7751 12/01/89rbc 3 HISTORICAL LANDMARK COMMITTEE .j ORDINANCE CITATION: 21.74.030 MEMBERSHIP: 9 to 15 members ; (1) American Institute of Architects (2) historical societies of Utah (3) Utah Heritage Foundation (4-8) Citizens at large (9) Planning Commission Representative, and (10-15) Residents of or property owner in historic district, with no more than two per district. The Planning Director and Building and Housing Director are both ex-officio. TERM: 3 Years QUALIFICATIONS: Resident of Salt Lake City, interested in preservation and knowledgeable about Salt Lake City. ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes OATH OF OFFICE: no PURPOSE: The Committee is an advisory committee to the Salt Lake Planning Commission created to advise the Planning Commission on matters of historical districts and landmark sites in their responsibility to promote, nominate and monitor the preservation of historically significant resources within the city. NAME REPRESENTATION COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Michael Stransky, AIA 3 7/82 2nd Term 59 Hillside Ave. 10/86 7-14-88 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W) 363-5251 2. Steve England, Historical Societies 3 7/82(7/85) 2nd Term 540 W. Capitol Street '9/86 7-14-88 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W) 532-5163 (H) 328-3309 3. Linda Edeiken, 3 1/88 1st Term Heritage Foundation 7-14-90 70 P Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W) 355-7851 4. Ranch Kimball , At Large 3 3/88 Unexpired Term 276 Wall Street 7-14-88 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (W) (H) 5. M. Louis Ulrich, At Large 3 9/83(7/86) 2nd Term 235 East Capitol Boulevard 10/86(7/14/89) 7-14-92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 10/10/89 Phone: (W) 521-6186 (H) 581-0060 6. Peter DuP. Emerson, At Large 4 7/83(7/85) 2nd Term 547 South 1100 East 10/86 7-14-88 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: (W) 531-7600 (H) 583-3783 HISTORICAL LANDMARK COMMITTEE PAGE TWO 7. Grace Sperry, At Large 6 9/86 1st Term 2907 E. Oakhurst Drive 7-14-88 Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Phone: (W) 266-2476 (H) 582-1100 8. Pam Grubaugh-Littig, Avenues 3 12/87 1st Term 121 D Street 7-14-90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W) 538-5340 (H) 534-0584 9. Lyle Knudsen, Avenues 3 9/86(7/14/89) 2nd Term 1018 3rd Avenue 10/10/89 7-14-92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W)531-8636 (H) 355-4308 10. Ken D. Peterson, South Temple Vacancy 3 7/83(7/86) 1st Term 963 East South Temple 7-14-86 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: (W) 581-5629 (H) 532-3208 11. W. Randall Dixon, Capitol Hill 3 7/84(7/87) 2nd Term 726 Wall Street 3/88 7-14-90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (W) 531-3601 (H) 322-4003 12. Louis Schricker, Capital Hill 3 12/87(7/14/89) 1st Term 241 North Vine Street #1004W 10/10/89 7/14/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 355-2933 13. Harold Christensen, Exchange Place N/A 12/87 Unexpired Term 2269 Pheasant Way 7-14-89 Holiday, Utah Phone: (W) 322-9158 (H) 277-4849 14. Tom Sieg, At Large Resigned 3 7/81(7/84) 2nd Term 239 East Capitol Blvd. 7/84 7-14-87 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: (H) 531-8967 15. Ralph P. Neilson, Planning 1/12/89 First Federal Savings and Loan 505 East 200 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: (H) 533-8113 (W) 531-7800 HISTORICAL LANDMARK COMMITTEE PAGE THREE 16. Allen Johnson, Director Ex-Officio Planning Commission 324 South State Street, 2nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (H) 533-7757 17. Roger Evans, Acting Director Ex-Officio Building and Housing Division 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (H) 533-7751 Meeting Schedule: First and Third Wednesday (April--October) , 3 p.m. First Wednesday (January--March, November--December) , 3 p.m. Planning Commission Board Room Staff Support: Bil Schwab 535-7757 11/06/89rbc ROGER F. CUTLER 1r A\ 1 Ij4G 0A' IONV �11, aG ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS V. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LA RY BRUCE R. BAIRD SPENDLOVE CHERYL D. LUKE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505 FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 JANICE L. FROST February 15, 1990 Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis 451 South State, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Permit-Bond Requirements Dear Mayor DePaulis: We have been reviewing the City' s policy concerning requiring insurance and bonds. We have concluded the cost to track insurance on minor encroachments is not worth the benefit received by the City. The risk of loss is slight. We have not received a claim since we went self insured in 1977 for areas in which we have allowed fencing or landscaping on the City' s right-of-way. We suggest it would be appropriate to add proposed subsection B. which eliminates the requirement of bonds or insurance when the encroachment is for a fence or for landscaping improvements. Most of these requests are from home owners, although some businesses will also be affected. Passage of this proposal will eliminate the need for them to keep requesting annual renewal notices to go to the City. Very t my yours, GREG R. HAWKINS Assistant City Attorney GRH:rc Attachments DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Permit-Bond requirements) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14. 12.080 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1988, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PERMIT-BOND REQUIREMENTS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 14. 12.080 of the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, as amended, relating to Permit-Bond Requirements, be and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: 14.12.080 Permit-Bond requirements. A. The applicant for such permit shall provide a corporate surety bond in the amount of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars, conditioned on the removal of the encroachment on city request, and shall also provide a policy of insurance in the minimum sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars per person, five hundred thousand dollars per incident, which names Salt Lake City Corporation as an additional insured and gives the city thirty days' notice of cancellation of the policy for whatever reason. B. Provided, however, no bond or insurance will be required where the encroachment is for fencing which separates 1 the occupied property from the traveled P p p y portion of the right of way or for landscaping. Any such fencing or landscaping shall conform to all applicable city ordinances. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1990. Published: GRH:rc -2- Ft STAFF RECOMMENDATION OLYMPICS March 9, 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of C an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, The Sal 7 Bid Committee for the Olympic Winter Games and the United States Olympic Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As was discussed in your Committee of the Whole briefing, the City Attorney has been working with the Olympic Bid Committee to negotiate this agreement. The agreement holds the City harmless through the requirement of liability insurance, performance and materialmen bonds, workers compensation insurance and contract provisions with all vendors and builders so that the City's general tax revenues or the future taxing power of the City is not pledged. A copy of the agreement is attached to the resolution you are being asked to adopt. A copy of all of the attachments to the agreement is available in the Council Office. STAFF ANALYSIS: I have confirmed with the Olympic Bid Committee that the insurance required by the agreement is available to them, and have confirmed with the Attorney's Office that this agreement holds the City harmless. You'll note that on page 10 of the agreement, the itemization for the category of "OGOC (Olympics Games Organizing Committee) for use in Utah" adds up to 50 percent, rather than 70 percent. At the recent Board of Trustees meeting, it was clarified that the reason for this is that 20 percent is uncommited. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution SUGGESTED MOTION: I move we adopt the resolution authorizing the interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City, the Untied States Olympic Committee and the Salt Lake City Bid Committee for the Olympic Winter Games. RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (USOC) AND THE SALT LAKE CITY BID COMMITTEE FOR THE OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES (SLOBC) WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A. , 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes ; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows : An Agreement committing the U.S .O.C. to designate Salt Lake City as the United State' s designated City to host the 1990 Olympic Winter Games . The Agreement identifies the duties of the SLOBC to seek the bid, in the name of the City, from the International Bid Committee ( I .O.C. ) and arrange for construction of Olympic facilities , necessary to host the games in conformity with the bid. It further defines and allocates duties , responsibilities and obligations among the parties . • 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of -Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day of March, 1990 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RFC:ap • �' `c ✓� ai .t• -2- AGREEMENT C This Agreement is entered into as of the _ day of , 1990 by and among: THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, incorporated by Act of Congress (herein "USOC"), 1750 East Boulder St., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909; THE SALT LAKE CITY BID COMMITTEE FOR THE OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES, a Utah nonprofit corporation (herein "SLOBC"), 420 East South Temple Street, Suite 340, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111; and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation (herein the "City"), % Mayor's Office, City-County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. WHEREAS, the USOC is authorized by the International Olympic Committee (herein "IOC") to designate a United States city to apply to the IOC with the USOC for the right to host the 1998 Olympic Winter Games (herein the "Games"); and (_ WHEREAS. the USOC entertained proposals from certain U. S. cities submitted in response to USO( kirj.t, , - ) I= irements and, on June 4, 1989, the USOC Executive Board : i_ i -c.,1 ee; and ifjeAWHEN and requirements, the parties hereto are required to enter into this :ms, conditions and undertakings upon which such designation was granted and is to continue. NOW THEREFORE, this Agreement is entered into in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the grant of authority to the City to apply for the Games, the terms and conditions ihereof, and the undertakings of the parties set forth herein: :1 Ray.(Mawr*N kr.i.r doe dud 22160 1242 pm -1- I. DID CHRONOLOGY = f November 12-13. 1988 The USOC Executive Board at its meeting in Minneapolis, adopted resolutions expressing prerequisites to award as the designated U.S. Olympic Winter Games bid city. March 23. 1989 Bid Seminar held at USOC Conference Center in Colorado Springs with six (6) prospective candidate cities present. April 19-May 2. 1989 The USOC Inspection Team visited each of the five (5) candidate cities, one city having withdrawn. May 19. 1989 Candidate cities' response to USOC Bid Seminar questionnaire and other information forwarded by each candidate city to the USOC and each Executive Board member for study. June 3. 1989 USOC Executive Board at its meeting in Des Moines adopted four (4) resolutions proposed by the USOC Site Inspection Team concerning the bid city selection process. The adopted resolutions were substantially the same as the "Proposed Rules" presented to prospective candidate cities at the Bid Seminar. June 4. 1989 Final presentations were made to the USOC Executive Board in Des Moines by four (4) candidate cities, a second city having withdrawn. The City was selected by vote of the Executive Board as the U.S. Candidate City. November 7, 1989 The Utah electorate voting in a special state-wide election approved by 57% a referendum regarding the City's bid efforts and the public funding of winter sports facilities. January 27. 1990 The Winter NGB Council approved a construction schedule substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibits H-1 and H-2. C ter.Quinsy t Weaker draft dated 2rt1 Ao 1202 pm —2- 1 II. EXHIBITS The following Exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as if set forth word-for-word in its text, and each party acknowledges receipt of each exhibit. Exhibit Description A Brochure: "Salt Lake City — a Bid to Host the XVIII Olympic Winter Games" B Brochure: "Salt Lake City's Response to the United States Olympic Committee's Questionnaire for Cities Seeking to Host the 1998 Olympic Winter Games" dated April 14, 1989, including cover letter by Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis dated April 16, 1989 C Brochure: "Technical Specifications Salt Lake City" dated April 14, 1989 D Letter from Thomas K. Welch, Chairman, SLOBC, dated May 5, 1989, with personnel list and financial enclosures directed to USOC Site Inspection Team. Also, copies of Fact Sheets referenced in the letter. E Letter of May 24, 1989 from Honorable Norman H. Bangerter, ( :' Governor of the State of Utah, to USOC F Transcript of City's presentation of June 4, 1989 to USOC Executive Board G House Bill 19, as adopted by the Utah Legislature in September 1989 H-1 Construction Schedule dated February 20, 1990, Phase 2 of which is to govern if the City is awarded the right to host the Games H-2 Construction Schedule dated February 20, 1990, Phase 2 of which is to govern if the City is not awarded the right to host the Games I Olympic Charter as published by the IOC, 1989 Edition, including sections on Rules, By-Laws, Instructions, Organization of the Olympic Games and IOC Commissions J Technical Specifications dated March, 1989 of the International Federations for Biathlon, Bobsled, Figure Skating, Ice Hockey, Luge, Skiing and Speedskating as distributed by the IOC to the USOC Ray.Quinsy&Nekeizr a.n diked vivao 1242c. -3- K • Escrow Instructions relating to $250,000 deposit L USOC Constitution and By-Laws, 1989 Edition M Resolutions of November, 1988 and June, 1989 of the USOC Executive Board respecting the Bid City Selection process for designation of the 1998 Olympic Winter Games U.S. Candidate City N Resolution of January 27, 1990 of the Winter NGB Council approving the Construction Schedule that is attached hereto as Exhibit H-i III. DESIGNATION OF CITY AS U,S. CANDIDATE CITY FOR THE GAMES 3.1 The City and SLOBC have represented to the USOC Executive Board in Exhibits A through F that the City and SLOBC, having arranged for the construction of certain facilities by the State of Utah, are ready, willing and able to perform all undertakings set forth in Exhibits A through H and to comply with the requirements of Exhibits I through M applicable to the candidacy of the City and, if such candidacy is successful, as host of the Games, subject to, and as modified by, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement. I 3.2 The following conditions are applicable to the initial exercise by SLOBC of the authority granted to the City by the June 4, 1989 designation of the City as the U.S. Candidate City for the-Games: 3.2.1 The transfer by SLOBC to the Utah State Treasurer of principal monies to be deposited and invested as a separate trust fund, as allowed under the Utah State Money Management Act of 1974, Utah Code Annotated Section 57-1-1, et. se ., with the amount so deposited being sufficient to provide a combined principal and interest balance of$250,000 on or before January 1, 1993, and with such deposit being subject to the escrow instructions attached hereto as Exhibit K; and • Ray,C.Kieeneyd riebds:e,.n(Wed 7R1/90 12.-02 pm -4- 3.2.2 An affirmative vote of not less than 51% of those people of Utah voting a special Utah statewide election to be held in November 1989, as authorized by H.B. No. 374 incorporated as part of Exhibit C. 3.3 The parties acknowledge that the condition set forth in Section 3.2.2 was fulfilled on November 7, 1989 when the Utah electorate, voting in a special state-wide election, approved by 57% a referendum regarding the City's bid efforts and the public funding of winter sports facilities. Therefore, upon fulfillment of the condition set forth in Section 3.2.1, the USOC will notify the IOC that the City is officially designated as the U.S. Candidate City for the Games. 3.4 The following conditions are applicable to the continuing exercise by the City and SLOBC of the authority granted to the City by such USOC designation: 3.4.1 Construction in the State of Utah by the Utah Sports Authority of (i) a luge/bobsled run, (ii) a 400 meter speedskating rink (to be covered in phases, as shown on the attached Exhibit H-1 if the City is awarded the right to host the Games, or as shown on the attached Exhibit H-2 if the City is not awarded the right to host the Games), (iii) a 30, 50, 70 and 90 meter ski jump complex (the latter jump to be built in phases, as shown on the attached Exhibits H-1 and H-2), and (iv) a freestyle jumping hill, all in accordance with the time schedules set out in the Construction Schedule attached as Exhibits H-i and H-2, and the lease and operation of such facilities by SLOBC. 3.4.2 Submission by January 1, 1993 of a "Sports Development Plan" outlining the terms of an athlete training support system that substantially conforms to the representations of Exhibits A through H, and that is reasonably coordinated with the United States National Governing Bodies (herein "NGBs") serving Olympic winter sports. Ray.war&ftebegr��2/ IAo 1 -5- 3.4.3 Reasonable and good faith implementation of the Sports Development c. Plan by SLOBC, in collaboration with the USOC, the NGBs, and through the NGBs with the respective winter International Federations (herein "IFs"). 3.4.4 Continuous, active, good faith efforts by SLOBC to present the City to the IOC and its members for selection by the IOC as host city for the Games. 3.4.5 Reasonable and good faith adherence by the City and SLOBC to all requirements of Exhibits I through M, subject to, and as modified by, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, during candidacy or while the City is the host city. 3.5 If the City is selected as the host city by the IOC, the City and SLOBC agree to negotiate with the IOC in good faith and to sign an appropriate contract with the IOC after consultation with the USOC, and otherwise to comply with reasonable IOC requirements. Such IOC contract may include joint and several responsibilities, to the extent permitted by Utah law, for acceptance of financial and organizational responsibility for the Games; provided, however, that: (a) all contacts, organization, operations and financial matters will be negotiated by SLOBC so that the IOC is totally excluded from financial responsibility in satisfaction of IOC Charter and Bylaw requirements; and (b) the City and SLOBC will make provisions for liability insurance, performance and materialmen bonds, workers compensation insurance and contract provisions with all vendors and builders so that the City's general tax revenues or the future taxing power of the City is not pledged. 3.6 For its part, the USOC confirms and agrees that the City is the designated U.S. city authorized to apply to the IOC for designation as the host of the Games, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Ray,Gar x Ne6elmr daft dined 2/2150 1242 pm -6- IV. DUTIES OF THE USOC 4.1 The USOC will: 4.1.1 sign the application of the City to the IOC and, at the request of SLOBC, otherwise work diligently and in good faith with the City and SLOBC in the solicitation of the IOC designation for the Games; 4.1.2 actively involve the NGBs in cooperating with the City and SLOBC in the coordination and implementation of the Sports Development Plan referenced in paragraphs 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 above; 4.1.3 actively encourage the NGBs to work with their respective IFs to promote the City for World, World Cup and other comparable international events, and for the award by the IOC of the Games; 4.1.4 assist the City and SLOBC in obtaining all necessary U.S. Government Cassurances and undertakings required by the IOC, including free access to the U.S. of Games participants and the IOC Olympic family; 4.1.5 assist the City and SLOBC in negotiation of IOC contract terms as favorable to the City, SLOBC and the USOC as reasonably possible, and fulfill all necessary IOC requirements therein agreed upon as applicable to the USOC; 4.1.6 negotiate in good faith with the City and SLOBC regarding the use by the City and SLOBC of all USOC-controlled marks, names and symbols. 4.2 The USOC will support the City for an uncontested second designation as the U.S. Candidate City authorized to apply to the IOC for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games; provided the City and SLOBC materially comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement but do not receive the IOC award as 1998 Olympic Winter Games host city. In Rq,Q,aomy.I Naha i=draft deed 2f11/90 17-432 pm -7- such event, SLOBC agrees to undertake such 2002 application to the IOC upon terms and conditions substantially the same as herein stipulated, except with regard to construction of new facilities. The City and SLOBC agree with the letter of Gov. Bangerter dated May 24, 1989 attached as Exhibit E, which acknowledges that such USOC commitment to support an uncontested second designation satisfies all requirements of the Utah House of Representatives "Winter Olympics Resolution" (H.C.R. No. 13) respecting a "pledge to support" the bid of the City and the State of Utah. The City and SLOBC agree that the USOC has no other or further commitment of support beyond the 2002 application, and only then as in this Agreement provided. 4.3 The USOC makes no representations regarding duties and responsibilities except as set out in the Agreement. V. STATUS AND DUTIES OF SLOBC 5.1 The City and SLOBC confuni and agree that SLOBC is authorized by the City to solicit the IOC designation of the City as host of the Games. s 5.2 SLOBC warrants and represents that: 5.2.1 SLOBC is a Utah nonprofit corporation duly qualified on December 19, 1988, as a charitable organization under § 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 5.2.2 SLOBC may contract with the Utah Sports Authority for the construction of, and to lease, manage and operate, or otherwise to use, the facilities referred to in Section 3.4.1, above. 5.2.3 SLOBC agrees to consult with and coordinate with the USOC and the appropriate NGBs respecting the planning and construction of the new facilities R+Y.Quarry Jr Sor l=draft awed 7l11/90 12.42}m -8- contemplated by this Agreement, recognizing that cooperative participation is essential to long-term progress and success. 5.2.4 SLOBC, and OGOC (as defined in Section 5.2.8, below) as its successor, shall have at least 20% athlete (as defined in Exhibit L) representation on its Board of Trustees. 5.2.5 At the request of the USOC, SLOBC will accept up to three (3) persons designated by the President of the USOC to serve as ex-officio members of SLOBC's Board of Trustees. Such persons shall attend meetings at USOC expense and otherwise act as a liaison between SLOBC and the USOC. 5.2.6 SLOBC routinely will provide the USOC Executive Director with copies of minutes of meetings of its Board of Trustees, and all material correspondence with and documents submitted to or received from the IOC, IOC members and the IFs. USOC will reciprocate by providing like copies of such correspondence and documents to SLOBC in like manner. 5.2.7 SLOBC will provide special quarterly reports to the USOC Executive Director in a format to be mutually agreed upon detailing SLOBC finances and progress in fulfilling the terms and conditions of this Agreement. SLOBC will provide verbal and graphic reports to the USOC Executive Board at reasonable intervals. 5.2.8 If the City is designated as the 1998 or 2002 host city, SLOBC will be reconstituted as necessary as the legal entity to act as the Olympic Games Organizing Committee ("OGOC") for the Games. In such event, USOC and OGOC will enter into a new or supplemental agreement relative to the Games. Such Agreement shall provide for USOC representation on the OGOC Board and for the sharing of say,Weeny A Plebsher draft dared 7121/90 min pm -9- information and collaboration between USOC and OGOC in like manner as provided herein respecting the USOC and SLOBC, and otherwise as appropriate. 5.2.9 The City and SLOBC acknowledge the rights of the USOC, authorized by Title 36 United States Code Section 371-396, and will respect and abide by all such provisions. Specifically, the City and SLOBC agree that they will not make use of any Olympic symbols, emblems, marks or terminology for any purpose, without the prior written consent of the USOC. VI. DIVISION OF SURPLUS 6.1 If the City is awarded the Games or the 2002 Olympic Winter Games by the IOC, and after all revenue is received by SLOBC and all expenses of SLOBC are paid, a surplus exists, such surplus shall be divided as follows: Percentage of Surplus Payable To 10% IOC 10% USOC 10% USOC for payment over to all its member NGBs for use in Utah 70% OGOC for use in Utah as follows: Facilities Support 20% Sports Foundation 15% Athlete Development 15% 6.2 The division and use of surplus is addressed in Exhibit C, p. 40 text. It is agreed that "80%" listed on p. 42 of Exhibit C in Table VII-3 is a typographical error. The figure should be 70%. 6.3 Surplus shall mean net revenues in excess of operating expenditures after repayment to the Utah Sports Authority of the funds, including interest paid in connection with the borrowing of funds, expended in constructing and operating the facilities referenced in Section 3.4.1 above, as required by Utah House Bill 374 (which is incorporated as part of Exhibit C) and Utah House Bill 19 (which is attached hereto as Exhibit G), and as was contemplated by the responses set forth in Exhibit C, all as determined by a leading international firm of Certified Public Accountants selected by SLOBC in consultation with the USOC. 6.4 The parties specifically acknowledge that the USOC has an Agreement with the IOC to receive 10% of the total gross compensation paid or provided as a benefit-in-kind, without any deductions, for the right to broadcast the Winter or Summer Olympic Games, or any portion thereof, in the United States or for use or commercial exploitation of any Olympic Designation by the broadcaster or broadcast advertiser. The parties acknowledge that such compensation, whether as presently constituted or as modified by future agreement between the USOC and the IOC, shall not be considered to be a part of the surplus revenue C_. described in this Section for purposes of division. VII. FINANCIAL RISK 7.1 The City and SLOBC agree that the USOC's signature on the IOC application and, if successful, on the IOC contract is necessary to receive the award but is not intended to result in financial risk to the USOC beyond the internal administrative expense to the USOC incurred in fulfilling the terms of this Agreement. It is agreed that the USOC requires all its current and foreseeable future financial resources for its chartered purposes and accordingly is unable to financially support the candidacy of the City, the planning and construction of facilities, the implementation of the Sports Development Plan, or the planning, staffing, organizing, administration, construction and other activities necessary to host the Games if awarded. The City and SLOBC agree to (a) purchase and maintain in force a commercial general liability insurance policy, with the USOC named as an additional insured, in an amount of not less than $10,000,000, as provided in Section 7.3 below; (b) RAY.Qiy t ALbel/sr draft dud 212150 1242 pm -11- require and cause all contractors to provide payment and performance bonds, as provided in Chapter 1, Title 14 of the Utah Code Annotated, in connection with the construction of the facilities described in Section 3.4.1 hereof; (c) require and cause all contractors to maintain adequate workers compensation insurance and automobile insurance, in full compliance with Utah law; and (d) require in any awarded contract that all contractors and subcontractors agree in writing to waive any claim they may have or claim to have against the USOC in connection with the construction of the facilities described in Section 3.4.1 hereof and their operations. All of the provisions in this Section 7.1 are for the purpose of protecting the USOC against liability, loss, cost, expense and risk, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or incident to any USOC undertakings to the IOC. 7.2 This Agreement is not assignable. 7.3 The City and SLOBC agree to purchase and maintain in force a commercial general liability insurance policy, with the USOC named as an additional insured, in a sum of not less than $10,000,000, to protect the USOC against liability, loss, cost, expense and risk, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of the City or SLOBC, respectively, or their respective agents, servants and employees, occurring in the course of performance of this Agreement, or in the execution of the Games or the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. The parties acknowledge that the insurance policy requirements of this Section 7.3 and of Section 7.1 may be fulfilled through a single policy for not less than the stated amount. 7.4 It is the understanding of the parties that the City is a municipal corporation and body politic of the State of Utah; as such, its power to incur debt, lend credit and bind legislative powers of subsequent City Councils is limited by the Utah Constitution and Utah law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to contravene such provisions, and this Agreement shall be construed to be in harmony and in compliance therewith. To the extent of any such conflict, or should any provision of this Agreement be declared illegal and Ray,wart Nebelsz draft dared 2..1/90 1242 pm -12- unenforceable, such provisions are severed and the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 7.5 The USOC agrees to enter, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and SLOBC against all liability, loss, cost, expense and risk, including attorney's fees, arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of USOC or its agents, servants and employees occurring in the course of performance of this Agreement, or in the execution of the Games or the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. VIII. INSURANCE 8.1 In fulfillment of the obligations imposed by Sections 7.1 and 7.3 hereof, SLOBC agrees to obtain, pay for and keep in force an insurance program for not less than $10,000,000 combined single limit. All policies shall be issued by companies rated not less than A by Best's Insurance Guide, or by the USOC's captive insurance company, Panol, or by such other companies as the USOC shall approve in writing, and shall name the USOC as an additional insured for the mutual and joint protection and benefit of both the SLOBC and the USOC. Such insurance shall, without limitation, provide commercial general liability and automobile liability coverage. Such insurance shall also afford the USOC defense and indemnity protection against liability arising out of the alleged negligent acts and omissions of the City and/or SLOBC or their agents, servants and employees in the performance of this Agreement. Such insurance program shall be subject to review and approval by the USOC's insurance consultant, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld. SLOBC shall promptly deliver to the USOC policies evidencing the insurance or certificates of coverage which shall designate the name and address of the issuer, the policy number, and the amount and provisions thereof. All policies shall contain a provision that the policy shall not be canceled, terminated or materially and adversely modified without thirty (30) days' prior notice to the USOC. 8.2 The USOC agrees to obtain, pay for and keep in force an insurance program for not less than $5,000,000 combined single limit. All policies shall be issued by companies R+0'.Q�Y Z 1 kheler draft(Wad 7R1f90 12.432 pm -13- rated not less than A by Best's Insurance Guide, or by the USOC's captive insurance company, Panol, or by such other companies as SLOBC shall approve in writing, and shall name SLOBC and the City as additional insureds for the mutual and joint protection and benefit of the USOC, SLOBC and the City. Such insurance shall, without limitation, provide commercial general liability and automobile liability coverage. Such insurance shall also afford SLOBC and the City defense and indemnity protection against liability arising out of the alleged negligent acts and omissions of the USOC or their agents, servants and employees in the performance of this Agreement. Such insurance program shall be subject to review and approval by SLOBC or its insurance consultant, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld. The USOC shall promptly deliver to SLOBC policies evidencing the insurance or certificates of coverage which shall designate the name and address of the issuer, the policy number, and the amount and provisions thereof. All policies shall contain a provision that the policy shall not be canceled, terminated or materially and adversely modified without thirty (30) days' prior notice to SLOBC and the City. IX. SCHEDULE 9.1 The Construction Schedule attached hereto as Exhibits H-1 and H-2 shall be updated and kept current. The USOC shall be provided with current schedules as available, and at least semi-annually. X. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES 10.1 Each party initially designates as its representative the following named persons: City Mayor Palmer A. DePaulis SLOBC Thomas K. Welch USOC Dr. Harvey Schiller 10.2 As between the parties hereto, the designated representatives are authorized to act on behalf of their respective organizations in the execution of the terms of this Agreement, to give and receive notices as otherwise herein provided, to act as spokespersons for public announcements, and otherwise do all things necessary to properly effectuate the F A,,,.Q,�y k taciskr,t.ft&lad'J2160 12.102 Pm -14- purposes of this Agreement, subject at all times to the legal and organizational requirements of each party hereto respecting approval of proposed actions and policies. 10.3 Each party may change its designated representative, or delegate responsibilities to additional representatives, by notice to the other parties. XI. PRESS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS 11.1 Where reasonable and feasible, each party hereto will submit proposed important press releases involving the interest of another party to the other party prior to general release. Each party agrees to promptly respond with approval or comment. The purpose of this procedure is to help assure accuracy, completeness and consistency and not to serve as a prior restraint on public announcements. XII. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION 12.1 In the event of a material and substantial breach by SLOBC of its obligations to build the facilities referenced in Section 3.4.1 of this Agreement as therein described and in accordance with the time schedules set forth in "Phase 1" of the Construction Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit H, the USOC may declare a default and so notify the City and SLOBC, who will have forty-five (45) calendar days to cure, or substantially undertake good faith efforts to cure, the subject default. The USOC, acting in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Instructions attached hereto as Exhibit K, may draw the $250,000 from the escrow account described in Section 3.2.1 upon such declaration of default and hold the same in a special interest bearing account for the cure period. If a cure, or substantial good faith efforts to cure, have not been effected by the end of the cure period, the USOC may draw the $250,000 sum and all interest earned to serve as liquidated damages and its exclusive remedy, actual damages being agreed to be impossible of calculation, and by further notice to the City and SLOBC terminate this Agreement and the further right of the City and SLOBC to act as the U.S. candidate city in solicitations to the IOC to act as host of the Games, or the Olympic Winter Games of 2002. . 1 Rzr. rkbeim draft d i 2/21/90 12a2 pm -15- 1 12.2 In the event of a material and substantial breach by SLOBC of its obligations to enclose the speed skating facility referenced in Section 3.4.1 of this Agreement as therein described and in accordance with the time schedules set forth in "Phase 2" of the Construction Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit H-1 (if the City is awarded the right to host the Games) or as Exhibit H-2 (if the City is not awarded the right to host the Games), the USOC may declare a default and so notify the City and SLOBC. To the extent that the $250,000 sum and all interest earned to date has not been drawn by the USOC under Section 12.1, the USOC, acting in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Instructions attached hereto as Exhibit K, may draw the $250,000 sum and all interest earned to serve as liquidated damages and its exclusive remedy, actual damages being agreed to be impossible of calculation. Such sum shall be deposited into an escrow account for the purpose of paying the cost of producing ice for early season speed-skating training at the Utah speed skating facility. To the extent that such sum is not used to pay the cost of producing ice for early season speed-skating training, it shall revert to the USOC. 12.3 If either the City or SLOBC is rendered wholly or substantially unable to perform its obligations under this Agreement because of a Force Majeure Event (as defined below), that party shall be excused from whatever performance is affected by the Force Majeure Event to the extent so affected; provided that the suspension of performance is of no greater scope and of no longer duration than is reasonably required by the Force Majeure Event. For purposes of this paragraph, a "Force Majeure Event" means any act or event that prevents or substantially delays the affected party from performing its obligations under this Agreement or complying with any conditions required by the USOC under this Agreement, if such act or event is demonstrably not the fault of the affected party, and which such party has been unable to overcome by the exercise of reasonable due diligence without unreasonable expenditures of money. A Force Majeure Event shall, without limitation, include: acts of God or the public enemy; defaults hereunder by the unaffected party; expropriation or confiscation of facilities; compliance with any order or request of any governmental authority (other than the City), NGB or IF; changes in laws, regulations or orders (other than of the City); acts of declared or undeclared war; epidemics, landslides, lightning, fire, hurricanes, tRzr.Quaccr h Nete-k z draft clued 2/21I90 I2-02 pm -16- flood, earthquakes, or other natural causes; nuclear incidents or occurrences; rebellion, sabotage, revolution, civil commotions, riots, strikes, labor disruptions, lockouts; explosions, failure of utilities, injunction and quarantine, or similar causes; action or inaction of legislative, judicial or regulatory agencies not caused by any acts or omissions of the party; subsurface conditions which create a delay and.were not known nor could have been known to the party with the exercise of reasonable diligence (provided that SLOBC shall conduct or cause to be conducted such tests as are necessary and reasonable to determine subsurface conditions that might create a delay, taking into account the experiences of Lake Placid, Calgary, Sarajavo and Albertville), or inability, not caused by any acts or omissions of the party, to obtain suitable equipment or components, but only if such event or incident is of a substantial and overriding nature and is unanticipated as of the date of this Agreement. XIII. LAW APPLICABLE/DISPUTE RESOLUTION 13.1 Except as otherwise provided in Section 7.4 above, Federal law shall be applicable to this Agreement. All disputes of the parties concerning the performance of this , Agreement or the breach or termination thereof shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to Title 9, United States Code as this Agreement involves interstate and foreign commerce. There shall be three (3) arbitrators (unless the parties agree to a single arbitrator due to the nature of the dispute) who shall be appointed by the President of the American Arbitration { Association ("AAA"). The arbitrator or arbitrators shall have the following qualifications and status: 13.1.1 They shall be former U.S. District or U.S. Circuit Court Judges of good reputation and mental capacity; 13.1.2 They may reside in any state of the United States except Utah, Colorado, Alaska, Nevada or California; • 13.1.3 They shall be neutral, unbiased and without present or past personal or professional ties with any party. _} Ray.Qiy l Met lacy draft deed 2./2;I9D 1102 pm -17- 3 13.2 The arbitration shall take place under the rules of commercial arbitration of the AAA in Denver, Colorado. The arbitrators may award reasonable attorney's fees and expenses to the prevailing party, and may order affirmative relief in the nature of a mandatory injunction. All orders and awards of the arbitrators shall be specifically enforceable in Federal Court. XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT/NOTICES 14.1 This is the entire and integrated Agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed with the same procedure utilized to formalize this Agreement. 14.2 Notice shall be given by certified mail, prepaid, return receipt requested, in writing addressed to the current representative of the party being notified at the address given • under the signature of the party hereto. Ordinary communications shall be transmitted by FAX, special carrier delivery or U.S. Post. XV. TERM OF AGREEMENT 15.1 This Agreement shall continue, absent a default, until: 15.1.1 the Games are complete, if awarded to the City, or this Agreement is superseded by a mutually agreeable comprehensive contract between USOC, City and OCOG, entered into after award of the Games to the City; or 15.1.2 the City has submitted a 2002 Olympic Winter Games bid to the IOC (having been unsuccessful in its initial quest for the Games) and the 2002 Olympic Winter Games are awarded to the City and are complete, or a contract comparable to that referenced in 15.1.1 above is entered into; or -18- 15.1.3 the 2002 Winter Olympic Games are awarded by the IOC to a city and country other than the City and the U.S.A. XVI. CONFIRMATION AND AUTHORIZATION AND AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THIS AGREEMENT 16.1 The signature of the City of this Agreement shall be affixed by the Mayor and other officials as required by law only after confirmation, approval and authorization by vote of the Salt Lake City Council. Copies of the Resolution or other legislative action authorizing such signature on behalf of the City and a written legal opinion of the City Attorney attesting to the validity of such action shall be delivered to USOC and SLOBC contemporaneous with the signing of this Agreement. 16.2 The signature of SLOBC to this Agreement shall be affixed by the Chairman and other officials required by SLOBC charter or by-laws only after confirmation, approval and authorization by vote of the Board of Directors or other governing board of SLOBC. Copies of the resolution of such board authorizing such signature on behalf of SLOBC and a written legal opinion of the SLOBC's legal counsel attesting to the validity of such action shall be delivered to USOC and the City contemporaneous with the signing of this Agreement. 16.3 The signature of USOC to this Agreement shall be affixed by the President, Executive Director and other officials required by USOC charter or by-laws only after confirmation, approval and authorization by vote of the Executive Board of the USOC. Copies of the resolution of the Executive authorizing such signature on behalf of USOC and a —19- Ray,o�r�►�,=��zrs,Ao,�� written legal opinion of the USOC's legal counsel attesting to the validity of such action shall be delivered to the City and SLOBC contemporaneous with the signing of this Agreement. I XVII. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES ES 17.1 The benefits of this Agreement and of the provisions set forth herein are not intended to benefit or run to any third parties, and there shall be no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures as of the day and year first above written. "USOC" THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Attest: By President General Counsel Executive Director Address: 1750 East Boulder Street Colorado Springs, CO 80909 Ray,QuiarY t NateLIT dnII dais!V21/93 1202 pa -20- • " SLOBC" SALT LAKE CITY BID COMMITTEE FOR THE OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES Attest: By , President Title Address: 420 East South Temple Street Suite 340 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 "City" SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Attest: By Mayor City Recorder Address: % Mayor's Office City-County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Arse Quinsy&Nat l=draft deed 2121/90 1202 pm -21- 'TIATN JOSEPH R.ANDERSON SI\ ' A\�a P,1 v� � 'P1 D PAPALMER DEPAULIS V"� MAYOR PUBUC WORKS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 507 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7775 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Dec. 11, 1989 REFERENCE: Notice of Intention - 1990 Central Business District - Street Lighting and Beautification S . I .D. - Project No. 38-864 RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt the Notice of Intention to create the District, authorize the advertising of the Notice of Intention in accordance with the attached schedule, and authorize advertising for construction of the project. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Redevelopment Agency funds and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. DISCUSSION: This district will provide for installation of new sidewalk with brick pavers , tree planters , irrigation and electrical system, street lights and the rehabilitation or aban- donment of sidewalk vaults. The Department of Public Works intends to advertise this project for bids in February and begin construction in April , 1990, with comtion by November , 1990 , if construction funds are made available . Attached are drawings showing the areas to be reconstructed , an information sheet, a draft of a letter to abutting property owners, a draft of the Notice of Intention, and a schedule of events for hearings and meetings on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Daniel C. Noziska, P .E. - Project Manager `SUBMITTED BY: Joseph R. Anderson - Director of Public Works �4'- JRA:DCN:pp Attachments cc: Max G. Peterson Daniel C. Noziska ' Vault A 1 I._ 111------:t l ' \�t'l\\ \ �-{ I® ( AY r" \ UTAH STATE I CAPITOL. ) • Ju ! . . \ . • . ' C.B.D. , Cirri 1 BEAUTIFICATION x ...c '...A, ___FAx-R'H41a. AND zoo• • 1, U. STREET : LIGHTING L I cn l S:I.D. . . r . i _ . Ar , ( PROJECT NO. 38-864 ST. - L of • i_k A irai1 AY C l l ED , • D Ho4 Ar i !South h - W 100 •• .. MK ... • 1. : . • . 8 :,. ' rl N W PI I tIIIIK Pt 6o�A t Ar � .._ � .._.� Zito Pt111k= � "'�J • l'IsrD4ht AY 2 F-- v Ar 1 co _ „.;. .. :.,,.,.... . BROAD WAY W _r_i_ .. P10NEER • • W OtfIC. P1 1 . — • ,...:,1.,..., PARK . ...� € Icocty = 1 �, c..-- wotx.r UZ COUNCfTY TY h PM�-- 6 L.• 1EA [ I r i 8 aid I n Ar . PIri .---11E=1 air. . 5 P r Av ,,y, L ; 80,„,, 1----T. 1 , . , • 1 . 5 P1aG 1 5 Cottu Av gouth W Sago Av • Fe iii , I � � ---hi rl 71 1 i i--1 f-1 i I f— I f-1 t I t—T r---1 r_�r I r I I I r--i r--1 INFORMATION SHEET 1990 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BEAUTIFICATION AND STREET LIGHTING SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 38-864 DISCUSSION: The 1990 CBD Beautification and Street Lighting Special Improvement District involves South Temple/State Street to 300 West; 300 South/West Temple to 200 West; 400 South/State Street - Main Street (north side) ; State Street/300 South - 400 South (west side) ; and 100 South Median/State Street to Main Street. The improvements for the District include the removal and reconstruc- tion of curb, gutter, sidewalks with brick pavers , driveways and appurtenances; the removal of illegal or nonstandard driveways; the construction of minor drainage facilities ; the construction of tree planters, placement of soil and trees ; the installation of irrigation and electrical systems ; street lighting; property drains ; the abandon- ment or rebuilding of sidewalk vaults ; and other miscellaneous work which is necessary to complete the above improvements. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funds for the project will come from the Redevelopment Agency and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED COSTS: Property Owner Portion $1 ,020, 290 I) Redevelopment Agency Portion 980 ,000 Total Estimated Cost $2,000,290 BD2113 (PF) Salt Lake City, Utah March 13 , 1990 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held on Tuesday the 13th day of March, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 p.m. , at the offices of the City Council at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Alan Hardman Chair Nancy Pace Vice Chair L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Ronald Whitehead Councilmember Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember Don C. Hale Councilmember Roselyn N. Kirk Councilmember Also present: Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger F. Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent: None The Chairperson then stated that the meeting was called for the purpose, among other things, of approving a revised r , and restated declaration of intention of the City Council to create Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-864, previously approved by a resolution adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah on the 9th day of January, 1990. Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: Councilmember introduced the following resolution in writing, which was read by title and moved its adoption: BD2113 (PF) 2 P RESOLUTION NO. _ of 1990 A REVISED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT INCLUDING CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALKS WITH BRICK PAVERS, DRIVEWAYS, DRAINAGE, TREES, PLANTERS, TIE-IN PAVING, IRRIGATION, VAULT ABANDONMENT OR REBUILDING, ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, STREET LIGHTING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF STREET LIGHTING FOR ONE YEAR, AND DRAINS AND ALL OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS; TO CREATE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 38-864; TO DEFRAY THE COST AND EXPENSES OF A PORTION OF SAID IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS; TO PROVIDE A REVISED NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND TO FIX A TIME AND PLACE FOR PROTESTS AGAINST SUCH IMPROVEMENTS OR THE CREATION OF SAID DISTRICT; TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah: Section 1. The City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City" ) hereby determines that it will be in the best interest of the City to make improvements that will include removal and reconstruction of curb, gutter, sidewalks with brick pavers, driveways and appurtenances; the removal of illegal or nonstandard driveways; the construction of minor drainage facilities; the construction of tree planters, placement of soil and trees; the installation of irrigation and electrical systems; street lighting operation and maintenance of street lighting for one year; property drains; the abandonment or rebuilding of sidewalk vaults; (collectively the "Improvements" ) , and to complete the whole BD2113 (PF) 3 f , according to the design plans, profiles and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer of Salt Lake City, Utah. In order to finance the costs of the Improvements, the City proposes to create and establish a special improvement district, which is more particularly described in the Notice of Intention, to construct the proposed Improvements. Section 2 . The proposed district shall be known as Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-864 (the "District" ) . Section 3 . The cost and expenses of a portion of the proposed Improvements shall be paid by a special tax to be levied against the property fronting or abutting upon or situated within the District to be improved or which may be affected or specially benefited by any of such Improvements, such tax to be paid in not more than ten ( 10) equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance until due and paid. Section 4. Written protests against the proposed Improvements or against the creation of the District must be presented and filed in the Office of the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah on or before the 16th day of April, 1990, at the hour of 5: 00 p.m. Thereafter at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 17th day of April, 1990 at the City Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, any such protests shall be heard and considered by the City Council. BD2113 (PF) 4 The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice of intention to make the proposed Improvements and of the time within which protests against the proposed Improvements or the creation of the District may be filed and the date when such protests will be heard and considered by publishing a notice of intention to create the District in the Deseret News, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, said notice to be published four times, once during each week for four consecutive weeks, the last publication to be not less than five (5) nor more than twenty (20) days prior to the time fixed in the notice as the last day for the filing of protests. In addition, the City Recorder shall mail a copy of such notice by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses of said owners appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and, in addition, a copy of such notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to "Owner" at the street number of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment, said notices to be so mailed not later than ten ( 10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention. If a street number has not been so assigned, then the post office box, rural route number, or any other mailing address of the improved property shall be used BD2113 (PF) 5 for the mailing of the Notice . Said Notice shall be in substantially the following form: U BD2113 (PF) 6 NOTICE OF INTENTION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 13th day of March, 1990, the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "City" ) , adopted a revised and restated resolution (the "Restated Resolution" ) declaring its intention to create a special improvement district to be known as Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-864 (the "District" ) . The Restated Resolution supplements, amends and replaces a resolution (the "Original Resolution" ) in connection with the District adopted January 9, 1990. It is the intention of the City Council to make improvements within the District and to levy special taxes as provided in Chapter 16, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, on the real estate lying within the District for the benefit of which such taxes are to be expended in the making of such improvements. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT The District will be created and improvements will be constructed within the boundaries of Salt Lake City, Utah. The improvements for the District include the removal and reconstruction of curb, gutter, sidewalks with brick pavers, driveways and appurtenances; the removal of illegal or nonstandard driveways; the construction of minor drainage facilities; the construction of tree planters, placement of soil and trees; the installation of irrigation and-electrical BD2113 (PF) 7 - systems; street lighting; property drains; and the abandonment or rebuilding of sidewalk vaults; and other miscellaneous work which is necessary to complete the above improvements. Location of Improvements On all of the following named streets the abutting property owners will be assessed for the described improvements at the herein below estimated rates. Streets: South Temple: Main Street to 300 West less the south side from West Temple to 200 West 400 South: North side of street, from a point 165 feet west of Main Street property corner to State Street 300 South: West Temple to 200 West Basis for Assessment The abutting property owners whose property will be improved will be assessed the cost of such improvements. Depending on the nature of the improvements, some costs will be assessed by front foot and/or square foot of abutting property. Some costs will be assessed by benefitted lot for vault rehabilitation or abandonment. For a designation of the applicable rate and method of assessment, see "Estimated Cost of Improvements" set out hereafter. Because of the variety of improvements being proposed, it is not possible to set out herein the combination of assessment rates applicable to each individual parcel to be assessed. A map of the District and rates for assessments are BD2113 (PF) 8 available for review in the City Engineer' s Office . Also available is a list of all property owners affected and the rate schedule for each. All other necessary things shall be done to complete the whole project according to plans, profiles and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. All nonconforming improvements such as lawns, sprinkling systems, rock gardens, driveways, curbs and gutters, culverts, walks, fences, etc. , which have been built or installed by abutting property owners within the area to be improved, must be removed by the property owners at their expense prior to the commencement of the project. If these improvements are not removed by the property owners, they will be removed by the contractor and disposed of by him as directed by the Engineer. ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS The total cost of improvements in said proposed Special Improvement District as estimated by the City Engineer is $1, 650, 950.00 of which it is anticipated the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (the "Agency" ) will pay approximately $790, 000. 00 (the "City' s Portion" ) . The remainder of approximately $860, 950.00 shall be paid by a special tax to be levied against the property abutting upon the streets to be improved or upon property which may be affected or specifically benefited by such improvements. The actual BD2113 (PF) 9 commitment of the Agency to pay its portion of the costs of improvements is subject to the availability of funds and compliance with budget approval . No assessable costs will be incurred unless and until the Agency has completed the budgeting process as to its estimated portion of the costs of the proposed improvements and has determined the availability of funds. The estimated property owner' s costs include construction and a portion of engineering expenses, possibly a portion of a debt service reserve, a ten percent ( 10%) allowance for the interest on interim warrants issued to finance construction of the improvements and an allowance of approximately fifteen percent ( 15%) for administrative costs, a possible underwriter' s discount on sale of bonds, a. portion of engineering expenses, legal and other costs in connection with the issuance of bonds. In addition, for the first year of operation the applicable rates include the estimated operation and maintenance expenses for the street lights in the areas of the District where those improvements will be constructed. The estimated cost to be assessed against the properties within the District shall be as follows: BD2113 (PF) 10 IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED CO. _S Abutters Estimated Rate Estimated Cost to No. Improvements Quantity Cost/Unit Abutters 1. New 4" sidewalk with brick pavers on grade & misc. work, i.e. drainage work,pkg meters 23,000 SF $ 6.25 $143,750 2. Street Beautification including trees, planters, grates, benches, irrigation and power systems 1,600 LF $70.00 $112,000 3. 7-B curb and gutter with asphalt tie-in 1,200 LF $16.00 $ 19,200 4. Scarify and seal existing vault surface and install pavers and concrete 4,500 SF $ 5.00 $ 22,500 5. New 4" sidewalk with brick paver & misc. work, i.e. membrane on cast in place conc. vault 3,000 SF $ 7.00 $ 21,000 6. Sidewalk drain 400 LF $12.50 $ 5,000 7. South Temple Street, from State Street to 300 West, lighting including new poles, conduit and vaults 3,300 LF $67.50 . $222,750 8. 300 South Street, from West Temple to 200 West, street lighting, new poles, tree lights and misc. work 1,310 LF $70.00 $ 91,700 9. Operation and maintenance expenses for the first year of the street lighting improvements described in Rates 7 and 8 4,610 $ 5.00 $ 23,050 *Estimated Extra Cost for Ventilation Structures and Vault Reconstruction and/or Abandonment *$200,000 Total Estimated Abutters Portion of Improvements $ 860,950 Total Estimated City's Portion of Improvements $ 790,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST: $1,650,950 * This improvement work shall be assessed in addition to the indicated improvement rates. The assessment shall be levied upon each parcel or lot benefitted by the work done on vaults or ventilation structures. 4 paid bythe Agencyconsists of The estimated cost to be one-half of the cost of sidewalks with pavers, street beautification, curb and gutter, street drainage, and street lighting. The proposed assessment will be equal and uniform based on benefits received. The adjustment for the City' s Portion has been taken into account in the Table above so that the Estimated Cost per unit represents the net estimated cost to be assessed to the property owner. ASSESSMENTS AND LEVY OF TAXES It is the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah to levy assessments as provided by the laws of the State of Utah on all parcels and lots of real property within the District benefiting from the improvements. The purpose of the assessments and levy is to pay those costs of the subject improvements. The method of assessment shall be by lineal front foot, square foot and/or extra cost as set forth herein. Except for Rate #9 which must be paid at the time of assessment, assessments may be paid by property owners in ten (10) approximately equal annual installments. In order to fund the first semiannual interest payment on bonds of the District, the first payment date of an assessment installment may be less than one year from the date of adoption of the assessment ordinance. Thereafter, assessment installments BD2113 (PF) 12 will fall due on the anniversary date of the first installment payment. Interest will accrue on the unpaid balance at a rate or rates to be fixed by the City Treasurer. The whole, or any part of, the assessment may be paid without interest within fifteen (15) days after the ordinance levying the assessment becomes effective. Rate 9 assessments will be due and payable during this cash payment period. The assessments shall be levied according to the benefits to be derived by each property owner within the District. Other payment provisions and enforcement remedies shall be in accordance with Chapter 16, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS Any person who is the owner of record of property to be assessed in the District described in this Notice of Intention shall have the right to file, in writing, a protest against the creation of Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-864, or to make any other objections relating thereto. Protests shall describe or otherwise identify the property record by the person or persons making the protest. Protests may be filed with the Chief Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, on or before 5:00 p.m. on the 16th day of April, 1990. No protest will be considered for purposes of creating the District if it is received by the Chief Deputy Recorder later than this protest filing deadline. Any written protest filed after January 9, 1990 and before March 5, 1990, BD2113 (PF) 13 in response to the prior notice of intention set out in the Original Resolution shall, unless earlier withdrawn, be held for consideration by the City Council. At 6:00 p.m. on the 17th day of April, 1990, the City Council will meet in public meeting at the City Council Chambers to consider all protests so filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed District. CALCULATION OF PROTEST RATE A protest rate shall be determined by aggregating the total of costs for proposed assessable square footage, lot assessments, and/or lineal footage of assessable property for all property owners filing written protests and dividing it by the total aggregated assessable costs of improvements for all property owners to be assessed within the proposed District. After the written protest rate has been determined, the City Council may, at its discretion, delete areas from the District. At the time of creation of the District, the written protests of property owners in any area not included in the District will not be used in determining the protest rates. The City Council will rescind its intention to create the District if the aggregated total of proposed estimated assessments against properties remaining in the District as to which assessments have been filed represent more than fifty percent (50%) of the aggregated total of assessments against all property remaining in the Modified District. BD2113 (PF) 14 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH /s/ Kathryn Marshall City Recorder BD2113 (PF) 15 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH /s/ Kathryn Marshall City Recorder BD2113 (PF) 15 Section 5 . Any written protest filed prior to the date of this Restated Resolution shall, if not earlier withdrawn, be considered at the public meeting to be held on the 17th day of April, 1990 at the City Council chambers. Section 6. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to prepare a notice which calls for bids for the construction of the proposed Improvements contemplated to be made in the District, and the City Recorder is hereby authorized to publish the Notice to Contractors calling for bids at` least one time in the Deseret News, a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City, at least fifteen (15) days before the date specified in the notice for the receipt of bids. However, the construction work shall not be awarded to the winning bidder until after the District has been created. Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: BD2113 (PE) 16 C) Those voting AYE: Those voting NAY: U BD2113 (PF) 17 After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. Chair ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD2113 (PF) 18 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on the 13th day of March, 1990. Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 13th day of March, 1990. Mayor BD2113 (PF) 19 STATE OF UTAH ) . ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall, the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify as follows: 1 . That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held in said Municipality on March 13 , 1990 at the hour of 6:00 p.m. , insofar as said proceedings relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to create Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-864 and make certain improvements therein described as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. 2 . That due, legal and timely notice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of said Municipality. 3 . That the above resolution was deposited in my office on March 13 , 1990, has been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. BD2113 (PF) 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of said Municipality this 13th day of March, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) I ll (J 0 BD2113 (PF) 21 STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING : ss. NOTICE OF INTENTION COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall, the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that the attached Notice of Intention was approved and adopted in the proceedings of the City Council held on Tuesday, the 13th day of March, 1990. I further certify that on the day of 1990 (a date not later than ten (10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention) I mailed a true copy of the Notice of Intention to create Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-864 by United States Mail, postage prepaid to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed Special Improvement District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, and in addition I mailed on the same date a copy of said Notice of Intention addressed to "Owner" addressed to the street number, post office box, rural route number, or other mailing address of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment. I further certify that a certified copy of said Notice of Intention, together with profiles of the improvements and a map of the proposed District, was on file in my office for inspection by any interested parties. BD2113 (PF) 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah this day of , 1990. City Recorder ( SEAL ) 0 0 BD2113 (PF) 23 (Affidavit of proof of publication of the Notice of Intention to create Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-864. ) BD2113 (PE) 24 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I , the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County (the "City Recorder" ) , do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the March 13 , 1990 public meeting held by the City Council as follows: (a) By causing a Notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , to be posted at the offices of the Salt Lake City Council on March _, 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , to be delivered to the Deseret News on March , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. BD2113 (PF) 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this 13th day of March, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD2113 (PF) 26 EXHIBIT "A" Notice U BD2113 (PF) 27 CkC rFD • PALMER DEPAULIS AIR of Q 0 rtv�` ( } ale dug MAX G. PETERSON, P.E. MAYOR ,,,�'� 1 CITY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City Engineering Division 444 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7871 TO : SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL DATE : FEBRUARY 14 , 1990 REFERENCE : Bids for Special Improvement District , 4th/ 5th South Connector , Redwood Road to Pioneer Road , Project No . 38-758-2 will be opened at 2 :00 p .m . on Tuesday , March 13 , 1990 . A tabulation of the bids will be made to the City Council on March 13 , 1990 at 6 : 00 p .m . RECOMMENDATION ; `c, That the Salt Lake City Council authorize the Salt Lake City Engineering office to award the work to the low bidder upon official determination of such . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS ; Notice of Intent to create a Special Improvement District has P'. received prior approval by the City Council . Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Budget . DISCUSSION ; N/A SUBMITTED BY : JOSEPH R . ANDERSON , PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR r J f I • WIL O; .FRPO ;IONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH R. ANDERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET PALMER DEPAULIS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 MAYOR • 535-7775 ' TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 5, 1989 REFERENCE: Notice of Intention for 400 to 500 South Connector Curb and -Gutter Extension No. 38-758 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Notice of Intention for the district and authorize the City to proceed with the advertising of the Notice of Intention in accordance with the attached schedule. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Fiscal year 1988/89 and 1990/91 and Class "C" Road Funds and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. !_ .. DISCUSSION: The 400 to 500 South Connector Curb and Gutter Extension Project involves the construction of 500 South Street from Redwood Road to the Surplus Canal. The project will include curb and gutter, driveway approaches, storm drainage, traffic signals, utility relocations, with five traffic lanes (two each direction with a left turn center lane) . It is planned to bid the work during the spring of 1990, and begin construction in April 1990 . The majority of the work will be done during the summer of 1990 and should be completed by late fall. The construction will be in phases and administered as to cause the minimum amount of disruption and inconvenience to the businesses and pedestrians. Attached is an information sheet, letter to the abutting property owners, the Notice of Intention, and a schedule of events for hearings and meetings on this project. CONTACT PERSON: John Naser, Project Manager 535-6240 SUBMITTED BY: Joseph R. Anderson, Public Works Director JRA:JNN:cp Attachment n �l .-en„ • INFORMATION SHEET (;) 400 TO 500 SOUTH CONNECTOR CURB AND GUTTER EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 38-758 • DISCUSSION The 400 to 500 South Connector Curb & Gutter Extension Project involves the construction of 500 South from Redwood Road to the Surplus Canal and the connection of 400 South to 500 South at Orange Street. The project will include curb and gutter, some sidewalk, driveway approaches, storm drainage, traffic signals, utility relocations and five traffic lanes (two each direction with a left turn center lane) . If is planned to bid the work during February 1990 , and begin construction in April 1990. The work will be done during next summer and completed by late fall. The construction will be in phases and administered as to cause the minimum amount of disruption and inconvenience to the businesses and property owners. • Assessments to the property owners would include the curb and gutter , driveway approaches, a small amount of sidewalk and ten (10) feet of the pavement. All other improvements will be paid 0 for using and the Class "C" Roadway Funds. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council adopt the Special Improvement District Notice of Intention and authorize the City to proceed with the advertising of the Notice of Intention. ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS The total cost of improvements in said proposed Special Improvement District as estimated by the City Engineer is $1, 852, 800. 00 of which it is anticipated the Municipality will pay $1,545,700 . 00 . Approximately $307, 100 . 00 shall be paid by a special tax to be levied against the property abutting upon the streets to be improved or upon property which may be affected or specifically benefited by such improvements. The actual commitment of the municipality to pay its portion of the costs of improvements is subject to the availability of funds and compliance with budget approval. The estimated costs include an allowance for contingencies and an allowance of approximately fifteen percent ( 15%) for administrative costs , engineering, legal and other costs in connection with the issuance of bonds . The property owners ' portion of the total estimated cost of the •improvements may be financed during the construction period by the use of interim warrants. The interest on said warrants will be assessed to the ,r"\ property owners. . The estimated cost to be assessed against the properties within Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-758 shall be as follows: IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS Rate Improvements Front Feet Estimated Estimated No. of Abutting Cost Per Cost • Property Foot 1. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter and 10 ' of 8" Thick Industrial Class Pavement 494 . 07 $48 . 11 $ 23 , 769 .71 2. Curb & Gutter & 10 ' of 10" Thick Industrial Class Pavement 5 , 270 . 76 $42. 00 $ 221, 371. 92 3 . Curb & Gutter & 10 ' of 8" Thick Industrial Class Pavement 585. 44 $37.71 $ 22,076. 94 4 . 10 ' of 8" Thick 1 Industrial Class Pavement 1,138 . 31 $25. 84 S 29 ,413 . 93 Total Assessable Frontage 7,488 . 58 $ 296, 632. 54 Estimated Cost for Driveway Approach $ 10 ,500 . 00 Total Estimate Abutters Portion of Improvements • S 307 , 132.50 FUNDING SOURCE 1. Abutting Property Owners • Portion for Improvements A. Estimated Cost for Improvements $ 307, 100 . 00 B. Interest on Interim Finance $ 30, 000 . 00 2. Estimated City Portion Funding for Improvements $1,545 ,700 . 00 BD2066 (PF) Salt Lake City, Utah March 13 , 1990 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held on Tuesday, the 13th day of March, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 p.m. , at the regular meeting place of said City Council at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Alan Hardman Chair Nancy Pace Vice Chair Roselyn N. Kirk Councilmember L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember Don C. Hale Councilmember Ronald Whitehead Councilmember Also present: Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: A Notice to Contractors calling for bids for construction of improvements contemplated to be made in the District was published in the Deseret News, a newspaper having general circulation in the City, at least one time at least fifteen ( 15) days prior to the date specified in such notice for the receipt of bids. An affidavit of publication is on file or will be obtained by the City Recorder. At a public meeting conducted in the Council Chambers of the City Council by staff members of the City Recorder' s and City Engineer' s Offices on March 13 , 1990 at 2 :00 p.m. , bids were opened for the construction of improvements contemplated to be made in Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension Special Improvement District No. 38-758 (the "District" ) . The City Engineer' s Office has tabulated the bid results for consideration by the City Council . Upon the reopening of the bids in open session of this council meeting, the City Council examined and declared the bids to be as tabulated on Exhibit "A" which is attached to these proceedings. The City Council determined that was the apparent low bidder for the construction of improvements as specified in the engineering plans for the improvements set out in the Notice of Intention. It was also noted that the accuracy of the apparent low bid and the qualifications of the apparent low bidder should be checked. Thereupon, Councilmember introduced the BD2066 (PE) 2 following resolution in writing and Councilmember moved to adopt the resolution: RESOLUTION NO. _ OF 1990 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING A BID FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK AND, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH CURB AND GUTTER EXTENSION SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 38-758 PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DESIGNATED WIDTHS OF ROADWAY PAVEMENT, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, PAVEMENT WHERE IT DOES NOT NOW EXIST AND RELATED DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS, AND ALL OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS; FOR ISSUANCE OF INTERIM WARRANTS AND FOR THE ADDITION OF THE INTEREST THEREON TO ASSESSABLE COSTS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, the bid of , a bidder who submitted the apparent lowest and best bid for the construction of the improvements in the District is hereby conditionally accepted. This award of the construction contract is expressly subject to verification by the City Engineer of the accuracy of the bid amounts, the qualification of the lowest bidder to do business in Utah, a determination that the lowest bidder is a licensed contractor and consideration of any other factors the City Engineer may deem to be appropriate in evaluating the lowest bid and bidder. The exact amount to be paid under a construction contract memorializing the bid, acceptance, plans and specifications BD2066 (PF) 3 for the improvements, (the "Contract" ) shall be determined by computation of the work done based upon the unit prices as set forth in the winning bid. If the City Engineer approves the lowest bid and bidder, the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Contract between Salt Lake City and the successful bidder, which Contract may include work in addition to the improvements to be constructed within said District. If the City Engineer does not approve the lowest bid and bidder, the bids shall again be referred to the City Council for further consideration at a subsequent meeting. Payment of progress draws under the Contract shall be by interim warrants which the City intends to purchase. The issuance of interim warrants is hereby authorized. Interest charges on the interim warrants shall be equal to the average yield earned by the City on its pooled money balance investments as calculated by the City Treasurer' s Office. Interest accrued on the interim warrants shall be added as an assessable cost to other construction costs of the District. The resolution was seconded by Councilmember and was adopted by vote of the City Council as follows: BD2066 (PF) 4 r AYE: • NAY: Thereupon the motion was approved by the City Council and made a matter of record by the City Recorder. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 13th day of March, 1990. Chair ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD2066 (PF) 5 J � After the transaction of other business not pertinent to the foregoing matter, the meeting was on motion duly made, seconded and carried, adjourned. Chair ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD2066 (PF) 6 ?t� STATE OF UTAH ) . ss, COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings had by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at its meeting held on the 13th day of March, 1990, insofar as the same relates to the awarding of the construction contract for Salt Lake City, Utah Curb and Gutter Extension Special Improvement District No. 38-758 as the same appears of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said City this 13th day of March, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD2066 (PF) 7 r CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I , Kathryn Marshall, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Issuer" ) , do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council of Salt Lake City in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the March 13 , 1990, public meeting held by the City Council as follows: ( a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be posted at the principal offices at the City and County Building, Salt Lake City, Utah on March , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A" , to be delivered to the Deseret News on March , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. BD2066 (PF) 8 o U_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this 13th day of March, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD2066 (PF) 9 SCHEDULE "A" NOTICE OF MEETING BD2066 (PF) 10 67. EXHIBIT "A" Tabulation of Bids BD2066 (PF) 11 0 0 C TRACT ROUTING FORM .,iv^' ,; wiw ( REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION DATE I PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 01-23-90 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT PHONE Timothy P. Harpst, Transportation Engineer 535-6630 NAME OF CONTRACTING PARTY REF # SUBJECT Street Lighting District #1 - Notice of Intention Council Approval to be Published in Local Newspaper Yes No Number of Copies 17 Insurance Required X Expected Completion February 6, 1990 Insurance Attached I X RECORDER FINANCE Contract No. Vendor No. AiYG lidl� Account No. `4,, )( '\ / Funds Avai able Funds No Needed ATTORNEY . :71/1&4'1 � Y APPROVED AS TO FORM I ; �qd . . 23 Date By COPY DISTRIBUTION Date To JOSEPH R. ANDERSON ,Ii'I A,a ,1 air�O:RP�O �•� �I.OI �w+� -.••• �,��r r r TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 201 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6630 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 6 , 1990 SUBJECT: Approval to proceed with renewal of Street Lighting Assessment District #1 (SID #1) , and publication of Notice of Intention. Set date for public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council give approval to proceed with the renewal process for Street Lighting Special Assessment District #1, and approve publication of Notice of Intention at the February 6 , 1990, City Council meeting. Set date to hold a hearing on March 13 , 1990, p.m. to receive public comment and consider protests to the renewal of SID #1 . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS : The District #1 cost estimate incorporates projected lighting costs to July 15 , 1993 . Abutting property owners will be responsible for 75% of the total cost and Salt Lake City provides the remaining 25% as per City Policy. DISCUSSION: Four new extensions have been added to this district to make a total of 14 extensions. The new extensions are as listed: 10-62A Pierpont Avenue 10-64A West Temple 10-63A Pierpont Midblock Easement 10-65A Post office Place The old extensions are as listed 10-13H Harvard/Princeton Avenues 10-30F Yale Avenue 10-16H Yalecrest 10-43E Central W. Rose Park 10-17H Herbert/Yale Avenues 10-44E Rose Park North West 10-27F Rose Park South East 10-49D 200 South 10-29F Rose Park Central 10-50D Salt Palace The projected lighting rates provide for operation maintenance , replacement and applicable portions of the capital purchase cost. SUBMITTED BY: Joseph R. Anderson, Public Works Director IP`. • C TRACT ROUTING FORM C- REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION (DATE PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 01-23-90 DEPARTMENTAL CONTACT PHONE Timothy P. Harpst, Transportation Engineer 535-6630 NAME OF CONTRACTING PARTY REF # SUBJECT Street Lighting District #1 - Notice of Intention Council Approval to be Published in Local Newspaper Yes No X Number of Copies 17 Insurance Required Expected Completion February 6, 1990 Insurance Attached X RECORDER FINANCE Contract No. , Vendor No. J r �2Gw'eo �{D 1 1 , Account No. \11>'\ / / 1 , Funds Avai able Funds N Needed ATTORNEY r;,) /? APPROVED AS TO FORM J' ; /1 • Date_ By COPY DISTRIBUTION Date To • ATI JOSEPH R. ANDERSON S,•••; V. .'.�_;HEY(�O ! e '1 1 TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 201 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-6630 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 6 , 1990 SUBJECT: Approval to proceed with renewal of Street Lighting Assessment District #1 (SID #1) , and publication of Notice of Intention. Set date for public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council give approval to proceed with the renewal process for Street Lighting Special Assessment District #1 , and approve publication of Notice of Intention at the February 6 , 1990 , City Council meeting. Set date to hold a hearing on March 13 , 1990 , p.m. to receive public comment and consider protests to the renewal of SID #1 . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The District #1 cost estimate incorporates projected lighting costs to July 15 , 1993 . Abutting property owners will be responsible for 75% of the total cost and Salt Lake City provides the remaining 25% as per City Policy. DISCUSSION: Four new extensions have been added to this district to make a total of 14 extensions. The new extensions are as listed: 10-62A Pierpont Avenue 10-64A West Temple 10-63A Pierpont Midblock Easement 10-65A Post office Place The old extensions are as listed 10-13H Harvard/Princeton Avenues 10-30F Yale Avenue 10-16H Yalecrest 10-43E Central W. Rose Park 10-17H Herbert/Yale Avenues 10-44E Rose Park North West 10-27F Rose Park South East 10-49D 200 South 10-29F Rose Park Central 10-50D Salt Palace The projected lighting rates provide for operation maintenance, replacement and applicable portions of the capital purchase cost. SUBMITTED BY: Joseph R. Anderson, Public Works Director BD1290 (PE, C Salt Lake City, Utah February 6, 1990 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah was held on Tuesday the 6th day of February, 1990, at the hour of 6: 00 p.m. , at the offices of the City Council at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Alan Hardman Chair Nancy Pace Vice Chair L. Wayne Horrocks Councilmember Ronald Whitehead Councilmember Thomas M. Godfrey Councilmember Don C. Hale Councilmember Roselyn N. Kirk Councilmember Also present: Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Roger F. Cutler City Attorney Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Absent: None Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: Section 2 . The proposed district shall be known as Salt Lake City, Utah Special Lighting District No. 1 (the "District" ) . Section 3 . A portion of the capital cost of the lighting fixtures and improvements (the "Improvements" ) and the expenses of the Lighting shall be paid by a special tax to be levied against the property situated within the District which is improved or which may be affected or specially benefited by the Lighting and Improvements, such tax to be paid in three (3 ) annual installments with interest on any unpaid balance until paid. Section 4. Proceeds from assessments, or any installments thereof, are declared to be improvement revenues ( "Improvement Revenues" ) which are pledged hereby to the payment of the Lighting and the Improvements . Any annual assessment installment may be modified and adjusted by Improvement Revenues collected in connection with the Lighting and the Improvements . Adjustments to assessment installments may be calculated annually, based in part upon the actual expenses for operation and maintenance for the previous year. Any past credit or debit balance resulting from the carryforward of past charges or assessments for street lighting also may be taken into account in the calculation of the assessment or an assessment installment. BD1290 (PF) -3- Section 5 . Written protests against the proposed Lighting and Improvements or against the creation of the District must be presented and filed in the Office of the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah on or before the 12th day of March, 1990, at the hour of 5 : 00 p.m. Thereafter at 6: 00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on Tuesday, the 13th day of March, 1990 at the City Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, any such protests shall be heard and considered by the City Council . The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice of intention (the "Notice of Intention" or "Notice" ) to provide the Lighting and defray the costs thereof and a portion of the costs of the Improvements . The Notice of Intention shall also specify the time within which protests against the proposed Lighting and Improvements or the creation of the District may be filed and the date when such protests will be heard and considered. Notice shall be given by publishing a Notice of Intention to create the District in the Deseret News, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, said Notice to be published four times, once during each week for four consecutive weeks, the last publication to be not less than five (5) nor more than twenty (20) days prior to the time fixed in the Notice as the last day for the filing of protests . In addition, the City Recorder shall mail a copy of the Notice by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to each BD1290 (PF) -4- owner of land to be assessed within the proposed District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses of said owners appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and, in addition, a copy of the Notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to "Owner" at the street number of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment, said Notices to be so mailed not later than ten ( 10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention. If a street number has not been so assigned, then the post office box, rural route number, or any other mailing address of the improved property shall be used for the mailing of the Notice . Said Notice of Intention shall be in substantially the following form: BD1290 (PF) -5- NOTICE OF INTENTION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 6th day of February, 1990, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, adopted a resolution declaring its intention to create a special improvement district to be known as Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. 1 (the "District" ) . It is the intention of the City Council to operate, maintain, patrol and power lighting improvements within the District and to levy special taxes as provided in Chapter 16, Title 10, Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, on the real estate lying within the District for the benefit of which such taxes are to be expended in the maintenance of such improvements. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT AND ESTIMATED COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS The District will be located within areas and boundaries described by metes and bounds in the resolution of February 6, 1990. The resolution, maps and other information about the District are available for examination in the offices of the Salt Lake City Division of Transportation, 333 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 . The streets and areas to be included within the District and the estimated costs to be. assessed (the "Estimated Costs" ) are as follows: BD1290 (PF) -6- EXTENSION NO. 10-13H: STREETS: Laird Avenue : 1300 East Street to a point 350. 0 feet east. Princeton Avenue : Laird Avenue to 1500 East Street. Harvard Avenue : 1300 East Street to 1500 East Street. 1400 East Street: Harvard Avenue to Princeton Avenue . BOUNDARIES: North - Yale Avenue West - 1300 East Street South - 1300 South Street East - 1500 East Street ESTIMATED COSTS : Front feet of abutting property 6, 955 . 11 Total estimated cost per front foot $8 . 16 City' s estimated cost per front foot $2 . 04 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $6 . 12 Estimated cost of City' s portion $14, 189 . 05 Estimated cost of Abutter portion $42 , 567 . 15 TOTAL estimated cost $56, 756 . 20 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15 , 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-16H: STREETS : Yale Avenue : Both sides, between 1500 East and 1700 East Streets . Yalecrest Avenue: Both sides, between Yale Avenue and 1700 East Street. Military Drive : Both sides between Yale Avenue and 900 South Street. BOUNDARIES : North - 900 South Street East - Military Drive South - Yale Avenue West - 1500 East Street BD1290 (PF) -7- ESTIMATED COSTS: Front feet of abutting property 7, 640. 79 Total estimated cost per front foot $10. 09 City' s estimated cost per front foot $2 . 52 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $7 . 57 Estimated cost of City' s portion $19, 281 . 92 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $57, 845 . 76 TOTAL estimated cost $77, 127 . 68 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15 , 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-17H: STREETS : Yale Avenue : Both sides, between 1700 East and 1800 East Streets . Yalecrest Avenue: Both sides, between 1700 East and 1800 East Streets . Herbert Avenue : Both sides, between 1700 East and 1800 East Streets BOUNDARIES: North - Michigan Avenue East - 1800 East Street South - Harvard Avenue West - 1700 East Street ESTIMATED COSTS : Front feet of abutting property 4, 354. 50 Total estimated cost per front foot $9 .83 City' s estimated cost per front foot $2 . 46 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $7 . 37 Estimated cost of City' s portion $10, 699 . 63 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $32 , 098. 88 TOTAL estimated cost $42, 798. 51 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-27F: STREETS: 1200 West Street: East side, between a point 137 feet south of Lafayette Drive and Picture Drive . 800 North Street: South side, between 900 West Street and Picture Drive . Los Angeles Street: Both sides, between 700 North Street and Prosperity Avenue . American Beauty Drive : Both sides, between 600 North and 800 North Street. BD1290 (PF) -8- Grenoble Street: Both sides, between Briarcliff Avenue and 700 North Street. Rambler Drive: Both sides, between 1100 West Street and American Beauty Drive . 1100 West Street: Both sides, between 600 North Street and Rambler Drive. Lamarne Street: Both sides, between Briarcliff Avenue and Lafayette Drive. Ideal Street: East side, between 600 North Street and Briarcliff Avenue. Lafayette Drive: Both sides between 1200 West Street and 800 North Street. Picture Drive: South, southeast and east sides between 1200 West Street and 800 North Street. Autumn Avenue: Both sides, between American Beauty Drive and Briarcliff Avenue. Briarcliff Avenue: Both sides, between American Beauty Drive and Autumn Avenue; also both sides between Ideal Street and Grenoble Street. 700 North Street: North side, between Rambler Drive and 900 West Street; south side, between 900 West and 1100 West Street. Prosperity Avenue: Both sides, between Lafayette Drive and Los Angeles Street. BOUNDARIES: North - 800 North Street East - 900 West Street South - 600 North Street West - 1200 West Street ESTIMATED COSTS : Front feet of abutting property 18, 060. 67 Total estimated cost per front foot $1 . 76 City' s estimated cost per front foot $0. 44 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $1 . 32 Estimated cost of City' s portion $7, 961 .81 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $23 , 885 . 42 TOTAL estimated cost $31, 847 . 23 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-2 9 F: STREETS: 1200 West Street: West side, from a point 169 ."85 feet south of Lafayette Drive, north to 900 North Street. Oakley Street: Both sides, between 600 North Street and 900 North Street. BD1290 (PF) -9- 1300 West Street: Both sides. between 600 North Street and 900 North Street. 900 North Street: Both sides between 1200 West and 1300 West Streets. Talisman Drive : Both sides, between 1200 West and 1300 West Streets. Lafayette Drive: Both sides between 1200 West and 1300 West Streets . BOUNDARIES: North - 900 North Street East - 1200 West Street South - 600 North Street West - 1300 West Street ESTIMATED COSTS: Front feet of abutting property 14, 577 . 83 Total estimated cost per front foot $1 . 92 City' s estimated cost per front foot $0. 48 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $1 . 44 Estimated cost of City' s portion $6, 981 . 87 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $20, 945 . 61 TOTAL estimated cost $27, 927 . 48 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15 , 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-30F: STREETS : Yale Avenue : Both sides, 1800 East to 2000 East Streets . 2000 East Street: Both sides, Yale Avenue to Herbert Avenue. BOUNDARIES: North - Herbert Avenue East - 2000 East Street South - Yale Avenue West - 1700 East Street ESTIMATED COSTS : Front feet of abutting property 3 , 404. 16 Total estimated cost per front foot $7 . 65 City' s estimated cost per front foot $1 . 91 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $5 . 74 Estimated cost of City' s portion $6, 510. 27 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $19, 530. 82 TOTAL estimated cost $26, 041 . 09 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15 , 1990 to July 15, 1993 BD1290 (FF) -10- EXTENSION NO. 10-43E: STREETS : 900 North Street: Both sides from 1500 West to a point 130. 5 feet west of 1500 West Street. Talisman Drive: Both sides from a point 130. 5 feet west of 1500 West Street to 1300 West Street. 800 North Street: North side from a point 130. 5 feet west of 1500 West Street to Catherine Street. 800 North Street: South side from the edge of the old Jordan River bank to Catherine Street. Leadville Street: Both sides from 1300 West Street to the banks of the old Jordan River. Oakley Street: Both sides from 900 North Street to 1000 North Street. 1300 West Street: East side from 900 North Street to 1000 North Street. 1300 West Street: West side streets from the south side of the vacated 800 North Street to 1000 North Street. Colorado Street: Both sides from 600 North Street to 1000 North Streets . 1400 West Street: Both sides from 600 North Street to 1000 North Street. Catherine Street: Both sides from Leadville Street to 1000 North Street. 1500 West Street: Both sides from 800 North Street to 1000 North Street. BOUNDARIES: North - 1000 North Street East - Old Jordan River South - 600 North Street West - Oakley Street ESTIMATED COSTS: Front feet of abutting property 23 , 142 . 46 Total estimated cost per front foot $1. 60 City' s estimated cost per front foot $0. 40 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $1 .20 Estimated cost of City' s portion $9,268 . 73 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $27, 806. 18 TOTAL estimated cost $37, 074. 91 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 BD1290 (PF) -11- EXTENSION NO. 10-44E: STREETS: Sunset Drive: Both sides from the Jordan River to Dupont Avenue (between Oakley and Valentine Street) . Dupont Avenue: Both sides from Carousel Street to a point 108. 92 feet east of Valentine Street. 1300 North Street: Both sides from Colorado Street to 1300 West Street. 1200 North Street: Both sides from Colorado Street to a point 107 feet east of Valentine Street. Goodwin Street: Both sides from a point 100 feet west of 1500 West Street to Colorado Street. 1000 North Street: Both sides from Catherine Street to Valentine Street. 1000 North Street: North side from a point 100 feet west of 1500 West Street to a point 116. 45 feet east of Valentine Street. Carousel Street: Both sides from a point 140 feet south to Dupont Avenue north to Dupont Avenue. Garnette Street: Both sides from point 685 feet south from Dupont Avenue north to Dupont Avenue. 1500 West Street: Both sides from 1000 North Street to a point 120 feet north of Sunset Drive. Catherine Street: Both sides from 1000 North Street to Dupont Avenue. 1400 West Street: Both sides from 1000 North Street to Goodwin Avenue. Colorado Street: Both sides from 1000 North Street to a point 120 feet north of Sunset Drive. 1300 West Street: Both sides from 1000 North to Dupont Avenue. Sonata Street: Both sides from Oakley Street (150 feet north of 1100 North Street) to Dupont Avenue. Oakley Street: Both sides from 1000 North Street to Dupont Avenue. Valentine Street: Both sides from 1000 North Street to 1100 North Street, and from 1200 North Street to Dupont Avenue. BOUNDARIES: North - Sunset Drive East - 1700 West Street South - 1000 North Street West - Carousel Street BD1290 (PF) -12- ESTIMATED COSTS: Front feet of abutting property 42,225 . 48 Total estimated cost per front foot $1 . 71 City' s estimated cost per front foot $0. 43 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $1 . 28 Estimated cost of City' s portion $18, 089 . 62 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $54,268 . 85 TOTAL estimated cost $72, 358. 47 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-49D: STREETS: 200 South Street: West Temple Street to State Street BOUNDARIES: North - 100 South Street East - State Street South - 300 South Street West - West Temple Street ESTIMATED COSTS: Front feet of abutting property 2 , 051 . 15 Total estimated cost per front foot $15 . 52 City' s estimated cost per front foot $3 . 88 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $11 . 64 Estimated cost of City' s portion $7 , 959 . 44 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $23 , 878. 32 TOTAL estimated cost $31, 837 . 76 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-50D: STREETS: South Temple Street: North side, between West Temple Street and 200 West Street. West Temple Street: East side, between South Temple Street and 200 South Street. Second West Street: South side between West Temple Street and 200 West Street. 200 West Street: West side, between South Temple Street and 200 South Street. BOUNDARIES : North - North Temple Street East - Main Street South - 300 South Street West - 200 West Street BD1290 (FF) -13- ESTIMATED COSTS: Front feet of abutting property 2 , 695 . 00 Total estimated cost per front foot $33 . 18 City' s estimated cost per front foot $8 . 29 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $24. 89 Estimated cost of City' s portion $22 , 355 . 72 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $67 , 067 . 16 TOTAL estimated cost $89, 422 . 88 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15 , 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-62A: STREETS : Pierpont Avenue : South side from West Temple Street to 200 West Street; north side from West Temple Street to 200 West except for the west 170 . 156 feet of Lot 7 , and the east 79 . 44, and 2 . 32 feet of Lot 4 that runs along Pierpont Avenue. BOUNDARIES: North - 200 South Street East - West Temple Street South - 300 South Street West - 200 West Street ESTIMATED COSTS : Front feet of abutting property 1, 152 . 32 Total estimated cost per front foot $9 . 52 City' s estimated cost per front foot $2 . 38 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $7 . 14 Estimated cost of City' s portion $2 , 743 . 92 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $8,231 . 77 TOTAL estimated cost $10, 975 . 69 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15 , 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-63A: STREETS : Pierpont Avenue : Part of Lot 7 and along the easement to the west of Lot 7 . BOUNDARIES : North - 200 South Street East - West Temple Street South - 300 South Street West - 200 West Street BD1290 (PF) -14- ESTIMATED COSTS : Front feet of abutting property 382 . 31 Total estimated cost per front foot $15 . 78 City' s estimated cost per front foot $3 . 94 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $11 . 84 Estimated cost of City' s portion $1, 508. 52 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $4, 525 . 58 TOTAL estimated cost $6, 034. 10 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-64A: STREETS: West Temple Street: Both sides from 200 South to 400 South Streets. BOUNDARIES : North - 200 South Street East - Main Street South - 400 South Street West - 200 West Street ESTIMATED COSTS : Front feet of abutting property 2 , 133 .00 Total estimated cost per front foot $18. 59 City' s estimated cost per front foot $4. 65 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $13 . 94 Estimated cost of City' s portion $9, 912 .21 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $29, 736 . 65 TOTAL estimated cost $39, 648. 86 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 EXTENSION NO. 10-65A: STREETS : The north side of Post Office Place from West Temple Street to Main Street, except the west 155 feet of Lot 7 . BOUNDARIES: North - 200 South Street East - Main Street South - 400 South Street West - 200 West \Street BD1290 (PF) -15- ESTIMATED COSTS: Front feet of abutting property 345 . 00 Total estimated cost per front foot $16 . 08 City' s estimated cost per front foot $4. 02 Abutter' s estimated cost per front foot $12 . 06 Estimated cost of City' s portion $1, 386 . 56 Estimated cost of Abutter' s portion $4, 159 . 68 TOTAL estimated cost $5, 546. 24 SERVICE PERIOD - July 15, 1990 to July 15, 1993 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DISTRICT $555, 397 . 10 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CITY' S PORTION $138, 849 . 27 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS TO BE ASSESSED $416, 547 . 83 INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS The improvements shall consist of operating, maintaining, patrolling, and providing power to street lights located within Salt Lake City Lighting District No . 1 as described above . Also included in the Estimated Costs for some of the Extensions is a portion of the capital cost of the lighting fixtures and improvements. BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT It is proposed to levy assessments on property in the District to pay all or a portion of the Estimated Costs according to the benefits derived by such property by levying an assessment on all property in the District according to front footage . Estimated Costs include, among other things, power costs, patroling, a reserve for replacement of lighting fixtures and improvements, any other operation and maintenance expenses, a portion of the capital costs of the lighting fixtures and improvements, any debit or credit balances BD1290 (ET) -16- carried forward from previous charges and expenses for lighting and administrative costs. The total estimated cost of all services is $555, 397 . 10 as determined by the City Transportation Engineer, of which the City' s portion is estimated to be $138, 849 . 27 and the remainder is to be paid as estimated above by an assessment to be levied upon property fronting or abutting upon or adjacent to the system to be serviced, or which may be affected by or specifically benefitted by any of such services. If the actual cost of the improvements exceeds the estimated cost, the governing body shall nevertheless have the right to levy assessments in excess of the estimated cost. Assessments shall be payable in three (3 ) yearly installments (the "Assessment Installment" or "Installments" ) , with interest on any delinquent Assessment Installment at the rate of eighteen percent ( 18%) per annum until paid. The whole or any part of the assessment may be paid without interest within 15 days (the "Cash Payment Period" ) after the ordinance levying the assessment becomes effective, but the first Assessment Installment shall be due and payable during the Cash Payment Period. Future Assessment Installments may be adjusted to reflect changes in operation and maintenance costs and any balances or deficits resulting from the previous year ' s operations. Property owners paying the total assessment, or any portion of any future Assessment BD1290 (PF) -17- Installment prior to reduction of any future Assessment Installment, will not receive a rebate . If, because of energy rate increases, or for any other reason, adjustments of Assessment Installments result in an increase in the total assessment, notice of such proposed increase will be given and a public hearing will be held prior to levying of the increase in the total assessment. This requirement shall not apply where an increase in an Assessment Installment does not result in an increase in the assessment. TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS All protests or objections to such services or the creation of the District or to the carrying out of such intention MUST BE IN WRITING, signed by the owners of the property affected or benefitted by such services, describing or otherwise identifying said property and its front footage . WRITTEN NOTICE OF PROTESTS MUST BE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER, ROOM 311 , CITY & COUNTY BUILDING, ON OR BEFORE 5 : 00 o'clock p.m. on March 12 , 1990, thereafter at 6 : 00 p.m. , on March 13 , 1990 the City Council will meet at the City Council Chambers in the City & County Building to hear and consider any such protests and objections to the creation of the special improvement district or any other objections thereto . The method for determining the number of protests sufficient to defeat the District shall be according to front footage . BD1290 (PF) -18- BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH /s/ Kathryn Marshall City Recorder BD1290 (PF) -19- Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: Those voting AYE: Those voting NAY: BD1290 (PF) -20- After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. Chair ATTEST: City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD1290 (PF) -21- PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on the 6th day of February, 1990 . Chair MAYOR' S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 6th day of February, 1990. Mayor BD1290 (PF) -22- EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS [ attach multi-page metes and bounds descriptions to original copy of resolution] • • BD1290 (PF) -23- STATE OF UTAH ) ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall, the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify as follows : 1 . That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full , true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held in said Municipality on February 6, 1990 at the hour of 6: 00 p.m. , insofar as said proceedings relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to create Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No . 1 and make certain improvements therein described as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. 2 . That due, legal and timely notice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of said Municipality. 3 . That the above resolution was deposited in my office on February 6, 1990, has been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. BD1290 (PF) -24- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of said Municipality this 6th day of February, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD1290 (PF) -25- STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING : ss. NOTICE OF INTENTION COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , Kathryn Marshall , the duly chosen, qualified and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that the attached Notice of Intention was approved and adopted in the proceedings of the City Council held on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, 1990. I further certify that on the day of 1990 (a date not later than ten (10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention) I mailed a true copy of the Notice of Intention to create Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No . 1 by United States Mail, postage prepaid to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed Special Improvement District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, and in addition I mailed on the same date a copy of said Notice of Intention addressed to "Owner" addressed to the street number, post office box, rural route number, or other mailing address of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment. I further certify that a certified copy of said Notice of Intention, together with profiles of the improvements and BD1290 (PE') -26- a map of the proposed District, was on file in my office for inspection by any interested parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah this day of , 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD1290 (PF) -27- - h - (Affidavit of proof of publication of the Notice of Intention to create Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. 1 . ) BD1290 (PF) -28- CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I , the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County (the "City Recorder" ) , do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2 ) , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the February 6, 1990 public meeting held by the City Council as follows : ( a) By causing a Notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "I" , to be posted at the offices of the Salt Lake City Council on February 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "I" , to be delivered to the Deseret News on February , 1990, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. BD1290 (PF) -29- n IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this 6th day of February, 1990. City Recorder ( S E A L ) BD1290 (PF) -30- EXHIBIT "I" to Certificate of Compliance Notice of City Council Meeting BD1290 (PF) -31- • 65;). STAFF RECOMMENDATION STREET NAME CHANGE FEES March 9, 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Cindy Gust-Jenson ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Adopt an ordinance enacting section 14.08.015, relating to street name change fees. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Some Councilmembers may recall that our office and the Administration received several requests for honorary street name changes last year, but the City did not have a process by which to process and evaluate those requests. This ordinance fills that need. STAFF ANALYSIS: The $250 fee proposed for the review of honorary street name requests appears to be a good balance between collecting the actual costs and keeping the process within reach of the schools and other organizations who wish to have honorary street names considered. The actual staff time cost is estimated to be $450 per request. Previously, no fee was charged for the review of these requests. If the Council wanted to see the full $450 estimated staff cost recovered, the ordinance could be amended to do so. The $250 fee is in keeping with the fee charged by the County. In addition to paying the $250 fee, the requesting organization will be required to pay for all signs, installation costs, and replacement costs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt ordinance enacting section 14.08.015, relating to street name change fees. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move we adopt the ordinance relating to street name change fees. CRAIG E. PETERSON ��� c�do ps rv. ,.. itct N[ DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council February 1, 1990 Re: Street Name Change Fccs Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 13, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss collecting a fee of $250.00 for Street Name Change Petitions. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: During the last year, Salt Lake City has cooperated with the Salt Lake County Council of Governments moratorium that no street names be changed, unless absolutely necessary, in order to : complete and implement the 911 system data base. The moratorium will end during the month of February. Most of the street name changes we receive are of the "honorary" or "preference" nature where only certain blocks of the street are given an honorary name such as the request we recently received from West High to have 300 North between 200 West and 400 West be given the honorary name of "PPnth�ay". The honorary name street sign appears above the regular street sign in another color. Street name changes are received by the Department of Community and Economic Development and are reviewed by Planning, Transportation, Engineering, Attorney and the City Recorder's Office. The fee we are recommending is $259.- O-and is less than the actual cost of processing a request. The staff time costs are approximately $450.00 per request (this does not include the costs incurred by the County Address Coordinator) . The petitioner is responsible for the construction cost of the sign and the installation cost. The petitioner is also responsible for any replacement costs due to vandalism or theft. The signs for high schools are a target for rivalries and as mementos and have been removed from the street pole. The fee will not be collected for street name changes that are determined by the City to be necessary in order to eliminate duplication of names or to avoid other confusion which would have a negative impact upon providing emergency service if the street remains unchanged. These requests will be handled by the City Engineer's Office. Several street name change requests have been received during the moratorium and will not be charged the fee but will be evaluated based upon the criteria outlined in the Street Name Changes Policy of Salt Lake City's Policies and Procedures Manual. The policy will be adopted by the Mayor after this ordinance has boon acted upon. A copy of the proposed information handout, outlining the requirements is attached for the your information. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: M CHAEL B. Z Director Community and Economic Development lf/ PREPI!VENC E OR HONORARY STREET NAME CHANGE 7• ID. ra ID•• INFORMATION It is the policy of Salt Lake City Corporation to name and number the streets of Salt Lake City in a way that eliminates duplication and other confusion which would impact the provision of emergency services. It is further the policy of Salt Lake City Corporation to evaluate requests for street name changes systematically and objectively. Street name changes requested to clarify location to more efficiently provide services must be submitted to the Office of the City Engineer. Such street . name changes will change the legal designation of the street. Street name changes requested as a matter of preference must be submitted to the Office of the Director of the Department of Conuunity and Economic Development. Departmental review for Street Name Change requests include Community and Economic Development, Public Works, Fire, Salt Lake County Administrative Services and, if the street is owned by the State, the Utah Department of Transportation. A preference or honorary street name change does not change the legal designation of the street. Upon approval of any preference request for an honorary or official name change, the petitioner will be responsible for reimbursing the City for: - the actual cost of implementing the changes including any costs of updating official documents which exceed the petition fee of $250.00; - the cost of construction and installation of all applicable street signs. In cases when the new street name signs are a target for rivalries or mementos, for example high school mascot designations, the petitioner will be responsible for reimbursing the City for the replacement of missing or damaged street signs. WHERE TO FILE Preference or Honorary Request: Eliminate Duplication or Clarify Location: Salt Lake City Conuunity and Economic Development Office City Engineer Room 218 City and County Building 444 South State St. 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: (801) 535-7961 Phone: (801) 535-7777 FILING FEE FILING FEE $250.00 no charge PRF;[u FNC'E OR HONORARY STREET NAME QMANCE • • D. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS It is the policy of Salt Lake City Corporation to receive the necessary information from the applicant in order to review "Preference" Street Name Change requests. Please submit the following information with this application: Date: / / Petitioner's Name: Petitioner's Address: Zip Petitioner's Phone: Contact Person: 1. An explanation of how the requested street name will be compatible with adjacent streets and location, historical character or theme. • 2. Written proof of notification of the utility companies, the State Department of Transportation, the Salt Lake County Address Coordinator, and the U.S. Post Office of the petition. 3. Signatures of at least 75 percent of the abutting property owners •and, when the property is not owner occupied, occupants in addition to property. owners. 4. Names and addresses of all adjacent property owners (available at the Salt Lake County Recorder) , typed on gummed mailing labels. A separate check from filing fcc, payable to Salt Lake City Corporation, to cover all postage for mailing notices to adjacent property owners. 5. A non-refundable application foe for processing the preference request of $250.00 payable upon submission of the request. SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Street Name Change Fees) ' AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 14.08.015, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO STREET NAME CHANGE FEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 14.08.015, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, enacted pertaining to Street Name Change Fees, to read as follows: 14.08.015 Street name change fees. A non-refundable fee of two hundred fifty dollars shall be paid by any person requesting consideration by the city of a change of the name of any city street. Said fee shall not be- payable where such street name change is determined by the city to be necessary in order to eliminate duplication of names or to avoid other confusion which would have a negative impact upon the providing of emergency services if such street remains unchanged . SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by -the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON F ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) Bill No. OF 1990. Published: LVS:rc -2- 4110 ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN March 9, 1990 Mr. Mike Zuhl, Director Department of Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation BUILDING Dear Mike: It is a pleasure to submit to the City Council the Planning Commission's and Planning Division's recommendations for adoption of the "Block 57 Master Plan" and the attached "Planning Policy Position Paper". The Commission unanimously supports this recommendation and submits its findings as additional public policy necessary to guide and evaluate the implementation of the Plan. The Planning Commission held a final informal public hearing on March 1, 1990 to receive public comment on the published plan. The only comment received concerned establishing a design review process to properly implement the plan and protect the public investment in the urban plaza/park. The policies in the plan support a design review process. The Planning Commission and Planning Division compliment the consultants, FFKR Architects and Wallace Associates, for their extraordinary accomplishments in the process of developing the master plan and the "handsome" document visually portraying the planning concepts. The input of citizen comments, the Planning Staff, Historical Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission, has directed the final vision portrayed in the master plan. Mr. Mike Zuhl March 9, 1990 Page Two The planning process that has been followed since the first Draft was prepared, has greatly improved the plan to direct the successful redevelopment of Block 57 and the City's Central Business District. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the "Block 57 Master Plan" with the attached "Planing Policy Position Paper" as an element of the City's Downtown Master Plan. Respectfully submitted, LJ ' - 6() William T. Wright, A P Deputy Planning Director Salt Lake City Planning Division cc: LaVone Liddle-Gamonal, Chairperson Salt Lake City Planning Commission SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1990 (Adopting the Block 57 Master Plan as part of the Downtown Master Plan) AN ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10-9-21 , UTAH CODE ANNOTATED, 1953 ADOPTING THE BLOCK 57 MASTER PLAN AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission and received input from the affected community councils and others and believes it appropriate to adopt the Block 57 Master Plan as modified by the Planning Commission as part of the Downtown Master Plan . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Block 57 Master Plan Update as modified and recommended for adoption by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on March 1 , 1990 is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 10-9-21 , Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended as part of the Downtown Master Plan. The City Recorder is hereby directed to retain a certified copy of. the Block 57 Master Plan and the Planning Commission modifications which are hereby incorporated by reference. SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -2- • CRAIG E. PETERSON 5,,,,_""r'A\ HEY(O RPO �.,; 10N1 DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council February 9, 1990 RE: Block 57 Master Plan Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March--137- 1990 at 6:40 :m to discuss the Block 57 Master Plan. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed this Master Plan and has given conceptual approval of the plan. The Planning Commission also submits their findings as additional public policy necessary to guide and evaluate the implementation of the Plan. The Planning Commission will take final action on the Block 57 Master Plan on March 1, 1990. Due to the advertising requirements the date be will be set and advertised before the Planning Commission has taken final action to ensure a timely adoption of the Plan. Legislative Action: A resolution will be prepared and submit before the March 13, 1990 hearing date. Submitted by: 02-L/C CHAEL B. Z Interim Director Community and Economic Development 5vr r A 43 C;iii r G,IIRPtj J M1 ALLEN C. JOHNSON. AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN February 8, 1990 Mr. Mike Zuhl, Director Department of Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation BUILDING Dear Mike: It is our pleasure to submit to the City Council the Planning Commission's and Planning Division's recommendations for conceptual approval of the "Block 57 Master Plan" and the attached "Planning Policy Position Paper". The Commission unanimously supports this recommendation and submits its findings as additional public policy necessary to guide and evaluate the implementation of the Plan. Last November, the Planning Commission committed to the City Council to "fast track" the Plan review and adoption process to accommodate new development on the block. The Commission has performed rigorously to comply with that commitment. Prior to final adoption by the City Council, however, the Planning Commission respectfully requests additional time to convene a final public hearing and submit a final recommendation. The Coilunission can schedule this informal hearing on Thursday March 1, 1990. Following that date, we recommend that the City Council hold a public hearing to receive comment on the Plan/Policies and adopt it as an element of the City's Downtown Master Plan. The Planning Commission and Planning Division compliment the consultants, F KR Architects and Wallace Associates, for their extraordinary accomplishments in the process of developing the master plan and the "handsome" document visually portraying the planning concepts. The input of citizen comments, the Planning Staff, Historical Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission, has directed the final vision portrayed in the master plan. • Mr. Mike Zuhl February 8, 1990 Page No The planning process that has been followed since the first Draft was prepared, has greatly improved the plan to direct the successful redevelopment of Block 57 and the City's Central Business District. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council conceptually approve the "Block 57 Master Plan" with the attached "Planing Policy Position Paper" as an element of the City's Master Plan. Respectfully submitted, (xlit1 f42,,j4 William T. Wright, AICP Deputy Planning Director Salt Lake City Planning Division WIW:skm cc: LaVone Liddle-Gamonal, Chairperson Salt Lake City Planning Commission Revi ced Salt Take City Planning Commission Salt Lake City Planning Division Planning Policy Position for the "Block 57 Master Plan" Since July 1989, the "Block 57 Master Plan" has been in preparation by FFKR Architects/Planners and Wallace Associates Consulting Group. The contract is with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. The Planning Staff, the Historical Landmark Committee, the Planning Commission's Downtown Development Subcommittee and the Planning Commission have participated in the development of the plan as now drafted. The Planning Division and Planning Commission support the "Block 57 Master Plan" and recommend to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors that the Plan be conceptually approved as an element of the Downtown Master Plan and as an Implementation Plan of the Central Business District Neighborhood Development Plan. The Plan as now presented responds to the urban design and development criteria directed by many City Master Plans. The Master Plan effectively marries the planning policies for the block with the economic market analysis to attain a plan with a high certainty of implementation. The staff and Commission believe the Master Plan contains adequate flexibility of land use options and development densities to allow the market forces to work toward the final development without violating public planning policies. The Planning Commission submits the following findings to be attached to the "Block 57 Master Plan" as additional public policy necessary to guide and evaluate the implementation of the Master Plan. Land Use and Development Density Policies 1. The Block 57 Master Plan promotes a preferred "medium density" mixed use development plan. 2. The developed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the block shall not be less than 4:1. (This includes underground parking structures. ) 3. The building square footages delineated within the plan shall be considered minimums for buildings developed on the southwest, northeast and southeast corner sites. 4. A major urban plaza/park shall be developed by the City and maintained as public open space. 5. Preservation of the national and local historic structures or their facades should be encouraged in the future development of the block. Specifically, the USTB and Brooks Arcade buildings require special marketing programs by the City with criteria for restoration and reuse. Design of adjacent structures should be sensitive to the height, scale and character of these buildings. The Clayton building should undergo additional structural and economic analysis by a consultant working with the Historical Landmark Committee to identify preservation and reuse alternatives. The review and approval process currently established under the Historic Districts and Landmark Sites Ordinance (21.74) will be followed on the decisions for reuse or demolition of all of the historic structures on this block. 6. Permits for demolition of structures on the block shall follow the conditional use process for the reuse of the property as outlined in the Commercial "C-4" zoning district. 7. Retail uses, service commercial or other uses with public orientation, should occupy the first floor level on the street and plaza frontages of all buildings. Design Policies 1. The "street wall" along Main Street shall be maintained with only one "clear to the sky" opening into the urban plaza/park. The size of the plaza/park at the opening shall be subject to a design review, but shall be no greater than approximately 75 feet on Main Street. 2. The preferred building bulk/massing along Main Street will continue a street wall height similar to the USTB building (approximately seven stories) . The minimum acceptable height of the street wall along Main Street is three stories. 3. All business and commercial buildings shall use clear glazing on windows at the street and plaza level. Sixty percent of the ground level building facade along the street frontage and plaza shall be transparent. 4. The space between the 201 South Main building and the USus or its addition should be enclosed by use of an architectural facade at the Main Street entry. This design concept will maintain the Main Street "street wall" while providing interior access to 201 South Main building. 5. View corridors to the mountains and other important visual sites for Block 57 shall be considered in the design review process. 6. The design of the urban plaza/park shall be finalized in a separate design process considering the schematic design elements in the "Block 57 Master Plan" with the goal to promote the regular, diverse and flexible use of the plaza/park by people. Parking and Transportation Policies 1. All parking on the block shall be underground structured parking accessed at three major points of entry, one each on 200 South, 300 South, and State Streets. 2. Vehicular entry to the underground parking facilities shall occur in the street and pass under the sidewalk to minimize pedestrian conflicts. 3. The parking program will provide approximately 1924 stalls under the public plaza/park and will be allocated to the major uses on the block based upon minimum zoning ordinance requirements (excluding prior contractual obligation to 201 South Main building) . 4. Parking shall be provided for all new development at the minimum zoning requirements. Additional parking stalls requested by the developer shall be provided by the developer, under the new structures, up to a maximum of 2.2 stalls per 1000 square feet of building. Building density of the Block will not be reduced from the minimums delineated in the Plan. 5. The underground parking shall be managed on a "seamless" basis with cross- over agreements to offer efficient parking allocations. 6. Parking lease rates shall function at the market rate for the entire parking structure. Lease rates shall be consistent throughout the Block independent of their location. 7. Parking shall be made available for public parking on evenings and weekends and shall maintain reasonable hours of operation. 8. Mass transit shall be encouraged to serve Block 57 along Main Street. Nc parking lot entries are permitted on Main Street to eliminate conflicts with busses and potential light rail transit. Pedestrian amenities along the Main Street frontage shall be designed to support mass transit. The density of the block may increase with the addition of a light rail system and a corresponding decrease in parking requirements. Management Policies 1. A management entity, either public, private or a combination of the two should manage and market the use, public safety and maintenance of the urban plaza/park and parking structure. Management alternatives should be prepared for the city by a consultant. 2. The entire urban plaza/park and underground parking structure should be constructed in a single phase. 3. The City should proactively market the remaining development parcels on the Block with an aggressive marketing campaign outlining the development expectations, guidelines and incentives. 4. An overlay zoning ordinance should be prepared to establish a design review process and approval by the Planning Commission for compliance with the Master Plan and design criteria. Prior to the establishment of the design review overlay zone by ordinance, any proposals on Block 57 should be reviewed by the Planning Division and the Planning Commission for consistency with the Block 57 Master Plan prior to City approval. (71 _ • 5. Restrictive covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be placed upon - all properties on Block 57 to ensure that development of the Block is consistent with the adopted Master Plan. The covenants shall include the review and approval process to be followed by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Process 1. The Planning Commission shall convene a public hearing to receive public comment on the printed "Block 57 Master Plan" and these Planning Commission policies prior to submitting a recommendation for final adoption by the City. Following that process, the Planning Commission shall submit to the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors, a final recommendation to adopt the plan and policies as the official "Block 57 Master Plan" as an element of the Downtown Plan and as an official "Block 57 Design Plan" to guide implementation by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. The Planning Commission's conceptual or final approval of the "Block 57 Master Plan" excludes the "CBD Edges Study" (Page 9) which is subject to additional public policy analysis and review. 2. The process to amend this plan shall include a public review process with the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City. &L/ ) spiv' r A` a��'EU(OR O'°�'e iI,O'N1 CRAIG E. PETERSON +a �5�� 1��► �►' DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council February 7, 1990 RE: Rezoning Property located at 409, 411 and 429 South 800 East Strcct Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 13, 1990 at 6:50 p.m. to discuss rezoning property located at 409, 411 and 429 South 800 East Street from "C-1" and "R-7" classification to a "R-5" classification and that the East Central Neighborhood Plan be amended to reflect "Medium Density Residential" use for 409 South and 411 South 800 East. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: This proposed rezone action was initiated by the Planning Commission following earlier Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment approvals for a development on the southeast corner of 400 South and 800 East. The Planning Commission recommends rezoning the adjoining properties to promote a desirable land use pattern for this area of the East Central Neighborhood. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: Z4)//krie,,n)(/2, ICHAEL B. Z Interim Direc or Community and Economic Development lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1990 (Rezoning property located at 409, 411 and 429 South 800 East pursuant to a Planning Commission Initiative) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to a Planning Commission initiative, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at 409, 411 and 429 South 800 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21 . 14. 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows: Sec. 21. 14.020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Commercial "C-1" and Residential "R-7" , is hereby rezoned Residential "R-5" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: COMMENCING at a point 76. 8 feet South of NW corner of Lot 5, Block 30, Plat B, SLC Survey; thence East 132 , feet; thence South 88.2 feet; thence East 403 feet; .;\\ thence South 239 feet; thence West 205 feet; thence South 74. 5 feet; thence West 178 feet; thence North t ,,.\.X0 8. 25 feet; thence West 152 feet; thence North approx. 393 . 45 feet, to the point of BEGINNING. SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor ' s Action: Approved Vetoed . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -2- ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP ATE\ a,.;f TjY�G,;ORPO�Y+� PALMER DEPAULIS PLANNING DIRECTOR MAYOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7757 January 25 , 1990 Mr . Mike Zuhl , Director Community and Economic Development Room 235 City-County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City , UTAH 84111 Re : Rezone initiative for properties at 409 , 411 and 429 So . 800E Dear Mike , On January 18 , 1990 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission moved to recommend to the City Council a rezone from C-1 Commercial and R- 7 Residential to R- 5 Residential for properties at 409 South and 411 South 800 East ( 2 single family residences ) and 429 South 800 East ( Bennion Elementary School ) . The Planning Commission also moved to recommend to the City Council an amendment to the East Central Neighborhood Plan ( 1984 ) to reflect "Medium Density Residential " use for 409 So . and 411 So . 800 East Street . This proposed rezone action is Planning Commission initiated and follows earlier Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment approvals for a development on the South-East corner of 400 South 800 East . The Planning Commission is now recommending the rezone of the adjoining properties to promote a desirable land use pattern for this area of the East Central neighborhood . It is now appropriate that this item be scheduled for City Council consideration . Re t ul , Alle C . Johno , AICP Planing Director attachments ACJ : bp S 9 ROSEMARY DAVIS SALT' A e ,°GGORPO . IONiAm.& c vr « .eu.a.v,ri DIRECTCR DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Capital Planning and Programming CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 418 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7902 February 12, 1990 TO: Alan G. Hardman, Chair, Salt Lake City Council RE: HOLDING REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS ON GENERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND THE 14TH - 17TH YEAR CDBG PLAN RECOMMENDATION: That you to set a HUD required public hearing on general community development and housing needs as well as a hearing on the 14th - 17th Year CDBG Plan, on February 20 for Tuesday, March, 13, 1990 . FUNDING: The City' s CDBG allocation for July 1, 1990 is expected to be $3 , 867,000 . DISCUSSION: A public hearing is required by HUD to obtain citizen input on eneral housin and communit develo ment needs that can be addressed by CDBG funds . Comments regarding the overa erformance of the City' s CDBG program are also solicited at this time. The hearing is held so that citizens' and community organizations ' comments can be considered before final recommendations are made for annual CDBG funding. To inform the Council of projects you will hear about, a log of 16th Year CDBG requests is attached. Also, since 1979 the City has prepared short term CD plans to guide its CDBG planning. These plans assess current community conditions and delineate target areas in which CDBG funds will be concentrated. The fourth CDBG plan ( 1988-92) has recently been completed which also schedules the phasing into and out of current and proposed CDBG target neighborhoods . The Community Development Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have reviewed the draft Four Year Community Development Plan and approved it along with its scheduling of target areas . According to City plan adoption procedures, this plan should be submitted to the Council for its review and adoption by resolution. This would occur after the Council holds a public hearing to obtain further citizen input. We are requesting that this hearing be held on the same night as the related HUD required CDBG hearing. ACTION REQUIRED: That on February 20 the City Council set the date for holding the required public hearings . City ordinance states that plan adoption hearings be advertised for 20 days, therefore, it must be advertised by February 22 for a March 13th hearing. LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS: The resolution adopting the 1988-1992 Community Development Plan and the draft plan are attached. CONTACT PERSON: Stephanie Harpst, Capital Planning at 535-7115 . Submitted by: Lee Kin i/'4/ Deputy Director, Community and Economic Development LK/SLH CDHearing2/90 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1990 (Adopting the 1988-1992 Community Development Plan) WHEREAS, the Capital Planning and Programming Division of Salt Lake City, Utah, after extensive review involving a wide range of public hearings, meetings with staff personnel, citizen groups and interested neighborhood residents, has prepared a document entitled "Community Development Plan 1988-1992. " That plan details the goals, objectives and policies of the City' s CDBG program for the fiscal years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 corresponding to the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th funding years of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CDBG program. The plan includes a targeting of eligible neighborhoods, the establishing of neighborhood strategies, and sets guidelines for the City's future community development efforts and programming of funds to implement these efforts; and WHEREAS, the City's Community Development Advisory Committee has reviewed and approved the said "Community Development Plan 1988-1992" including the , scheduling of target neighborhood areas therein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the said plan; and • WHEREAS, a public hearing on—the advisability of adopting the said plan has been duly advertised and conducted before the City Council and the City Council has reviewed said Community Development Plan 1988-1992 and concurs that its recommendations are valuable to guide the City in allocating CDBG resources to 0 r y '135- address the needs of the City's communities and neighborhoods and to provide a better urban environment, and it is in the best interests of the City to endorse and adopt such plan as the legislative policy of this city together with the City's 'Capital Improvement Program and other publicly and privately funded programs to augment the City' s conservation and revitalization efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that the document entitled "Community Development Plan 1988-1992, " is hereby officially adopted by this legislative body as a general guide and framework for the application and allocation of the -'Community Development Block Grant - program for the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th funding years of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG program for Salt Lake City, Utah. A copy of said plan is incorporated by reference and three (3) copies of said plan shall be retained on file at the office of the City Recorder and shall be made available for public review and inspection. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1990, SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL - • By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER LVS:rc .-I it J it r-. it (..) # Z W it = CD is C) G # v C it it it if it 9' it i< C it O * >- # C1 z• p Z W = 2 O U W L. C tL I- * N i1 .K 9' 41 it it i▪t # U # Q # CI it U it it it it • O O O O O CICDCDO CDO p O W CD CD 0 O O CDC O O C V) CD C. Ts. O CDp 10 C W O (0 fe) Cr) V N Is. _ .--1 N 11-1 4.4 44 4.4 44 C C• 44 44 •D W •--1 - .--1 C 44 O I >-. .I C 1-- O O •-+Y•-•O) L t0 Cf)a•I.)N tO In V'e•7 N CO 1.0 e)'I»N 1.0 10 C/)N CO to w•P•)N t0 tf)•C t0 LC) Li C.)I-.--1 >- .-4 r..-.N.--1 .-I.-..-1 .-1- W OJ C'....-.• V1 1 0 CD 0 0 I 11111 0 0 0 0 ) 1111 0 0 CD 0 ) 1111 C O C O 11111 0 0 0 C) 111111 0 0 I 1 1 1 0 F Y C 2 C =+1 0 0 0 0 O CD CD CD 0 0 0 0 CD O CD O O CD O CD O O O < W< CD_ C O O O O 0 CD CD LOI CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 -I2 re.:>- 0 CD O C').4. 0 CD 0 N O LC)0 0 0 0 0)M C.V)O)O) 0 0 10 I-W O W E CD CD CD N C CD O Cf. C)I.0)OI P7 K)M(h C'K)R)P9 N N P. - =U--• C G t-t�CO CO N N N.--. 4044.4444.4 44444444 4.444,0464 L411.4 44 C C W F- 0. 4.4444444 444444.44 NO CLD J .-1 W(M >2 W•-•(9 >-=C.)) .0 S.-4-) C • _ .. ..-1 t.._ 0 0•••• VI >I _ N 1 N ID E O)C vl 2 + 4- v C E+1 D •-) vl S. • en C) u • C U U 7 7 0 -) 7 0 C N Y 4- N R7 L•c_J S. > 0 0+14- • C U 0 U O ++ in U N inJ o 0 E 0 C CZ L- L E 3 O C) C /n C •r O v) L vl U 4- GE L_ CE: OS N 0 t0••- C) O C 0 cf)0 C) 7 U • • •+) U� 0 U 0 • E.02 4) 7� 3.0 10 pE� C+L-) of 2 C L VI M C •-) L VI 0 0 Z v) In IO O••- L= N... td V) n) CD 7-O /O C)0•' 0 L U i 0 CO C) U.- C) O L•O.0 >) C U •••. C) L t0 VI 4- C 4-••- ) 0 E L - •••• �. rt) 4, C) L L F- 01 S.4-, •0 4-, IC) .0 IC E C L.- L 0 •>L 4-) C) ID 0..-4 C+UI D)'H 0 CCC/.- a0.) d C" )U-. N >f� U 9-W �O C S. 0.In C 4-1++ C vl a L.0 CC-. L 0.1. VI C )• vI P7 C re C)+)0 ) > ^ v) o lD fa C) IC•-• C) 3 0)0 7 v 4-1+/ • -0.0 4.1 in L (0 E 0 V) O C 4' M.- O U C) 0 . 4' L C) C N W L..- ••- Ir.. U 0.E .0 v) In C) U =••- C)•.- 1... C) VI.1-1U 0.CG •O 0 Ib p E 0•-iJ •0 0 • C) C) C) ID U•- 1C C) > C) U U C C IO++ CI-0() U C L ••- U.0 U -.0•• •r L U U C) 0.C 0•r C)n) 0 C) CD C< 0 >•- •0 IC+)4.1 fa - > In •C > 3 L 4-1 U O)C7 C § 4- 0.0•C'r• L L L++ 0 C)••- 0 ob 0 0.L > U'O.0 L C CO L L•� C) C) U C) L L E L C) Cl'0 0.007 >, L 0.0.C) 0.C) 0 T. 0.C) C) •E- 0.0)fa V_0) CC•.N C 0. o0 U C)4) 0 00 .CU+) u cn fa O 00 C•- of 0•- U•^ 0 L L•- 0+• C•r 0 C 0 O LT C•-•-• 0.O C I- UC••- 3 7 I- C) CC) F- 0.0.V) I- 0••-C) I- fa.0 I- 0.E = 0.W CL•- > U R) Y U V) U C0U 0 IC = b U U C J C 4-, J +).0 C.C1 4-) CA Y C ca °a Q T .~-1 C R E L T C UO 0 C1 0 V) C- C Vf 0 C 10.C 0 >1 L IO C) L CT) CM•- 0) CD U (7 > CD4-) E L n Z^� (z co c E = U C .Zr F-C C 2 U 2••- al >-- V) 0) ►-•C •-• L L CD L N C.) 7 N 0-0 I- O V) C) v) V).4 U••• V) •0 V) 7 01 VI v1 0 ='0 7 =V) a V) =V) C = U 0 =V) 7 =V) U =V)••- 0 CD U 0 O V) 0 U CD 2 7 O U L 0= L O= U O= 7 L .N-1 =�=== 2QS CD ==C.- =NC =C]C) 2CO V) =COC 0- 2= N 2 C. F- .--1 N P') V. tf) 10 N. Utz O CD O O CD CD O W CD O O O 0 CD cD CD O CD-I O N0 0 cc) COO in N.CD tO0 I C C O O CD CD O C 0 CD CD CD O 0 CD 0 0. O O • • N * -I - it r•1 _ * U • W * C7 * O G * U * * ce _ W O C-> Ca * V) - . it , * • * * - . 41 C., - * 41 0 . * C...) * * * _* o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 C W 0 In CO 67 1•') 0 C) 0 0 - 0 C W .-,1 01 N tt) 0 in C.. 44 44 44 .-4 .-1 RI .-1 C7 44 V# 44 4.4 • LLI :L•-1 C Y CA >.CD 0 O C;f S. t0 tO Lf)ct Cr) tO In t0 LA.--1 CU tO LA t0 Ln CO Y..-.at U 0 1--•. >. .-1 .-"1 r4.-1.--1 .-1.•1 .-1.4.-1 0 ,-I•.1 ..1.•1 r-1 JO0 •.. V) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 000 I_ 1 0 1 1 1000 1 CO1 OI 11 1 1 I t 1 1 1 LC=C =4-• CI00 O 4400 0 0 • �♦-E W 0 C 000 0 00 CD O --LUJ 0} W E V1•4444 .-I N CO C. -1:C.U= C 44W 44 <0 (0 W 0.N OC t0 J .y LU CD W•-•C7 • Cl C 0 I C0 C T• U 10-! >, • 1 .. C.)V to'C L 0) ~.L.L. 10 V C C C)4� • C) .0 0) E a) 7.0 S. .0-0 01 Z S-•r 01 0)••- r I..' C) '0 0) 0) S- Al 4,•n /0 C) 1- S-.O 4-• 0) 44 C L C = C L•r >_C .•- CU C).•- C S.'0 ra C-"• 0 d 5 C 0 1- S- Ll (0 0•r = 00H 04, 4- O."v 4J 10 Io••- 303 S. - CA E 4- a) 0 3•-4-4 = U 4, s..••- 0 C L Z) 3 -• CL, +1.- 0 0) +-=0 0 ••- O C of >,O.3 o L o a) 0) C o >> 4�4, 01 •- > L. C Ln'0 C 0 • 4-4/4•. U CO-r•"" E .4-,.4-, .'O0 0. V 1d.0 4. 0'� C i••1 4- 0 0..- CV C) 10 1.o ..-. 0 C C) .0 r•••. LA C 0 C 3-^ 10'0•- C 0 L VI CO C V Lt) CO 7 C Z '7 CO C >>4' CO 1. r0 >> U U-0 VI 0 S- CL 0 7 • 01 0 C) 0 0) 0 C 4- 1-'••- 0) vt..CI CL C r• a) •0 10 7 0. 0. .1, 0 .4 i0 C).-4 0 '- U.0 1•-+ (0 O 7 C in C C 10 0 s-•- > 0 S- 1 00 10. VI.4,.0 M • 10 in • b•1 0) O. • 0.0 a) C .0 4-)4J Vf VI 7 VI-- to VI 0.. C) C U ro 0 0 to 0) 00)) • C v_ o Ci 4-4-1 0 E 4-)4-$ • as 0 •o s_ 0 a)'4, 0) I-, U 0 C) 0.0 4, CA>+. VI •r C)•- 0 C 0)C1 0 C 10•r C VI .0 4- 10 3 S- U•.- CC C+'•4, C 4J 10 10 10 /0 10 C) O-.0 .- E VS L C C) 10 i-+ C O'L) • 0) 10 04 c 10 4-1.-•••*0 to .c S.- a) E • 0 a) Ido1.- 1_ a) 10 a) C) >> E'o "-) V) C so.0 N C) in 0 s- S.-0 0) 4J C) V V O 0 S.. I- .1C 0 C 4, > b C 4J O E W •r s- U 7 4, C 4J 0•,- 10 O 0 0)•- L+. U C Id is) 4-1 L. 0 7 10 V J O 10•r 10 I- 10 10 S- 10 0 4- 0 L. 0 10 • 10••--C 1- '0 4- CO,- 10.- 0.04 1- 0.4, U 10 '.- U S- LT 0.4- 4, 10.0 S- >, 7 3 C) a) Cl.C) • a to 0 0) .00++ O 0 S. )4 o1'Q 0 C > _0.VI 0 4, '0 V1 4J' > tn 10 LT N'C.1, . CL LT 014,•- CI••-•-• a)-C 4.1 C to C).0 0 1- U § N Q 1- • 0.C C C).0 >,.-1 N C 4- O.10•••• C p 0) L C C S-C.) 7'- 1-'0•- 1-••-• .' C) E<S 7••-•,- W 10 •r . 0 -C C>••- L /0 t0 C) 4-'•- C) CA 0.10'0 0 V1.. v) to' E 0) 0. • 7 N4J L V) U en C) U 4•1 0) > C'-•- CL C O 0 7 3 0 0 7 C ••- 0 LT++ L •o +' L C) 7 3 0.0 >>•r O).0 0.- X C. . 0 C) CO C IC) 0 0.0 In O 0 7 0•"- O N 0 O.0 0) .0 7 t O O I-4,r•4--0 4•, I- U 0 10 W , I- S..0 Q- •-4,0-1 I-.0 4-4,W I-VS 10<= >> 1•-• 0.+4.0•- 17 d C C 4, LT 4,Li. E • AI in C.) C C. C C . = W '0 1C0 L 7 in 0 0 4-• 'C I--1 7.OJ '0 0 = I U 0 - ¢ r0 I- L� C) 0 0. C) U - 0 CO > J C) C L >, 1C0 ton C1 4, .-1 C. C7 CT> C7 0 C) C7 U C C7= U C7•.- C7 L.0 C7.- _ro O Z.0 C Z C 0) = 10 = C 0 = 0 1- =S ►...0 s-. I.-I.r 4I .-.I, O. I--1 .-1••• C) 1-. C/) 01 0 V) 1 C V 0 v1 V) E C) N+1 4� t/) >1 C 0 = L > _-4, = 3- = X 4-, = > = UC =4, 3 .. 0 C)0) 0 C)4, 0 0 10 0+- S. O 0 a) 0 C) 100-- O .....=< =_J= ==< =U0 =V)U =C.)CI .•I == Z= 0 C.)C7 OD C71 0 0 CO .4 N Cr) 'eh CU W O CIO CD r1O N0 M 0 c)•CO •7 COO CA 0 0 0 0 a) CO 0 10 O O O .-1 1-1 >.••1 .-1 ••1 CC 0 0 CO O O C a 00 0 0 O O 0 0 * U . . * 2 W * = . C7 * O - n. * . * - - * * - - 3 -X . W W .) - ' • U \ - W L.L. at I- * CO * I * * . * * * * .. * * < * C _ * U * * * * g0 CI C W O LO C7 I- C W O CO O .--1 CC) O .n I ›-L:2 O I- O C1 ••••Y I-O i CO U U I-v ?• '"� OI 1 t 1 I - W-.I CI V) - Y CZ = 4-I < W< O C J I-E W .... 7 2Er > O V) oc d ¢C I •-I V)O C CO L) J .-4 - W C7 CCC • W.-.C3 - OW • C C CO 2 C N la.- I- ..= 0 N U O I- 2 4-1.-I N CU O f E c roves- ~ O .-.c••- U 'O L N.0 01 N 0 CU 7 U 7++ 2 'O > 0 7 C. U - O C 0OC NTJ CU I- C b VI -O Ct. L CU+ . CT N U U C 0'0 C a C Io.0 C CU•,- ' U •-•+I 7"-,V) U) V) 04- 0 7 N C •0 L >.aL� .. r 0.- a) >4- CU 0 >,E O +, C./ O S- >,Co++ C a d > IS Cv C-- v C• O oo S.- 0•--• C 1-' E ai d Ib - W N J 4-1-0 • I- C C Co 7 )-L L7 C7^ C C Z CD•r . O V) CU U Q) 0•O i-1 O a) MI .-I =E 2 N 2 O I- U C7 .-I • d W O O ++ 7J)!)O I1 O ••-I O 2 o a 0 ', 00, v. * J * I- * U * Z W * _ CO 47 CO 0- it U * * * * C * O it G • W O = W 0 E 0 U W L. C Li_ < I- 41 N * * * * * * • * * * * U * < * 0 * U * * * * < CI 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 C LLJ O O O O O O ' O 0 CO I-In p IC) O o - M CO O tN C. O .4 .--I •.y •-I CO N C W .•-t �4 '4 L4 K N rc) O �'4 44 (.4 '4 i•9 -O C O = _••+ C < O C N 1 -COZO I O CJ) 3-4 YI I-01 - tO-J) CO t21 (CI LC) tO Lt) tO LC) tO LC) tO N 11 I 11 1 1 1 I 1 I I l I 1 I 1 1 00 W OJ0 N O O O O 0• O V4 YCZ =4, W VI. 1.4 i4 O J I-=W 0 7 ZI= CI N r LLI — J 17 O C t+4 Q <- LJ1- C U N tO _I .-1 C L.,C7 Z O L). W--C7 CC C) VI Z 0 -.IFu..U C I < _ C I- O Z H-0 10 H 41 C C. C co V C. C) U = > C) C C 0 0) O) C) CD0 4' t7) C) • en C) C) C) 4-3{, O. E QI '00 -0 10 -0 VI C (C.) s__a -a -o -o v -a +) E w w" U 0 al b /Co ro > > • al a) v) to 41 0 O D1 U.X O C C •C C c E Y CIO C T X C •C C C C O-r C'O C) C C 0 10 0 U -- cc/ a)- . U N C. O_ Ca. O- C. I- 0 I C C O • y W CO C.)LUIA Z C) 0 CO Q) 0 = C C 0 Z Cci0) ) = v) +) CO�-. 0 J OO — C)N CO CZ C7 J COCA C7 CN O O 4, CC/ CO 10 •In --- VI •0 V)00 V)+,O N NO tN O N 7W N r+, I I--. W C)CO W i,O W I-O Lai-0 CO.0. W •O Lai • 0 W C N 0 0 > O )..n C 7 n') O C'0 Cr) O C)N Cl C)N O O CO CO W< - W 7 W 0 W IO 0) W > Lai > O W > O N C C 0 - CU C u,C . C< C<CO 7-4C-U • beCC.)V)) Y C.)W Y L.W Y C).Y LJ Y O W Y C)(I) I Y v) C)W O UY 6_744 UC) U > U U� Uv) IO UCU C) O i0 C) NIL) O-Id O O N 00 O CO O 1000 C. C 100 J co)J•) J C)I•) J /O N J 0)•-O J C)V. Jr 00 J C)•-•ol- N 0 OSN Co3 CO CO J CO C]CC)CO C30CD CO U N•-1 CO C).Ct.0) .-I == Z= N Z .--I CV f47 IL) tO n 0 C..)CD 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 4-, ,7 J•-dO NO tT)0 e1"0 IL)O OO N. IO O 0 0 0 OO O O O 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I - LC) * J * •-• . * U W *• = • . W * O ¢ * v Ct. * . * * * • * It * * C . * 0 * c W a Z W Z O U W La. C CI- ¢ I- * V) * * * * * * * • * * C) * < * a * U * * * * a O O O a O O < 0 O O a O O O O O 0 a 1-- O O O O O O O O O O VI O O O O O - O . 0 a 0 C W LO O O CO - 01 Le) .--1111 C a CO -4 I-1 Cr) VI 44 44 O� W C Cr 4.44. 44 49. {t) 4•9. -0•---. W .--i a CI >-LAZo I- 0 01 Y••an L O SC) 1.0 CO t0 M) t0 Le) tO t0 4.0 te) t0 LI•) U U I-.-•. )- .-I-1 1-4 r•1 1-4t•- .-+ 1 .-i .-1 .•/.--1 .--I.--1 G v 1 - O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ill 11 1 1 1 1 I I t l W J O O O O O 0 <Oo< aa+ o w to O c 0 Jim > 0 Ln LO I-W O W E • CV .--1 JEU Z C 44 K G G W h- 0- NOCtO J .--1 W L7 7 Z W 4.L7 C 0 CO -'C] 5-1....U .0 N .0 aa) a) Z K.. O N ill • '.c'- C !-. C l• a) L • = 0•0 +, 0 1 .0 C •a) U U a) 0-- U+, -c 4-, C) C • 4, L .0 .'C7 0 O CL C > N) C N L +, RI N .0) • • C 7 O a) L•- a) a) b >) e0 a) 7 O N 4, U, II) N N C) 10 U N t0 •O 7 Cl. L)4- L C) •V tel C)d+, `') N.a 0C) C)) c c aa)) b ^ -Y 4- 7 U C 7•0+L, A\ = C) L 047- c 7 +•1•- a)+) C ••C Io o U ••- c) cat N g o` oU +, Co E4.”••• NO3 CY0I C103 roCU) •c1 4-' >,� a) 4-1 U > 7 L a) 7 .0 'C•- a) N .- L +• C 4, N.0 I- 0 Or C > 0)L C+,'C C e0•O Y Y CO 7 L 0.)•r C 4-) 0_ 0 4-, L 0 'C cc) MS•- 0 0 3 0•- C CO 4, O e0 > U C) ++ C Oh •-c L . .— C)N•- +, N E +•) N 4,•II C 4- N-.•- C C C) E N c o_en"CI VI••- 4-, "CI 3 C) > III * v) E .Q S.- IC " L0 L VI-I,E.0 c I-'V I- 4- 0 C a). O 'CI +, C) •• t C 0 O - •0'C 4, 10 Y N 4-,S7 •L W C > +, 7 . 0 "0••- e0 O. VI .N a 0 et) 0 O tel U N+, +) . +1-N C a) C C) e0 4- C L+) E a a) .x a) - . .+, C.)+1 U m U • L a).- C) a)•- 7 Cs N C 7 C 7 0 • to•--• N O E Y 7 >+, S. -I C eV •-)•0 e0 -CI C L a) L C) L I•- L••--)N a) 0. > S- _C VI S- O d d N 7 3 In 3 C]•- a) U 4-, E U +, 0)•0 1- 3- 0) S- a) ,- C) 1 C) L C.4, 10 N a)+, N 4 N••-• U L L+) "0 a)— N C L4, L U C L U'II t0+,••") C >+, C+, rt) 0.•4, C VI.0 C E+, 7 O c•- O C•- O U 7'C 0 ro 7 0 7 04, O >, E 7 7 en N 01 L.•- v.) u_T N I- N II)b L.) CL 01 L..) 0+, N I-.CI •-. O Lt. e0 e15 U N S N - a • 0 • 4-, 4.' +) C) +) CO 0 0= a) C C vI -o+, C) • a) O 0)O .0 tel L. s- ^ •� a)L N c C C) • a) O co O+, 4) CLO V) L. a N 4, a) e0 a) LO L 01 ' N CO Ett) V) +) 0j 1- 1-W +)Z +, V) a) Cl /"'O 0 I. > O III .0 VI J V) N 0 N = 01 -I F- O N-N N C 1 • 1 N Z C) a) O Z 0 0 N 0 .. •-o Co+, CO CC CO-0 >C , C a)„ • 5- 0 I m o -- I • m co a) c0 •-0 >0 +, c0 L C E01.0L) L� U,4.1 C _03 ¢L a)^ ¢ a)o tel ¢o 0.0 c•0) `a)z Eo N C V1 O O VI V) V) V)•0 V) CO Q) V) 0)V O V)t�O C V)VI I-¢ > I- 0.r\O I--•-O > • I-•II > 0 I- C • I- 0 . I-U > 0 1-- C+,O I- • 0 a) I- ed L C W IC v W•- 0 V) W•- 0+, W ro W W C • W 0+) W e0 e0 W=4, 14 W } (1).-r O 1.1.1 U • I W L W.. L W•- W L.Z W+) L W E L1J ..• LL 0)+, 0) a a.Ca C U CLO a U o.0 C-II O a to a tel 0-0 a L IT'C C O O+, a-o+, I- • E O I- 7 E 0 F- 7 E 0 I- a)O I- a)O I- eo E In I- a) C C 1•-0 0••- I-.- 7 C . N = V)3•--•en V)W.--.-i VI W.--.as V) ID V)J•Q V)W.-•..-1 VI C]+- b Vi(0 LC)U V)V1 L7 e0 Z= CV Z O I- CV 1.') awt. Ln CO ^ CO O . U O O O O 0 a) W a a O 0 0 O O O O O O O O CV N O J 0 0 0 0 en 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 0 CID 0 0 0 0 COO II)O O O a C O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 C IF • 0 • t0 # J # •-. # Z W # 0 G i#1O•) 0- # # tt • it it • # # C # O # 0 W 0 Z W E O U #W • C LI. ¢ I- # N # it # U # < it C # U # • # # O O O O O O O O O < 0 0 0 O O O O O CD C 4.1 O O CD 0 V) to In to to II) O Lf) N p V) O 4) CV 44 N If) 0-3 et- C CO CD44 44 '. In 44 44 0) 44 44 1-0� O' 4444 <L.."I C < O) 0 C 1 Z I.- 0 0 _ to to t0 t0 t0 to U U I--.- >- '.4 CO11 •"•I•--I .•1 .4 .-I •-1 0< • 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 01 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 III ) W__ICI IA CIp YC) 0+� C O O < co< O C O JET W _ 7 V) i> I) CO > 0 I I-LJ O w EE 44 44 Y U=< W C G <^ I- 0.. _1 V)OC.O-I C LLLI C7> CDMCtr_ W•-.0 O C) 0 C)'0 • O Y J C)4) 0) 0+I 0 -d S- < .~.V"U +'4, ro '0 L C•- +I+/ 4-) N 01 '0 ro O I-- z .. ro d 1-4- O 73 U, 00 3 ro L- N 01 VI I.' C 0.0 '0 S- I- .1.)d.r 4-I L. 0. 4) 10•.- 0.+1 0 1n 10 Z 0a C7 "0"O 10-0 U C C) 7 C 3 ro ro 0 C++ L- 1 ) rtlC).0 4-, C) a) S- VI 4./ >..OU E s- 7 C C) C 4- E L. ro C >, E'0 1... N \L.ro t0 O a) 7 3 ro r 0..- < 0 CJ N • 111.0 Z > U MI II U > U C) ).. > N E S-.1- C C C) In 4, O 0 --171 •C N • 4-)S.. • CU 0 '0 C) 0 10 L. U d AI 4-,�•-0 L. 0 0 C S- - N C)0 .0 0 U 1 d E C E O 0 U V) ^ 0.+ • 1 10 4-1n.++ I • U RI7 41 01 N EO '0 CD ECNN .0 a 4- ) S- C U L. y+.I ro'0 a) C) L. N C) 0+I S- a) ro•-- N S-_CE 01 -ro 0 E C 0 C)'0 1-4-)U 41 d 4-, • N 4, t0 0 +, a) 10 >I+, • +I N S. C a)i-' N ++ C V) U > N N 4-,4- U.0 10 0 > C N U > C).- 0 L+I 0. N C O O L- 0. -C C 0 L•, 0 7 10•.- C) C) S- 7 10 4-, 4-4) 0) 0. ••" L- 0.10 U d S. 0+I S- +. N-0'-' C +) +I Y•. •.1 • +I C C 4) S. C c +) 7 a) U 7 0) • U • N Orr di C VI 0 N CD MI > ro N C) 01+1 7 • N 0' 'r Ct.7 E 07ro > EO 04- 0= E O++ O `0� ro .) VI a) 0) ,- Lro U� N d OU a)4' U O U) CO.J� E C)) L. O U.-7�.0 3 tin 0)>++ vY VI 01 0 0 4' 0.> C '0 ro U 0 0 N E 0 S.. 0 C U O 4- C) C 0 0 C'' 10 rE 10 0 0 C S- 0 C++'^' O N 0 C 7 C O U L-•,- O 0)O S- I--'r N •3 II.U I-- 0) 0) 1-- '•- N r t- ro.0 I-•- U ro U ro 0.3- I- 10 U 0. 4.1 +I • • .0 4)V) 0 0 CO) N .1-1 tT 0 a+ V) t0 U N • f/) 0 • L I 0 to C)T 4- S- a) )C)S + O 0 L'0 4) C) 0 L > •O ^ VI co N. U C C) I • U itl. 0 0~ a)et L.+N)O Z7 Cam) rill D) I- ~• 0 t0)VV)) NCC C-)Or' = - < CC0) a) a) a) ea ~ v)U tn • O •coL- C) a) U • 0.+1+1 <'-- V) V)C.,- N'0 0 4- V)+I a.4... VI > > N'N 6) 0 N ro V) cc) V) (0 H S_ MI • I- 10 • I- L-V)"-• 1-V) • C 1--<< 1- (0 >N 1- U ro I-+-) S- W C) S.W W 10S 0 Wro W 4Jd W W"0O LU- a)W Wd0 W > W'0 4- W.0 O CO W C) U 0 W W Z7' C L.C) W'0 4, W Ur*,QOi C C C O C'--II) L. C U t0 CJ C. O C a) a) C a) 0.0 C C 10.0 C L- O. F- C) a)a i---0) 0 I-•-In I- IC 11) • I- d d 1-r' E In I- ro 43 4, )-- as E _ V)co U V N<to)Z N C.•r dy NJ N.W V)CC Nt.7,I.-1 V)=V)LC) N I•-I-'• Z N Z .4 N CO et LC) t0 N. CDO 1-4 .--I .-I .4 .-I .1 d CIO O O 0 +, r)OJ O O •--10 NO MO '-I'0 It)O /00 ISO .4 .-I.--I .-1 .-I .-I .-I 0 coO O O O CIro r. * J *▪ U * lal is _ (.7 * O Q * C..) * * * is it *▪ O * r 0 La.1 0 = w = O W• LL I•- * V) * * * * i * C-) * * C * C..) * * * * < O O O O C W O O O O L) O O O c W 0 .-I rl a. = tc') 44 Ln HOr. Cr 4A �' Z Li.••I CY. Cl 1 f.O 7 Q) •-•O L O If)cr M LC) t..)O G_I } •-1.r rl.-4 •-1 I 1 LJ._I.--. V) 000 X CC C =4-I 000 < LU< O C 000 J=C} _ 0 000 L/) I—LUJ Cl LL 000 Vf <C.-W I= a. 4R4A44 J V)C CtD U . J r-1 LL C0 O LJ.--•C7 L.L. O C C 'O V) 1-Lt.0 N'17 et C •C0O C E O L 0 C 00 a) 4- U C) . Y A"+) -C Z U O O O— iO4-iea 3 cO a_ t)_ U) • "0 L 4-..- N VI •••• IT) c O IV N RI - (I)C- 5- d _ V) iJ C) MI L-. IV•- LJ.I C ID IO a)•r E ) C) a) cv rn' LJ27 L.0 4J O cO C) cc)• C)+.1 D.IO L Cl c� ro ro C C D.,- d •I•-U I L Cl ..-_IL a) CO ....1 Z 1- •- C) f-. I'J 4J •"•'V 4J I- d C C V) L CE) V)=V) IC =C) N 3+ c 0• O UO O ac ClL oa on .--• .. co C) 1-4 m o a) N = V)I-C V)C..).a CC_ =C Z= N Z O I- .-I C-)C7 O C '7 J.C. 4-, ••.O N O ' IO O O O C C O Cl O. 0 0 '.}`, \ . • # J # ..r it U it 2 it # C) it U it # it it # it it it C it O # Q C LU 0 2 # z C O U W LI. 2U. < # N it # # it # # # C.) # < it O # C.) it it # it O CD 0 C) CD CDO C) C O CD C) CD CD V) O O O CO C•J tto in US N 01 -' 40* 44 Cr 4 W C L. lO If) 101n t0 CO ›.. .-I r m .-� 1-.1ti I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 VI C) C. 0 C COfY 00 C W VI O Cl N C` < O. U C O • lL •� in C) CO O < >r-1I. 2 0 C O 1./1 ~ y— CDi'17 0 O IOO C) C) 0 1L E N C L p 0)++ C • 0 00 LC)CI •r C' • '0++O 2 cO .0 no 0.C • E IO�) O— -I0 Op .4i C O•ro 2 C > - 0. IV-.� b 1_ CE O # W O e15 T LOW (OO C )� ca.) C) 1 � CDV)U 0 0• 0. • C)•,- 00 C.) 0C' LU ••2 0 0 =4-1-,0 ='~ O O O L N}I N N O C)O -• C CO 11) CO tC) O LL) 0 co0 S 0 W CO O it) JD C 4- F-'N 1— O Cl) I".aT O. C O. L 0 E 0 r—I-E1 0 LU W Y C) W Y CI W= C) W I- < IO 0 In < cO < CO < 0 z'7 0 D., 2') i. z Id C z 4-3 I- 0 VI _----C) +'•r V) CGLQ 0 C) 0. C 0.L C 4.1 0 0 0 CI O�U 0 roc C) N S ear 0 E to.0 =U E zW C-0 01•'- C•0 U C i-I C o ro•'- ro o (04' O In 0 00 F- 7 (1) 1. 1- 7 1- C)++ 1-O = N C7 2 O N C7 0 V)2 VI v)V' O= 20 2 f.. .-I N in O U C7 O C, O O W O O O O O J O O 0 0 Ccl O O O O C O CD O O a CD 0 rn # _J * ci * 2 W * (7 # C S it t.) C 4 is * # * # # * C * O * )- . * 10 L! 0 2 W E O V W U. C 1- * VI * * * * . * * * *• U * < * C # C) - * * * * CICZ) O O O O O p O O O CDC:) O O O O 2 W O O O O l0 O O O O V) In O O In cn O Id) O C W 01 Cl C) Cr) lD If) Cl In C 0 44 44 1-1 .-1 4" N 4444 4 4 C C 44 .. I-O r+ W 2 U.•••I C p . !I I 7'CD o 01-•-2-.0) L COIn IC N•••I O lO CO l0 If)O Cl CO CO 0 CO In.00 C) CO In .01 C 3 1,I-.4 >- .4 . I .4•-1•-4 0 p .. ..l •.1•-4, •.1 •-I••4.4.4 v W- O VI 111111 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 I t l l 11111 0 0 C)0 I I I I 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1111 0 0 0 Y C Z C 0 4•+ 00 00 O 0000 - 0 CI0 00 0 < W< O_ C_ 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 C) - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z >>-- > 0 It')CI0 COO O OO In O 00 00 O ♦-U O W E 0l N O.••1 It) • .-4 O.•-1 It) It)C).••1 If)VI Ln J U 0 C¢ 4444 In 4444 4.4 N 44..--1 444444 444444 <.- W I- C 44 44 44 V)O C ID J ••-I 1.4.1 I7 2 Il.).'•C7 C] 2 CI 01 V) V1 >-_ .ea C - 4-, CJ)C 4J ID . In .~..U C E+4 C) v1 -O CC ' 0 ) I. • 0 -0O N L 7 •C 4-) E L ro V) O ro O 'T) .c.- 0 Id 0 L O C ro C) 0 CC to a 0.S. 2 .a) • L X c C 7..- 40 CO> 4-= >, L C••-• E 4-' C) 0•0 7 U L O C) t0 O 4-I 4' V) S. C C N CO O V) •r C) 0 co 0.L L V1 >.X C)•.-«- C) C) C •i•+ S.- •In > L 0. E O C i-1 C C) L 0.^ .% - L L o ro 0)4J 4-,•r EY 0 L c -•-«- 7 L -0 0.c co 0 C) o >.a C C •- L o 0." •-17 41 L•II 4- C C)',- CI 4_ L ro C)•'• CC0 40 S. -CI S. 7 d 0 ppE L 4-) . 0--• 0 U >l E • L.4-,r- 4 0. - 4' 011 0 01 O U > c0 L d I- V) 0 C)+J 0. V1 C) L 7•- VI 4•I C C Cl rJ 0- L L••- .c 10 7 ro a)4_ C) o a1 0. 4- o v- o CO i-1 S. U 3 U L-r U 3 0 L'0 4J S.10 0 0 0.•r'CI •0 t0 C U 3 a) a) a)-r co 3 c.c L+- U 7 C)4-' s 4- C L•0 >, 4.1 N C i - 4 4 I- J CO 01 • U > ro 0•• - L. 4-, co O V) C• + 0 3 c , CEro d •- 0U -mac LJ 4J a) •- ro•••• a) o C 7 Vt CI to 4-I.c v_ 4-'++Li a o 0 L L L ILo 0 0 0 � ro- c VI VI �) C U V) C ro • t0 C to _ 5- a) 0 4, a) >.0. c •••• co••-W L VI-•- C 0 0 CO•-4••1 4-, C) 4.+4-' U V1 V)4� ro 0 41 7 > C) 0 C)•0-r U L U 0.4-' 5- VI E >, • 0.0 L C 7- 0) 0.I.I coc 0 > U VI C)4./••-• x C CD Do-4-, In E C) co U 0 L.c x a) ••- L 0 0 V1 >,V1 L Vt C C) C) 0. ••••••' d�C ••-• L v) U Y U. S.- 0 S. 4-; CO ro 7 4-I C) 4-0 .2 4 C) C U 4-I O 7 4- L •O L U L U C 0.V) L 0) H U O. 10- 0.0.. 1- a0) {roil CO 1- 0 ro••-• I- 0-VO) 0 I- 0.L L.)4� 0-W I- V0.1 4-1 1 • -% L 0) n. 00 0 0 lal En 4'4.1 • E co • o 0') 2 p >_ VI.-2 c I--i •4•1 Li) L.-1 V) 0 W C) d U VS 4-+ J C.0 CD V) C O.) .) CD to 00 00 . 1 CO 5- I- I V)O ••- I--. 17 L. O C) 671 -0•,-ID L O .I-I 1- 5- UO C C •0 0. CO CYC row . ro a) c a o^ Vt IC 10 C) C >. 0 .Y 4' $••• C C • 1- 7 4-, 4 1•r • L-C C 0.0 U 0 a) o c 4J o ro 0)••- 0 X C •-. 0 L.L. C•.-V) >4-' L.U ro V) 0.•r ro 0 to 4-1 VI 01 Cl. VI< C) IN 01 to E 2T _0) VS --I= Y 0�L 0 VS03 C)0 Y ro O O 2 a) 2 C Y C) Y to O'1 C L•flO CS L C ro 0 C'•' LO C-NC"CI • CL) L'CI C ,- roO C.0 C 0 C O <I-4•+ <I-•^ G ro L c• <.- C 0 < a) ro a) <4,.c In Q L. 0.!-I 0 C'•) c0.-1 C In VI 7.C 4 1 C L.L.1•-.CV C LU ro VI 0-C C C C<C.-4 O..0 • 2 N 2 O f- 1-1 N en V' In 00 CD CIU C7 C) CD O O C) O W O O O O O CD O 44-, 7• -1.-•i 0 N CO . N.O O •O ItO 1pp C) CO 0 O O 0 C ID O 00 0 O O C O O CD O O CI CD CD O • '.• IC Iti it U it 2 W it 0 C7 lc O < it U C. * I it it ic # C • it O C Lt) CD 2 W _ £ CD W CL C L.L < 1.- * N it it it # #• U it < it CD it U it it it < CD O O O O O CI CD CD CD C W C) O O CDC CD CD CD LC) C7 I- - cccc Cl) in cc N O CD In .-1 cr C W ..4 N •--. .-4 In 1.4 4 0 at C. i.4 iR L4 N i.4 i4 C O' 44 I-O� W Zw.--t C 01 n I =CD CI L .-I U) 0 Co In D CI tD Ca N tD N N tO 0 0U 0 I-..4 } .--1.. .-. I { I I I I I.--I.-I .. .-..� . .... .-/ .--I ..-1O<v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 w-IC N CDO O O O Y=2:C 0 iJ 44 • VI. i.4 i.40 < w< CD C O -.1.-} Ct) I-WO L.:, �4 - C.-)= C <^ W)-• d V)O CID J .--1 W to 7- w...C7 C?O 'a > • H l=i..U •O Y 4-. '0 3 • a) 0 L a) C) L 1C0 ro L O L d C CT C 1 S.. L a • C�0 0 0. ro i✓ .0 L. >I> 04�.-"0 C0.)� .0 0 L•- N =� � • �U U 0 0 4-4,••- C7 U L L L 0 .0 0.t0 a) o ta+. N C 1 ct L.) CLO C 0 tU L -C S..Cl) O1 C U CO 1?i-) 0 4•+ • .CC'••- • X 0. a) O a) ++ 0.04,) i ♦J a) a) a) a) U .0-o-� 0) O U 2 to C 1.- C 0..0 L N E Co M) N C 0 C N >,_) D' U O co I,L.4 • 0 C L C L a) 3 t6 - L. N LI t0 d LA >,-0C 0. to = 0 t0 0.) E 3 0.0 a) U 7)4... > t0 L 1--• C C d 4- C U 3 L Q)00 N L 3 CA 0 .0 0 0 a. ro t0.0 a)17 O N N 0 C C >,0 0 0)++ 0 U o T7 a) - r 4-1V) 0) 0 .0 •L..--• 4J t0 Y 4-•r 0.♦ 0 a)0 t L ++ >,o•- a) CO ....1....1 "C.1' >, .1.-1E•-• S- c_.) co C t0 0 4,4•-.0 4..,•'- U L ro L 11 ••- >Co 41) >I- O'r C7 0.T U U> a) V) a) 3 a) O O 0 W ++ L. a) V) 7 U Z7 0 ++ a) N 3 0.a) 4+i-• 0. 0 L. 0) C U COY 10 >, a) co ro L 0) a) N RI 0++ 10 to C 0.+-• 7 C L 4,4, 0 C CU.0 4, C4-1 -0 t0 >.- V) ro t0.0 -CS v)r 0. ^ U C 0.C7 0.0 ro ro 0++ c E 0. 0U ro a) CI)4-) ev C++ E ..- ea 0•� I • L W C t0 0 C 0 • +) ro . .0 0C) C t(0 7`+Z U.-T CC 0.L i) 0 0) U d UY 0 ..-..0.C L /a LI10 0) C a) CU a) 0) 4, L b VI L L F Io- a.E ro I-- 0+L++'_+ I-O w ICo I-- 5O... FO- 0. 1.0•4O- 5-- 00 Z Fc- N 0 FO- vo- N ++ 4. ~ C C . .70 C Y r U Y ••'• w a) • \3 C••-• L3 0 U Ct.S .Y VIZ O .Y L C- 7 0 ON W I U I-- L t0 L ro C0 N L 0 0 0 V) •r v a) J ••-• C CD >,6.O 0) C CD ro.0 O LL.-1 • C0 4-1 0= A,N.r 1- C 0 1-CD IC CD 0. t0C) Ca0 1 0 �? 07 0C CD U) 0 aCL 5 11-4 •0 0 1U Cn 3++C •O 0 Cr Ql Cl) H £U ..- 4, CU • VI 0 • ++ 0.-. 0 C0 O a) CO.-N •0«-1.-.. 0) E• C O C7 a) O E^I 0 •• C 3 •• 0 L.1-Q 00 • O U 0 (0 • t0 E CN >Z Al CN 0173 CV _ 0 4J CU• •• < t%. 0 Cl,17 00 N t0 N.0 0 Cl) C 0) N 0.a) N L C 1 N 4-Z N V V)W Cl) O N CI CU Y 100 Y4, LO Y++-0O Y 4,C O Y ro ro0 Y 0 Y a) I- YY++ CI N C I-CDC L 0-C) C 0) 1.-0 C V) CD C O)a 0 C••-O C L 0 CD C L CA•0 <�N <.. Oo < 0 Eo <•. CO C] < a) •o, < 0 Ln <+-0 < 0 00 < CO CV C _ CV =£C C7 3 O.7.--1 0.Z I--t.--t 0->C7•-‘ CI.3 2...4 d.N 0.•i a.3 If) C1 U.U 0) d G.C as Z 0 N Z U C7 CD .--1 .-1 .. .-1 .-. 0 O CD O O O U W CD CD CDCD ' O J CI 00 �O -O �O �O .N-1 CD ..00 1�0 1-3 .i .. CD C O O O O O O CD O CD a CD CD O CD CD CD CD O 0 .r * J * U * Z W * 0 C. * O < * U * . * * . .14 * . #▪ C . * O * >- O W O . Z W CD C-) W Li- 0 Li- I- # V) * .14 * * * . *▪ U * < * CI * U * * * * C 0 CD C CD CD CD C W CD CD O CD .+ L.7 I-. . • 0 N O O CD O 01 C W 44 LC') LC1 CD .41- C-. O 44 44 44 r•I LC) C Cr 44 __ FOB W .-.. ' ' Li....-I C - '4 0) ) U) I Z O • s o rn L to IO CO tD C.)L..)F-.--I >- .--, .-. .4 .--) O< I I I I I I I I I I I I W J C] Cl) Y CZ C' 0 4•i < W_< CDC - J+-} > 0 Cl) F-u O_ <^W I- CL. • J Cn0CtO U • _J LLi W.Z.O OW 0=CO O CD Cl) I-L..- 0 0 NN < . Z .- L IO 4- N CD O -0 11 L O 41 F- O v 4,+, 3 U 44,+I U CO 0 '•- C Z C • L C) 3 a) "Cl CD 3-V Cn L.0 U C • o In+, CO+, C CO • In 0 CO -o+-1 0 C C)O 0- o a) CO L) a)O W 0 E C -- V) Lna) 0. ..- W ++ .4, IO In Co a) O ++0"0' VI N a) a) r C L -a L • O a) 7 CO L O. C+) 0 CO L • IT r- Cl.) 0 CO Z .-+,-C U • CL++ 1.- ,-.0 0- +-I CO Y O N 0. 0.-O O C O O Co F- U CO F- 3 LO I- 40 Z I- 0. 0 •++ 3 C) .0 - 0 V) • CD 0. 0 C Z COCOM CO L L+J W CO M F- 0 J ..-O -0 921 •0 .0 CD I- -00 0 C)4, . O I-. C)c =O = In 0) O) ~ In -C C.1 -C 33 a) +•I 0) 41 4) Z )M a)0 O O d C 0 CI) 0 >I VS N34,Z VS= C) V)Z C)CV N O O Y C Y 3 Y 3 Y-.be C0 I O) CC COC C CD+I C CD+•IT) CJ1 LI. \ \ <O.-O <O a) <C C) C <4. CO CO N = C Cn C1 CV CL.CO J1 d CV 1.] CO d Z CL.N .-. _= Z= N Z O I- CO COI O .-I U C7 .--) N CV C) Li,C. O CD O O "-D J CO C7)O 00 .-)O CO 10 O .-+ N Cam! 0 C CD CD C O CD C1. CD CD CD 0 .J it J .-I it b.-. # C.3 it Z Lal * _ (a * O G * U CL * * * * it . 3 * O * r c 1y CO = LE U . w ta.. * N • * * * * * it • it - * • it• G it C) it L) it it it * = O O O O O G C) O O O. O O CC.7 F CZ Ca Ca Ca CZ O V) O (0 O O tO L+ W .-1 C LC) N N C. = .--t 44 ri '-I Cr Or 4i 44 44 4.4. )-O..--) LLI ▪ Z L.L..-.4 =s 0) n I O .--•cn L to CO tO (0 U U I-r-( >•• .•-1 .--1 .-t .-I O G v 1 1 1 1 ail 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U_I_JO V) C C w< O_0 4-7 JZ=>- Q N I-u 0 li.! tel GC W I- a. --I V)O=tO U . W C�.--1 CC u CDo� C Z Q tn V) > O(.) rtl C) 0 .4-1 el J 0-4 4- = C�p CI C) 1C I-- Z , O S. U E • .C- y >a -C7 0 O 0•O 4-•- 4--3 b O. • I- (C 0 to (tenU 0 0 ++ Ci)Ca ¢E c•oOUo Z C) 7 0 0-Ce) 0) L. +1 O V1-I,-I, • 4- C)e I - •^_NC C O O . ((S - C ^ Lal I- ro N 4- to • +1 U U • C) (0+1 N O O. C O • •O O CL O N 0 W .0 X E C)•^O - 4- 0 03 C S10Z 0 +, C) In Cn C 0 LI S- N S.L X.0 O .- 416 I O O 7 VI CI C) CO 0.0.S.• VI 0)0 V) -0'O O C) CLY C S. C C) 0 E 0 i, S-O LE ro C C)Cr) +.1 S-CO C) C) C).-1 0 4- S. 0(0 O 0ro0 - > 03 000 >� >,ro >, E 014- 0 S-•r Y C) >1++ -U • d C.ro 0 0U >, o. L • •0 )-•-+1roo s r am S- b^^ ,E- OL L.c�4- Oh S_•r 3 0 CL_O� '_4-1 n 7 U O >O 0 C) C)O 0 X 7 (O O O 0 CO O (O ro S_=O LL. C) C01 I- C) S1O I-I-4,N I-J 4- CI.roC 4- 0 I •N =V) N O E V)r-•4-> C7 C CD (1) C L. .r'"--.,-• CD 7••-• LE Z 0 C Z to 0 Z C 0) Z= J VI C) 1-4 _•' 1--1 C) C N Mr •.- I- O S- N C)=4, C)N 4-1 C) >1 U -. J COd•^• J (C J .) S_ -.1S- (C - I.-)I •"0 4+ .4 N _> +1 L 7 ►r•0 LL O C =- O = to (C 0 = C m G U m C C m IC d U m 7 • >,S- S- U L CL C-)W S_ NC-)-IS. ▪ ro 0 C) 0-4•O .0 C)••- 1-1 7 ( CO -I'V 4+ J r'-C .--I 4,4, C -I >,+, = 7 C) C) =t+, = C) C) C) = S- 7 -- N = 0-V)V)U C.U= Sl I-U I- O.I---U .-t == Z= • N Z O I- •--I N (+) Cf V O O O O O C) W 0 C) O O O ++ '7 J•-4 CD N O Cfl O 'a•O ro O O O O O C_ 0 O O 0 on * J - * ,--, * U * Z W * _ C7 * O < * U c * * * * it * * * C * O * }. CI • W 0 . 2 W C O U W LL- I- * Cl) * * . • • * * * * 4. * * * U * < * 0 * U * * * * S Ln C. O r\ O N O O < 0 M O O M O C. O O C W N O O •"I O C) O O CD F- - O V) C. M O C) Ln ,-4 C W N N V' N i� C) C) C) C- = 44 44 44 44 44 44 •--I .-I C Cr 44 44 1--O W Z L)...-) CC O) N I O .O+O L LO LO CO L) d•M N tO Lf)0 M N CO LO Ln ct M N LO LO Ln M.M N.-i LJ C)F-.--I >- .-i .--1 ri.-I.•-I r1.-I •••I.-a.-I-.••I 44 .-r '-4 1.-•44.-I- C< I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 tit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W J C V) 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YY O C 0 4, 0 00 O O O O C. 00 OO CD CD 000 < W_< CDC Ln C.C.Ln 0001\ 0000 : co LO C)V)C.J==} > 0 Ln C)C)LO LO 0.c.--I .--,O G-CO CO RI LO.•+.-, I-W O W E M N N N N N N N C7 r.N.N. CO LO M M N J i U= C G 44 4.-4g44 4.4444......40.1. 44444444 44 44 wwH <G W 1- C. V)0 C LO J .-• W C7 Z L:1.-.L) 000 r=U OO . F-l<_ C C O of C I E t • _ o a) +, Ln _ Cl) W .0 0 47++ a)- c r0 L = 0 VI 4, 0 C) C vl E 3 C) 0 0 0 O = O) • o Cl)•0 .O C) • 4-r- 0 >, 4, L 4- 4-) >, ..- N .0 0 0 0= V. L 0. U VI L Y 0 4� cC , iO r- E r E -0 4,4-+ 0 N O U L L C Cr.V) '0••- U C) r 1 C L C). 4- C) C) • L L 0 0 C)CI C 01 . E -4C r0 4, 3 •^ 0 C) 10 0.N +- C) C 3 C >U C+J ea 2 IT Cl) C C 0 4- v) 4' C C)4, 0 0) C) -0 4--V) L. • O C >, 0 0•- Ln 4- 0 4, L > 0 0 r0 O L 0 r 4_, V)\ C) r• > • C) 0 Cl.) V) 0 0 4,4- 3 •-44''0 0. • r .- 0 Ln - Cl) 'CII-- 4VC • - , 4, C) >,In ..-) L 0 CI.L 44-) 01 C .0 0 C)'0 L- • C C .0 C L r.0 4, '- -U U CI.0.VI 01 C 4> >}) 0 C) .O E L O 0 in rJ - G) 0 10 0. C W C 0 C) 0 O C .0-,- -O -to C) E 4-`• 3 Cl).0 U 4-) 4,.0 U C Cl)E 0<.0 C)= C)C7 U 4-) ' 0 C)'0 10 r0 0 0 4-••- 1cc; 0•0 L•- < U 4-.> 4 Cl) C) r0 4, C•r 4- In-CI' _- > VI 0-0 • C) 0 U W C) 10 C)r O W 4_,r C 3 V) C • 0.0 L .0 C C) .0 C 1- )•r C 0 V)4- .0 C.)4-r0 T 0 L 0 C) 4, 0)0 4- C) C 3 C) >, 10-0 4+ 0-C C 0 0 F-4,.C >4, 0 L In C O r O In U 0) 0 +- L 0 • .0 • Ln O C C)•- 01 •- 0) .0 +- E C C 0,U -0 4-) O In U C) 0 •0 Q) C C) L 0 C CE) •VI C C L r0 4, CO,- C) C C C.O C) L L N_V) C 4, N O > .0 C Cl) O CC r0 Cl),.00E r L L71,-• L .0 C 4, 4-- > O)CI-4, 0. C. 4- L C)N O 0 0 0 0 C O.0 0 0•> 0.C 0 0 0 0- 0 L C) 0 0-0� O 0.0 I- r0 F- U=-r F- 0-C C r0 O 0.Cl) 0) F-4-, 0 F- 0.C 0.E F-i-,,--1 I- O S N >) L L 0. < E 4.) • 0) 0 U r r0 C 17 •C C YI C C • t- L S r0 C. r0 LO • C V) Cl) 3 0 Cl)> 0 Cl) 0) Cl) 0 Li) 6. VI C S W N 0 3 Cl)f W W V) W C 0 W O E W L1 W CT) LU.r U 0 3 Ln.J U U C L U_ C) C- U_•0 0 U_ 0.0.0 U_•C 0,- 0 C ,~-, 0 O .--. I'aC a L L 0 0 =-C O C O C C C iJ 0) 0 0 3 C L Cr)'-4 0 > C<L. C 0 E F- C 0 M C U C C 0 0 C l.- C v.0.--) LU > O W 0 W L. C W O C. W C) W C'0 W LU W 0 W C N +) L/7 Cl) a. Cl) 0 C V) CO C - Cl) S.. V) C 0 V) O S VI U ( U C C) U C r.-• U U_ L--Cl) U U 4- r0 U CC T C) >LU I--, .- C ,--1 r r0 Cl.= r-L V) 0 +- L H y r-••. '0 .--, r0 r.-- O C) 0 C•0 C J VI C C` C 4,Z COCO U. CJ E J r 0 C J L G') © C CV 0 0 0< C0 0 C 0 v) C] 0. C. C0••- = 0 0 C0 C) E d , 0 C)N = 0 O< = 0 C)= C C)LO C C)4-O C. L C. 0•,- OL0 t C. 0.CO.V) N S C C M d S UU C.S d'� C. o d[� n C. C.[a+C U.� 1O L.V) =0= Z= F-2 O •-, N rM Cr Ln to ^ CO Uco O O O O O O C) O C) W O O O O O O O C. O 4., 7-J••4 C) NO M O 0--O III O LO C. 1-4 C. CDC) r•J O O O O O O O CD O 0 0 O O O O O O C) O Ca- 0 0 C) O C) O O C. 0 * J .. * .. * C..) It Z . L) * _ LI 4 O < * U G it * * it * * . * C * O is >- O w 0 Z LU S C 0 U LU L.. F-' * V) - * * . * - i . * * U * < * C_) * U * * * it g O O O O O O V' < O O O O 0 O O Is. lC'.7 FLU- O CD Ca CD O CO O VS N Cr) Lf] O N O C) C U C''7 N .--I - K] N .-1 N C C H AA. 4" 1. H 4 h.0 O' 1.4 Vf 1-Oi+ w C C) V) I Z C . 01 1-•Y' C) L CO Lf)(U N 01 CO 0- CO Lf)0 CO CD CC CO O U U I•-•.-I >- .-r.ti.--1.-4 O O O 1••1.-1.-1.-I 4-1 1--1 .-I ..1 O<�/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I CIII 1 1 1 WI J O IN O O O O O O O O O Y 0 z C =+, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < w< O_ C Cf)LC)0000 O O O JZ) } 0 CD CO CD.-I C.:.CD CO.•I O y H U O w E N N M N.-1 fV .-i.-1.-1 V1 J=1-3= C< WWVTI.4 CV K Vf Vfb4 < <C.LI 1- 0- 1.4 - VIOCCO U J .-I U C? C Z O u.-Co w C Z O O1 VS )-La-1...) 7 0 L•.- < Z C C1O N N 4- CC) • 0 VI L•D 0 0 O L C C 0E) Co) L 0 0)O C-) Z C40..r .- C • C2.0 a.,al 0.2 0 Ct0 O_ 0) E.0 Cl) +, C) C2. 0 0 L 'O 4-, L O N 0 C) L 1.. 73 C) +,Z I- U L 7 C 0.0 C)4' 0•-.0 0- 0) 0)O art) RI O• 4-+, O 0) 4- 0•••• S..L O • C L CO C) IAN Z e0 4- L 7 0)4- •e.-1 LI V) N O_ CD 4-1 L CD O.0 c0< 0 C1*a CO L1 et T D_+) w 0) C)L RI 0 1=1 L 0 -I-, VI 0) 0 C)4-' C) '0 p 0 C 0 C vs 4-U MS-C7 L C) 0) .- (0 •0 O C L ?►•-• O O O)7 • 0) 0)"Ca •7 a) E •> U 7 • 0♦, O 0) 0.N C L 3 0..C•^ Cr i-' IO 0 C E C Y..— L N .Cl •.— • C) 0. U CO L L••' E 0) 01'- 0.C.]C U -0 01+,N 0+, rt) L 0) Cl 0 0 E+- 7 N '0 C'O C O C)+' C) 0 3 U L U O O•^7 7- 0).•I 0 C)••- 0 CI.L 0 0 Co O 10 1- U L\ L...II U.-I 1- E U I— 0 C. F—•-• 10 01 1--4- 02) C) N L EE 0 V) I I- V) 10 >) V) vU) C) VI C 0 V)4U • V , LUCO • LU•,- 0) U� C.) w 7F— w 104,2 w Ca U J U_ 3 C-)_4-,4, U_ I- C U_ 0 U_ U U_ 7 10 C-' >~ N O > 7 C) 01>) 0 > in TO'2 O >- 0 0) I— C 0.0O Ct=U C N 0) L CC CZ CC 4— 00 C?C LU3 7CD w w"0 E+1 w 0 w Li- L w V) N 0) N CO LU C U)••• V) 0- N 0 C 1-7 0 CI U 0 U 0 1- • U_ 1- L O. U_ 3 U_ C.) C 3 C..) cU0+- .-r+, VIZ .-'= 7.II CA Cl.) CA +, C) .+ L 10 O _1•^••- --I 4-1 '0 --I N++"O J CO ....I10�N J 6) 0) C Cl L CD --I 3•"'.CC) 0 C 0 C] '0 CD ....I V) S.-0 ©+, = CO 0 = Cl) 7 Cl) = L 0) 0 = S.-04 = t0 10•1-I =••( 7 - N = GU C7C+') O•Z C-)C O_UU LA. 0-1-.1 O.3 C7•-I 0_J© .-4 == Z= N Z .-1 N M 0- O LI 0 O U CD O C) 0 CD 0 .4 .4 w0 O O O O O C +, 7 J 0 4 4-1 Ca CV Cas-I . 1CD p 0- 0 0 0 0 0 CaL1.. 0 0 O 0 0 0 V) # .eJ •-1 it H # C.) it 2 W # 0 C7 # O < # U 0. # it # it it #•C # O # >- C LU C) 2 W - C O • LU : LU LL F- ' it V) - it it # • # # . # - it # U it < # O it U # • - it Z O O O O O O O O O O < 0 O O 0 - 10 - O O O O O CO CD I- O CI CO CO 0) c) c) LL) O 1.. O 0 N O c'I) co O N 0 C LLJ= 4" i4 {.R N 41. 4.4 4•4 CO • C Cr fA 4" I-0••-• LU < 0 2 O cn - C)-C) S- t0 0 0 I)R' 10 0 to 10 L17 0 IO to 0 U U F-.-t >- .-1.-1 •--t.-1.-1 .-1 •--1 •-1 r1.-1 .-1 1--I 1•-1 rf W• Ov V) 1 0 I _1 O CD 1 1 I I 1 t 1 1 I Cl. I 1 1 1 1 OI 1 1 1 1 X 02 0 =+i fA 00 4." CI< W< C) C 00 O - J F-=W ►-: 7 Z=>. Lf)LO L) Cl') I-W O LU 1-1 N •-1 V) iU= C 444" fit <C 4i F- G. --I V)O 2 0 U J .-. W C7 C >,Z O W•--• ti- OOQ I S.. 4--1 L>-=iU .0 3 E+i 3 4- 0•- +i C Cl') CO a) O N 0. L U .0 CO t0 ro I-- 2 I C L L 0 • 0 F_, 0))0 RI L. ++ O = o C .V) S-c) ) V)7 3 7 F- x E C O•• - C) ~ .0 v) Cl.) a) C).--t O 0 O S_ 0 L > c) • S- S- C) +i E L.i-' 1- • 0 0..••- 0 0'0 4- ill 4-50 4' a) C) A U V) > a) I Z 4- S. C r . - 0 0•.- L ro 4-) C.- O t?1 V7 CO 0+i U O •,- � 0 C t-• C >, .4-)i ••• 0 V .0 U . • >t >1 i-• 4-, COC I- 4-1 C VI CL .-NCCOU 4- U '0 V) 111 U < 10 U 0 0- Ct.* al+i 7 'r O W •- O .r • C O 0 co . S. o>,0 S. 0 C 21 2 L .0 0 ro 0. L > 0_a VI +i 0)a) ro ea a) v) .- 0 4-, C) • 0 ••-)C) Io - CO 0 ro S- •0 L,.. V) S. • 00� • • CO00 0.V) 70 1 0.. t�0 W 0 V) O S- U 0 C) • 0.V1 CLO IA 4- 7 t0 4-) U 4 +i 0 O 4- C) CO CS 0 > 0 0 0 CO t0 L S- 0 .-1 <N r 4-3 L+i C U 0 ,>, C CY)S. ("ID VI 0 VI a) a) • U U t0 S.. 0 >) C t0 0 L > •L > ro > • S.•^ 0 7 CL•.-+- -•-4-t o o a) C)4-+i a)W C)W 0 S.. . V) - 0. cc) 0 0 c a-+L 4-, •0••-CO .0 .0 C+i U V).0 ro CL C am 0 0c - r E ao C) 0 Fri 0 0.0 0 0r o 0 0••• 0 Li. 7 =L^ F-C.)+i F-+i F-c•) F-O F- 10 F.+i > h> +i 0 I C +• •--4- -- E C C C0J V) V) 0 V) V) VS N C) V) V) 0..- V) S, W LU W V) •/I LU W W W > W t0 W••-L W F- 1-- F--0 a) F- 0 a 1-1 a)) I- H I•- F- 0L F- I- F-r ro -.- f-. 0•r Iti 0 V) L 1--1 •--, 1,--1 1--1 0. < 1.-1 3 I- Z 0 S- 2 0 4-5< 2 2 2 2 E 2 V) 2 no 2+- WL RI WL C WL 4.1 WL LU I--1 WYL LU S. W= L i-i 0 ro tU ++ +i +1 gg < U .- F- O C O .0 ro ro . <L E C^T 4. CCI> .. �+i • L y .a 0•0 0- d Ct. O IV = 001> m 0 U ZL E 2L 2 2 2••-• L 2m 2 C••- L 2+i 0 CD < to 7 < III 0_V) < N C 0 < 0 ¢x III < +� ¢+' MI ¢••"'••'0 1 c� m- U CO -� mac CO...)4 CO X CO 0 mc� u) m > U'to 7 CO Cl.o C C) 0 0 C) C)•-• C••- C- C C • S. C 0 t)) C••' (1) I? C IO S. N = 0 Z 00 Z=LW CO CO m 03 0_ 0U 3 0 JLL V) O C..)0. -1 Z= ' N Z O H 1--1 N en .ct V) t0 N. CO C) 00 O O O O O O O O O C) W O O O CO O O O O O CD ro C)J O O - ON O CO 0 O O LI)O o 0 O O CO CO 0)0 O O 0) O O O O O O CZ C a O O O 0) CD CD (0 0:, O O O l; tO * J ...c * ►-. * U * Z W * 0 C7 * O < * O. * * * * * * -lc0 * 0 W 0 Z W Z 0 W• Ls- CC st - * N * * ' * * * * * * i*c U . * < *• L) * * * * < 0 0 0 0 0 C W O O 0 O O N O CO LC) - C C W tf) i H C 0 44 44 NR C Cr F-O' W Z W.-e CC QI VI I 0 C3 C)CI CT L tO tO tO V 0<v r l 1 1 1 1+ 1 I 1 '1 1 1 1 W J 0 N Y CZC =+) < W< O_ c LW7 VIZ E>- > O VI CO F- 0< . L.)NCCto .-. C W(..7 CC W r CO W Cl) i-I +✓ 0) (1.3 O Z 7 0 VI 17 S.. L - I- r.". "' C 0 COOC 0 o dc.) 0av +) E 0o • Z a)E•r ac) 0 17 a)O cCO CO o � 0a 0)) MI CO CD,-.Pa I•-. V1 VI y C•r a) .0 C S- C) O a) Q) cO cOyE C v•r U 1O VI-C 0 E N 0 R)'V IO VI V) VI+' L. cO 3 • C 7 C W a) a) CO a) y Q) CO 0"W O '0 ' 0 a) .O ell cO y 0'O+-, > y > U•' V) ++ a) y • O 7 VI.0 0 +, a) y+-, a)CU S_.II+.c•.- L C C C a).0 3 J 0- C 07 O.L a)•r L III Cl) S- O U+-I y _ • O O L r• 0 0 0 7 0.•- 0 4- )-4-4-W I-++ II..0 I-.Z 0 1-- F- a) F- Z Z U Z E C = V, MI = U C a) CL EE IA i� 0- 0 U.) OJ a5 CI C••-• OJ •0 J W > C W•.- VI W L. I-1 W S- W 7< W CI- ►- I- 0 0.+' 0 CO 0 yr' ..++ U ►•+ a) c = O U)C 0 0•^•C O=>- c o'O pcc a) O C.- C O a) ( CI CI �. 00E0 rO 6) L L) a) OU 3 a) N = W U.OCI. W=F- WI—U .--c 0= \ Z t N Z 0 F- .•-c N K) V C7 O 0 0 4) W O O 0 0 +•, J.-•1O NO cnO COCD CD) 0 O CD a 0 0 0 fi \ • 1, * J .-4 * tr * U * 2 W * _ C7 * O ¢ * U CL * 4 * * * * * C * O C) W C) 0 W >_ 0 C) V *U. C4. ¢ I- * * . * . * . * * * .. * * * U * ¢ * C * U * * * * G CI C0 0 cr 0 0 0 O w C W Ifl O cf O O O O O1 O V1 N N 0 O 0 CO 0 V) C W 1.0 .-1 In LL) .-i 4/4 11.-1 0) L = {.R 404 4.,4 4.•1 W iA 2-1 C Cr i•4 F-O.-. W Z li , C 'V 1 Z O • 1 O�C01 L. LO Lf) t0 tO CO LO t0 0 10 0 U IJ F-.-1 >- -I 1-1 2••1 -1 I-I-i .-i.-1 .-I •-•1 W 0 C`.....• V) 1 OI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OI 1 1 01 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 t <`u< 10 c �'` o_ asr - JZ0>- >. O O N 1-L.10 W E . U) J0 U= Cd +`F ¢C W I- C. J N O C O U J -. L:.)0 C >2 0 COC7 N 2 In >-=U 0) • C.) W E J 2-4 C VIE ^ D) 0) • .0 I E C . C i O U O . +, 0 0.CO 0 2 CO ni T7 7 +' 0 '0 O O '0 0 C O = 10 V) 10 C ++ 5- 0 In 0 N.CO 5. C E .0 C F- f E V)C-.) L. IC Id 0- 0 4- h 0 1 0 0 3 L L- C 0 \0 r-4- I- 4 < L C)I--+ 0+-N Ora O C E - 4- I.1 E i CO6 • 0 d a) L. U >•0 ++.- +.- . L. to v) +, E In 0 i 1 $. -. C E 0 E 0 0 -" b V) 0 to 0 H NYr- .0 E i -•+•• C O 2 i 0 C U)•fl i) 0 0 TO CO'0 L U O N CO V) C U 4- 0 CU>• 1 02$J 0 Cr)E N •O O VI K- O '-1 E•S-4)•- >iJ CO T 0 L C 0.C) O O • 0. +, 0 0)(0 S.. E 14 i••7•-+• C)+> 0 E+,O CO GS >1 - •O 74, VI 1I U) C•) U� 0 C O -.0 i-)•- 0 4-+ - 0 N C U CO CO U 0 CV E'-.0 Ci)> C) Vo C C U 0 o11• 0 = 0 N 0.tn 10 0 N Co rJ 0 > .- C U E 0 E CO•- EE t0 U- .. ti T 4- 0 L. 0•� C) W 0 cc)c E•- CO O 0 0)•N CO 0 L•.- i) C • 0 VI'CI U C) 0 U E r0 7 Ln 10 - 00 0 C L.J U i� C .. /G W ++ d C O b U 0•0•- C) 0'^ L. •- In tl)0 U) E 0 CT E C a) > C0 U•- E 'O N .-) 4-•N E 0.0 > ITN •O O CT i* 0 i >L i 10 i 0 0 0� 4- i E O > - 10 L...1 Io•- C •0 E i Ei� O 00 E O O O O0)-I -•7 3 • i•- L 10 E E U L O t/) 0.0 U -1 •.••'II C 4 0 L >1 3� � Q7 0 >Y • 0 0. > C•o 0 tn 0 . Ei oC 7oE10 0omc o E Oo o•- co -,-.- 00-- N 3-CD I- COVI L.) 54-,V'F E F-+ •- U. N H•-+) F--4- N F- V L ; VI 7 0 2 .4., C >1 •L E 4-) 0 4- C V)V) In > 01 Ci) CO •E Lc) 4- C O C •- L. 7 •- N E-.- 5-L. 0 •O 0 F- }I•- CO E V) 4- (0 C C. 0 4, F- C'0 r=4-++) 4- 'E C) L_ C C E C CO >17 C L 0 C7 E0 V'- E Q C.7Y 0 1.74, C74) C.7 0 C 0 C7 1-.•- 2 0. 2 I4U 2 CO•- 2N Z_ C =I- 10•- 2 04-i-) -• 0 0) .4 C N .....J 4-, rr .4 4) rr.0•- 2.- C 2 0 C Ln 0 2 C..) 2'." 9 2 E Cl) 7 2.0 4, E O 2 0•- 2•- 10 C) .4117 2U 2 C 2.0+,.•-• 2 0)C 1-7 01 \ J E O J co i N J f0 O J J J t0 r J 10 O J E 17 L_ N-1 = CI-0 N C:.2=¢ 0-V)C.-) V 0.Cl-C ) C.U.CI. C.V)0 CL.2.-'C. •\ 2= • N 2 O V I, 0 0 O 0 O O O C) W 0 0 O O C) O CO O V '•D-.I.I O N O Ih 0 c7 C) LC)O t0 0 N.O CO O 0 0 O O O C) O 0 C O O O O O O O 0- 0 O O C) 0 O 0 a 00 is J * U * 2 w * 0 CO it 0 ¢ * C) C * it it *• C it O it >- . * 0 w 0 2 * . 0 0 LU• LL CC u F- . it N it it it 41 * it 41 U * < it 0 it U * * * * G 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 C LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 In en C7 I- O N N Ln .-1 LC) O C) c0 al C LU LC) n LA cr LC) .-I N LC C 0 N 4. 4. ii 4. 4. 4. C F-0.•. LU Z 1.1-8-1 C < 01 VI 1 I Z O • ..4 I.... CI L O L)cir ID U)a-•• ID LC) IC In cT ID LC).7 CO LO t1• CO U O F-.r >- .-1-.-1 r4.-I.--1 rl.4.-1 4.--1 1--I .4 1-4.•1 .-1.-4 1-1 •.4 O< I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I 1 I I u J 0 V) O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 OZ C =4, 00 00 CD 00 00 00 G w< O C 00 00 00 00 00 LC)Lc) J Z•> 7 0 0 0 In O LC)In N N LC)LC) N.N. LA I-u O w E en•4 CO CO V V' CS'•T LC)LC) 444. V) J i Cu= C C N N 44.44 444.4 4.444 44.4.4. ¢ G G CJ I- 0. 444. J N O C%D C) J .ti u CD 7 2 - 0 Cu•--•CD L.L. oo0 2 C V) >-0 U J •-•U- C) C) • a) a) C) C) 0 G 2 in_C V).0 V).0 In- VIL CAL VIA FO _ O 4' C0 4' C0 4' C0 4' C0 4' C0 4 C 4' I- O 44 C) 41 C) 43 C) 4' C) 41 C) 4, C) 4, C) CJ U 4, U 4, U 4, 0 4, U 4-1 0++ U 4, C V) C V) C VI C VI C V) C V) C N O 4- C 4- C 4- C 4- C 4- C 4- C 4- C F- C-V E W E C7 E C7 E C7 E C7 w oy m-o m•v m TJ C3 4 m'd m'd m•v UO Io C IC C) C U to CI IC U co 0 C7 O• 4- 4- i 4- > 4- > 4- L. 4- > 4- L.O1(o Cr)0 O)IC) 0)C) 0)C) 0)C) 0)CC C V) • C in • C in • C in • C U) • C u) • C VI • .- V)4-, -•- in 4-' .•-. V)4-) ••- V)4-, •r V)4-) •.- V)4, •.•' V)4, '0 O C 'O C) C C) C •C 3 C) C -O C) C •O 0 C 13 C) C C U IC C U IC C U Io C 0 Io C U CC C U 10 C U CC 7 U L 7 C) L 7 C) L 7 C) i. 7 C) L 7 C) L 7 C) L Lt.. C 0) Ls- C C7) L.L. C CO L.L. C 7) Li.. C C7) LL C 01 L.L. C 0) V) 0) L C w 2•r 2 2 IV 2 2 2 2 J O_ C O_ CD 4- O_ O_ O_r O to _ .~-1 I- Io I-- I-< 1- F- I•-4, VI I-- C O F- G•- ¢ < ¢ ¢ < C 4, < C d CC ea >, C C C cv L1' V C )4-1 F- F- I-4J I- >, F- la i- E 0 I- 7 (o U)b N_ U N_•C N_ C) N_ C U) O E N_ O C_ 2Y 2 C 2 2 L 2 C 2 L. V) 2�'0 C) Io 0 ^ C C) F. >,L • C71 = O- E C = 2++ ill = > V) 2 4, 0 �� \ CDC) O•r C3 0 CD 4, •- CI V) C••- 0 ti =0 G 2 U ¢LL ¢U ¢¢ ¢d G W< ¢U U 2 0 N 2 O I- .-•1 N In V CC) CO N. C--)CO 0 O O O O 0 O C) u0 0 O 0 O O 0 O 4J '")J.-(O N O en O •V•0 LC)O (0 0 N.O 10 O O O 0 O O O 0 O Ct O 0 O O O 0 0 CL O O O 0 0 CD 0 , • G # c.) C # # # # • # SS¢ • • • # Q p . C W O v) C W a. 2 Li-.-I C G C) / CN 1 ; C.72O � � . * 01 O O•I �s., t0 t0 to ,C v I I I 11 1 I I I J C N YCi=C 0 i-+ JF-E W OM 7 z�>•- 7. 2 to J=OU S C •LW ¢ - C C W F- IZ J V)O C tC U J .-I W C7 C • >Z Cr:) W.•+t.7 LL CI CI m 2 O t/) >-aU J F-Lt.. F- i I- 0 c.) a . O F-• IZ C t.) N W 0 I- I- I-- J < C) co C) I- .I - .17 C Ci' C I- O O'C 0.17 L ti O O'O - }+ C) Li-++ O) W 4, 0) C C C W C) S- W C) 3- W C) O L)"'7 C) U"•')C) U'1'7 C) C- C 0 4, C 0 4, C 0 4, // .. W 3- C) W L C) 4) L C) N = C.CI-- C.C'O C.a'O `\ .--1 == \ = N Z C) F- .-•1 N t+7 t C) W O O O O 4-+ r7 J.•4 O N O M O It) O O O O O C O O O O_ O O O l l O * J CV * ►-. * CJ 3 Z W * 0 - C7 ' * 0 < * U O. * * . * * * * * CY * O * >- 0 w 0 2 w . 0 O LU Wti CY W < I- * N . * * * * * * * ' * CJ . * < . * 0 * C.) * * * • * 0 0 0 Cr < 0 0 O rn C_ W O O CV C7 f- .. • . 0 v) Lt) L!) ' N 2 W n n co C.. 0 .-I .-+ CO C O' 44 44 Z .y CY 44 .. C) I) I 0 0 CI .-..0 a-+C) L. CO - L.)C.4 •--/ >- . ,--I .-I . <v I . O< I I W_)Cl V) 00 Y^...)ZC 04-, LC)O < W< O C CV N J 00W .... 0 )". ZE} 7OE CI CV N CY -4£o�= C< m--b < a <CC W I- Cl. 4.444 J W V)O 2 LJ U 2 W CD j 2 O O W.-.C7 Li. U.. C 2 0 VIV) Imo.`v > O < < 2 0 rn O CI Cl O O +, L- C) L- C) C) 2 -0 > 0_ '^ O n I- CCI i-C • 0. Vs tfe ▪ i--/ O Z7 2 d C) CD C) Cl) N V) -0 C * i-+ C Cl C+C >) O CC U O C.0 E..- C) CIS U 0) L- . d .0 )- CC3 I)) J I- I- CJ O 2 C W C) C7 O Z_ C 0 F-4-3 Cl "" C O O CV 0 CJ U 0 2 0 CV 2 O F .-./ U C7 0 (1) W O 0 ++ '-I J.-CO MI O O Cl CY O - 0. 0 r. .. (- VS?-4 Community Development Plan 1988-1992 �J �i w 4 %, : • •�? ...• �� • \ki• //• //////• // ••// - NN\\ „,„• „ •,. ,„,. ,, • _ 77 I/ /I//.11/1• .•./ •///• /. \ :.14.4 %X li \\••••,,ii e#e e e e. e•fe •eeeee •e• 4;›444‘A\ \\\\\\\ • •�a••�••••••. � yyy���pe7� e7� a7, pp /I//////////////r//////r/ •/. . _�_�_•I !. f JS •==fir. 4• �� ♦ •///• • •• • •• •• •• •/////,/,///,/• r...41.• “:.:0 er•.•,,.''.....i.••::. ro T.:,_....L.:: .:i.•• 'IN\ •4 4 ere eee •eee• eeeeeeeeeeeee• g:.;•:. A...I Fri?/:. 7:0°i::::•7:•7•••17*•• ••• •n;4N \\ .•iet I ///• //• // •/• /• /• •// •////// •//•• 'Cr?* • ....♦• .. �,;rl• !'•v.•• . •t V••/I/I I I I •I I/ •,/ •I/I/I/ •I I I ••1;�3:Zle 'ti‹TI1E` '• �l IO/ii/ •//�.•:• II• I II. I/,/II/ •//• .. .4.•••.t...4.•:. ••••••••• ••,,,,....i•:,./...t.t::::,t• \ k .;4.....7„.wiyheiwiy;f./.Af f//.•ice/ ':........•.I:•':' •'›•r .. j •%:.:! y�QQ\‘‘..\\M I •/////II//III// •/I//// •//I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Salt Lake City, Utah February, 1990 :::::::>:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: Acknowledgements :.:::::::.:. MAYOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Palmer A.DePaulis Kim Anderson,Chair Rosemarie Rendon CITY COUNCIL Hermoine Jex Renae Pierce Alan Hardman,Chair Bernice Cook Nancy K. Pace,Vice-Chair Russel Allred Ronald J.Whitehead __ Nancy Saxton L.Wayne Horrocks Barbara Bennett Tom Godfrey Rosemary Grim Roselyn Kirk Paul P. Osborn Don C. Hale Rawlins Young Diana M. Smoot Marion Willey DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Michael Zuhl,Interim Direcor Lee King,Deputy Director CAPITAL PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING DIVISION Stephanie Loker,AICP,Community Development Planner John Riley,Policy Consultant PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION Allen C.Johnson,AICP, Director Ralph Becker William T. Wright, AICP,Deputy Dan Bethel Neil H. Olsen, AICP,Planner II Cindy Cromer Mike Gibelyou,Planning Intern Thomas A. Ellison Lavone Liddle-Gamonal TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Richard J. Howa Ralph P. Neilson Norman J.Weiss,Technician III George Nicolatus Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Victoria Palacios John M. Schumann Published on Apple Macintosh. Table of Contents PREFACE 1 INTRODUCTION 2 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 4 LOCAL POLICIES 4 GENERAL POLICIES FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING 5 PROGRAMMING POLICIES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6 CDAC POLICIES 7 TARGETING OF CDBG FUNDS 8 SUMMARY OF THE TARGET AREAS 9 MAP OF TARGET' AREAS 10 NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGIES : 11 TARGET AREA STRATEGIES 13 ANNUAL CDBG PROGRAMS 1988-90 24 14TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM • 25 15TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM 28 16TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM 31 17TH YEAR CDBG PROGRAM 31 IMPLEMENTATION 32 APPENDIX 33 ii ti Preface ...::. ....... ::.:.. ....: . ::.::.:. Since 1975 Salt Lake City has received therefore, includes the 14th year's Community Development Block Grant activities. As the 15th funding year funding from the U.S. Department of approached, the need to obtain accurate Housing and Urban Development information became ever more critical (HUD).The amount allocated to Salt Lake and problematic. Statistical data were City is based on a formula related to the gathered from several sources for the City's housing condition, population, purpose of comparing existing and number of low and moderate conditions.While not all information was income households. Of course, the directly comparable, it was helpful in appropriation made to the program clarifying some local trends and problem nationally by Congress also affects the areas. Some of the data used by city level of funding the City receives. Since decision-makers is included in the Plan 1981, the total CDBG funding level has (see Appendix). decreased by approximately 45 percent, as concentration on the plight of the The strategies and actions recommended nation's urban areas was de-emphasized. in this Plan represent the efforts of Salt Lake City to conduct the most efficient This Four-Year Plan was initiated in and cost effective program possible for February 1989 during the annual the continued revitalization and planning process for the 15th funding maintenance of our urban environment, year (1989-1990). The Plan identifies given the limitations of the available neighborhoods to be selected for CD information. activities with regard to the level of activity, phasing into and out of each area, and project timing and coordination. The identification process included a wide range of public hearings, meetings with staff personnel, citizen groups and interested neighborhood residents, in addition to the formal assessment, recommendation and approval process (outlined in the City's annual Community Development Block Grant Program Policy). The conventional planning process (which would have been initiated in >N:� �e • 1988, the 14th CD year) was not followed due to the lack of current, accurate data "" with which to identify the most suitable � ������.�::. .';-•..;; ;,; ; areas of the city for CD activities. The w';{G decision was then made to remain in the current (13th year) areas. This plan, 1 6w 9 ::.:::::.::::::;:::::::::::....:::: Introduction The Salt Lake City Four-Year Community master plans as well as by its goals, Development Plan, 1988-92, will serve to objectives, general policies and direct the City's Community Development programming policies. The Community program for the fiscal years 1988-89, 1989- Development Plan, properly prepared and 90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. These fiscal years implemented, augments the city's correspond to the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th conservation and revitalization efforts. funding years of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant The Federal Community Development (CDBG) program. The Plan is designed to Program provide a framework for the application and allocation of the CDBG program in In 1974 the U.S. Congress passed the fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90, and Housing and Community Development planning for the subsequent two years . Act,which consolidated several categorical This Plan details the goals, objectives and grant programs into one directed at policies; the targeting of eligible improving the condition of the nation's neighborhoods; the neighborhood urban environments. The Community strategies; and sets guidelines for the city's Development Block Grant allows local future community development efforts and governments the flexibility to design the programming of funds to implement programs which will meet,the unique these efforts. needs of their communities. The Act's primary objective is the development and The Salt Lake City Council, with the advice maintenance of viable urban areas, by and assistance of the Mayor, city staff and providing decent housing and suitable citizens, adopts an annual Community living environments, and by expanding Development Block Grant program based economic opportunities, principally for upon a three year plan. The program persons of low and moderate income. consists of projects and activities eligible for assistance and which will revitalize the Salt Lake City is a CDBG entitlement city city's declining neighborhoods and and receives federal funds annually to provide a better urban environment. perform community development activities. The CDBG program allows the City to establish its own plan for the Purpose of the Plan physical improvement of its neighborhoods. Money is appropriated by The purpose of this plan is to direct a HUD to local governments for program which best allocates resources to implementing community development address the needs of the city's communities plans. The City is required to prepare and and neighborhoods.The program is submit to HUD an annual application integrated with the city's Capital listing the projects and activities that will Improvement Program and other publicly be undertaken. and privately funded programs. The plan is guided by the city's neighborhood 2 '1 Citizen Participation in Community Development Advisory Committee = . Development Planning (CDAC) was_ formed and ratified by c` r ordinance. CDAC functions as a liaison among the City Council, the Mayor and The revitalizing, rebuilding and his staff, and city residents. Utilizing such preserving of urban communties requires a citizen group with advisory capacity to the advice and committment of those who the Mayor and staff on community will be affected. Involvement of residents development concerns provides the and other citizens in the planning and planning process with continuity. CDAC implementing of community is composed of 15 neighborhood development representatives projects is an "Citizen input is considered an important appointed by the essential part of factor in structuring the [CD] plan. Mayor and creating a city Expressions of citizen priorities and initiative approved by the that meets the can be the deciding influence when the City Council. needs of statistics, data and technical evaluation residents, who identify several areas or projects eligible for As a part of their depend on thefunding." responsibilities city for basic (Salt Lake City Community Development CDAC reviewed Citizen Participation Plan, p.9) services. the policies for • the four-year In the past, HUD's citizen participation plan as well as all annual proposals requirements encouraged cooperative submitted for Community Development working relations between city officials (CD) funding. They also interviewed all and citizens. Although revised applicants and participated in meetings regulations reduced the citizen with representatives of involved City participation requirements in the departments and agencies to select planning process, local policies adopted projects and target areas. by the Salt Lake City Council assure that citizen participation will continue. This Because the relevant demographic data plan calls for citizen participation at the available to city decision-makers is city level in the overall application and considered to be out-of-date (and program preparation, and at the therefore unreliable), the continued neighborhood level, where significant inclusion of citizen participation is activity is being proposed or especially crucial to the decision-making implemented. process. Fortunately, the level of participation in the design of CD Individuals_need sufficient information activities in the City has grown steadily and assistance in order to understand the since the inception of the CD Program. complexity of the important decisions the Continued success in the city's city faces. At the same time, participating revitalizaton efforts are due in large part private citizens must be able to retain to the willingness of city residents to enough independence that they may truly contribute their time and efforts to the reflect private, rather than city, points of process. view. To accomplish this a Community 3 Goal, Objectives and PoliciE_ Salt Lake City will be guided in the ❑ - to concentrate the use of funds through administration of the Community the targeting of neighborhoods, especially Development Block Grant (CDBG) where their use will result in improvements program through this Four Year in several neighborhoods; • Community Development Plan. The Plan formulates goals, policies and objectives ❑ - to offer housing rehabilitation programs for the CDBG program. to owners of single - and multi - family homes; The primary goal of the Community Development Plan is to revitalize, ❑ - to provide sidewalk, curb and gutter, redevelop and preserve neighborhoods. and street improvements in target Specific goals of Salt Lake City are: neighborhoods; ❑ - the prevention of slums and blight and 0 - to provide and improve parks, the elimination of the causes of blighting; community centers and other recreational facilities; Cl - the elimination of conditions detrimental to health, safety and public ❑ - to stimulate private investment and welfare; community revitalization by improving existing infrastructure; Cl - the conservation and expansion of ❑-to improve patterns of residential, housing stock; commercial,industrial and recreational land ❑ - the expansion and improvement of the use;and quality and quantity of vital community ❑ - to provide limited public service services; programs for low - and moderate - income ❑ - the most effective and efficient residents where no alternative funding utilisation of available resources;and sources are available (priority will be given to public service programs which Cl - the alleviation of physical and complement physical development activities). economic distress by stimulating private investment and community revitalization. The City has identified a number of objectives to be accomplished for the Local Policies achievement of the goals of the Community Development program. These On September 15, 1981, the Salt Lake City are: Council adopted the following general and programming policies, which supplement the Federal requirements, to help guide local officials through the decision-making process. The policies were formulated by the City's 4 } ��..,. ...:�.:..$.;..{ ,..".A.• �n..a,Y..V'N K. hj: c.. . ....� Community Development Advisory will be realized through a concentration of r: Committee, the CD planning staff and the funds in those neighborhoods. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Team. 7. Funds will be involved at two levels of activity: a) comprehensive activities with a full General Policies for Community range of eligible projects,and Development b) specific levels of activity addressing one 1. The Community Development program or more needs. will be administered under the original intent as outlined by the Housing and 8. Specific criteria for target area selection Community Development Act of 1974. will be observed, with a proposed area containing most or all of the following 2. A short-range plan will be developed characteristics: for programming funds aimed at eliminating blight; preventing 0 - a strong residential component, either neighborhood deterioration by providing existing or proposed; decent housing and a suitable living environment; and expanding economic 0 - identifiable deterioration in public or oportunities, principally for persons of private properties; low and moderate income. 0 - an area of manageable size- larger than 3. CD planning will be carried out in a single project, yet small enough to accordance with existing community, perceive change; neighborhood and capital improvement master plans. 0 - an area where CD "seed" money will serve as an impetus for continued 4. The citizen participation element will be improvement including the return or carried out in accordance with existing expansion of private investment;and community, neighborhood and capital improvement master plans. ❑ - a neighborhood identity, with recognizable boundaries and significant 5. For the revitalization and needs of low and moderate income redevelopment of neighborhoods to be residents. effective and for the for the programs which are funded by Community 9. Neighborhoods should not be targeted Development funds to be successful, there indefinitely. Targeting of an area will be must be compatible land use planning and considered "successful" when most or all zoning to stabilize the residential aspects of the following criteria are met: of the areas involved. 0 -The targeted neighborhood is accepted by 6. The goal of stabilization and/or the neighborhood itself and the community at revitalization of residential neighborhoods large is a viable,revitalized area; 5 ❑ -Private investment activity is evident; 5. Existing sidewalk rehabilitation will be available in selected target areas and other _areas approved by the CityCouncil, and-. -Basic services have been made available PP to the area;and will be funded 100 percent with CD money. ❑ -Recognizable goals are achieved. 6. Community Development project programming shall be coordinated with the capital improvement planning program. Programming Policies for Community Development 7. Whenever practical, CD projects will be phased so that planning, design, 1. CDBG funds will be used as one of acquisition and development proceed in several tools to implement the Housing the most efficient manner. Furthermore, Element of the Salt Lake Master Plan. The development plans will be written and plan outlines the city's financial policy to published for each full-scale target area. promote housing. Included in the policy is the use of CDBG funds for land write- 8. In those target areas where down, construction of parking areas in comprehensive activities are planned, support of housing, construction of parks projects aimed at making the greatest and other neighborhood amenities and the impact wil be phased in first. For example, improvement of infrastructure necessary infrastructure improvements will be for housing projects. precede housing rehabilitation. 2. The housing rehabilitation program, 9. In general, a majority of annual CD administered through the Redevelopment allocations will be spent to benefit target Agency, will be available primarily in CD areas. target areas or as specifically authorized by the Redevelopment Agency Board of 10. Annual projects to be considered for Directors. Rehabilitation outside of a target funding subsequent years' programs will area should be approved only if the fit the goals of the 3-year plan, but will be Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors flexible throughout the time frame, in determines that significant benefit in the order to meet changing needs. neighborhood shall be achieved. 11. Projects scoring highest on the 3. CD funds will be used in conjunction evaluation criteria will be given priority with other capital improvement funds, as for CD funding; of the evaluation criteria, they become available, for infrastructure the cost-benefit appraisal will receive high improvements. consideration. 4. CD funds will be used to provide new 12. City targeting of CD areas and programs curb, gutter, sidewalk and street should also take into consideration improvements in eligible target areas with resources available in the private sector demonstrated need. and attempt to leverage them. 6 Adr v ry o < rya b_� o 13. Steps should be taken to promote joint 3. CDBG funds for street improvements V< CD programs and economic development and parks should only be used for : =•V .. . projects with the,business .and other neighborhood-level services.- It should be - community groups. the responsibility of the City's general fund to construct community parks and 14. Realistic programming of funds shall collector streets. CDAC recommended be initiated in order to improve the some community level parks [in 1989] in implementation of CD projects . Enough order to complete them, but will not time must be allocated to allow each recommend them in the future. department involved to carry out its individual responsibilities, such as 4. Planning Division proposals that are not obtaining citizen input, conceptual neighborhood oriented should be funded planning, design, bidding, construction from general fund. and inspection. 5. CDBG funds are intended to benefit 15. Timely and efficient implementation of lower income people and should not be projects should be required. used to fund projects that benefit the City as a whole. These should be funded by all 16. The Community Development citizens who benefit. Advisory Committee can adopt their own rules of administration for policy formulation and target area designation. • Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) Policies In early 1989, the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) developed a set of policies for the guidance of their decisions and actions. These are: 1. As a general rule, all slippage funds will roll over to the next [funding] year. However, CDAC will consider all requests for slippage and may recommend granting of funds on an emergency basis. - .typo il+'�U\Y��� ::::.•f".::::r"; 2. Funding of contingency requests will be =h \���," ��\'At limited to construction cost overruns ors<: `" emergencies (as defined by CDAC) only. These will be reviewed and granted on a '" -';:.....•-: ......, i case by case basis. • r targeting of CDBG F "Targeting" is a process of concentrating of the areas' demographics, and b P housing public resources in a limited number of other physical conditions, and prospects neighborhoods. The targeting of for future development. Community Development Block Grant funds was initiated in the Salt Lake City Data compiled from the decennial U.S. Three Year Community Development Plan, Census has been a central source of 1978-81, in which several Neighborhood demographic data used to identify target Strategy Areas (NSAs) were identified and areas. In 1982 and 1985 (years in which selected to receive a concentration of previous Three-Year Community Devel- CDBG funding. The selection process was opment Plans were written) the census intended to delineate those areas of the data were current enough to be considered city having the greatest promise for accurate and representative; because the stabilization and to identify data is now 10 years old, it is important neighborhoods that have begun to decline that they be supplemented with other, but, with a concentrated effort, could more recent, information. Difficulties continue as viable residential arise, though, due to inconsistencies in the neighborhoods. The targeting concept was methods of data collection and continued in the 1982-85 and 1985-88 formulation, and in the different ways Three Year Community Development Plan. various agencies and organizations subdivide the city for their needs. As a The designation of NSAs was result, it has been essential to include the discontinued in 1981 for administrative participation of residents, city employees reasons, resulting in less Federal and other individuals and groups familiar regulation and a greater degree of local with the neighborhoods and their flexibility; however, Salt Lake City dynamics in the targeting process. continues the process of concentrating block grant funds in a limited number of In response to these difficulties a special neighborhoods. Today, community areas in meeting was held in May. Representatives which CD funds and efforts are of community groups and city agencies concentrated are designated as "target were invited to come together to discuss areas." and assess their perceptions of the city's neighborhoods and their problems. Much Four of the "General Policies for of the discussion focused on the Central Community Development" listed City and Westside neighborhoods, previously address the issue of selecting especially concerning a widespread view areas for CD funding. These policies that problems persist in the areas despite provide a framework for target area past efforts to revitalize the selection. Selecting neighborhoods in neighborhoods. Comments received at the which the use of CDBG funds might have meeting were influential in later the greatest impact requires a knowledge considerations of future target areas. 8 T .v.L..t :1 .r.:$ Mh of •i+....ITIFN''11�...�i`+Y+ .2.•v h i{xi 1 Summary of Target Areas for the 1988-92 Four Year Plan =` Changes to target area boundaries and selection of new target area communities are based upon analysis of existing neighborhood needs, accomplishments and future plans. During the next three years, some previously targeted areas will be re-opened; some currently active neighborhoods will be dosed. Two communities,not targeted previously, will be opened. A comprehensive list appears below. Target Year Year Anticipated Activity Plan Area Opened Closed Activities Level Status Jackson 1979 1985 Re-Open in 1990 Limited Written' Peoples' Freeway 1979 — Close in 1991 Full Scale Written" Westside 1979 — Continue Full Scale Written" Central City 1979 1985 Re-Open in 1990 Limited Written" E. Central 1979 — Close in 1991 Full.Scale Written" W. Capitol Hill 1979 — Continue Full Scale Written" Guadalupe 1982 — Continue Full Scale Written' So. Central-A 1982 1986 Monitor Limited N/A2 So. Central -B 1982 1987 Monitor Limited N/A2 So. Central- C r 1983 — Close in 1990 Limited N/A2 SugarHouse 1984 — Close in 1990 Full Scale Written' Euclid 1986 — Continue Full Scale Written' N.E. Central 1986 — Continue Limited N/A3 Fairmont 1986 — Continue Limited N/A2 Westminster 1986 — Continue Limited N/A2 Emerson 1987 — Continue Limited N/A2 East Downtown — — Study By Project4 Written3 Glendale -- — Open 1989 Full Scale Written3 Onequa — — Open 1990 Limited N/A2 1. Completed Target Area Plan. 2. Limited Target Areas -small area plan not initiated. 3. Plan is a part of a larger area plan completed or being completed. 4. This high-density residential area is being studied to determine how to stabilize it and solve problems particular to the neighborhood. 9 ite.ITA ,..„.__........ ..., _ .q.t•-•••• •••. ,:s•„.+•,.. ., ••••••• - -5.$. :',..•:r K• - .„.i.z.r,.i:::..c k..i.....z...i.. „:..„ t..-.is .k...... .i:i;.,....',..•-4....;-:•-: .:i...1...;.n. , --_-... -..,..., '...:_.. ,, . . •. • : :. = = PROPOSED CDBG TARGET AREAS • • ••••., ::..,...-.•_-:......, ,.....•-• . .„,„ ‘,.., . -.4.. •. • ;;':1 I.!..1''..-. .• • ss", •( ' •.7-----4•,"----"--••••*------='="_='•;:f ..ss ••••••-...".Ju'l-y;. 1939 to Oune02 / - .:.2,. (- !. • "I F.:3...L._.,:•• -•_j:,-.. • '\,-1-=;:- -:-,••• == !Ir.':re....=;-2.-_r-_--7.-Z-...-z.:1 ' :%'• -- '--'-''od.. I--•---.=-• ••-•---77...! ..,. ,,„,;,==,,s 77-.:11 1 i o -:- , • , h . - t.„:-..• . / ........--t-2:=-------":--:_-,;; ••:•:"7:.I'•-.4.--- .. . .:-•.:•,--"i.t.rfLz..::-:--:-.- : '.• 1 '1,\:-.7. I--Arir •••• v • : , : •il --..:-.•:-. - 1 '••••:•-.I •-:-•' ', . ....;:-...._-....... -'-.E.:s-... 7•:::• •-•::.1•.;•.:•••m.-:E. •:, --•.: •,?-, .. --.., ; ,,, ----.-........ff,•,:-:....„,.....L.;....i....__=,--•••i„.... :• =ix • ,...........:=E-'-"••=1?.:.--. ••' •;. :.I • i '•,•••• .. _ '' -2--. F .4 .1..:. 1._.,......---,-'.-=--i.'.;i.z..,•••.•-_-•- ••'•'- :..... ' • . • 74.-7'7••••:-s•7.....:'....".•-r7-77,-;..:•••• •I : .•' • S-:.r r:: : :I,. :: ; ;--... _ ____.=• --..__I. _::.,__.:r......„..,•••::: :,.....rit , ,--; -.,-4•_,-.•• : ..,--:..; =-_-_,•;:i-:'-. •-: • •••--,.1.-----. .• :.-'•-'7,.. 7, •2::::,- - - • ___ __ ._ _ 2•7. -.'f' -.1:'• ,."--',,, '".-? '6. "6'-'-''i:1"22k uneia -m-• ._N- r r i,-_,,. Capitol 1-:ill _,____„_.,,, .,-, -:•-,-„•,-1z-=.--.•••1-_-:,_-_-tt...7'-i. •:.-... s=, ••• ' .7.-..-:.-..-:.:71.1%-.7.--7.=.:-..-I.-_:..---;-=.:-.- t;. -- _.--.1.-7 --, 0.:•--e,, 0 ..• e=0., = • ') . • ...,-.....: -;--- '• %P. P 0==--0.-- - F 7 -•'7••..1-•,;C:2 NIP • : ..t., ' ' .r.-...• ••• ••::i-'- =.7.-.. ........--. "'I.-4-:_ ---,"_.-•••---3 a ---•0'..... i01 ... ::' . '. ..•. A . ,i. _i-__,,.%_-.•g---.- ..__.. .., . ... ,. _ ...-,-.1- •--; •-:. . ,Sr-t- 7.14 .• ...-_,\.,:•,.....,_.._, _.:. .,: .1 __:,:•;H: -,,..,....:. ..." i 1 .._,_3• . eir•..1.-un.'e'l:.1'2'--' .:1--7:: ! ,-z.....-„:„......- • - ••.i ,:-•,.., i'...i-- •-:•••':••\..1.. ___*--. , ..m\=-_,,,..L•.., i t-.:_:,-•_.--, .m•7•47._____,... • • ..___- ....___2i.:-1: -___=,___,2._.,_-•_: N,A,.%_ "‘.,•_ • ,__:•__:..:L..f:__.•_-_I._ • • • ,--; • _- -..,.,.,_....: • ri•:/a 71• , . , 7 ir-•1'7.:::::I-1 1:_-_• • • • .----.-- . . . •:I-...I, , .....-., . . , I I • Im. .• -- 1 .".---- '• • _.........._.;,......_..,.7;••••1: -- - .-- -.:-...=--••=.: f."'": • (I .- . a. . 4.,,-...___.-. ,,,,-,r_.-... :-:":-.7-, i--.Z / ..-< -70..;/.„:.- i.....,_-1-t-_-_-.i. '.LI_.-.L-...::.-_-_. _,,i.z:/1 f...Z.!',,_,Z! ._-'..2"7:.///4/: :'2.:,•*t Er.t.....: - ----_.--- // .r...=-"'•_ „,...... .,. - . ../4- „./'-:7-:=-1,..-,-_,,t ,..= /.....?= ---3-I F-i-.---•--- : .... i ,;.1-!-..)--'47. :", . ..:t -:. IV.' ..: ,i r :.. : :,--...• -. -• - :• - -".-:-_,..._,,,, _-_. -'-`- '7°- mr- `-•-••---.--n;•.:1,1-- -.- -- --r- as,i - , _..._ _-...,.., -•-•70"-i-,•r:-;-.:.7:-=',.-•i: •- - -- / • • -,7- _i_d / _/-. ,"c'--- .;. + 1..• r, .: :`..._:4-••-....i _•.-- ::7-__ ,,.... _...... , N.._------ ",-Ju yt.-11-Ur.-.-- --"i;-..,-, La-.uown,Lown • . . 7.. /--- .._ ...,.; ,..,___ . 4'---1 i..J. .• - -- .t -•:•,,- .•.-:-..- - ., iv .. • :. ji... z :;y.•5. ,--,-•..• . ... • /7",•1 1:• 1 ‘;..„_____,____:•,,•„„__._ • •A.., ii .t.______,.....______ ____ ......:-....,. ==•__ .,...z AV= ;-:''• , -.: .--. -t-- - ..-. -7:7--...• •\•,'-•:-.7----1,2,2...7121W_& ., . ,. -11• i. ••, :.. . r7.,;7%7• . • -:f • =f- ----:•:•-•,---:-- --•-• , -',.==. :- 1, i, :; - --...-.; , .:1 117172. ., .1:2E:• -.-:,.E: •,P.1i•=••••=, ••• 1••:. 1,1 i 7 s3.•.• , 1' ..r,•4-.. __ 9 L :••••= ,.-••••• :_..,• -...../.;e: '.....hfrk• . :1 -,,,--•_,_!--: ...-•r--;•_.: -.--.1.,.4.- --\\ -\, ..-7.,:c..,- -IT---,,-.-- ,,,, .• :._ s..k.:// i 4., ',!I En.-!:1•,'i-:•2,;;,; :_;-, C.: _-_, •1.,;;; .= r.i. t.:., ,:: `,'.::!,:,11 ; - t la.mr.t.=.: L.:•-.1..:12....:-..L.:'-_: .. g '4.- jt:71,7 7::71.,-;kb-i,rrl,i- I ni, ,aml-L:',7 `-7- ; .....,..7117- .•1..17::::7:,;":.:Z.F,7,-...--.-.:.! 1--:----,,,..7.-,::= • --• .• , 1.---i'..!-1 .,.• u...; ..-- en*%, --- 1,; ,1 ,.._-,__,,„_.„▪.;,. i - i-t-F;;--1, re_opkes.r,Tfi•r-...- ... \+, -,\\„,r..cr: _,...,. J.,.7.7--..--.- -;.• e„ .,,_.v. -:77--z-77!:-.3.,.,....„,, . - , .. I. 2 .: •• •C.,1 C.) p..!• L..„_,.. :::• ••••••••• •- •, . ., •• 7 r ;•_;:-. -, • .;_-=-..:•..:.--===.-_,..,:.•,.__. : ,- ‘ -1:2 ,._. .... ---. ----.----•-'--i-•:•-•=_--tz•L-•.'-_-7._"='=;..':.-:-.--y•mr -,. „. .7-71='-FretwaY -lc-.. ‘-•,-..\ \!,\. ---- 7 ,--: , . ._. • ... ----•-'''''.:-2.7. 27.----1.'=-"--.-..=2-m".= =" AFL • ••• -•'.•-% IL.'.-':` 111. " :11' r 3.• ••••': 'AN:\":12,--,N.•,_.- ' -17..0F7i,.2,:zi_:.'•_1,----='• ':'-'7---=7---7\` ,-- %,7' ' C/ ••••• cy-r rig•';--.7.-7,--1.11.7.17 - ":•-:7".i-r-::-22.-,...-. .;----;-.--n--._-:.:•- •19;•,'AZ 3 7-_-.- • •1.:...•40••••a ...... i it ... ,•=:...._.._.,., .: ........,_., ...,..:,L,....___..=..,_,...,. 4. : •_,...• . : .,,,..:. ..„.„..,:.,•••7.,,,..„,.__... •. •:.'." •`:•••-•--1:---'..,•,=•:-.------ sri--_-.4. • 2' =:-.-. ... .-1.7-.7.---2.•-• 11.12....W....T..--7.--,:r--=:>f.,;•1,........i.t; „•;;;.,.‘,:1,0 7./....:--.--..-, ..... ". .*•.i•..,:,,,--,...--...--. „:" ; --,•7•.l'....--r-Ar...--.-' ..r .• r:• ri I, \•\••••;.=.•-• ...•--.-.1,-. --=•••••1 •,•••t. .....,.:-nrm,•• .0 .-.,-..r.,,-1 •Li beru,:=.,,•___••::,--=„----.-a-i•- ;:•;.;i...z, 11....e•iiij .r•-7-••• .....‘,...:7„....- '•,••! -II • * „..• •„.......e.,-,,,---i T.i.1 0 I C.-=.•=--'.:••• •"...1i-_._-:-:!-I-.,_,`"" .• ',....'` -.1%,.-•'-•:•=•-•"--F,.1.1 ,. -........-= , -...... __. -•:•-•••=_--'I •4 .••••.‘ •,:r_-•=r-.....: it'_.•-,•••!;:).2C-•_•ili.;.:::.rf-; ..'• '..-7-p-,.,....--•'-•••••;.-'•••:•*--V--•-=='24,----::" i-_ •I. •••-• C-.1 911CitaaL 9.2 7;e-a-._v,..7-=1!i• "ill •y's 1, .. :-,1„..7...-ti,•-•,...t_=_.....:......._•.,-,..„.___,.....,,._.••:. . .7 . ,,-...,,,,,..._7.......,,...-.............7,.„,. ..............,..=. .........: _ ;,'LI:V..• • f............,,,,,.....7„,. . ...... ...7.- I.'..;.1.,.-!;- • II , .,..,i_....,..,,f,.. cr.,..-.....,•-,-71--r•f;..1 i ;•-•=2-- 7-=..•=---=.•7.,.,,,•••••••:•,•--. .; , •.' • ,,, II .r•i't:••---•--.1....Ist--.. ,.,..-, ---_-7, • ....:a.f-- rr rr ;•-4".•-r--7'. .0', • .P.::si.,.'',•.:\'..'-i.„...-4,.......4,L._•Li • •A: -.,:____ _. 11.?Iiir„,_.,_-_---t_____"" 1 CP ..t.., -.;•---,--P1.----=',',-,-•-" - •l'•' '' -•:*•''-' '''----- 1-t•I-----',-,,,-;' s\'..% •:::..- -----: =t... 4441 4 --.- 0-- • 7711---1; 1; " • •,'•-••• -=-..., ; I . •-11 ' ..-•,- _, , • ..• --L •-• -- - .1,0._ •-• _ -. .,,,,,..II. p •ii!:1;:r•-•-•-.-=1,••i'. -.1.-:4.I"'••••,-.1:.C"..-=•,-,.-1.,--4..ki‘ •-••77./fil 1=5', ' -=....-----.- =••--•••• •• -••--• ::-.‘,I,•1. :, ...•i 1-.-••••• ft 1.....;•.4 I,......i I.:1 ,-••••••••1...•'•-r''•'"'•••_••••••''.•'•"'•'",•,!-':=";';....-"•.'' 7. -,,_.. ..------ .r:- L7"7: •,-_•.'1• '-i::ir?.•...,1 ri:--il n •1111;i---=.;=,-%ma.=:I::.•': V.i:s7`-41T7'WV-27-....414-,:i.:1-4 •:,,:'.:. E.; -- ,--1,7: ,:-.1::- j ;m14,,.... ....-...2 1 ;:;,-....1..=a- '.=.•.,T...!-....7,.:4.1-_,-,.. ...__--;,..7..-,-„y--a--//7•/•:•_2_,,./..._;11.y..,__:•1_--_:,. ., .-= •:•;-_,., L. :.L•.tdr--".4 : - :-,' • II :PI 1c•-•.-;-,•:=1": ;' •••1 •.;.:1;••••.•-::-,,,:.13..--.-=...---.-,„ ../Eraerso r.,0"..e,....,.;::,::7 7.:7, _ .. -• :. 11 .,....I., I.-..: : ••••••••.,.• •-•=".''''"' ........'•r" '''''''''''••--- 1.a/..li i•' 4 . i i•C,7•:. ; ..--.77:Tfi7.7.r: " li I I II : • 77=---- ..,--:-r•-,-:,..".,,-,_.•:-...,==....--___,:r.,-,... ,......-_, . -7-,--________, . :•-•••••••... ...,..-.--•----,-) . .. ---P.,--:.- --••-,--;••7•-••--,,.----.. . • .:.,:"."=-".:".:'1•17:.,•C.v.-,,-,•• p•• ',I-, • ..,--?,t; _,......-.7[•1 4.,:', . ..1 t •:,::.: ,...:..:1 li..11L2j.77.:11.jl .,... 10 II 'ill •••=Z:.: a !!•ni .:ir.cov,:on•,...t....en-cFap i.,•_-..p./..4 ,_k_--..- - ,,...-------:•,-.,1-4.-•.__,...,=== ,,I .• -..--,. __, _._....., :1'_ _,--L----- .,,r---.i---••-.7-r•-;--7-1 --.:;---t--.7---rr- ---:--•••••=_-.-7: •-• 1 . .. ; .7::•`-•=F-jr:- .L2, jj ;• . . .7• .1 V. 'I.1•111-:gc/CM-_,,a.:, • ,• ilj--'----=_--tr---="11 --E-a --E iir -, ,t,, ., •ii 4.i-!-.- , _ --,--.-_- _,..___. --- ,. -L,, ,'se ..".• •. •.....mil -V•:: - -7-7==.-•.•.._Il II •,;.; .• di ,.. ,'•-"-it._ I .-•.ii ill •.1;7., :, 1 ,1-1,------, ---,-,-___.,--x• .17--7Z.''''-1:" • •:-‘,--•.--/- - .• •-• -. 1_, •••••••••-;.__. . .1.7.7k 11 -'•.---•'-'L..:- -k,__fir - fr/Z4g j•z/.,- -z-:"..,..!. ••••• • • !I '-' i r. ' .i.r.=j..... .a.. _e6 •'''.?.'...-":-L.._-:; li 1.'="="-'. 'i • ._:....•. ... ,•„.11 ,1 .s IL=I r. ••••••••.•-•-•...._. 7i-• .1. . .20r:••!m•-•_.- Scheduled ...m_.,. Target Area Activities 1988-1992 e;•Ti •_ ,'..-_..-••. :--_,:=•-.'''' ',.=..-=''•-1 - r/ •..1..-';-'42:1 . ..... ".,•--.---..-, 1 1,_ •I r,... t• 1..,..• * 1"- ,. ./A4.-,,-..#: -a --z-- ; i'•.-, .., ! --' ,...-1=. •I:-.,. .. .:j r- . • .i.e./ • -'::::-.• .•••••.•F-.--.. / Continued Frt. • .1 1,-,----:-----±-•=--=••=•-•--,- ----: :.-.A:•-•- in'... .••••=•-•:.7i•••• ••_,.„;_..2.-1. 1,...- •,,....... .,7-•••.-.A,I-••...,=-7.--,.••••:r.------,-r-..-r-,•_-_-•.... •..... • • •. 7,---....1"--.' '''_...2"-.7..-77::::ff.-, ,• -1',- . •,.7: . .',70,.." I•••••• . .:-...........1.,;it....-•...• ...... l•-,.....-_r,• ill!:r.11 1 Open in 1989 ..: .• !--•:;----•-•,......:_- 1•• -.. • • • • ..,4 # __ • . , • ... ,.7.,•-•,...:-,:_._:___ • 4), A -G. ., ' ;1 * 1--=-= .-•• .-1:74(:.,-_--...7 -:-- • 74 #01PA_, Open in 1990 i 1 !, 1_,-'Mt'•_7::,,,....._'.:a_.- .r.--T-77, 7!"..••• •VL 0 7,110. ite ' :4 ••=1,!••••:: : , 44: .t•v -ouse _;, --,_1•4_-,,.::,. ._ :-. ----r---, -- -1:r, ,,-=-'7,-",'";--14-1 _:-...-• :•-•:. ••••----1-.1::".-•=7::- )0 - . ..,..........1...._; ;;:,--;-„,-,...:,:..----• .. . \ Re-Open in 1990 :•_-_.=..- :•-••=. : .F.,.........t -••••-•,•••- - ., •-_r.tt-_-=.,.-:FE=-,.. r! ,7.:. •&4„ . . ,•• i7.--..--..i,-- ----•:., ,%.;: I.- •' =----=...-• .F-----• s. ..•."-- 4 ' ,,-,11_,7. 7.,...B L• :•=-• ••• .. •-••e• . it .r....... _,----...... :,.;E. •.::..-a.-...:•._•.•.ir, ..'''.‘- ....-:'.7:777 %..t.. Close in 1990 A, . • ;, 3. ,,, •7--,--•--• ..,•••••-•=--÷.=..:,==.i.:=.- sr.-:-•-•;--•••!_:‘••A-.=...-.------.7 '.1 L , 3., -.! :•,.._-...-----_-_:, ,. ....,_•.-r____,..,-F: - ".... .:_,.__ 1 . -:-..7_--..--•-'••-•-=- -,--,.- •..,...=-- -----.. ,..-,---. ...,-- --_ p., Close in 1991 -' .A.t-,t,-.•--',.m.,.•...-•..-zt.f!•I:,--.:-•._.•,•,. m; .•._-._-• ---_--_.. 4--,•-•=7......-- ,-7.i.h,,r-J-i.i•.•rz•,'•i .,/VT) Study _ _ r - ',::••,•-• •=--•.._:7,e-..-71_r-r;•-•---•--••- Monitor ••'•••.•.•-`-•.--.-._•.7-L_.s.- -.•.'.--.- •- -.10 , • • : ----4.%•• z ,--•;•---t-•-,-;: 1-_.t:' :...=-- • *-=‘',,s, ..,.ffl'A. PROPOSED CDBG TARGET AREAS 4%, • . -•:-Ii: -....: .-• .. ;4-. ..!-.1. 2;-..- . •• •• ‘, -••••4-.4 . ,144.3. ••;!.. z. - _,I.........__.,..... _. ...• .._.••=•._...,....__‘...,, ,,,, ;„,;,? J •• 1939 to 1June•-'1992 /`•-•.:' . •____•• - ,-- ./._.. • ; • ,••••.1. :. I, 1; I -; lt!--•:: •=t....:I.: I ,,, 1 ,‘%••••-•• \,,,,. ..,,, _rY te-=' 1'2-'"=.'=• •:e-•-•=•'r=r;- I -..t. • 4, 2 -'''.."...--'-.f.'•••:=:i • i'... • i•t• ':' ••• ;1• „..,........-----t-..---- ..ns • ==--.- 1-',, . i:-•4 . ,•_=.`:x\X .rr_...t1 1 .4.'•0‘ --- :--•• • ,,-:•-•-_. ...-=_-.-_.-...-..,. _ .,-..; .=•::_.;;;,:,1.1........::.•_:;_•.E-Y1C-'._.)„ir1L4.7-7-=-.I i .%._ ;..,‘•\'-- i• / . . % • •••.;:= i -1,- ':-.'•:--=•=-:.•:;-:---_..••‘-:1:•:;.. •...Z..1.7:-..1.;,,: ..1 .1 i::74:P.--....Z."---..4.:=--li ; -.,....• ..:0, • • /7. • ..i.... .,,,•:'.•'•-!--. .,.:,F..' I .-.:14;F•77 "4 2::-: '''.'7i-2.;-.11 -•:-m-sr - I ••••,"-. i •" • •, .._: . ; c•' -:•••,..--•:•, >„..--...• s..-,,,-,.. • • • • • ' .1 . ,.•'1..,:•,.':-4 ,1- -,•,-,• . ........, •••7‘ ..... i. ...,-...! -. .,,,,,;,,.....k.;:.17- ,,=-•••.;•:::,-.----,,, ..., .... .1 ...3, - - • . '.. ••-_,-.••• : -1 ,-.1..:- 1: -.- -- - - - - ......›: .... - -.....--L,•••,..-t .i.- '...',•-f.1 ,_ •-•,,,---••=-,•-d---- ___--- •-•- • ,..t..• '. • 1 _ ..u--Z: ,,•,,•-•.'t; : .- •• , ....• •• . • ;,........w-I.; .........--...44. , - .• r; ..-.... ..,.... 74,-..; s N--rf...ts..,.-...4 .--------.41._-=--------1 .-'-..,•-•..- •0 .-s - •• / --'-',-•:, •••-•- ••: -. .".•,.. • • . 0-=.7.-- •'-'- "•-•.•:.!."-:,_•2.!•••:.1 •-• ..-..ir 7.--.•-;-='-...,' 1.:--,i..ii ' ..i! t•':•,.,•-.. ..• r••/:/-..79.. .,-.-...7•,,-.', :; ••.!_...-,;-.-"'"- ..-7-7,-1...--.-7_71.-...•••,:._..- .., -1•-_---____7---____77:: --r:.. 7....••• 7, I/ .....:2_,-...,•-•:,,-.•;:--1 L.4.-._,.::•/.i -_-.----..7- L. \\.\_..,. \ ... ___. • -41.• eS.t Capitol Hill ._____ „._,.., .,-; •••••---- ,.-_-.-.----.--;f•-_,...-- __ =.,,,_„.= ,.., ,, _ ..., .a. ,• 0,.--4_ ,..c \--„,„ . ..... ... . . . .• .• - • : -. le -- - ..:;.k" ii-1 t " •••...p•_/ -..._:.;._:....7.T•.:•...r.• --: ••,,,;;;0 i; 0 ., - s 0::;:. a:c. S a 21, . =.2.-... -•4r.-- --,,, i,.. , .,,,,.,.L:Z..-1_.. I • • - *.' ' - . ..--r, .7. .•,.. ..,,,,,,....,•,,-k •;.-•.; .... .,, . • .... . -•*••'••••• .-..... • 0 0 -. ' -7.- '''-'4 VA; \._il,:stc_i- ' 2/-/ l• • _j_:4 I'4-.:. -L.....•zz. :---. * ;---"'-•-•---.----; "''''... • -•;,•-'•;,:,-.... ...C_;,-=.-* -'r • -7- ' -- =-,-.L--... .11:,,-,--- 'r-\(-1--Z\. : •''.:--.Z'''''• , -I 11 '.•: I '''::` ' ': It.=\....1;\',,I • ../f‘a e`.1_!.....' 1• I i',-a.,•:•': ...:.•---n ..- --.-4,---.--,. . ....4 '41 '-';=1 sZ"••• • ' • '" - :` . t• a -_ •_- • • - .-- -7.1 I l'_'.•'. •••-*-4„ ''''' I 1--.\\--'•-• ..-- .*:z , .4. - ,--: :---• Tr'-'''''-•I-4'4--'...-:-L. ' . " - ,.. •' - • - - • - ... " - • _. :--". 4..__,..-. 2 L..,..._..., •. . „--. ..... .., IK ...- -6, / ____ •//,‘ ., - •; • .... ! 1 F------. r :•••••••,”, I * !•-7• ! .1.• I , . :I';--.--.. . ... . .L.. I ,• •• .... . ; - : . •-••-•-•• - i. 'i ... - ......-':• ..-... •----;-'•-:-'-!!'.••••--;!--•1--, • 7 • - . • ' :'. -- ---- ,----.4 --...1-i'.'.- -:-•- :r r- I- r--,- •u•-.....: A'•••.41-- -.74.•rP.:22" .,••••,,t,/ •• I ' i I. t •I : .. ' ' 2 '..-.. I .-----'-'..--' r-••-•--• .,_.= . =7" • . :...71.••''-I .-'t- .. ''. ' .. ..-..'.. 1••-•.• -....w...--Za4-• •••• ! ---...=--, I •/-7••••, / ,,-... . . y I -- ---. .-... ,-,. r--. ..._. : . - .. ... ' • I !•-•.t.: •""•=. 1 . !5 .1 ir= : ,.: • i i • .41 :• .z,... .--,-.../•,d/• : •..... .--7-•:- ...:‘,..- "..-- f.'-', it /EUCL±C,1/1,, "-741-"""---i, , .. ..,--- • - . 1. .,•"..: .. • "r- • • . • I . . ' ; •.‘ • - :/ i:/ ./ ; • ' t •:.:" -,--- ..0 ......., f- '-••"' :::-.-'%.--L.... ---; -- I..:. 4-1..../ ......... !...- ...; -. --. 6,4...,= -.... --- ,-.,-,..-.-.. --. -...- :---- .; • •,. • __.,,,, .......... .....-•••..-• / / / / ./..../. !,--_“;_;;_--...• _....171„...4.. ._,....; ,_........ i::. -- ....,- ••••-..... --. .....-. .---. .....- .-...;,;... ..--..;.,41.....: .4.-, ,-,••• ..--. .--• ..-•••-••••• • !...-!-,7!" i/r.477.;/ Ifilti . ,t4 .! ' •li% %• i ' %, i:i! le 1 'I = : ' . :. • - ' '''''',•• •144- -• 7-117 ' r i -:-.-.- F----".- ----.. ; -2.• I -1 r-7•./- 1;d. '::'• ,_....: •_...11-..`J :_'_... :_..1. I_ L......! 'J.-. u.=. ___! East .,../.... - •-Nor Lulea t . .---------. r.---. - --/' /// i //7 --7-1 :-.- ------ -,- -- •••''''• i.•' -.' ' '1 1-'7''''''''.....t4- - --__,-*-1/d .% I, - .11:•i .•!• •• :_.,E --.L-_. ! ii , .-: i -.4 ' . . . .r.''' ri- • Cen i •7•• trail,: =•. : •••••-• --. • --.•-• -t ro; :- •i:51 :••• ,; , • i--f--- ., _••+- :: • 1 •,..,,...is.:12:1= u. .._ .___ ' ..; ...,.,-_ t..._. -Downtown •--t- -' : // / 7 - -:--- -- -.3 ,,,,_.::41-,,,..• !--/....; /-.- id•••: . . II i ,...,....., ..-- -.. - -4-. -,-,, .-.•- ••-... ., .. •••---•----- :-• •-•-• -•----1- , /:"-1•• •;•-•---' 'f---11;ir-1,...--_-: 7--, --= 777-.. '-' 1-7 rc :: : ...: .,: .• •,..1.; ,,Ix. •.--_•-•_ . : . _ 4 ,•_:.-.-:. • i .. . ... '2 ::1 I I ".-Zr;ti-• :........te.-d,./4 Jr 7,..,,... :!.-•g:: \ ;j ,",,I.,;,,,.,...., 1 ..., .. II .....--.-.. 11,..._,.. F.-_ : : ,.,7 • ...J ,...:...7 . r..,. ' ,--;-• • .,.. ; . , .,,-: : ,i i .. ... . , , ____, ,-,'"u LL,- '1 • _: t,.. ....L,- ,••-• == •___._ -_: ur.:= ....,_ s-z.- •.. .____. _ __.....2.=•- ..,__ .. ------1---!--;; ,,,r7-•9- r . -s-•-:----ss,--ic---: r-. • -. • -r..„...L !,,, - =..! -.I..•...: : ; .., P • -- -,- • 4. ___rnar..2......-•• L. If:)1;-, ,...-.' I-•=- . .. • -,-... • - . • . , j' t : !•; .‘-i: : ...4,--.. -: •! ; 7. --,: s •- •t; :s 1-- • r I ---;------.s. ;,•,-.(4.;',..,f'" 4'.•`:.,--' I; "• l . • ._._.•,..; ,L;_,.:::: --z.-- _..-. ..-s- .-1.-: _- -_,r,.._..-- ..--. -- '. ..--1:•.-=7.--1' " --' "--.'''-- '.4.... ----.....2._....----- ___--- ___ -'- - .-- :'=-----...,-._.--- --;-,.---rt-.-e-•c.-./.1-,,,. `4..t.."---et.:-74;---4-2:- , ' ,--, 4-- • • ;17.= :7;4 i• .s,' ,.. •..... 47.1.7.: -4: ,. A ;• ;:- .;s. ;:!;:g:. :tux:-:=..-••-.1 /*,,r,!e-1; ',,r.: k"... •••1 s, :. •i 11 1-11!-.;E. .„,--; i -.7; 7 , : „• -Elf , , =-_ ';;:%.a=-••• :: ,--- -- Si.,, it' ; i; - i "z i - -i, 'di; N.P.:I_:r---=;---;7--, :i , • • L;)_,•••••,....2.„___Az:.._ ,.. :;i; •..1- ___ __- ...,.= L.__ .......... •--; ---....t_.:---- ....!= ....- iii ,,,, ::-,-,-.7-.r-r-r1;7;7'.. =,,C-77.._X_'..•:. -1/1. : 1,• ••• •k:Ir.i r".1; :1 --, i .- •-••••• ' '•1 NI\ ..,••=. -.---• . :1.....:.:::::.'_:.:=;;:-.',..,,....____. - 1 "'••=,,,.-::2'-'-' ..----'---'--• -/-: i•_--7-';:-...*•:,/ --.77.7. 1ar-H, ---0-:. ,,--... 7.-.1,3 •---=,i .7.:_,I.•',...., -1. (27--an.7-.......•?-sa::7...7---t-,.,. "--7= r:--.,7.17'..,177.. r-:••"•••••'. ' ,..-'7. / ,•• -L-4-,.._1 5) Cent.ral .---• ..=_-.=_•‘:72 t=•:. - ./west side, --.---,-, p e 0 1...gi.e s--,,,.. -...-_:. , .----, 5. _,. - •-:--,-\-,-v-... r-..,0.. . . .., 7-7 ---"•"•`- : II11 ..-----=.----1- .1...L'i i•1 • /../ L • 'A;i a i' '' !. •••• ..__..-P" '... , ''''' .-:- • ', Cit 1772 t-.1,2....! t...,„_,. ....: __,_ ,_..,. :. :,-•Jr 3,... 1_,,,••,,,,,.,_,.3.....=• , .1_,...4,a 4-, .• ,,,,_1::_,_i..L.,,,/4, ,.... - ,4_, _ -...L. . -.....-- ... --...,=....7.----.=-...--,..---7..:'.:-..---V-...--4 ...S.-1 *_....___,__.„,Freeway ..... .__ --....._. , ...._ _...-. r..-- ---. -•-••••: --•,--••--2---- --;, ... •---x--' -, '- 7-f"'.--.4.--r-,4-7.7-=- ,/..A*---,-. f„,._-'7...-e. d!; 4•1" .Iii . '-,,,.•,,,,.,• ; I ... :'.'4;-• :i 0 i r: .rf•-', i 41 r\li.- • -.--'1- ".!... li-, !z•-----.=.- ==.----7---z7-- "/ ---- •"......L1. -'•-••- •......-- •-•--;Iii -- =.......Ie., I:; ‘••1,_,.. .1-II ! _J_: .....;4..1, _: .=,..:•_• -_i.._:: •, •_.:,_v_.:.1.=2... ...!_:: ...,•, :-ez __,.......__._„. ..--' Ns--' -- r_ _________r___r_____ _.•,.._,_.,_ _,___.....„-___.:•-• _2___. __--,.. ..... . \ . .,it_i.„..., •• " .-. - ..-•. • 1 -.Y.',••”-...-tt:-- ..•• .!•,,--------.,- a•- r. -,- . ,.•'• .,-..•:,...., ••• '''.---='---3-F----*-T- • 6'r;-...."----?..., :"7-4-7.... -.1 II \i•• "I-=zj- 11•-•''.4:z l• '."',..L. ,..:,,.....-Z-7-74=-•II'-Is.4-;[.•,;71 AL.Ike.,.:=:... ...:ri''.. ..,: •' '''''f.;..'-'.'•.7-2 --"-----=;" - II' I • ft-',••••=t•.--c--•it_--_....,..:,••••)-- ,.--_•_-_•_•- 2.....:,....,,....., . ,,,, -,...-,--,..-_,-- ..le..=., .;.:.• .!..-". ,.- a 1 '!•*".!!!'-1,'-'= :ir--.."-!.!••* *1ST=' • II -•- _ ----z.-......--.,_• •.r,.,......_,.... --...,,--Il rfl....1 .1_..b ...4 ,_ ---, ;•,..........,___ ...• q ., ",,,,1;N.--'7,1:-.1 -:•=.:f' ..'' *. ;-;- :; -...„. :'•..' * • *,...r .•I 1,'' ...As i, ': .S.- .i.=•......•--•' ! ‘-'...=r-A•';t74.:1,11 .: -.,-1•"1" 1••=reilc:•• •••.!-,..--.. --------- E--- I:I;• C--•1 end.aa 9 -2-,=:•-&---...-.-T.--;ss: Id •\.; I s „ •.____,_.s•. r. .F-_,Zsr„- .• .......w.r.r...1 s..,-3.,; 'NJ . • . .--,....- .....--.-,,,,--_,-,--7,-......,_... I. " -s. , i 1 ;.-r..,.. - -_,:=---_,-.1;:,,,,,.",:f ==-:_... =L.=_. ...7 s',."-•:----'.." ._ . ., . -___..,,..„,...,_If ::.-.,___:: ri , .1.•,--.- ! ..-- c==:;......,..--z-•.1:• :•,,-.•..,-.7;,,,i .,._:._._ ,..:,..•__„-_-,...., r•_`-_,-..,.**.,)7i--7,7- r-r---s:-"..-'R1'-.; :.r-----, 0 ',-4:,\:.z:_-_.=_-.- .L..-•,,_ s,, , 7. -7i•4-, ti." r•-i tt,'.-- E r•-=•,,, ..f f'....•__,... .'...,:••-•'...7--• aF.'.4:•_. '...s'Ia•,...4.....1.1„.;1, • . .\Itit i.1.,,.4.:!•,...,•-•‘-•- •-•--- :47i:.•1•1 4 :==-,•••• ••• :--.4'z -L.--=4-..-57-••.: ..i.“ •-••••••• i:'i '------- -.....=;••7--7 11-1.*•t -- -- *1----• -----1 7 '.." .„2 ;L:-:‘-•....__.:C---'---,-.1.f • .\s , .,, . ,I.•.,,..,.. . , ; ..-'r----='.-2=•"I---• .1111::'-...=_-'_._i__-,--.--.-- .. , .. .._ . - - -• •\ . 14F.'3----:-- 4 -*: 41-s...- -,., •; ii ,1... __,.... .;; 1 -.- - ;s zA„..,..,,,I•......"-,....--3 L-s44..,4,1 2t.,..,-... .•...,-,.... •=1-••:„i ....•__•-•-_...: .-..,.:..„..-._......., ., 4., -. •• • - • .„....." .:L.,.....j.4 it t•.;11:,.,,_--,-.-1-' t- --: .-,- ;;;;...„.1-9.....t r--.s• -•r-77-17::,.!. ,.,--./Z•.. .. •. .../ , .-1•::--.. .--.. - :i;'..i:h'.-..---!.,;,s,;-•••••-;:-.! .-.rl !....,!,,!Y .. ,'......".;•---.... '1',.......1..1!--••••" ''':..-71.• " jr.=/--....r... t..,-...:.=!=.= , "7":'-• ....---':. ::--•::".-1...:-..I. ,.4,,j.: I.......----:4••• ! , ..'.. 1.•'-,'3--:...L-E l';'7.711-1,LL:td';-"'!! ,-777 • --;•• V. ''I^-•-• " ' ,..--... -- •:4 ‘Z I;; 7;',..---:• " . :--.: '.:P,-;••• !r --i-- ' ---sli II ;It, I---''.:•--=/''••=-=''IL' ' •'''' f7s'---.."c "il'-•s-•-f-'-F-'"-'-',;-.•:-'•••,-•7=-4•7;;,--.Y.Vi-:-• ,--,- 17----•-----:' .:•‘ ....,. 1; ...•-•-••• e:7.-••• •••-... .:!.r--9 II i . 1: it • !,li 1 c.=..,.. 'r 1,-1;.,--! ‘=!--- :=.--.74... .,:: „.-, ... .--=-..-,,i7.7,.:_,,...:.: .,..,_/ • • • 'icr,._1-_---,.=-_,_-_-.-_-:-: -•„-.,, I • --: •.,::::,-...0- .ii it.. _. I il 1.!;11/1. I r7.---!•=L:* 7.: :• ;.-F 7,T-7s•-B --••=•=2=-.'-:•--, c.4---;-../tanarsorc,,,,.../.:.-d,__ -_ •.;,:- _.„, ,... zz.....1......-- :, ::, .... :• -. I.-'..... ..,•.,, ....,.-,-.C.Z......f.":. V I .... ... I: li ' I 1,,li, I....i. ?::::•.'''.-,C ;.. .e ,',...= ...4L.=--7..Z....J/-' =.•-,--....ft.77=,........,.• ..,,, . ,..„,,,.7....,==----7: C.1.....ii •":.77,-;r7 1 . 71 I: 11 11101; 777-=-11 r;r---• r 7-; .!- - ."- ...:1-7! f.c..7.,Z;l7--_-7-.;:--7-.==- -. _'-_,L - -.7--.-1 ---._ ---.. • .• 1............--1::,4.!r-....,-,-.:-.....-- 1 ----------...,,-,.•- tl-.. : 1 .-,..._. •..'._....t.,-...z....,-----=--, .____ ..i--\rt `k ..-....j..---,-.:t ..,,,•-..,...• ' ,, . 1 • _--..• , ,, , •.t .- •• ... ..- ,r---.-7--.17--.,4----4/ I -- •-•-=-•-- ' i •:V '.''' -.. tSoutiv..Cent • . •• •-•- --•• -,- __...,-.._,__.....4 -- • •-•_L •;7 1 •••••‘:.-.7f;•-:,.'••.,:-4'1 i____;:_,.....ui_ :!__,. LH, , • -.. ._r_-;_- -_----- - 7--- - --.. ..- . - ,-..:1 _.__„...._ , ,._.--..r 7 f 1,---rz_.----:, , , . .... . i .,., 1 -1.-V-2- --------- -t-r-.-.i .... _i'. ..---N.11 .,. • li.l' P! 1 i.:; ;I-t• t../;41 ,-•%,=._,/....=....--7-,---11,1 . •-.f ,•:;•• - "22-,.`--..---=--:',=-:--;;,.i •••--_:7_-.:_..l•-•:- -7--• • - : -7-;--- ... 1-" li i :11!I ' 7:: 1,. i!"•• ! *1 ',. ..'=----, _,,,-- --; -.,...--..t-2--L i--4,.....•s., ._•.: ,...!'!,.-n.Ei_L÷-'.. ....I-:-/I-- 14 7....„..2 2f,t'•• : it • II! It/ I 4:I I.I "••••: ;G:Ti ;=.7::,C=•---.6.---.....=-_ !.....•-• • -;4,,\;,...,___---I ;.......--. ••••-,.../=,.,,r,1=r .. .. ._ i ....1i! I i:''. '.':=...=i ''''-.. :,:s••••', 1 !at i .. !li' :I r.I 1 ..".. .....=.-.:=t•7•7• ....*=-"a'....2.....KS•••••••••••11 L•fl•O'..... '.....r''7%,779.117:77/ 7._...-1-'''-'7.,...Z.•••.' '. 1 I 1!'...-.......,.--7:'-•L.“ • • - •••. • I 7..r...-.. ,..,.... 777-(-iv.. •Lin•A , .,./ -----..... ,, . ,. ,...._. C.-4 r.2,•---4.• A/west. .1.f/I S 4....e r„..,....„:„..., --. .. ; I ots• 1 „ 11-----.I •'!• I h•ri, .--- -• 1 ••- •K.::-• • ,---..,:_.._:_-__••• • 1:..! I :- . - 1..L...__.. , :II i -110 ! it - -... --,_____,, #•• -i•-,...-.,_( 1.• i•„„'.,...-„'•.,L-••--i-=-•-•:....:".../•.-1/- t.\ I 1 •a !C•- - H•0 .,.•-, .42:--_-;;L-.-.--.t-2-_IL"---......7-e i..:'•i-f-,---;77177;1..=•;„-, /‘_..'•=•-=-=`-S chedu 1 ed • .1,1 N--:----4r . !I..... 1 r,,• • ..2...:.1 ‘. cm-.---E_•-._-''''.--t-,-,..----", _.-- tra;,••1,4./. ,14',4;',.---7=1/-.4/71•1- 4--- - :14 • 3 -: •=_s s.L.•.: -.-- ii. I (;•,---•, : L -_---.',.4..-• -41:.,,,./ii tv .4, y• .T. ::-_-_,:-.-_-- - ...z.:•-•,, ;- • ---, „,, ,..,•.:T-4,-,1,....., -:- ry . •i Target Area Activities ,-..-------- •• 7 r-: .A. i /T"'.4 4?-1-x/ ;: -.......-..... 19E8-1992 -...,,,,t -.i. •L •/. '••.7„--...),•:,.•... 3 .t ...... ......- ,'• •` . , • , --.,--==......, .. .ilitt..:7.4• A.: ,'_-_. I... 1 I :' . •• • ..•'-'-• '•-••r• --;1--5.-.!-- IFrafOn. 7: •-• ....- ---."....., • :into----•.---!--- x N -Cir / A '•:-.ic..4 j ..„_,..._ .....L., • .- .- i. :. ----"A(.,T.:cAs., • •'t/- 1:.ii \ :i t1-74.Y:.:.:IL.-= ...=..v:7- ' --•_. ..,_-,,,,,.i.ir' Z.:;p -'='--,-,_' . . ,,,,,f.,- - •-• -_,._.- . - -; Continued vil,. .„1.,1 ir__... ...: .,,__...r:1 1.:,4:;÷-..,,,.:.,.. .......7-:: .......,4,74-_,..1: '. . .... ..-:-.--_•.: •--......:.,.... .7•••••-.'-" • • • •• 7' '.I • I:-. -÷a-7-i=-...-: _ I; 1:: .% „•-•••'R..1•-_,..LI, • .: a.,. s__-7,1-7....:-iii!S .!'. iI :i I • • I in. 1 9 8 9 • • • . .,..• . , •• 1 •:- '. .. • ! .,,r..,,,...: „.. __1.-..,..-_,F.--.- • •,„i•,, .- __,...,-..z. .... __,--- .-:,- •---- ,,, ::7 .. - : Open ' .Cié '=":.:.;--...'1'::,'' El.e^c, I •. =---. . ....,... :,..-.7....:;.--:_:, ..---;f1.s.:72,-;_t T., r-TE; r 1 - -. _--.--•,•••••-.•T..: -_ ;.,34 Open in 1990 I •... t,_-_----.:_.--..,_-a- ''•.-..-t-. '-,.=-1-*-: •• It• 0 11 S e '--4•-••=1--‘24.-;---'-ds-- 4. ___...6=.:,-.1--•-•:....==..- ..,. . .......... .............. ... . .. .... ..•,,......./...••=••••.• ..4 I 7.- -1".... .1 ff- ,_ ; .. r-,.. .- i.,... ...V... • 4,....!...t;-:.-. •;:.:*.....:,. II A..E,,.' ::::.- .• ••-i- •-I -•--L-.--.-.---- --.:.-.=--- ,i- .,.-N.%• '_;--• •••.---. i .:! ...: ' '-'2"--.7___...1.,--. 1-77.7......_F- 77-11.,;_t-----:r:;=7:......:../..--IiLC:•::.1 ..=---____,-.7f-•-1...--:_•':' . :7-7.7,▪ :.• •'..;1'.'''. .....?:.=7:_.::..- ._•11...:::....=_:=--::.;:17:.:::-..... r'.. ., 04 Re-Open in 1990 c . it r: • ti I ; ,, ,i :: : E....._...-- -,.•-• ,s...-•:=.•.•• • ...,,.,___ I.,...Z.::-.Z....•--,_ =....' "' AI,: .„..,.....„-.... '--=.--_ Close in 1990 •K • . .. •;!I :-. .._... .r. .`s_. ... .--. --- .• . ) • ...='''...,.. .. s.,-... , ... .-'--IFI 1,.. .1.. .,............. ... ..... ......,......._. .......--•-.. . i..,- Close in 1991 -, - . •-_-_ . ,, -- ..L._..7-- .,..„. •.••••-ir. . .-1--1----* • - • - :.=:--- 1• •• , •---r-.,--- .. I• • :I ' 3 :. -=--,....._.':•:; Iv 7.1:-/----- L - • ... I ,, - ' 'az-.-_:-=.--•::---•:.-- • •s •• • . I ,r • .•____ 7.---= s. • ::=- s:1-;--`1 .--.....• -. ,_...- . A .c _11 ..i• ..= . =-:.--=,---•--; .7.----Z• •-•I..yr.*• : --- --N V/I Study 1% , ,.. .i..-r -1;_ •• -!t: ; .; '.--- _.:.__:.- .=•••••z_ -•- •;4"..---.1 .. , • s-r- r - I Pr' Monitor f? Neighborhood Strategies 1. v3:L ' w Y y } .9 .t X i'\i•.5 3 ❑ -recommended best solutions;and In an effort to make the greatest possitive 0 - an evaluation of those solutions' impact within CD target areas, specific "neighborhood level" strategies, in viability addition to the more general community- wide programs have been recommended For areas requiring lower levels of CD for the designated target areas. General activity, written master plans are not programs available within the target areas required. These neighborhoods, classified include: as "limited' target areas, are eligible for the curb, sidewalk and gutter 0 - construction of sidewalks, curbs and repair/replacement program and the gutters where currently none exist; Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing rehabilitation loans, as well as those 0 - replacement of deteriorated or programs available to all qualified City substandard sidewalks, curbs and gutters; residents. and If these strategies are successful a ❑ - the CD-funded housing rehabilitation neighborhood will not be targeted program. indefinitely. Pressure to continue current activities in existing target areas while Target area residents may also benefit from adding more neighborhoods can dilute the services available to qualified residents of effectiveness of targeting. Some present all areas of the City, such as the ASSIST target areas are ready to be closed; others emergency repair program and Operation will be continued for a few years. A Paintbrush (specific neighborhood limited number of new or previously strategies are discussed below). closed neighborhoods will be targeted for Each target area requires a different level CDBG funding in the next few years. or type of improvement. A comprehensive, or full-scale, target area that receives numerous types of projects should have a published target area development plan. The plan should include the following components: ❑ -the identification of issues and needs; ❑ - determined goals, objectives and polities; ❑ -pertinent data and data analysis; ❑ - a presentation of alternative solutions 11 i 0 q 'Fv�. l v,M,`. ..y .v..v 'K ....a�,.Wv'•k•v.x.3 t My ' .:::. `fAN.:(.., i i;•�.nrY :: a;i.i•.. .♦ i NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ',' In the recent past the.price of housing in many of Salt Lake City's neighborhoods has fallen far below national averages (see graph), while property taxes have continued to rise. The effect of this loss of value has been that owners, unable to rent their apartment units or to sell their homes, stop maintaining their property. This results in neighborhoods in which considerable CD activities and funds were concentrated only a few years ago, that are again deteriorating. This is one reason that it has become necessary to re-open previously targeted (and closed) neighborhoods. AVERAGE EXISTING HOUSING SALE PRICE 120000-. . W !II National — 100000 _... .... .....�..v._....�. ..._......._... _._�... _ _.. ....._._ C �4 W MI SL area C1) Ok I Ail I I' liti A II :::: iI: r !:f ! . �J ����rivrvnwnwiiwiu;�` t IF 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 YEAR 12 Target Areas JACKSON This neighborhood is one of two previous target areas that have been recommended for re-opening. It was originally chosen as a target area in 1979 and was phased out in June, 1985. During the six years it had full target area status many projects were completed, including the following: land writedown and new housing development on 500 North, 700 West; the Jackson mini-park; reconstruction of Jackson and Dexter Avenues and 1000 West between 500 and 600 North; $175,000 of sidewalk repair; 125 ----_._.., units of housing rehabilitation; and new water mains TrinFITT+ i } tom_ 1 it l ' and fire hydrants where needed. Also, with the 'Ili �� ,,I ni; "' `, support of City officials and neighborhood residents, :(-` g ' .---,- 'L_:::.; i the School Board rebuilt Jackson Elementary School at "`�' }- its original site on 800 West, 200 North. All this public '' _ C {� - involvement did spur private investment in housing ._ # 4€ rehabilitation, landscaping, and some business = `�, ' c expansion. However, in the three years since its closure as a target area there has been a weakening in private investment and the neighborhood's capacity to strengthen itself. This is due, in part, to the soft residential real estate market, a higher percentage of rental units, and a general weakening of the local economy. The Northwest Community Council has requested that this area be re-opened to allow for additional City resources be used for sidewalk repairs, median island reconstruction on 800 West, and voluntary housing rehab programs. The previous target area plan, published in 1979 will be reviewed for other possible projects including block redesigns. PEOPLES FREEWAY The People's Free Way was the original name of this neighborhood organized by the Community Action Program in the 60's. It consists of a residential strip sandwiched between natural boundaries of busy Main Street, 2100 South, an industrial area and an on ramp for I-15. A comprehensive and coordinated program of community development activity has been carried out since Peoples Freeway was designated a target area in 1979. All residential streets have been reconstructed with needed storm drains and sidewalks repaired, approximately 150 housing units have been renovated, two neighborhood parks have been developed. The City's general funds were used to build a new fire station, the Salt Lake Housing Authority constructed 22 units of subsidized family housing, and Salt Lake County Flood Control participated in the placement of two flood retention ponds. Street lighting has been upgraded and fire hydrants added as needed. 13 As:4A • The Community Council in this area has ,. been very active in diseminating information II 2 R9 v,: • • - - as to what programs are available in the ' ii-: I '' :PI 22 AL.-"' Ed. il - • - - ; .., , , .-,, ___._ .. .6_ neighborhood and encouraging residents to — :, take advantage of them. They recently ¢ _ 1 sponsored a successful tree planting project 2EE: 7 I (. through the CD funded Neighborhood Self- ;4 . Help Grant program. The southern part of �I, y��- �.. the area (13th to 21st South) was phased out .. 24 , �;,;�l . . ail as a target area in 1986. It is proposed that =- . \'‘12e:114.1 the rest of the area be closed July 1, 1991 1 - le �0 after implementing certain projects in the !I �� Iig giii I north half of the target area. The Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency has designated part �°--� • of the area as an area for business 1 DP redevelopment. This will probably preclude I- -1 the additional use of CDBG funds for street =— ... and sidewalk repairs in the area between 700 ( --- OD & 900 South. Peoples' Freeway has been a J, E successful target area and will be monitored after its closure in 1991 to prevent signs of t-'-- — decline. 3 ` ® N It zl 6 WESTSIDE The Westside Target Area, designated as part of the first Three-Year CDBG plan in 1979, is bounded by I-15, I-80, the Jordan River, and California Avenue (1350 South). At that time curb, gutter and sidewalk were in generally good condition since they were constructed through a special improvement district in the mid 70's. The neighborhood was originally chosen for targeting to guide its <-„ growth and conserve housing. Approximately _:. '' _u ''.' IL;_ 200 housing units have been rehabilitated z -•;) 1 through the Redevelopment Agency, the Salt £i f �_... < Lake Housing Development Corporation ;. I t - ``' �1 --'` constructed 44 units of subsidized elderly housing, new curb, gutter and sidewalks have _ ' " been reconstructed on 900 West, '��� 'j � �� k, y; the area's r! �,Di 1 busiest street, and a block redesign on Bothwell �f ! Court at 1040 West and 300 North was 5 ii' <°<>< ,,:mi <_> <>', accomplished through the coordination of the =� � j �l City, School Board, and Neighborhood Housing .17 a [rl,t.'.?, i t'. - ; Services (NHS) resources. NHS, a nationally �., `,'_�'.I- „ -�� I _ :I sponsored non-profit housing and Y �I -II�- 14 . ac neighborhood revitalization program, has been working in this area, as well as the AKy�i �-' adjacent neighborhood to the west since 1983. The combined efforts of the CDBG program and other NHS programs and organizing strategies have also resulted in demonstration block improvements, moving houses onto vacant lots ,Jordan Parkway improvements and neighborhood fairs This target area has a higher percentage of minority residents, renters, and substandard houses than other areas. That has meant a concerted effort has been needed to stabilize and renew the neighborhood. It is anticipated that the current programs will continue through 1991. As the NHS program will be moving its program sometime in 1990 or 91, the City will re-evaluate the target area for continued participation in the next CDBG plan. CENTRAL CITY Although it had received much of the City's attention from the CDBG program since 1974, the Central City area was actually opened as a target area in 1979 when HUD first required them. During this time approximately $10 million has been spent on the following projects: 8 inner block redesigns, major street improvements to 600, 700, 800 South , 300, and 400 East, over 450 units of housing rehabilitation, the development of Tauffer mini-park on 300 E, 700 South,Mary Richmond neighborhood park on 600 South, 450 East and City Well mini-park on 500 East and 800 South Other projects include land acquisition for three senior citizen housing developments, expansion of the Central City Multi-Purpose Center, sidewalk repairs as needed, and code enforcement to spur the revitalization of run down private properties. Of these projects, the block redesigns have probably had the most impact. These consisted of improving narrow inner block streets and courts by installing curb, gutter and sidewalk where possible, drainage improvements, mini-parks and neighborhood parking lots to provide off-street parking. The improvements made to these eight blocks has dramatically improved the quality of life for residents. Since this area was phased out as a target area in 1985, a combination of factors have caused first an upsurge in private reinvestment with a positive -'gco Ato visual improvement, then a gradual decline. Homes = _ • that were painted and rehabilitated 5 to 10years ago =1 - — p g � u, • are now in need of additional maintenance. The Community Council sponsored by the Community cX —G, Action Program has evolved into a volunteer group = f r with fewer hours to spend on neighborhood problems. And the fluctuating economy has left • investor-owners as well as owner-occupants with fewer resources to put back into the area. 15 r• .., , ...„ ,,,,„..:.:,.,,,, .:,, .., ...... „.:,.:::,,,.:,,,:s: ::, :....,.,„::?:::::„ Because of this it is proposed that this area be re-opened as a full scale target area in July, ti 1990. This should bring needed services such as housing rehab back to the community - . .and raise the level of awareness of fighting to keep this viable, close-in neighborhood as a _. livable community in the future. The City can then protect the previous investment it has made in the infrastrucure, housing, and people of this area. EAST CENTRAL The East Central target area grew out of the Central City area. When Central City was closed as a target area in 1985, the eastern part of it bounded by 700 and 900 East, between 500 and 900 South was retained so that needed street improvements could be completed. Major street reconstruction including new sewer and water lines and storm drains have been installed on 700 South, 700 to 900 East; 800 East, 500 to 900 South; Lake Street, 600 to 800 ---== -- -s South; with 500 South between 700 and 900 East to be 1____`` I completed in 1990. Housing rehab and sidewalk 5°O_S°�'v-� _ 'J repair have been done as requested. There has been j h.. 3 3 a s much evidence of private investment in houses and EAST:= I landscaping. Neighborhood businesses have also ' t • 1=UMA-6--1; benefitted from the street projcts and revitalized their 7 ` "'Al. '_ ' ;[ li exteriors. t ` II --':_ ���;�. i As the 500 South and Lake Street (800 to 900 South) '1 00 '70 • improvements are completed, it is proposed that this area be phased out as a target area in June, 1991. A final push will be made to interest people in Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing rehab programs before the area is closed. At this time the area seems to be in a successful transition to a vital and stabilized neighborhood. WEST CAPITOL HILL The present West Capitol Hill target area is made up of the original neighborhood bounded by 300 to 800 North between 300 and 400 West (opened in 1982) and a remnant of the prior Capitol Hill area between 200 and 300 West. The neighborhood, with its present boundaries, was opened in 1985. Implementation of major parts of the West Capitol Hill target area plan has occurred since then. Projects to accomplish this have included reconstruction of 400 and 500 North Streets between 300 and 400 West, the development of the Pugsley mini-park on the southwest corner of 350 West and 500 North, street improvements on Pugsley,450 to 600 North, and Ouray Street, 16 ;-::. Arctic Court sidewalks, other sidewalk repair, housing rehabilitation through RDA and selective code enforcement. L \ ,; L;� It is proposed that this area remain a full scale target t f � , area through 17th year (June, 1992). Rezoning of ! :j commercial and manufacturing parcels which have ' `1 �' I ^c-F a - I - been developed as residential land should be a "T ,T-= i' pursued. This would allow street improvements to be T<� , r AiL: L. made on 700 and 800 North between 300 and 400 " f-- — '°` ._ .-L West. ,-, { ,ldli, 4-1 Because this area is also adjacent to the planned new Utah Jazz basketball arena it will be affected by related development and increased traffic. Careful planning and development must occur to protect West High School's investment in the neighborhood and the residential fabric that now exists. GUADALUPE The Guadalupe neighborhood has been a full-scale CD target area since 1982. During that time a small scale plan was completed, outlining a specific plan of action for revitalization. Projects to accomplish this have included a mini-park on 600 West 500 North, construction of the Capitol West Boys and Girls Club (plus operational support), building improvements for the Guadalupe Early Learning Center, upgrading of street lighting and traffic control signing, sidewalk repair, and housing rehabilitation. Argyle Court, running '�� North from 300 North at 650 West, is scheduled for \a— �' o�I L reconstruction Spring, 1990. Ni.N during r '1i` L 1\\E _ The City will continue its committment to this area j' —�� ,zt t through June, 1992. It is hoped that ten years of public `�x. - I support in the neighborhood will result in a level of private investment adequate to stabilize the area for _3 i,' I IC 136 the long term. However, other government-sponsored al, i �'� = actions such as the new Ja 77 arena or the proposed,but rI�' tn not committed, North Temple interchange to I-15 _ $ I - I would probably negatively affect the area and must be 8�I I C :� carefully considered by planners and decision-makers. /' '' I sT L The City should monitor the neighborhood for -' N. e'n` el ! L changing conditions and consider its long-range future 11 - I I while the area is open. Strategies include: working g with local minority agencies to educate 17 residents about clean neighborhoods, continuing the anti-graffiti program, supporting s the Boys and Girls Club in its activities designed to decrease juvenile delinquency,... . encouraging voluntary housing rehabilitation, sidewalk repairs as needed, and covering the drainage ditch on 550 West. SOUTH CENTRAL- A/B/C The South Central target area bounded by 900 and 2100 South between State Street and 700 East was phased in during 1982 & 1983. Since this is a large geographic area it was divided into sub-areas which were closed out as improvement became evident. Projects completed in section A (between 900 and 1300 South), which was phased out in 1986, included a block redesign of Grace and James Courts with new water and sewer lines, 450 units of housing rehabilitation, $100,000 in sidewalk repairs, and street improvements on Belmont Avenue and Harvard Avenue. ', i i Projects in Section B (1300 to 1700 South) � ��, d , , consisted mainly of 250 units of housing l'—ii_nBlii i rehabilitation, $150,000 in sidewalk repairs JI..... ..1 i!,if�`if^ I q I _ and code enforcement. This area was ,i 11 I i 1 LAWY L phased out in June, 1987. but continues to be —r ----=•• " ; an area served by the Redevelopment d; - i�^ill -J housing rehab program for income-eligible - 1lco applicants. • - ='� 11 11 �.f r �.: :,__ I14 IL.r� il^Cni b lI_i iI • ,L„. . Section C (1700 to 2100 South) remains open 1I I I1,__..i -... but is scheduled to be closed in July, 1990. A gs j ..j ,; ' , 0 final year of concentrated housing - 2 •� -"'� rehabilitation and sidewalk repair will occur .F i ,� -11��I i in 1989-90. A pre-planned mini-park on 300 I7CA "2O 1 i 1-.,- ,a, --,- East and Downington (1800 South) has been • r j,i.__Ii, JI 111 delayed due to difficulty in buying the land L�L�_ii, ,L L but should be completed, after the area —,.__..•.,': '�I.L_ - is closed, if necessary. "• 1 11-- II-- '' wJ a • �1�-r-1� II i `= -Id d it These three areas are homogeneous in nature and are characterized by brick bungalows . and pleasant tree-lined streets. However, signs of deterioration noticed in the early '80's were a catalyst to offer City programs designed to stem decline. The entire area, was designated a target area in order to stabilize the existing housing and neighborhood conditions, and will be monitored after closure so that any deterioration and private disinvestment can be detected and stopped. 18 i SUGARHOUSE The original Sugarhouse target area, which has been a comprehensive CD activity area since 1982, is proposed to be phased out in July, 1990. Its final year (1989-90) as a target area will allow the completion of curb and gutter improvements on Roberts and Warnock Avenues, additional sidewalk repair, and the phasing out of the RDA housing • — - ::• 1 `::-:• I—( rehabilitation program. t�`��� - --, , �, i,� ," ,dj�� ,I Past projects include: completion of a target L -ti area master plan, $125,000 in sidewalk repairs, and the Elizabeth Sherman Pedestrian pd I Connection from Elizabeth Street under I-80 to �L the Sugarhouse business area. Private w:Ji I i investment in the area is evidenced in part by 1 :) .: new commercial development, which resulted F. 1 $` in the donation of a building lot to the city and 1 ; • general housing repairs, cleaning and painting. II IIL~ g 11= C1 As with other target areas that have been 71d0 ,So phased•sy•J phased out, the neighborhood will be monitored and evaluated to determine • [ changing conditions. The target area plan, which coincides with the recent Sugarhouse .. Community Master Plan, will be restudied to ensure that implementation will take place using other City resources. EUCLID This neighborhood, which developed primarily as residential uses originally, was rezoned in the mid 1960's to commercial and manufacturing to allow for transition to those uses. After the freeway (I-80) was constructed through the area, that, along with other natural boundaries of railroad tracks and major streets created negative impacts on the residential quality. However, the neighborhood did not redevelop naturally into commercial uses but was gnawed at by - - No. '�e�n�1e. the establishment of a few non-compatible L Li �° 1 Er uses and the location of Mountain Fuel's plant. 3 - �, !n Residents and community activists requested _ � . '"f that the area be given target area status as 1 early as 1980 but it was thought that the , co z2.• negative impacts on the neighborhood could not be overcome. Although the 19 MJ,•M •4 •,fV f:v•�•.Sv i.f Redevelopment Agency designated the area for housing rehabilitation in 1983, not much k? x_•c activity occurred. Due to the patience and perserverance of the residents, the area was -- • - • given a chance:at further-reveitalization through full scale-targeting M.1986. At that time; the area was rezoned to a residential use to protect the housing stock. A detailed target area plan was prepared, spelling out appropriate actions, both public and private, necessary to revitalize the neighborhood. Since that time, major street reconstruction has taken place on Euclid Avenue, 900 to 1100 West; on Jeremy Street (850 West) between 100 and 200 South; Chicago Avenue, North to South Temple and 1000 West, North to South Temple (which will be completed in summer, 1990). Some additional street improvements on 900 West adjacent to the two sets of railroad tracks have been made by the Union Pacific railroad and Utah Department of Transportation. Sidewalk repairs have been made on other streets and approximately 20 units of housing have been rehabilitated. The area is still an isolated residential pocket but is making a comeback with City CDBG • funding as a catalyst. Implementation of the target area plan will continue. Euclid will remain a target area through June, 1992 at which time it will be reevaluated for progress • • and status. NORTH EAST CENTRAL • The North East Central neighborhood originally received the benefits of a limited target area, consisting of RDA's housing rehab program and sidewalk repair, when it-was opened in 1986. Therefore, a target area plan was not prepared. Due to citizens' requests, continued community support, and the success of previously constructed block redesigns, the Windsor-Dooley Block (800 to 900 East between 100 and 200 South) Sl O ET_bl has been selected for reconstruction of inner • ; block street, sidewalk, and drainage. This -SAS • project, funded in 1988, was delayed E1VTFAL because of difficulty in obtaining needed 3a z easements but will be completed in mid i `—,' 1990. A storm drain project linking 900 East c 1 -" '- J with South Temple will also be completed _ at that time. Although most of the area's -L-w _— I infrastructure is in place, it is deteriorating. In the future, the 800 East medians will be rebuilt and rebuilding of existing curb and gutter will be pursued as CDBG funding allows. This area will remain a target area through June, 1992 when it will be evaluated for contined target area status. • • 20 FAIRMONT/W ESTMINSTER These neighborhoods, including Fairmont Park, were opened as CD target areas on-a : limited basis in July, 1986. Housing rehabilitation (75 units), sidewalk M00 47o. replacement, and a mini-park on 1000 East 12 1 .. ... I(..- -''. ] and 1700 South have been the principal � "JAY '� .LEl activities. — ' i '-A I Although the original plan included the Q®� - Li blocks from 700 to 1100 East, the areas 0� 11 i 4 _Awere extended to 1300 East due to their o t 0 CD eligibility. The Sugarhouse 7 ' - Sucn o Community Council has worked to do a �� _ Y ^ . survey of substandard sidewalk and I p ` : \-- -211 increase residents' awareness of other C -.•.1 i �' '"" CDBG funded programs like ASSIST ' `"'W-.'-' ...... Emergency Home Repair and Operation ^ '6a Paintbrush. The residents were also very involved in designing and implementing the Westminster mini-park which continues to be a focal point for neighborhood activities. This area was prevented from residential decline through CDBG targeting. It is recommended that both areas continue as limited activity target areas through June, 1992. At that time they will most likely be closed. EMERSON The Emerson neighborhood,bounded by 700 and1300 East,between 1300 and 1700 South is the third area in the southeast part of the CDBG eligible area that were phased in as a limited target area in 1986-87. The area retains the name of the elementary school which 1100 6o was rebuilt on its site at 1050 East Harrison about seven years ago. This is another neighborhood characterized bysmall brick �1� I.���w-.�. j g �1 1 ...." . n I.._ bungalows and tree-lined streets. It is these i d �-1 i"°°°��- same tree-lined streets which contribute to as �„„1 ..,7 0 decline in the area as tree roots push up t---- it -i,..'"'- it and break concrete sidewalks thereby 1 _ T creating tripping hazards. Emerson was 1 100 /20. originally slated as a specific services target area to maintain its vital status and prevent decline. Approximately 35 housing units have been rehabbed and $60,000 in sidewalk repairs have been accomplished so far. It is anticipated that this community should remain as a limited-services target area through June, 1992. It will then be re-evaluated for continuing target status or phasing out. 21 OTA {y{' EAST DOWNTOWN Y�a�J East Downtown has not been granted target area status partially because it is a mixed- use.area with high density housing impacted by commercial uses encroaching on the east- - and south sides. It is adjacent to the Central Business District as well as the previous Central City and current North East Central target areas. It is included in this plan because it may be beneficial , . mP\e to use CDBG funding on a project by project basis to stabilize the residential components of the neighborhood. It is 'l_ ' 16 I suggested that the area be studied, i .� . • coordinating with the Planning �u `-� Department,to assess the community's a ECergA5NowT. o needs in relation to CDBG eligible projects. As the Planning Department C.1(3 ''z I "� further develops its proposals for ; action in the area it is possible that the — thi`t'_C L Community Development program 500 420, may be able to participate in projects such as street parks, infill housing or facade renovations for historic buildings. GLE:VD ALE This neighborhood is slated to be a limited target area during the 15th CD year (1989-90) and a full-scale area for the following two years. The area, south of the present Westside target area, is bounded by 900 and 1300 South between the Jordan River and Redwood n n� Road. Part of the area was involved in --- = the Federally Assisted Code n-.c\�' ,� rr��.a ; Enforcement (FACE) and RDA 1 ; housing rehab programs as 15 years • � �- �` �I ��� I JOP DAN . •' ; I o ► (�. y vAHK3 ago. During that time approximately i- °.�,'��:., ; I ; .� _� '� r - ' 125 units were rehabilitated. Li 1E T }°J 7 (1 Although the area has most of of its `� i` :�'A� `�. \� I �� curb andgutter in place, several small � , �L �lam, �., , s e c'blocks (1200 West and, Lexington) do ! �-=K ,.not have the needed infrastructure. • f _ :I ` Tc";•11 k; f- II ` 1-1 Also, much of the sidewalk has been displaced as a result of tree roots, and drainage problems are occurring because of the rolled style of gutter used. Most housing is of post-WW II construction. Housing conditions vary but tend to show a need for general maintenance 22 •n•.,<:ter.:.$ 'b.+ :n1.:a and compliance with code. Strategies include: construction of new curb, gutter, and pavement tie-ins where needed, improved drainage control through redesign of rolled - curbs, marketing of current.h.ousing rehab.programs, and:possibly construction of a .. mini-park. The City's Urban Homestead Program has also been initiated in this area to support home ownership for low and moderate income residents. ONEQUA This neighborhood lies between 1050 and 1700 West, 300 to 600 North, just east of the previous Jackson target area. It is currently a stable area but showing some signs of aging infrastructure and housing. Basically, the needs in this area are for sidewalk repair and some housing rehabilitation. If the City shows a committment to the neighborhood through initiating projects 31 i Loco No. like the no cost sidewalk replacement o ti - program, residents' interest in v � a , . �,"� 3 maintaining their homes and yards may increase. Also, by offering the RDA : , [ 7 �� to housing rehab program, code problems qn O not currently apparent from exterior Soo No. conditions may be identifed and = corrected. The Onequa neighborhood will be opened as a limited target area in July, 1990 so that housing rehab and sidewalk repair programs may begin. Certain other CDBG programs like Operation Paintbrush will be marketed in the community at the same time. It is anticipated that this area may utilize CDBG services for two years and will be re- , evaluated for income eligibility after the 1990 census information becomes available. 23 ;:; Annual CDBG Programs, 1988 .................................. ............... ...... .. :.. Proposals submitted for CD funding are . . interviews all applicants for CD funding screened for eligibility and evaluated by before submitting a recommended CD city staff and the Community project list to the Mayor. Development Advisory Committee. For easier comparison, the projects are City staff members evaluate the proposals grouped into the following categories: by using five criteria (see box). Each housing, block redesigns, new criterion is assigned a weight between 1 construction of streets and sidewalks, and 10, which represents its importance street and sidewalk rehabilitation, storm relative to the other criteria. drainage, parks, urban amenities, public buildings, public services, economic From their evaluations, CDAC and city development, administration and staff each compile a list of project planning. recommendations. The recommendations • are sent to the Mayor. CDAC reviews all proposals and The Mayor reviews the Proposal Evaluation Criteria CD funding proposals Criterion Definition Weight and submits his list of recommended projects to CD Program/ Benefit to low and moderate 9 the City Council. Project Benefit income,elderly,minority, or Members of the Council, handicapped individuals; as representatives of their prevents blight;improves constituents' priorities housing or upgrades neighbor- and concerns, may hoods; and is coordinated recommend changes to with projects in the target area. the Mayor's list. Pre-Planned Continued feasibility of pro- 8 Status ject related to sound planning Citizen groups and and project phasing. individuals have the opportunity to respond Citizen Input Extent to which project has 7 to the Council's a broad base of community recommendations at a support. public hearing, usually held in early May. The Cost-Benefit Consider efficiency,leveraging, 7 Council continues to benefits exceeding cost,and receive written availability of other funds. comments for a two- Economic How well the project directly 5 week period following benefits the city's economic base the public hearing. In by attracting business,increasing May, the Salt Lake City the tax base, or providing site Council adopts the improvements. program for the projected use of the CDBG funds. 24 hY� ` •y fti; { �.+ :..:.$.,;,. v.r ya,•,.,tea' "?1.gp:c:: yr•q,�e-:< x. �i: ...::.:2 14th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM On July 1, 1988 Salt Lake-City..received13;795',000 in--Community Development Bok Grant Funds for the implementation of the 14th year CD program (1988-89). Because of difficulties encountered in obtaining reliable, recent demographic data, the decision was made to remain in the target areas selected for concentrated CD activity during-the 13th funding year (1987-88). • :::,yip\,41 \�\n•: - t.�P{\.+ • �.\r.�i:$� i: ibi.x.• !i:{i{y�;.vl:.i �.:;a\.1+�\\\,�;i�:i:i::�ry i�} i�ir/i'v�,�:yiji - ;::\\ ,\,Jt���\fir .\;;•{r•:{{.:,.::;y`:';;�`:;:;:;`;:1:';i:;:;c "':`F'`• •:;� :\r.`\`v,;2:a�';:::.;::s:::i:::::=<5::i::v. ::f-.i':{;:; gm! he4 •::.\\L.\U •+\," :'\`fit+-v\\ 111 ...4.y..} ' 0 CIS? 2'3 : • Selected Projects The following is a list of the projects and funding adopted by the City Council for the 14th CDBG year (1988-89). Project Title Funding Amount Housing ASSIST Emergency Home Repair $200,000 Redevelopment Housing Rehabilitaton Loans 700,000 Neighborhood Housing Services Rehabilitation Loans 75,000 Cleaning and Securing Vacant Properties 20,000 Operation Paint Brush 35,000 Security Lock Program 30,000 Neighborhood Attorney Program 5,000 Block Redesign Windsor St.-Dooley Court Block Redesign Construction 150,000 1000 E. Senior Center Block Redesign Planning 7,500 Streets 800 E., 700-900 So. Street Improvements 525,000 Peoples' Freeway Area Street Improvements 300,000 W. Capitol Hill (700 &800 No.) Street Improvements 20,000 500 So.,700 -900 E. Street Improvements- Design 25,000 25 Project Title Funding Amount Storm Drainage . N.E. Central Storm Drainage (So. Temple,M to 0 Streets) -Design 10,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Sidewalk Repair in Target Areas 200,000 Parks South Central Mini-Park Development 90,000 Jordan Park Irrigation-Design 20,000 Athletic Park Improvements 90,000 Urban Amenities Urban Forestry Management&Planning 50,000 Public Buildings • Art Barn (100 So. University St.) 130,000 Alliance House (1950 S. State St.) Renovation Phase I 30,000 New Womens Shelter Acquisition or Renovation 175,000 Rape Crisis Center (2035 So. 1300 E.) Rehabilitation 25,000 YWCA (300 So. 300 E.) Mechanical System Improvements 15,000 New Hope Multi-Cultural Center (1102 W. 400 No.) Rehabilitation 11,900 Public Services Housing Outreach Rental Program 29,000 Westside Emergency Food Pantry (55 No. Redwood Rd.) 24,000 Crime Prevention Education Program 70,000 City Housing Resource Board (CHRB) 3,000 Womens Shelter Operation (100 So., 800 W.) 25,000 New Men's/Family Shelter Operation (210 So. Rio Grande) 38,500 Capitol West Boys &Girls Club (300 No. 600 W.) Operation 28,500 Neighborhood Self-Help Grants 25,000 Planning Environmental Assessments 7,800 Salt Lake Historic Areas Survey 26,000 Salt Lake Community Progress Survey—Citywide 7,000 Salt Lake Community Progress Survey—Publication 4,500 Administration Attorney, Community Affairs,Planning,Finance,Capital Planning 382,000 26 Art Allocation Percent for Art 3,100 Contingency Contingency Fund 182,200 TOTAL ENTITLEMENT $3,795,000 Percent for Art Allocation The Percent for Art Allocation for the 14th CDBG funding year is as follows: Funding Percent Project Amount for Art So. Central Mini-Park Development $90,000 $900 Athletic Park Improvements 90,000 900 Art Barn Renovation 130,000 1,300 -- TOTAL $310,000 $3,100 27 ' .c .,.., ..,..<:.;x?::,.�. 4•„.,a.. ...:%±b..:> A. r':.JA".,. S'�3:c is , . i'Oa. .,.. 61) 15th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The City received $3,947,000 in CDBG funds for its 15th year community development program, which began on July 1, 1989. This, combined with $200,000 of funds reprogrammed from slippage, resulted in a total of $4,147,000 for the 15th CD program year ..14-1411,11 aO - :ti;{•"':,•;;:.v?:\\,";.}y;•... :+: \^+4•y\. \ .\F; {:iif... .....::.v •.?. ��\�n,�?�'<::� ?.?*.,\;Cb`y.%n'::J.:yy.<:3:;::r::a::s:..n;r::3•r.•s•i.�.:•a -"• ----- :>\.:iZu� \\,a\w\4i;::,i::.':::'r' ...:x:y:%;.,•..:;:y:.'•yr':.::y:;tq :'?:k??,'•:� '''vim "1•;?\ �,\�:+`:• •yy4+ ??\y:•y:;;i?'`v:�;y'y:•. .\\n..,v v 'iif is\v ti• Selected Projects The following projects and funding levels were adopted by the City Council for 15th year CDBG funding: Project Title Funding Amount Housing ASSIST Emergency Home Repair $240,000 Redevelopment Housing Rehabilitaton Loans 700,000 Neighborhood Housing Services Rehab Loans 90,000 Cleaning and Securing Vacant Properties 20,000 Operation Paint Brush 40,000 Security Lock Program 30,000 Neighborhood Attorney Program 7,000 BHS Boarded/At Risk Building Assist Program 75,000 Low-Income Housing Maintenance 13,000 Community Development Corporation 80,000 Streets 500 So.,700-900 E. Street Improvements- Construction 480,000 Argyle-Edmonds Block (300 No., 640 W.) Construction 85,000 Median Island Rehabilitation Design 25,000 Future CD-Eligible Streets Design 15,000 Lake St. (800-900 So.) Design 8,000 Roberts &Warnock (2400 So.,500 E.) Street Improvements 35,000 Denver St. (500-600 So.) Improvement Design 5,000 28 .,.:. r.•.t S, v,...Y.. � �.:�w;r,,.• .>`,.••:.a...t..;..dA:•, •:f a. Project Title Funding Amount Storm Drainage _ Guadalupe/Jackson Ditch Cover Design (500 &600 W. to I-15) 9,000 N.E. Central Storm Drainage (So. Temple, M to 0 Streets) -Construction 250,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation Sidewalk Repair in Target Areas 200,000 Parks Jordan Park Irrigation Installation 95,000 Fairmont Park Improvements Design 10,000 Athletic Park Improvements 50,000 Urban Amenities Urban Forestry Management &Planning 50,000 Bicycle Paths 8,100 Public Buildings Marmalade Hill Center (500 No.,150 W.) Renovation 47,000 Glendale Youth Center (PAL) Expansion Planning 25,000 Alliance House (1750 S. State St.) Renovation 11,000 Crisis Nursery (2020 Lake St.) Renovation 18,000 First Step House (750 W. 400 No.) Renovation 52,000 New Hope Multi-Cultural Center (1102 W. 400 No.) Rehab 16,000 Public Services Housing Outreach Rental Program 35,500 Westside Emergency Food Pantry (55 No. Redwood Rd.) 26,000 Crime Prevention Education Program 81,000 Women Shelter Operation (100 So., 800 W.) 25,000 New Men's/Family Shelter Operation (210 So. Rio Grande) 58,000 Capitol West Boys & Girls Club (300 No. 600 W.) Operation 28,500 Neighborhood Self-Help Grants 15,000 Living Traditions Festival 15,000 Planning Salt Lake Assn. of Community Councils (SLACC) Staff 50,000 Downtown Plan Strategies 35,000 Administration Attorney, Community Affairs,Finance, Capital Planning, Environmental Assessments,Planning 414,500 29 ••••••‹: ir*** vr,:? nc) • k ;`11 e c.,„ Project Title Funding Amount • Art Allocation Percent for Art 2,150 Contingency Contingency Fund 139,250 TOTAL ENTITLEMENT $4,147,000 Per Cent for Art Allocation The following projects were selected to receive the one percent public arts allocation for the 15th funding year. Project Funding Amount Percent for Art Jordan Park $95,000 • $950 Poplar Grove Park 73,000 730 Marmalade Hill Center 47,000 470 TOTAL $215,000 $2,150 30 _T • ems- n .......... Jai i rb....a..d'.'... ?.yi ..o ,.v`.•h'i:....v'.'t s .R.: G✓ ./0 16th and 17th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Specific proposals were not submitted for the 16th and 17th (1990 and 1991) program years. However, the Community Development planning program will guide the funding of projects for these years by setting forth target areas to be opened or phased out and by identifying projects for,planning, design and construction. Many projects require funding for more than one year for reasons of scheduling design and then construction. Also, projects may require more than one year of construction funding to proceed with ongoing phases. Planning and programming of projects for succeeding years allows the city to visualize the impact of prior year funding decisions upon the extended CDBG program. Projects initially proposed or funded in 14th or 15th years (1988 and 1989) that may require funding during 16th and 17th years include: Existing Street Median Island Rebuilding New Median Island Construction Lake Street (800-900 South) Improvements Denver Street (500-600 South) Improvements 700 and 800 North (300-400 West) Street Improvements Guadalupe/Jackson Drainage Ditch Covering (500 West,250 to 500 North) Additional Bike Paths In addition, a few projects will warrant continued funding since they have become the basis for target area revitalization. These projects include: Sidewalk Repair Various Housing Rehabilitation and Maintenance Programs Urban Forestry Management and Planting Operation Paintbrush There continues to be a high demand for CDBG funds for public service projects,both building renovation and administration. HUD allows up to 15% of the City's grant amount to be used in this category. It is anticipated that agencies previously funded through CDBG, as well as new organizations,will depend on this source of funding for their budgets. For example, the city's support of the Homeless Shelter will be needed in future years to insure its continued operastion. As projects are accomplished in target areas and throughout the City during the timeframe of this plan,better living conditions for City residents will occur. 31 � r — IMPLEMENTATION -;.;.. The diversity of projects funded.by the For the revitalization of neighborhoods to block grant requires ongoing coordination be effective the provision of soft projects is with several departments of the city. as necessary as capital improvement Implementation, therefore, necessitates projects.In the 14th year CDBG program 52 competent administration and monitoring percent of the funds, minus administrative of the CD program. The Capital Planning and contingency amounts, were allocated and Programming Division (CPPD) of Salt for capital improvements while 48 percent Lake City is responsible for providing of the funds were for soft projects. And in these functions. the 15th year CDBG program 48 percent of the funds are allocated for capital Relationship to Capital Improvements improvement projects while 52 percent of Program the funds are for soft projects. The Community Development Block Grant Project Implementation program allocates some funds for capital improvements projects. The Community Once projects have been approved for Development Four Year Plan will be part funding CPPD is responsible for project of the Capital Improvements Program (1989- implementation. This division assigns the 90 to 1993-94). Like the Capital appropriate city department the Improvements Plan (CIP), the Plan responsibility of administering individual identifies specific budgeting of projects for projects. fiscal years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and will recommend general planning of funds for In instances where implementation of a fiscal years1990-91 and 1991-92. The CIP is project requires the attention of more than guided by general policies and CDBG one city department, communication and related policies. CDBG funded projects cooperation among all parties is essential. within the CIF are identified in the Salt Due to the number of participants Lake City Capital Improvements Program. involved in such projects it is important to The CIP document is maintained and ensure that the original intent of the updated by the City's Capital Planning proposal remains unchanged throughout and Programming Division. the design and construction stages of implementation. Soft Projects Citizen involvement is another important Projects that are non-capital in nature are aspect of project implementation. An effort called "soft" projects. These are projects should be made throughout the such as housing rehabilitation loans, implementation period to keep residents emergency home repair, and public informed about community development services. Examples of public services activities in their neighborhood. Citizen include crime prevention, education and participation can result in continuous lock installation, providing shelters for the improvement of the Community homeless, and building renovations for Development Program. social service agencies. 32 :::::::::.:: ,. Appendix .........:.:... .:.::::.:..... .... :::.::..::. .:.::.:: .. ...::...:.:::.......... In an effort to obtain as accurate and representative a view of current neighborhood conditions as possible, data were gathered from several sources and presented to decision-makers in columnar form (see Appendix A) for the purpose of comparing conditions among the city's neighborhoods. This, along with citizen input, analyses of past activities in the neighborhoods, along with many discussions, meetings, hearings and recommendations, formed a basis for the planning of the 15th, 16th and 17th year target area programs. Sources 1. 'Average Household Income' data are taken from the Wasatch Front Regional Council's Surveillence of Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics, 1980 edition and 1986 Supplement. 2. The statistics for 'Percent Substandard Buildings' and 'Percent Substandard Housing' are from SLC Planning and Zoning Division's Land Use Inventory,most recently revised in January 1987. 3. 'Housing Age', 'Percent Minority Residents' and 'Percent Elderly Residents' data are from the 1980 U.S. Census (STF 3A2,Table 109). 4. Households With Schoolchildren' data were supplied by the Salt Lake City Board of Education (1989). • 33 0.,. . et Households with Schoolchildren Housing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head 're-1940/1940-69/1970-80 . Residents Residents free /reduced-cost lunch households 3.1 68.8 28.1 6.1 10.9 17 34 5.7 87.6 6.7 2.7 19.9 6 30 11.8 84.2 4.0 1.7 16.7 4 9 47.1 47.3 5.6 10.4 15.3 37 33 27.8 59.7 12.5 4.7 19.2 14 26 22.4 69.4 8.2 4.1 20.9 16 27 39.2 50.0 10.8 8.9 16.8 40 49 .,. , . C;z77.'A Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Owi-ifY . census Tract Traffic Zone . come, 1980/1987_ _ .Buildings _ . Housing-Units - -Occupi . - - 43 All 29475/31867 0.0 0.0 47 44 All 54047/58437 0.0 0.0 86 45 All 34822/35817 0.0 0.0 80 46 All 16892/17383 13.8 17.3 41 223 17014/17500 4.2 0.1 224 12710/13073 15.4 26.6 225 14383/14794 2.9 2.0 232 19894/20463 37.1 30.2 233 16476/16947 2.6 8.1 234 20007/20579 13.3 18.5 47 All 26792/27564 3.6 3.2 71 235 26098/26844 11.0 11.3 236 28349/29159 11.2 5.8 249 26273/27042 1.4 1.4 ---., 251 27117/27891 0.0 0.0 252 24773/25481 0.0 0.0 48 All 25739/26477 2.5 2.3 75 245 26790/27555 3.4 3.2 246 23588/24263 7.5 7.6 247 25376/26101 3.5 1.8 248 29107/29938 0.0 0.0 250 21266/21874 0.0 0.0 49 All 19248/19796 18.5 16.7 50 226 17597/18100 14.9 22.0 231 16750/17229 25.5 21.9 237 19669/20231 20.4 15.3 238 20993/21593 13.8 12.9 243 ---/--- - - _- Households with Schoolchildren Y'`_ `lousing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head ?re-1940/1940-69/1970-80 Residents . Residents free /reduced,cost lunch households 3.1 68.8 28.1 6.1 10.9 17 34 5.7 87.6 6.7 2.7 19.9 6 30 11.8 84.2 4.0 1.7 16.7 4 9 47.1 47.3 5.6 10.4 15.3 37 33 27.8 59.7 12.5 4.7 19.2 14 26 22.4 69.4 8.2 4.1 20.9 16 27 39.2 50.0 10.8 8.9 16.8 40 49 Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Owi _ -- ---Census.Tract. Traffic Zone - come;1980/1987. .,Buildings-. -Housing Units, -Occupie. - .- 43 All 29475/31867 0.0 0.0 47 44 All 54047/58437 0.0 0.0 86 45 All 34822/35817 0.0 0.0 80 46 All 16892/17383 13.8 17.3 41 223 17014/17500 4.2 0.1 224 12710/13073 15.4 26.6 225 14383/14794 2.9 2.0 232 19894/20463 37.1 30.2 233 16476/16947 2.6 8.1 234 20007/20579 13.3 18.5 47 All 26792/27564 3.6 3.2 71 235 26098/26844 11.0 11.3 236 28349/29159 11.2 5.8 249 26273/27042 1.4 1.4 251 27117/27891 0.0 0.0 252 24773/25481 0.0 0.0 48 All 25739/26477 2.5 2.3 75 245 26790/27555 3.4 3.2 246 23588/24263 7.5 7.6 247 25376/26101 3.5 1.8 248 29107/29938 0.0 0.0 250 21266/21874 0.0 0.0 49 All 19248/19796 18.5 16.7 50 226 17597/18100 14.9 22.0 231 16750/17229 25.5 21.9 237 19669/20231 20.4 15.3 238 20993/21593 13.8 12.9 243 ----/------ - -- PHouseholds with Schoolchildren -r 'ousing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head rre-1940/.1940-69/1970-80 Residents Residents free /reduced-cost lunch households 51.1 45.6 3.3 21.7 18.3 65 45 61.2 33.1 5.7 9.6 17.9 31 34 72.4 23.0 4.6 7.9 15.5 28 28 72.9 17.1 0.0 3.2 17.9 5 23 68.4 30.3 1.3 4.2 23.3 3 26 ? ? ? 4.6 19.6 14 27 13.3 85.2 1.5 5.0 18.5 13 25 3.0 93.9 3.1 3.8 18.1 7 15 27.3 60.1 12.6 2.6 18.4 4 15 0.5 69.2 30.3 3.7 13.2 1 9 r f Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Owi y' Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 Buildings; .. Housing Units OccupiE 33 All 21311/22635 24.1 22.3 41 "116 26069/22182 25.3 29.2 117 21934/23297 30.5 30.2 118 21928/23291 17.4 11.0 119 20939/22241 25.8 22.0 120 21073/22382 12.3 5.8 34 All 21062/22397 8.5 8.3 54 107 22405/23798 2.2 2.2 108 19403/20609 109 21617/22960 17.1 17.4 35 All 27268/28971 19.0 18.7 59 093 20896/22195 33.0 29.8 094 24511/26034 14.5 15.0 095 41164/43722 7.0 7.2 36 All 37962/40621 0.0 0.0 75 096 40984/43531 0.0 0.0 097 34524/37307 0.0 0.0 37 All 29699/31816 0.0 0.0 76 105 33089/35756 0.0 0.0 106 26983/28660 0.0 0.0 38 All 27305/29263 2.8 3.2 - 121 27031/28711 5.1 5.5 122 27566/29788 0.1 0.1 39 All 29713/32108 0.1 0.8 73 123 30219/32655 0.1 0.8 124 29438/31810 1.6 1.7 125 29444/31817 0.0 0.0 40 All 43241/46719 0.0 0.0 86 41 All 35528/38390 0.0 0.0 72 42 All 69023/74557 0.0 0.0 84 it. • Households with Schoolchildren g Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head .- >40/1940-69/1970-80 Residents : Residents free /reduced-cost lunch households 1.8 72.7 15.5 28.7 7.8 56 34 1.1 45.6 3.3 21.7 18.3 65 45 4.7 32.4 2.9 20.5 18.5 69 48 4.3 34.4 11.3 16.0 15.9 46 51 Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow:4) ' Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 . Buildings . Housing Units . OccupiE 28 All 25259/26956 14.6 15.7 77 196 26375/27848 4.9 6.5 198 23611/24603 26.3 26.5 201 22920/23883 18.9 20.1 208 30902/32202 5.0 3.4 209 25300/26364 * * 210 22335/23275 17.3 26.5 211 27475/28630 11.5 * 212 ---/26364 - -- 29 All 19043/20067 14.7 22.4 41 191 13454/15374 19.4 37.0 192 ----/21547 * - 193 * /21603 * * 194 17319/17970 37.0 46.8 195 13456/15479 12.8 33.3 213 21716/22303 6.0 16.2 214 25282/25965 2.6 3.8 215 21546/22127 31.1 33.9 216 19062/19577 6.7 4.5 217 14110/14490 12.8 30.0 218 14874/15275 7.4 27.1 30 All 18691/20403 13.9 13.3 55 090 16297/17811 15.8 15.0 091 20871/22809 12.1 11.8 092 -----/20490 • - 31 All 22286/23124 16.5 15.5 53 110 21918/23280 9.1 8.8 111 23661/24300 27.0 26.3 112 20997/21564 10.6 8.9 32 All 17776/1841.9 12.2 9.5 113 13818/14191 17.9 9.7 114 20632/21189 14.4 13.6 115 20462/21734 4.8 4.4 Households with Schoolchildren 'ng Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head —40/1940-69/1970-80 Residents ' Residents free ./reduced-cost lunch . households households 6.5 32.4 31.1 34.4 26.7 67 51 6.3 11.7 2.0 38.5 15.6 82 71 2.0 6.0 2.0 33.7 16.0 59 31 9.4 34.7 5.9 33.0 16.3 67 43 3.7 52.6 23.7 23.5 11.1 60 41 rp, -,,,,,0 4 7n Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Owt Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 - Buildings • Housing Units OccupiE 23 All 11997/13192 33.7 18.9 15 087 ----/12850 0.0 -- 086 7606/ 8313 11.1 6.3 089. 13648/14915 44.3 23.7 24 All 14163/16299 15.0 34.6 21 185 7976/ 9114 8.8 37.5 186 7536/ 8611 4.3 * 187 17742/20274 12.4 42.1 188 15201/17370 21.5 35.6 189 11206/12805 1.9 * 190 13701/15656 44.2 * 25 All 16476/18846 14.9 52.3 5 164 -----/16162 0.0 -- 165 17309/19779 6.7 36.0 166 ----/ 1900 4.1 -- 167 13305/15203 34.8 75.0 178 14144/16162 23.8 80.0 179 7303/ 8345 - 10.0 180 17087/19525 19.6 77.6 26 All 16565/17262 60.3 65.2 58 168 16023/16697 24.4 35.2 177 16512/17206 80.0 58.6 197 16904/17615 71.1 68.7 27 All 22643/23596 25.5 19.6 56 169 35763/37266 • • 176 20267/21119 17.9 17.7 199 22932/23896 33.7 33.2 200 24759/25800 26.1 13.8 Households with Schoolchildren 'ng Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head _.40/1940-69/1970-80 Residents - Residents free /reduced=cost.lunch households • 9 46.9 12.2 24.5 8.9 60 38 5 24.3 39.2 8.8 25.6 30 28 47.2 50.8 5.0 15.3 10 10 37.4 3.7 5.5 15.7 58 31 7 29.3 13.3 10.2 17.3 29 30 7 38.3 9.0 6.8 13.6 14 27 8 23.4 15.8 3.8 9.1 0 3 Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Owis '=3 Census Tract Traffic Zone , come, 1980 1987 Buildings • •Housing Units OccupiE 14 All 14703/13497 7.3 0.0 1 052 15485/14196 3.9 0.0 077 /13214 16.1 -- 078 14031/12863 0.0 0.0 079 9496/ 8705 0.0 -- 15 All 17450/18501 37.0 28.6 21 065 17946/19008 37.2 20.3 066 20598/21817 49.7 30.3 075 16699/17687 36.8 27.4 076 13592/14396 30.8 39.4 16 All 15761/16693 40.3 32.9 16 080 18960/20082 28.9 11.9 081 21657/22939 4.4 3.4 17 All 15761/16693 40.3 32.9 16 067 15748/16680 34.8 30.7 074 15771/16705 45.8 34.8 18 All 16000/16953 62.7 49.3 26 082 15341/16249 51.9 38.3 083 16368/17336 68.3 55.3 19 All 13294/14080 14.8 19.9 4 068 13285/14071 10.2 10.9 073 13306/14094 19.7 33.4 20 All 14860/15813 28.7 34.0 24 084 10881/11891 18.7 61.3 085 15936/16879 34.8 26.6 21 All 12034/13153 3.8 9.1 1 069 11439/12501 2.5 15.4 22 All 6440/ 7038 -- - - 072 12713/13894 4.8 1.9 • Households with Schoolchildren rig Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head :-.J40/1940-69/1970-80 Residents -Residents free /reduced-cost lunch households 7.7 47.1 45.2 18.7 1.3 50 31 8.6 45.0 6.4 11.9 10.2 22 22 0.7 41.2 18.1 13.8 16.3 56 47 0.7 41.2 18.1 13.8 16.3 56 47 6.5 39.3 14.2 18.9 13.0 60 48 1.6 25.7 2.7 17.8 20.2 58 46 0.8 26.3 12.9 30.6 10.4 77 48 1.4 27.2 1.4 19.6 23.7 63 63 3.4 12.7 3.9 13.0 22.4 20 40 • ,:l. k..„, /.ai Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow s Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 Buildings Housing Units _ OccupiE 7 All 18741/20893 37.7 26.1 28 058 -----/20429 0.0 - 149 20483/22829 48.7 34.6 150 17895/19945 32.4 21.4 8 All 17698/19273 14.1 7.1 20 059 22295/24848 18.3 13.9 158 15540/17320 16.0 3.9 159 -----/19935 0.0 - 160 -----/19935 0.0 -- 161 -----/14531 0.0 - 9 All 83937/93549 0.0 0.0 95 044 83937/93549 0.0 0.0 051 83937/93549 0.7 0.0 10 All 31532/35154 16.0 15.5 59 048 32334/36037 20.1 20.3 049 27860/31050 15.3 14.5 050 36078/40209 15.2 15.0 11 All 20977/23392 34.9 24.7 21 056 23635/26362 35.3 27.5 057 21416/23869 35.4 20.1 060 21258/23693 29.3 16.3 061 17493/19497 43.5 45.??? 12 All 22272/24816 40.9 31.8 37 054 22383/24946 0.0 0.0 055 21230/23661 46.5 31.9 062 20366/22698 42.4 28.8 063 23438/26122 38.2 34.4 064 25395/28304 36.2 33.7 13 All 76285/85021 6.0 7.4 8 :,... Households with Schoolchildren tt-'4 Housing Age (Year Built) % Minority % Elderly % children receiving % female-head _'re-1940/1940-69/1970-80- Residents_ -Residents free /reduced-cost lunch - households 62.9 48.9 1.8 44.7 11.1 83 38 11.4 71.5 17.1 5.8 12.5 1 8 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. •"*. 1.1 19.6 79.3 25.5 25.5 N.A. N.A. 0.2 97.4 2.4 11.4 5.2 28 27 2.2 72.9 24.9 14.1 9.5 39 31 34.8 42.9 22.3 27.7 11.6 61 34 ., 0 e Avg. Household In- % Substandard % Substandard % Ow ' Census Tract Traffic Zone come, 1980/1987 . Buildings Housing Units OccupiE 1 All 14667/15162 39.1 64.8 34 141 13818/14191 35.7 84.6 148 20102/20645 41.0 74.8 151 20102/20645 41.0 74.8 157 10628/10915 39.1 64.8 2 All 33810/37716 2.1 2.5 58 045 56911/63429 0.7 0.6 047 23339/26021 3.6 2.4 3.03 All 32519/41678 3.1 21.9 55 133 40582/41678 30.8 28.0 134 24197/24851 0.0 0.0 • 135 -----/ 8303 0.0 -- 136 ----/ 8303 0.0 -- 137 --/ 8303 3.7 - 171 ---/ 7607 7.7 -- 531 ----/ 5759 0.0 -- . . . 3.04 All 25490/26279 3.6 2.0 52 138 30615/31441 2.1 1.2 139 6235/ 6403 2.7 0.7 145 16836/17290 22.5 8.9 154 24788/25457 2.9 1.5 170 25928/26628 0.0 0.0 4 All 32749/33634 2.4 2.8 91 143 32966/33856 1.9 2.7 144 32603/33483 2.8 2.8 5 All 24379/25036 12.0 7.3 64 146 26199/26906 8.0 7.2 147 23376/24007 12.0 7.3 6 All 21104/21688 29.0 23.2 66 152 19496/20022 28.8 27.9 156 17007/17466 38.4 46.5 153 25211/25891 24.5 26.0 155 22093/22690 20.6 2.4 _ . r---1 .-- ; (1. . . 401 I I • ••I I I, I L ."----,------i ,-- •-,.,-...-.:.--, „,,,,, •_. zit •,•11... -..„,. .. .. _ 00 it .0•41 8044 . 1 0 V el r• 1 1.„,••0 40 01. OD• : 1.• •• f. •• r.Nit N 00 : • I 00 VI • . ; I 11"NS. 01 04 VI ..1 VI ; . irvIam. I 3 g ! : 0 : I I : I 2,.. •••II 044 . As.set I • .-. 2. 0 N C VI 4. VI VI • '„iic.L6 . . 2 .... : 3, Irv.••• .-. VI .....o. N C4 I••0. .., 00.... --.4 10 sr)4•1 12 04 CY li0 1,....la 1 I . I N IC 0 ...44•01•11%I I _......................::..........„............01 . . I .,0.121.•*0 10.1,46.• • Tr 00,00•••0 1.41 LI,. f . ,......,..' 4' :v 0 N. •40.• c.--er-jj 144 I • 3 / ' i • ; 2 : . ...., : f4I ".° 040.000.0404 NO.000.04..• VI 0 L..........._.. ,.; r---, _..4k•tarssaa,.• N n 1 Li r_.. ..J2 --„:,---, . `r-L..-.] . I I-- . li I . Lg• ... •• • . , • :I, • a •, : I .7.:1 . . .. . , 1 / . . . .—• • I _ , ! J .t I , 02104 Pr. I . . I . . • (I) I UJ . ..., • . = < i ! i . 1 I . • - • 0 I LU fp . )f.,i, I . :.1 . ° < c" U > • r.... ... ..„. ,. . , ................... .., . ..,.. , . ,.. . • 11 1 . . ..... . . . . . ... .. . . . . .., I .. . 1 ... . r; i — I...?:•.(;:. '44‘.7 ..,.V. . - .