The URL can be used to link to this page

05/16/1989 - Minutes (2) 111 PROCEELINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITc�, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 16, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 304, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. Council Chair Stoler introduced Mayor Palmer DePaulis said the a proposed resolution in support city was already involved through of the upcoming Salt Lake County the decisions made in the Council Bond Election to finance a new of Governments (COG) . He said the jail facility. He asked the county presented many proposals Council if they had any concerns and the Mayor brought the idea to before it was presented in the the city that the jail would be Council meeting. financed through a county-wide bond which would spread the cost Council Member Kirk said she most equitably among the cities. didn' t have any quarrel with the He said it was the county-wide location or the need for the jail bond issue that the cities already but didn' t want to get the City agreed to. involved or take responsibility by signing the resolution. Ms. Kirk said she didn' t want Salt Lake to have the responsibil- Council Member Godfrey said he ity for getting the bond election was concerned with the site selec- passed. Council Member Bittner tion process. He said the county said that signing the resolution was only looking at one proposed didn' t take responsibility but it site and signing the resolution just supported the county in their may be doing a disservice to the attempts to solve the jail prob- other cities. Council Member lem. She said the Council Horrocks said he also had trouble couldn' t tell the city that they with the site selection. He said were trying to solve the problem that Mayor Jim Davis of South Salt without supporting the county' s Lake City had offered the county efforts to solve the problem. Ms. other properties for consider- Fonnesbeck said she had trouble ation, but Mayor Davis had indi- supporting the county when they cated that the county didn' t even didn' t reciprocate. consider them. Police Chief Michael Chabries Council Member Fonnesbeck said said that Salt Lake City was she didn' t have any trouble with responsible for 50% of the book- the site or the need for the ings into the county jail and that facility, but she agreed with Ms. crime had become the number one Kirk and didn' t want to get in- concern of the neighborhoods volved with the politics of the because the city didn't have bond issue. enough space to hold the criminals that were arrested. He said that the citizens were willing to pay 89-126 410 PROCEELINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 higher taxes if the money went to da. She introduced Verl "Buzz" public safety measures. Hunt, City Treasurer, for a brief- ing on the proposed sale of Tax Ms. Kirk said if the citizens Revenue Anticipation Notes. supported the new jail they could vote for the bond issue without Mr. Hunt said the Tax Anticipa- getting the city involved. Ms. tion Notes filled the cash flow Kirk also said that if the majori- gap during the time between the ty of the Council could support start of the fiscal year and the the resolution, she would sign. receipt of property tax revenues. Chief Chabries said that the City Mr. Hunt said the Treasurer's Council led public opinion and office estimated a $17. 5 million that if the Council didn' t support cash flow short fall, slightly up the resolution, it would give the from the last year' s figure. He signal to the public that the bond passed out a spreadsheet showing was not worthy of support. Coun- the cash flow for the 1988/89 cil Member Stoler said the number fiscal year. He said the notes of arrests Salt Lake City made had would be sold on a competitive bid made the new jail necessary. basis. Mr. Stoler asked if the Council had any questions for Mr. Council Member Stoler asked Mr. Hunt; there were none. Godfrey and Mr. Horrocks if they could support the resolution if Ms. Gust-Jenson said the neces- they added a paragraph encouraging sary motions for the Community the county to widen the site Development Block Grant funding selection process. They said they were included in the Council could support it with the added Members ' packets and the budget provision. Ms. Fonnesbeck said hearings could all be opened at she still had trouble with the the same time. She said that resolution because once the reso- representatives from the city lution was passed, the city had no departments would be at the meet- influence over the process. Ms. ing to answer questions for the Bittner said the city couldn't Council concerning their budgets. compel the county to do what the Ms. Gust-Jenson and Staff Assis- city wanted. tant James Hall reviewed the calendar of upcoming events with Mayor DePaulis said that one the Council. factor in choosing the Jordan River site was that the county already owned that land, and the county would have to buy or lease any other site. Mr. Stoler asked if the Council could support the resolution with language encouraging the county to expand their site selection pro- cess. The Council said that they could. Mr. Stoler asked that language be written and added to the resolution to that effect. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director, then reviewed the agen- 89-127 PROCOINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 16, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Hardman conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES persons were hired full time with the city. The Mayor said Mr. #1. There was no invocation. Cowley demonstrated the policy that the city supported and had #2. The Council led the shown the leadership and a strong Pledge of Allegiance. commitment to that policy. #3. Councilmember Godfrey Mr. Cowley accepted the award moved and Councilmember Kirk on behalf of the total team and seconded to approve the minutes of said a lot of people had worked the Salt Lake City Council for the with him on this program. He regular meeting held Tuesday, May said the award was not earned by 9, 1989, which motion carried, just one individual and he had a all members voted aye. lot of support. He thanked the (M 89-1) Mayor for the award. #4. Mayor Palmer DePaulis presented a Certificate of Recog- COMMENTS nition to Ken Cowley for leading his department in its efforts to #1. Dave Yocom, Salt Lake hire persons with disabilities. County Attorney, asked the Council to support a resolution for the Mayor DePaulis said the county's special jail bond elec- city' s policy had been to try and tion in which they wanted to bor- employ people who had disabilities row funds on a general obligation and Mr. Cowley was recently hon- bond in order to construct a ored by the Salt Lake Community minimum security jail. He said College/Skills Center for showing they were trying to eliminate the outstanding support in employment overcrowding problem which was a opportunities for students with serious problem for the community disabilities. The Mayor said Mr. and particularly those residents Cowley had done this in his com- in Salt Lake City. puter training program and over the last three years, three train- He said four out of ten ees had gone through an internship people booked into the jail over program with IMS and two of those the last five years were booked by 89-128 PROCEI NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH • TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Salt Lake City Police Officers. group even though they had talked He said the Chamber of Commerce about staffing and recognition. recognized the problem and adopted He said the risk and harm was that a resolution supporting the jail the Council had the primary re- bond election. He said the down- sponsibility to recognize neigh- town businesses had been plagued borhood councils and the community with petty crime and they needed councils were concerned that SLACC the problem resolved. would interpose another layer of government between the city and He hoped the Council would the people. He also said there support the county' s effort to was concern that recognition and a borrow funds in the most eco- budget for SLACC would create nomical way to the tax payers of unfair advantages. Salt Lake County. He said he appreciated the Mayor' s and Salt He asked the Council to table Lake City Police Department' s this matter until it could be support and said the County Com- discussed and said they were about mission also appreciated city ready to propose a recognition support. ordinance which he thought should precede a budget for SLACC. He #2. Steve Alder, president said some neighborhood councils of the Sunnyside East Neighborhood didn't ' feel that SLACC represent- Council, said he was advised this ed them and didn' t send people to morning about an item which the the meetings for a variety of Council was considering for ap- reasons. He asked if a group of proval: the appropriation of CDBG this sort should receive funds. funds and particularly the inclu- sion of $50,000 for SLACC to He said he thought there was acquire staff. He expressed a need to organize neighborhood concern about the appropriation councils but this was not the same since members of the community as saying the city should give council, SLACC, and the Mayor's official recognition and money for Office had been meeting for about staff. He also asked who was to two or three months to study the say that SLACC was the better role of SLACC and the role of organization of citizens to orga- neighborhood councils. nize neighborhood councils. He thought the neighborhood #3. Kim Anderson, SLACC councils were an important avenue Executive Committee, reaffirmed for community input and needed to that SLACC was in favor of staff- be protected. He said one issue ing and ' separate funding for the was whether or not SLACC had Community Development Corporation status or required official recog- (CDC) proposal. He said they nition and said there was no officially submitted a request for unanimity about the necessity to staffing a year ago and they were recognize and provide staff to still officially requesting staff- SLACC as opposed to the necessity ing. He also said SLACC staffing to provide for recognition of was brought up in the first meet- neighborhood councils. ing with the Mayor. He said he appreciated SLACC Mayor DePaulis said this but begrudged the fact that during issue had been discussed and an the time they had been meeting, informal poll proved to be incon- this issue hadn' t come before the clusive because of mixed opinions. 89-129 PROCEE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIA! UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Councilmember Godfrey asked if the located below the University of SLACC board approved the proposal. Utah' s "U" from "R-1" to "R-lA" Mr. Anderson said about 18 months classification. ago they approved it in a SLACC (P 89-137) general board meeting and it was not brought back up for a vote since then. He said they just NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS resubmitted their application. #1. RE: A resolution autho- Councilmember Bittner said rizing the advertisement for sale the issue of recognizing and of approximately $17, 500,000 Tax providing funding for SLACC had and Revenue Anticipation Notes, been discussed frequently since Series 1989; authorizing the dis- 1975 and she had never been aware tribution of an Official State- that SLACC was opposed to those ment and Official Notice of Sale two issues. She said the county for such notes. passed an ordinance recognizing their neighborhood council organi- ACTION: Councilmember Kirk zation and they provided CDBG moved and Councilmember Godfrey funding. She said this was done seconded to suspend the rules and in many cities. on first reading adopt Resolution 65 of 1989, which motion carried, Mr. Anderson said that many all members voted aye. of the issues SLACC dealt with (Q 89-4) were land use and as volunteers they could not take the time for #2. RE: A resolution autho- land use analysis and they needed rizing the Salt Lake City Engi- staff to help. neering Office to award the con- tract for work in Special Improve- ment District No. 38-819, 900 West CONSENT AGENDA vicinity, to the certified low bidder, upon official determina- Councilmember Godfrey moved tion of such. and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the consent agenda, ACTION: Councilmember Kirk which motion carried, all members moved and Councilmember Godfrey voted aye. seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution #1. RE: Setting a date for a 66 of 1989, which motion carried, public hearing for Tuesday, June all members voted aye. 6, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning proposed DISCUSSION: Jerry Lyon, amendments to the Fiscal Year engineering office, said there 1988-89 budgets. were four contractors who bid on (B 88-5) the project. The bids included a base bid, pavement alternate A #2. RE: Setting a date for a (concrete pavement) , pavement public hearing for Tuesday, July alternate B (asphalt pavement) , 11, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain and alternate C (street lighting public comment concerning Petition option) . No. 400-713 submitted by First Charter Development Corporation Mr. Lyon read the bid amounts requesting Salt Lake City to from each contractor: rezone approximately 35 acres 89-130 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT`, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Geneva Rock UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS Base $676, 562.05 #1. RE: An appropriation Alternate A $437, 198.02 resolution adopting a final state- Alternate B $283, 443. 12 ment regarding 15th Year Community Alternate C $6, 710.00 Development Block Grant Funding ( 1989-90) and approving an Inter- Workman Construction local Cooperation Agreement be- tween Salt Lake City Corporation Base $801, 961. 50 and the United States Department Alternate A $428, 049.00 of Housing and Urban Development Alternate B $338, 252.00 concerning the same. Alternate C $7, 200.00 NOTE: Councilmember Hardman M.C. Green & Sons relinquished the chair to Council Chair Stoler for this item of Base $674, 879 .99 business so Mr. Hardman could Alternate A $445, 725.00 participate in the debate. Alternate B $341, 406.00 Alternate C $4, 790.00 ACTION: Councilmember Hard- man moved and Councilmember Hor- Western Quality Concrete rocks seconded to reduce funding for the Community Development Base $623, 075.50 Corporation by $50,000, reducing Alternate A $469, 675.00 it to $100,000, and increase Alternate B $371,090.00 funding for the Redevelopment Alternate C $5, 550 Agency housing rehab program by $50,000, increasing it to $700, - Mr. Lyon said that using 000; and any slippage from 15th pavement alternate B, which was Year projects which becomes avail- lower in bid price from all four able during the year be applied contractors, Geneva Rock was the toward the CDC project which is apparent low bidder. He said this currently funded, pending the bid was slightly below the engi- findings of the task force, which neer' s estimate. motion carried, all members voted (Q 87-1) aye except Councilmember Kirk who voted nay. #3. RE: A joint resolution of support for a favorable vote on Councilmember Hardman moved the General Obligation Bond issue and Councilmember Horrocks second- for a new jail facility before ed to reduce funding for the Salt Lake voters on May 23, 1989. Community Development Corporation by $50,000, reducing it to $50, - ACTION: Councilmember Stoler 000, and allocate $50,000 for moved and Councilmember Godfrey SLACC staffing but not appropriate seconded to suspend the rules and the money until the issues regard- on first reading adopt Resolution ing the ordinance and budget are 67 of 1989, which motion carried, resolved; and that the remaining all members voted aye. $50,000 in the CDC line item be (R 89-1) for start up costs for a Community Development Corporation without a designated sponsor at this time; and that a task force consisting of 5-10 individuals with expertise and interest in housing problems, 89-131 PROCEE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY', UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 finance, neighborhoods, and other Hardman first made a motion to related issues be selected by reduce funding for the Community SLACC, and charged to review the Development Corporation by $50, - range of community housing needs 000. that may be accommodated within the context of the CDC, and have Councilmember Godfrey asked their immediate task be to make an where the $50,000 would go and Mr. investigation and report to the Hardman said it would go to the Mayor and Council within three Redevelopment Agency (RDA) housing months as to the need for a CDC rehab program. and the housing problems it may be expected to address; the task Mayor DePaulis asked about force would also report to CDAC the rationale of reducing the CDC. whether SLACC should incubate the Councilmember Hardman said the CDC or whether they recommend funding last year on the RDA was another sponsor and the Community $700,000 and they requested $1, - Development Advisory Committee 000, 000 this year. He said CDAC would then make a recommendation recommended $700, 000 and the Mayor to the Mayor and Council, which recommended $650, 000. He said motion carried, all members voted with the loss of the RDA' s 3-12 aye except Councilmembers Fonnes- money and the addition of the beck, Godfrey, and Kirk who voted urban homestead program, he felt nay. it was better at this time to bolster existing programs given Councilmember Horrocks moved the limited amount of housing and Councilmember Kirk seconded to resource money. reduce the funding for the down town plan strategies by $30,000, Mayor DePaulis said that in reducing it to $35,000, and move terms of the comprehensive housing the money to the CDC, which motion policy he was trying to provide carried, all members voted aye. for the opportunity to extend resources and attempt to do new Councilmember Horrocks moved programs to aid housing. He said and Councilmember Bittner seconded he thought if the Council reduced that the security lock program be the CDC by $50,000, then this put out to bid and that a recom- would limit the capacity to move mendation be made to the City into this area which was consis- Council by the Community Develop- tent with all other housing poli- ment Advisory Committee and by the cies and priorities. He said it Mayor for the placement of that seemed reasonable to take money program; and to appropriate the from RDA to use for another oppor- money recommended by the Mayor tunity and expand the program. He ( $30, 000 ) , which motion carried, said he was worried that reducing all members voted aye. funding would damage the possibil- ity to do a CDC effectively. Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to Councilmember Hardman said he adopt the rest of the package as supported the CDC concept and proposed by the Mayor' s Office, thought there was a role for it to which motion carried, all members play. He said in the absence of voted aye except Councilmember a housing policy he was concerned Godfrey who voted nay. that they may duplicate efforts and was concerned with having DISCUSSION: Councilmember several program vying for money. 89-132 PROCE1RNGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 The Mayor said a CDC was a Mayor DePaulis said this was very effective approach to housing a serious issue that he wanted problems and that was why he moved operating this year. He said this the money. He asked Councilmember was a unique opportunity since the Hardman if he intended to move housing market was right and many more money out of the CDC and Mr. houses could be drawn into the Hardman replied he wanted to program. He said he didn't see reduce it by an additional $50, - unused funds since the program 000, which would leave $50,000 to could move quickly once the had start the CDC. He also replied the recommendations. that the administration suggested that a housing task force be Councilmember Hardman agreed appointed to look at the range of with the validity and seriousness housing needs that could be accom- of the project but wanted to take modated and their immediate task a cautious approach. If the would be to make an investigation Council reduced this program by and report in three months regard- $100,000, the Mayor asked the ing the need for a CDC. Council for some indication that they thought this was an important Mayor DePaulis said there program and he could recommend wouldn't be enough funding to refunding the program once they effectively do the CDC. were ready. Councilmember Hardman said his opinion was that the CDC couldn't Councilmember Bittner said really accomplish much this year this program was an outgrowth of since the task force would look the Neighborhood Technologies at a CDC over the next three Grants and she said the most months and then make recommenda- successful programs had evolved tions, plus they would have to into CDCs. She said the program advertise for a director and he began out of the neighborhood thought the money would be unused council movement and said during for a large portion of the year. her 10 years with the neighborhood He also said he wanted to earmark USA she investigated many CDCs and a portion of slippage which would said the overhead costs were become available for the CDC so he subsidized. thought there would be ample funds. She said she had also been involved in writing foundation Mayor DePaulis said he grants and had talked with differ- thought the Council had priorities ent foundations about various already outlined for the use of types of grants. She said one slippage. Councilmember Hardman policy was that they developed said last year the Council de- budgets using target cities and Glared their intentions for slip- most had a budget plan which page but to his knowledge his extended 5 to 10 years into the motion to use slippage for a CDC future. She also said the atti- was the only one he was aware of tude of foundation groups toward concerning this year' s slippage. Salt Lake City was that our prob- Cindy Gust-Jenson said she was lems appeared to be small in aware that the Council wanted to comparison to other cities. look at slippage in large amounts rather than piecemeal. She said there was a limited amount of foundation money and our chance of getting funding was not 89-133 PROCEEIiINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY? UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 very good since most foundations and partnership issues. He asked didn't consider Salt Lake City a the Council again for some indi- problem city. She also said the cated that if contingency was houses that would be bought, available then they would approve rehabilitated and resold were not funding if he brought the right good economic risks so the city proposal to them. needed to go into this program understanding that units would Councilmember Godfrey said he probably have to be subsidized. didn't think it was a good idea to fund this program based on avail- She supported the program but ability of slippage. He said he said there were a lot of hidden thought if they wanted to leverage costs in rehabilitating the hous- more money then they had to have a es. She said if the city formed a decent amount of money to start CDC then the city was into a long- with. term commitment which would be expensive. She thought the city Councilmember Horrocks asked needed to understand all the the Mayor if he felt 100% sure issues and implications. She said that private money was available. her only issue was who would The Mayor said yes but also said implement the program. She said the private sector wouldn't take she thought the neighborhood the leap into the housing situa- councils should have the opportu- tion unless there was a bridge nity and said at this time SLACC that CDBG would guarantee. (Salt Lake Area Community Coun- cils) did not have this capability Councilmember Horrocks asked but they could develop it. the Mayor if he had any indication from any corporations about sup- As far as funding SLACC, the port. The Mayor said he had been Council had to recognize SLACC by talking with Roger Borgenicht, ordinance and define neighborhood Housing Advisory and Appeals council. She reiterated her three Board, who was in contact with issues: 1 . The Council had to people that had been successful understand that this would be an with CDCs. annual appropriation. 2. The question of who would implement Councilmember Horrocks said the program needed to be resolved. he was committed to housing and 3. If SLACC implemented the was concerned about taking money program, then that organization from RDA. He asked the Mayor if would have to be recognized by there was a strong role for a CDC, ordinance, the RDA, and NHS (Neighborhood Housing Services) . The Mayor said Mayor DePaulis reemphasized there was because with a CDC the that this was a potent tool to use city could take and entire block in the current housing crisis. He for a CDC project which was dif- agreed that this needed to be ferent from the RDA approach. ongoing and this would be an annual commitment of housing Councilmember Hardman then funds. He said the Council needed made a motion to reduce funding to look at who could implement for the Community Development this program best. He said he Corporation by an additional didn' t object to the neighborhoods $50,000, to be appropriated for doing this but the program had SLACC staffing. He wanted the evolved into complicated financing remaining $50,000 in the CDC line 89-134 PROCEAINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY•, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 item to be for start up costs Council would take this action without a designated sponsor at before an ordinance was written. this time. She said she could not vote for something that took money from He also wanted a task force housing and put it into adminis- consisting of 5-10 individuals tration. with expertise and interest in housing problems, finance, neigh- Councilmember Godfrey said borhoods, and other related issues this year CDAC' s emphasis was on to be selected by SLACC and housing and he said two years ago charged to review the range of the Council made a decision not to community housing needs that may fund administration of programs be accommodated within the context but emphasize programs. He said of the CDC with their immediate the request for funding came from task being to make an investiga- the past chair but they had not tion and report to the Mayor and heard from the current chair in Council within three months as to support of the proposal so he the need for a CDC and the housing wondered who was supporting the problems it may be expected to request. He said he couldn' t address. He said the task force believe that SLACC would take a would also report to CDAC whether position to defund housing to fund SLACC should incubate the CDC or staff for themselves. whether they recommended another sponsor; the Community Development He also asked what this would Advisory Committee would then make do for the community councils and a recommendation to the Mayor and asked how the chairs of the commu- Council. nity councils felt about it. He said last week he talked to three Councilmember Fonnesbeck said of his community council chairs she couldn' t imagine asking SLACC and all three said no to funding to appoint a committee to decide SLACC. He asked if the chairs had objectively who would administer been asked for input or had been the program. She said she thought asked how the funding would help if they wanted an objective recom- their community councils. mendation it should be an objec- tive board and not one appointed He said the request had a by SLACC. She also didn't know vague budget and he asked who why, when the city already had two would manage and write the budget. housing boards in existence, they He asked what they would do about would pick one over another. office space and furniture. He asked if there was a committee She also thought it was working on this and who would offensive to take $50,000 from ultimately be responsible. He housing and put it in a non-hous- said the city already had a commu- ing issue. She said this would be nity affairs office that provided an annual appropriation and she services to all community councils had many questions, such as: who and he asked what services SLACC would administer the money, would would provide that were not al- this change the relationship ready being provided by community between SLACC and the city, if affairs. SLACC needed staff why not give the money to the appropriate city He said he thought the issues department for an additional staff needed to be reconciled before the member. She also asked why the Council supported this proposal. 89-135 PROCE NGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 He indicated he would probably Councilmember Bittner said support a proposal like this when she thought the Council was dis- the issues were addressed but he cussing two issues: One was thought there were too many un- whether SLACC should be funded and solved issues so he said he would the other issue was the structure vote against this vague proposal. of SLACC and whether all the neighborhoods participated. She Councilmember Hardman said said as far as she knew most the actual diversion of funds from councils participated in SLACC housing would only be $20,000. He except those in District 6. said the Redevelopment Agency agreed to fund the down town plan She thought one basic issue strategies for $30,000 and that that needed to be decided was to money would be moved to Neighbor- define the structure of SLACC and hood Housing Services. He said what constituted a neighborhood $30,000 of the $50, 000 would council. She suggested that Mr. continue to go for housing. He Hardman amend his motion that the said he thought the effective Council allocate the funding for vehicle for change in the neigh- SLACC, but not appropriate the borhoods was the neighborhood money until the issues regarding councils and he said as he re- the ordinance and budget were called they had always wanted resolved. Mr. Hardman accepted their own staff funding. He said this amendment. in all his discussions with the SLACC executive committee, they Councilmember Godfrey asked were in favor of SLACC staffing. who would approve the budget and Councilmember Bittner said the Councilmember Kirk said many Mayor' s Office. community councils didn' t partici- pate in SLACC. She said one Mayor DePaulis said he had community council chair from been working with a task force District 6 said that SLACC didn' t which involved the heads of the always agree with the neighborhood community councils and members of position in many issues. She said SLACC, and for the first time in a even though many community coun- long time everyone was discussing cils didn' t participate with SLACC issues. He said this funding they didn' t want to be excluded issue came at a bad time and he from the opportunity to address was concerned that it would pre- some of the issues. empt the process since they were trying to build a consensus. He She said if the Council put was afraid that if the Council money into SLACC they would be designated one group over another disfranchising many of the commu- then it would disrupt the current nity councils in the city who did process he had been involved in. not participate. She said three of the eight community councils in He suggested that the Council her area were opposed. She also reserve the money but not make a said her district received no designation since he was concerned federal funding so she felt she that it would cause antagonism could offer an unbiased opinion. between SLACC and the community She said her community councils councils. He said he thought the were saying that SLACC was a good Council should approve funding organization but they also wanted concurrent with the recognition the opportunity to participate. ordinance. 89-136 PROCE1RNGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Councilmember Bittner said Councilmember Bittner said SLACC was originally intended to she thought this would have to be be a representative body with an administrative decision. Mr. representatives of every neighbor- Cutler said that ordinarily budget hood council. approval was a legislative func- tion and it would be unusual to Mayor DePaulis said he delegate this to the Mayor. He thought the task force had been said apparently the Council was discussing a two-tier system with conceding that neither the line SLACC as the umbrella organization item nor the responsibility for and he thought they had reached the funds was adequately devel- some consensus. He reiterated his oped. He said if the Council fear that funding $50,000 for designated this function to the SLACC would cause contention Mayor then he needed to discuss making it more difficult to reach this with them since he assumed consensus on the recognition they would want this issue to come ordinance. back before them in order to approve the line-item budget. Councilmember Bittner said Councilmember Bittner said the she thought the recognition ordi- budget would have to be approved nance was to recognize the neigh- by the Council but the release of borhood council structure and if the money would be administrative. the SLACC structure and function needed to be redefined to fit this Rosemary Davis, director of role then she suggested to do that capital planning, said that if the before the ordinance was approved. Council didn't designate SLACC as the sponsoring agency and they Councilmember Hardman asked wanted to consider who it would if the community affairs depart- be, they would have to solicit ment provided staff services to applications. any other community council other than those belonging to SLACC. Councilmember Hardman said he Councilmember Kirk said they wanted to designate SLACC to provided services to all the receive the funding but that it community councils in District 6 not be issued until their budget even though they didn't belong to was firm and the ordinance was SLACC and Councilmember Godfrey adopted. said that community affairs would help any community council whether Ms. Gust-Jenson said that they belonged to SLACC or not. according to HUD guidelines the Mayor DePaulis said if a request Council could not put funds into came from a group then community contingency if they were planning affairs would provide support for to allocate them for a program. neighborhood issues and councils. So if the Council chose not to He said he didn' t disagree with allocate this to SLACC for their the funding question but at this use right away then they would time it would preempt the pro- have to do something else. cess. Councilmember Bittner said they could allocate the money to SLACC Roger Cutler, city attorney, but not release the funds until asked for clarification as to when other issues were solved. She the money would be released and asked if this would meet HUD who would make the decision. guidelines and Ms. Davis indicated it would. 89-137 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 For clarification of the PUBLIC HEARINGS motion, Mr. Cutler said he under- stood the motion to be that the #1. RE: A public hearing at Council would allocate the money 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment to SLACC but not appropriate it concerning rezoning property until the Council approved the located between 500 and 600 East budget and adopted an ordinance and Wilmington and Stringham concerning the relationship be- Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" tween SLACC and the community pursuant to Petition No. 400-662 councils. Mr. Hardman indicated submitted as a Legislative Action. that this was the sense of the motion. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk In regards to slippage funds, seconded to close the public Mayor DePaulis said Ms. Davis hearing, which motion carried, all informed him that slippage would members voted aye except Council- not be in 15th Year; money would member Fonnesbeck who was absent become available from prior years. for the vote. Councilmember Horrocks made a Councilmember Stoler moved motion to reduce the funding for and Councilmember Bittner seconded the down town plan strategies by to adopt Ordinance 29 of 1989, $30, 000 and move the money to the which motion carried, all members CDC. He then made a motion that voted aye except Councilmember the security lock program be put Kirk who voted nay and out to bid and that a recommenda- Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was tion be made to the City Council absent for the vote. by the Community Development Advisory Committee and by the DISCUSSION: There was no Mayor for the placement of that staff report. Ken Eltinge, 2505 program. Wilmington Avenue, Sugar House Community Council, supported the Councilmember Godfrey said petition. He said Wasatch Plaza CDAC' s recommendations hinted that had been a small center of busi- this program best fit under crime ness in a largely single-family prevention so he wondered why the residential neighborhood. He said Council would ask CDAC to look the type of businesses included into making another decision. He manufacturing and chemical storage asked if they could be objective. and said it would be in the best Stephanie Loker, capital planning, interest of the neighborhood to indicated that previously capital down zone this area to a residen- planning accepted and reviewed new tial-type zone. proposals and sent them through the citizen participation process. He said an R-3A zone would Councilmember Horrocks said his allow for housing compatible with original intent was to move this the neighborhood and said eventu- back under crime prevention but ally they wanted to turn the was informed by capital planning railroad tracks into a jogging that it should go through the bid path or parkway which would blend process. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Mr. with residential housing. He said Horrocks' motion was in keeping the toxic waste in the area would with the regular process. be cleaned up and the site would (T 89-7) be suitable for housing in the near future. He reiterated the 89-138 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITTC, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Sugar House Community Council ' s conducted by the Planning Commis- support. sion, this issue had been dis- cussed in great detail and the Bryan Cannon, attorney repre- Planning Commission rejected the senting the owner of the property change in zoning. located on the southeast corner of the area in question, said the He referred to page four of business at this site was fully the Sugar House Master Plan, developed and operating and no "Mitigation of Development Con- changes in the operation were straints" , and outlined the prior- anticipated. He also said the ities listed therein which stated entire block was developed with that first there needed to be a other businesses and said there potential redevelopment program; was no anticipated usage change of second there should be the removal the rail line which ran through of the D&RG railroad; third, there the block. should be a relocation of the commercial and industrial devel- He quoted the Salt Lake City opment in the area and there Ordinances, Sections 21 .04.330 and should then be a demolition of 21 .04.335, stating that the busi- the commercial and industrial nesses now in operation could structures; and finally the area continue their present conforming should be rezoned. use even if the area was rezoned. He said property owners objected He said that as long as the to the change in zoning because of railroad existed it was ridiculous the stigma that a nonconforming to suggest that people would build use would have on property; a housing in this area. He sug- stigma which he said would affect gested that allowing this zoning the land values and the loans on change would result in a serious the land. diminution in value of the proper- ties involved and in particular He said there appeared to be his client' s property, and said if no developer or contractor ready the zoning change was adopted, in to develop the property under an his opinion there was a serious R-3A zone and he said the rezoning question relative to the advent of would damage property owners by inverse condemnation proceedings lowering land values. He ex- as a result. He asked the Council pressed his opinion that the to give this matter serious con- master plan set an unrealistic sideration. expectation that the tract would become residential. He indicated Neil Christiansen, 901 East that he didn' t think the area 7800 South, said he learned about would sell out to a residential this hearing last Friday and, use since the value of the current speaking on behalf of several usage was more than the value of a property owners, said at the residential use. He also said this Planning Commission meetings they proposal was turned down three had been able to effectively put times by the Planning Commission. down arguments in favor of the zoning change. Brant Wall, attorney repre- senting Neil Christiansen, said Mr. Christiansen said he this was the fourth meeting in purchased Wasatch Chemical in the which this issue was discussed and 1970s and spent over $80, 000 to said in the various meetings put in gas heaters so they didn' t 89-139 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITE, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 have to use the old boilers. He were properly notified. indicated that many people were pleased to have the Plaza in the Mr. Christiansen said that he area and he asked the Council not had not been notified and said he to be unduly influenced by what didn't mean to indicate that the the property owners considered to other owners didn't know about the be a small group of people with a hearing. Mr. Stoler said that minority opinion, actually the Council didn't need to legally have this hearing since He referred to a letter from the property owners were notified. an appraiser who rendered an - -- opinion about the value of his Mr. Christiansen reiterated property at 2225 South 500 East. that he had not been notified. The appraiser estimated that Mr. Mr. Stoler said that on Thursday, Christiansen' s property was worth February 9, they met and Mr. about $1, 200,000, but rezoned to Stoler said that Mr. Christiansen C-1, which the area now was, the knew this issue was coming up and value dropped to about $700, 000. for Mr. Christiansen to say that Mr. Christiansen said because of people were not properly notified limited time the appraiser or had no timely knowledge about couldn' t estimate the value of the this issue was erroneous. Mr. property if it was rezoned to Christiansen said he apologized if residential but he had indicated he said something which inferred it would be dramatic. an impropriety but he said he had not been notified. He said in discussing this issue with attorneys and other Paul Wells, owner of property appraisers, they indicated that in at 2233 South 5th East, said he order not to incur adverse condem- had been working on getting a nation there needed to be an offer refinancing loan for the past six or investor, months and referred to a letter from Continental Bank regarding Lastly he said there was no the zoning changes. He said that plan to remove the railroad and the bank had committed but not the area was not conducive to yet funded a commercial loan for apartments. He also said the his business, which was partially change in zoning would not change secured by his property that would the use but would only damage the be affected by the zoning change. property owners. He also said it He said the bank stated that the would be difficult and expensive net effect of the zoning change for them to obtain insurance, had been a deterioration in market financing would be next to impos- value of the property resulting in sible and resale would be impossi- the difficulty to fund the loan to ble. which they had already committed. Councilmember Stoler said he He said the bank indicated thought that after talking with that the zoning change impacted Mr. Christiansen last Friday, the Mr. Wells ' ability to market the property owners did know about the property and left the bank uncer- original Council hearing. He said tain as to the property' s actual Mr. Christiansen had indicated value as security. He said the that one individual went to the bank had questions because of the wrong room and another was out of limited scope of the zoning change town, but that the property owners and the past and present use of the property. 89-140 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIO, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Mr. Christiansen said the Kurt Ovard, 2281 South 600 zoning change would accomplish East, said he had been to every nothing but would damage the meeting except the last Council property owners. He said the city meeting because he had not been needed to encourage small busi- notified. He said at every meet- nesses which couldn't afford the ing he opposed the petition and high rents of new complexes and he expressed concern that if the said that people who rented in his businesses were financially dev- complex paid about half. He said astated because of an R-3A zoning, he talked to six neighbors abut- there was the potential of apart- ting Wasatch Plaza and received ments being constructed which he letters from them supporting the rejected totally. businesses and the current zoning. He said he thought a small and He said he had five letters vocal group was behind the zoning from neighbors who were also change and it was not the will of concerned with changing the zoning the neighborhood, which had indi- and facing the potential of apart- cated they didn't want apartments ments in the area. He said the and were happy with the current area was crowded enough, the water situation. pressure was already low, access to the street was poor, and in Don Racine, Boats Inc. , said general the current rental units he talked to four or five neigh- caused problems. He suggested bors and had not received a nega- that perhaps the master plan tive comment from any of them (he needed to be revised. read four letters of support) . He said he had tried to make his Mr. Christiansen said in the property conducive to the neigh- last Planning Commission meeting borhood and kept his lawns watered they recommended reconsideration and cut. He said he planned to of the master plan. He asked the use this property for his retire- Council not to destroy the busi- ment and said if the property was nesses economically and said this rezoned the retirement value would property was his livelihood and be gone. He asked the Council to retirement. He reiterated that a consider the feelings of the very few vocal people could make people in the neighborhood and if the situation sound different than they didn't object to the current it was. zoning then it should not be changed. Councilmember Horrocks asked if there were any duplications Linda Hirst, 583 East String- when the property owners talked ham Avenue, said she had rented with the neighbors. Mr. Chris- her house for the last eight years tiansen said they all talked to and also said she wasn' t notified different people. of this hearing until Saturday, at which time a neighbor informed Mr. Wall reemphasized that in her. She said even though she was the Planning Commission meetings renting she was still concerned the compelling argument was that about the quality of the neighbor- there was no plan to remove the hood. She said the businesses in railroad and no one had a plan to Wasatch Plaza did not bother her construct residential structures. and she objected to apartments He suggested that until the rail- because of more traffic, noise, road was removed this issue was and possibly more crime. untimely. 89-141 PROCEL INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Charlotte Ovard, 2281 South was an advocate of the residen- 600 East, said she had nothing but tial character in neighborhoods problems with the renters in the but was concerned about rezoning area. She said since March of this area for the third time in 1986 they had addressed this issue just a few years. She also said many times and the proposal of the economic difficulties of rezoning had been soundly defeated owning property with a nonconform- in the Planning Commission, yet ing use were real and by rezoning the issue resurfaced for the sake the area the city was asking of the master plan. property owners to assume the cost of implementing the city' s long- She said her family had owned range desires for that area. She and resided at 2281 South since opposed the petition. the late 1920s and she and her husband had lived at that address Boyd Henrie, owner of Hen- since 1976. She said they had rie' s Laundry, said his business invested $30, 000 in home passed every inspection and they improvements and didn't want were not using anything hazardous. property values to be lowered as a He said everything was strictly result of the zoning change. She safe. said the neighbors thought there were too many apartment complexes Rawlins Young, Sugar House in the area. She outlined many Community Council, said the in- problems perpetrated by renters in dustrial and manufacturing uses the area which included crime, for this site were already noncon- vandalism, and violence. forming under the the current C-1 zone. He also said this rezoning She reiterated problems that was a long-range land use plan and would occur as a result of they didn't expect apartments to additional apartments in the area, be constructed in the area in the such as low water pressure, heavi- near future. He said in order for er traffic, noise, and lighting. the Fairmont neighborhood to again She said in the twelve and a half become a viable residential area, years they had lived in the area, they had to start the process of they had not had any problems with returning the area to a residen- the neighbors who owned their tial use. He said the process property. would take several years to hap- pen. Charles Daniel, 541 Stringham Avenue, supported the rezoning and Mr. Christiansen said the said he had concerns with Henrie's owners compromised with accepting Industrial Cleaners, due to their the C-1 zone but down zoning to acid wash procedure and the haz- residential would put terrible ardous nature of the chemicals burdens on the property owners. used in this business. He also said the vibration from heavy Councilmember Stoler said a industrial washers and dryers had lot of people who spoke in favor caused plumbing problems in the of the petition at the last hear- area. ing didn' t come to this hearing. He said one proponent had indicat- Cindy Cromer, member of the ed that the business owners left Planning Commission, said they the neighbors with the impression spent a great deal of time consid- that the R-3A zoning would allow ering this issue. She said she for a development similar to one 89-142 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT'i, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 across the street in South Salt Councilmember Horrocks asked Lake. Mr. Stoler said the neigh- about the issue of hazardous waste borhood councils were concerned investigation and contamination that low cost housing not be of soil. He said he was concerned allowed in the area so they sup- about children in the area. ported an R-3A zone rather than R- Councilmember Stoler said in the 5 or R-6. last neighborhood meeting the EPA said they had identified contami- He said the planning staff nated spots and had also identi- recommended that this rezoning go fied the necessary funds to remove forward since it would stop fur- the polluted soil and replace it ther development of the property this summer. and would save housing stock (approximately 150 homes) between He also indicated a commit- Commonwealth and the Freeway ment by the EPA that if or when between 500 and 600 East. He also any of the property owners sold mentioned that currently in the their property and removed con- area there was 100, 000 square crete, the EPA would take further feet of property for sale which samples and take corrective ac- amounted to 30% of area, realizing tion if necessary. the fears of the planning staff. (P 88-346) He said the railroad spur did not preclude the development of R- NOTE: Public hearings 2 through 9 3A property with proper berming were all scheduled at 6:30 p.m. and construction. In reference to since they related to budget the notification about the issues; therefore, the Council hearing, he said notices were sent considered all items during one to property owners and abutting hearing. owners so he said many people probably weren' t notified because #2. RE: A public hearing at they didn' t abut the property in 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment question, concerning tentative budgets, including the Library Fund budget, Councilmember Godfrey asked for Fiscal Year 1989/90. Councilmember Stoler how he re- sponded to the immediate neighbors #3. RE: An ordinance and the surveys. Mr. Stoler said amending Section 2. 52.010 of the according to one abutting resident Salt Lake City Code, as last the issue was portrayed as allow- amended by Bill No. 44 of 1988 ing low-cost housing. relating to compensation of Salt Lake City Corporation officers Councilmember Godfrey asked and employees, including statutory Mr. Stoler how he would respond to officers. the issue of insurance or busi- nesses trying to get a loan for #4. RE: An ordinance amend- property. Mr. Stoler said ing Section 2. 52. 116 of the Salt according to the staff report if Lake City Code relating to compen- the city didn't rezone the area sation and benefits for Salt Lake then commercial development would City Corporation 500 Series Em- continue and would cause a loss of ployees. housing. #5. RE: An ordinance amend- ing Section 2. 52. 115 of the Salt 89-143 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 Lake City Code relating to compen- increase in order to properly sation and benefits for Salt Lake maintain and manage the city City Corporation 400 Series Em- forest. ployees. He said an audit of the parks #6. RE: An ordinance amend- department concluded that they ing Section 2. 52. 118 of the Salt needed to increase the forestry Lake City Code relating to compen- budget a minimum of $150,000 every sation and benefits for Salt Lake year for the next three years in City Corporation 200 Series Em- order to change the management ployees. from crisis management to systematic management. He said #7. RE: An ordinance amend- the increase was a community ing Section 2. 52. 117 of the Salt priority and they had the support Lake City Code relating to compen- of the Sugar House Community sation and benefits for Salt Lake Council, the East Central Communi- City Corporation 100 Series Em- ty Council, the Avenues Community ployees. Council, Rose Park, and the Peo- ple' s Freeway. He also mentioned #8. RE: An ordinance amend- that the news media had also ing Sections 17. 16. 670 and 17. 72. - supported this issue through 030 of the Salt Lake City Code editorials. relating to water and sewer rates. Cindy King, environmental health coordinator for the Utah #9. RE: An ordinance enact- Chapter of the Sierra Club, sup- ing Section 15. 16.070 of the Salt ported the urban forest and said Lake City Code providing for money spent could help improve air admission fees to Tracy Aviary. quality as well as allow for the enjoyment of the trees. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk David Greer, president of the moved and Councilmember Bittner Salt Lake Police Association, seconded to close the public speaking on behalf 250 rank and hearing, which motion carried, all file members of the Salt Lake City members voted aye. Police Department, said that in 1985 the officers received a 4% Councilmember Kirk moved and cost of living raise and a merit Councilmember Godfrey seconded to step, which was the last viable refer these matters to the Commit- pay increase they had received. tee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voted aye. He said in 1986 a new pay scale was designed for the police DISCUSSION: Lloyd Siegendorf, department that reduced an offi- chair of the Urban Forestry Board, cer' s lifetime earnings by 5-10%. recommended a $150,000 increase in He said the city made up for some the forestry budget. He said they of the losses by sliding officers had conducted an inventory in the several steps up the new pay scale last two years and determined that so some officers received raises. the urban forest was worth about He said many officers did not $72, 000, 0000. He also said they receive a raise and officers hired found that over half of the trees since that time were now paying were declining due to age and lack the price for the downward adjust- of maintenance so they needed the ment of the pay scale. He also 89-144 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY', UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 said that year no merit or cost- officers. He said the cost of the of-living (cola) raises were proposal was roughly equivalent to given. a 4-6% cola plus reinstatement of uniform allowances. He said in 1987 fifteen officers got off probation but no He said they thought that other officers received any merit their problem-solving approach to raises or colas and in 1988 there the negotiations and the reason- were no merits or colas given. He ableness and integrity of the said during this same time period proposal would result in success. the consumer price index rose He said instead they were offered 14.3%, part-one crime per 100, 000 one merit step and a 2% cost of population rose 41%, calls for living across the board, an offer police service increased 25%, and that didn't address one identified officer workloads increased by problem. He said for most offic- 41%. He said in 1988 manpower was ers that offer barely made up for at nearly 100 officers less than the increase in insurance costs. it was 10 years ago. He said He said they rejected the offer there was no more patrolling and because it failed to meet their they were no longer preventing needs and was irresponsible on its crime, only chasing it. face. He said Salt Lake City had He said the Mayor made a become the larceny capital of the second offer with some potential United States. He said at some to increase take-home pay but it point the elected leaders of the still didn't address problems city would have to decide their pointed out during negotiations. priorities and decide if they Mr. Greer expressed his opinion would properly staff and fund the that some aspects of this second Salt Lake City Police Department. offer clearly demonstrated bad- faith negotiations but he said He said they came to the they would do what they could to bargaining table with fully see if the offer would work, prepared, researched and costed- although he said the chance for out proposals designed to solve a success was slim. number of problems for the city as well as provide a solid compensa- He said the problems of the tion package for the officers. He police compensation plan would not said their proposals solved a go away and the problems would pending law suit filed against the become more costly each year the city and it was designed to city waited to address them. He prevent the filing of a second said they could never have the lawsuit over the issue of uniform problems solved as cheaply as this allowances. year. He said their proposal made He said the Mayor and his up for most of the lost merit staff had turned a deaf ear to steps and eliminated the compres- their proposal claiming it cost sion that had occurred due to the too much but he said they could 1986 pay scale. He said their not afford to ignore their propos- proposal solved the problem in al since the cost to the city the retirement system caused by would be too high. He said the reduction of wages in 1986 plus it Mayor proposed raising the 300 gave solid pay increases to the Series, management personnel, 3% 89-145 PROCEE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITF, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 plus merits, an offer that would Orson Gibb, member of the put $150-200 per month in the Urban Forestry Board, supported pockets of management. He said funding for the urban forest and the city' s offer to the police reiterated the importance of trees would have put $50.00 per month in for the environment. the pockets of the highest paid officers. Ken Eltinge, 2505 Wilmington Avenue, said he thought money He asked why there was never spent for the restoration of the any money for police officers City and County Building was well who daily risked their lives to spent but expressed concern about make Salt Lake City a safe place the bond payment which would come to live and work and why there was from the capital improvement always money for the Mayor' s pet budget. He was concerned that projects. He asked when the this budget was decimated every officers ' needs would come before year which postponed needed infra- the special projects and asked how structure. He suggested raising much more they had to give before taxes in order to increase revenue they received what they rightfully so Salt Lake City didn' t face a earned. crisis in the future. He asked the Council to consider how they He said since the Mayor was would start paying for the bonds unable to keep the promise he made and still maintain a livable city. last year, they were turning to the members of the Council to set Charles Quick, paramedic and the budget priorities straight and president of Local 1645 Interna- to seriously consider the proposal tional Association of Fire Fight- the police made to the negotiating ers, said he stood before the team. He said the benefits of Council again and would continue implementing their proposals would to do so until this administration be long lasting both to the offic- or the one preceding it would ers and the city. He said it mature to the point that they were would make future negotiations willing to deal with the problems much easier and would demonstrate of employees in this city. He to the Council ' s constituents that said to this point they had been the Council was committed to unable to do that. providing them with a strong police department. He said in the past he could commend this Council for their He asked the Council to look attempts to try and resolve over their proposal and not be problems that they could foresee. swayed by the Mayor or his staff. He said last year in particular He asked the Council to make the the Council in its wisdom recog- right decision that would begin to nized that there would be insur- rebuild a strong police department mountable problems this year and would show their constituents should the merit increases not be and the police officers the Coun- implemented. That budget attempt cil ' s priorities. He said Presi- was vetoed by then Mayor Palmer dent Bush announced a massive DePaulis and as it turned out now program to combat crime in the there appeared that there was United States and he asked the going to be just sufficient funds Council not to let Salt Lake City left over in this year' s budget become a victim of its leaders' that the merit increase could have failure to do likewise. been granted the employees. 89-146 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 He said he stood before the Mr. Quick to write him a letter Council to apologize. He said he indicating some of those concerns didn' t intend to apologize for so he could address them individu- what solutions the fire fighters ally. Mr. Quick said the Mayor' s in Salt Lake City may seek to response to that letter was, "I 'm develop. He said he stood there sorry you keep bringing up past to apologize for his inadequacies problems but I 'm looking forward and said if there were other ways to working toward an agreement in to resolve these problems than the future. " negative campaigns and alleged illegal actions he would certainly Mr. Quick said they had needs enjoy entertaining them. However, to address the problems in Salt in his years of service with Salt Lake City which were severe and Lake City, he had been unable to were not going away and they were find anything that was able to going to become detrimental. He turn the deaf ear of elected said citizens of Salt Lake City officials. now were losing service. He said less than three weeks ago he was He said as Mr. Greer alluded called to the scene of a critical- to, they understood that the ly injured assault victim; that Mayor' s proposal to the 300 Series victim lay on the floor for an employees, which was one of the hour and a half before his para- largest groups in Salt Lake City, medic unit was called to the scene was 3% plus a 2.75 merit raise. because there were insufficient He said that raise would go to police officers to research the each and every individual in the scene and nobody else cared. He 300 Series pay plan. He said they said this was three blocks from thought it was warranted and Mayor DePaulis' home and Mr. Quick appropriate and it was in fact said he found this to be appall- very near to the suggestion that ing. they had made at the negotiating table to reinstate the merits as He said he had also sat in a though last year they had not been fire engine two blocks away from frozen. He said the 2% offered the scene of an overdose victim the rank and file fire fighters that was also the victim of a and police officers - those indi- current assault. Without police viduals who were actually out in assistance they sat there unable the street doing the job - was to enter the area for over 20 solely inadequate. minutes. He said those were the kind of service reductions going He said Mayor DePaulis, in a on in Salt Lake City now. They meeting last year, indicated to were not unreal, just unseen. He them that it was not his intent to said they saw them daily and negatively impact future years but thought the Council should make by his actions it was obvious that themselves aware of them. he now intended to do that. He said Mayor DePaulis in the past He said at this point in time had been turning a deaf ear to the we had all been cut short - this fire fighters. He said last budget meeting was merely the September, very specifically, they beginning of a long process. He had a meeting at which he (Mr. said they respected what the Quick) outlined several concerns Council had to do and they didn' t that he had with the Mayor' s mean to stand before the Council policies. The Mayor in turn asked and tell them how to do their job. 89-147 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 He said they merely asked the police officers in the community consideration that the employees and said crime was increasing and that were providing the services protection was decreasing. He in Salt Lake City duly request. suggested that the Council needed He said any support that the to raise taxes or find the money Council could give, they would in the budget in order to pay for certainly be glad to accept. He needed protection and services. said any additional information or any suggestions as to how they Bryan Getzleman, 804 Arapahoe could resolve this problem would Avenue, said he had a tree service be heard and considered. and was appalled by how trees were mistreated in this area. He said Jeffery Salt, 280 B Street, it appeared that people didn't spoke on behalf of himself, the know the value of trees and he property owner of 280 B Street, said trees reduced pollution, and Dr. K. Gordon Lark. He en- released moisture into the air and couraged the Council to fund the provided shade. He said people urban forest and said it was a took trees for granted and said he vital but neglected resource. He thought the city needed to take said he had seen the careless care of them. treatment of trees by property owners, utility companies, and David Thompson, 1003 South contractors. He said to help 1400 East, did not speak but improve the quality of the city submitted his comments in favor of and attract people to stay in the the admission fees proposed for area, attention focused on main- Tracy Aviary. taining the urban forest was (B 89-3) (0 89-20) (0 89-22) necessary. (0 89-21) (0 89-19) (0 89-18) (0 89-16) (0 89-17) Robert Peterson, 3125 East Kennedy Drive, supported Tracy Aviary and said it was a unique The meeting adj kned at 9:40 asset. He urged the Council to p.m. l support the Aviary budget and approve the small use fee as proposed. J COUN IL CHAIR Dean Richardson, 1223 North 1500 West, expressed concern that the annual trash pickup was pro- posed for elimination. He asked �'' Lu what the plans were to get rid of CI-Y CORDER CHIEF DEPUTY the garbage collected in the spring and fall and asked how the proposed $800,000 savings would be realized when the people and equipment were working anyway. He also addressed the issue of raising taxes in order to give residents the minimal amount of protection necessary to enjoy their life-style. He was con- cerned about the low number of 89-148 �,� a.n ; D_ i och-Wed- H An t6, Via/ . e i r U 6 } SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 11 Wed- al s co or S;30 t ICt :e yS minU!e3 1. / &7 VI"f c . CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER .�r E ✓ - CITY & COUNTY BUILDING, 315 12) `% O ` 11\ A ot'S , 451 SOUTH STATE STREET k , f Di 1 N` lam Tuesday, May 16, 1989 l V C� r� L� �O ((, y 6:00 p.m. 6) ,.J(,. l{ 0 C_'� , 1 t Q A. BRIEFING SESSION: 5:00 - 5:55 p.m. , City & County Building, 325. Report of the Executive Director. Linda Hamilton, Director of Finance, and Buzz Hunt , City Treasurer, will brief the Council on the proposed Fiscal Year 1989-90 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes issuance. , _,Ot"' Gi ;;) -r B. OPENING CEREMONIES: r 0 r.d ! Q 1,k,v1 ' . 1 . Invocation. ' ` ot , r I' t d 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. 4. Mayor Palmer DePaulis will present a Certificate of Recognition to Ken Cowley for leading his department in its efforts to hire persons with disabilities. . C. COMMENTS: 1 . Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. • 2. Citizen Comments to the Council.- MaV\ r1GU ' .7.Of "�.r . .. I # 0A D. CONSENT: 1. Budget Amendment Number 5. . Set a date for a public hearing for Tuesday, June 6, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 1988-89 budgets. (B 88-5) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. 2. Petition No. 400-713 -- First Charter Development Corporation. Set a date for a public hearing for Tuesday, July 11 , 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-713 submitted by First Charter Development Corporation requesting Salt Lake City to rezone approximately 35 acres located below the University of Utah's "U" from "R-1" • to "R-1A" classification. (P 89-137) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1 . Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes - 1989-90. Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the advertisement for sale of approximately $ 17,500,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1989; authorizing the distribution of an Official Statement and Official Notice of Sale for such notes. (Q 89-4) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules; Adopt on First Reading. 2. Special Improvement District No. 38-819 - 900 West Vicinity - Bid Opening. P; Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the Salt Lake City Engineering /1 Office to award the contract for work in Special Improvement District No. �)(� 38-819, .900 West Vicinity, to the certified low bidder, upon official determination of such. _ . 40(G, !/ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules; Adopt on First Reading. - F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: td ��:60 1. - 15th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds.. S u �� f ( f u �t 2 Consider adopting an appropriation resolution adopting a final statement regarding 15th Year Community Development.Block Grant Funding ( 1989-90) and.. approving an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the United States Department of Housing and Urban • • Development concerning the same. 1 � 1-, • (T 89-7) - oue p�U. i �` STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution following Council `, modifica o he final statement. . G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Nero 4 Petition No. 400-662 - Legislative Action. - rY1C14 l'"q VLeI iC' 6:20 p.m. ,rl $tr f� • Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting an orinance.rezoning property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-662 submitted as a Legislative Action. (P 88-346) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and Adopt. n c o - readf��s 2. Fiscal Year 1989-90 Budgets. - open � 1 6:30 p.m. eC((i. , Obtain public comment concerning tentative budgets, including the Library Fund budget, for Fiscal Year 1989/90. (B 89-3) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing; refer to Committee of the Whole. E. PUBLIC HEARING' 'ont 'd. 3. Compensation Plan. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Section 2.52.010 of the Salt Lake City Code, as last amended by Bill No. 44 of 1988 relating to compensation of Salt Lake City Corporation officers and employees, including statutory officers. (0 89-20) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to Committee of the Whole. 4. Compensation Plan - 500 Series Employees. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Section 2.52. 116 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to compensation and benefits for Salt Lake City Corporation 500 Series Employees. (0 89-22) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to Committee of the Whole. 5. Compensation Plan - 400 Series Employees. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Section 2.52. 115 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to compensation and benefits for Salt -Lake City Corporation 400 Series Employees. (0 89-21) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to Committee of the Whole. 6. Compensation Plan - 200 Series Employees. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Section 2.52. 118 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to compensation and benefits for Salt Lake City Corporation 200 Series Employees. (0 89-19) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to Committee of the Whole. 7. Compensation Plan - 100 Series Employees. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Section 2.52. 117 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to compensation and benefits for Salt Lake City Corporation 100 Series Employees. (0 89-18) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to Committee of the Whole. E. PUBLIC HEARING` 'ont 'd. 8. Water and Sewer Rates. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Sections 17 . 16.670 and 17.72.030 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Water and Sewer rates. (0 89-16) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to Committee of the Whole. 9. Tracy Aviary. 6:30 p.m. Obtain public comment concerning an ordinance enacting Section 15. 16 .070 of the Salt Lake City Code providing for admission fees to Tracy Aviary. (0 89-17) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Close Hearing and refer to Committee of the Whole. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: May 12, 1989 BY: /9/14442-°4411"--- CIT RE ER STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 12th day of May, 1989, 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 & County Building, 451 South State Street and temporary City Hall, 324 South State Street , Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, 5th Floor City Hall; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 343, City & County Building. `►i�/'..4 NI,. - 1 CITY,RE CC'P R Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of May, 1:9. s otary Public residi''_ 1 • State of Utah My Commission Expires: __.._4:E,,,,--/---2 r9 APPROVAL: A 1 .#' - /M) EXECUTIVE 't RECT R SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ADDENDUM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER CITY & COUNTY BUILDING, 315 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Tuesday, May 16, 1989 6:00 p.m. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 3. Jail Bond Election - Joint Resolution. Consider adopting a joint resolution of support for a favorable vote on the General Obligation Bond issue for a new jail facility before Salt Lake voters on May 23, 1989. (R 89-1) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suspend Rules; Adopt on First Reading. H. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION PAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: May 15, 1989 BY: I RECORDS STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 15th day of May, 1989, 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. , C TY RECORDER Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of May, 89. to Public resi in in he State of Utah My Commission Expires: APPROVAL: EXECUT DIRE TOR PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 9, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present : Florence Bittner Alan Hardman Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Sydney Fonnesbeck Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Hardman conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to #1 . The invocation was given by adopt Resolution 64 of 1989, proclaiming Chaplain, Bob Blackhurst. the month of May 1989, as 'Firefighters Appreciation Month' , which motion #2. The Council led the Pledge carried , all members voted aye. of Allegiance. (R 89-1) #3. Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to COMMENTS approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings Ron Davey, 939 Diestel Road, held Tuesday, May 2, 1989, and Thursday, presented a letter to the Mayor and May 4, 1989, which motion carried, all Council regarding a problem at Miller members voted aye. Park. He said Miller Park followed the CM 89-1) Red Butte stream beginning at 900 South 1675 East and ending 1000 feet east of #4a. Councilmember Godfrey read 1500 East on Bonneview Drive, a one-way .a resolution proclaiming the week of May street at 1000 South. He said that 7, 1989, as 'Be Kind To Animals Week' . after the park closed at 10 p.m. , usually on Friday and Saturday nights, ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey it filled with loud, boisterous moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to individuals who partied until around 3 adopt Resolution 63 of 1989, proclaiming a.m. He said it was abusive and the week of May 7, 1989, as 'Be Kind To disturbed the peace in their Animals Week' , which motion carried, neighborhood. He said the destruction all members voted aye. to the park last year was (R 89-1) unconscionable, yet their calls to the police went unheeded and no one was #4b. Councilmember Horrocks read cited for after-hour presence or a resolution proclaiming the month of disturbing the peace. He said the May, 1989, 'Firefighters Appreciation neighbors were prepared to hire off-duty Month' . Because the firefighters offer policemen to solve the problem, but he a fire safety class in the elementary urged cooperation from the Police and schools in the city, several school the city. children also joined in the presentation. 89-122 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1989 Councilmember Stoler said they might to Chemopharm Laboratories, Inc. , the want to have Chief Chabries reinstitute right to construct and operate a the 'Party Car' which used to patrol and communications duct in 400 West between put a damper on parties. He said the their two buildings at 425 and 503 North officers got so they knew the persons on 400 West. a first-name basis and were able to talk (0 89-24) to them, thus helping to alleviate a lot of problems. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT AGENDA #1. RE: A resolution of inducement for not to exceed $9,300,000 Councilmember Godfrey moved and of Industrial Development Revenue Councilmember Horrocks• seconded to ap- Bonds; approving a Memorandum of prove the consent agenda, which motion Agreement with Compeq International Co. , carried, all members voted aye. Ltd. , in connection with the issuance by Salt Lake City of its Industrial #1. RE: Adopting Resolution 62 of Development Revenue Bonds to finance a 1989, authorizing the execution of an portion of the cost of the acquisition interlocal agreement with the Salt Lake of land and the construction and County Water Conservancy District to equipping of a manufacturing facility allow and control the district 's pumping which will produce printed circuit board of water from the fore bay of Turner Dam and electronic products; authorizing the in the Jordan Narrows. company to acquire, construct and equip (C 89-233) the project to be financed by. such bonds ; directing that Salt Lake City will not pledge or mortgage its NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS ownership interest in the site of the project nor will it guarantee the. bonds #1. RE: An ordinance amending, by lending or pledging its credit; and reorganizing and repealing the authorizing the execution and delivery ordinances in Title 14, Salt Lake City of a Memorandum of Agreement between the Code, pertaining to work in the public issuer and the company with respect to way. financing the project. ACTION: Councilmember God-frey ACTION: Councilmember Hor-rocks moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded set a public hearing date for June 6, to adopt Resolution 61 of 1989, for 1989, at 6:40 p.m. and refer the item to $9,300,000 of Industrial Development Committee of the Whole, which motion Revenue Bonds; approving a Memorandum of carried, all members voted aye. Agreement with Compeq International (0 89-25) Co. , Ltd. , in connection with the issuance by Salt Lake City of its #2. RE: An ordinance granting to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to Chemopharm Laboratories, Inc . , the right finance a portion of the cost of the to construct and operate a acquisition of land and the construction communications duct in 400 West between and equipping of a manufacturing their two buildings at 425 and 503 facility which will produce printed North 400 West. circuit board and electronic products; authorizing the company to acquire, con- ACTION: Councilmember God-frey struct and equip the project to be fi- moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to nanced by such bonds ; directing that suspend the rules and adopt on first Salt Lake City will not pledge or reading Ordinance 28 of 1989, granting mortgage its ownership interest in the 89-123 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, HAY 9, 1989 site of the project nor will it #2 RE: A public hearing at 6:20 guarantee the bonds by lending or p.m. to obtain comment concerning the pledging its credit; and authorizing the proposed creation of Special Improvement execution and delivery of a Memorandum District (SID) 38-808 for the purpose of of Agreement between the issuer and the constructing street improvements on company with respect to financing the California Avenue from Pioneer Road to project. 3400 West. Councilmember Bittner asked if ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved anyone knew how much money was left for and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to Industrial Revenue Bonds, and Richard close the public hearing, which motion Fox, bond attorney, said the State carried, all members voted aye. Allocations Board would meet on Thursday to consider the Councils ACTION: Councilmember God-fret' actions of tonight, and he thought there moved and Councilmember Horrocks was about $12 million left out of $150 seconded to refer the item to the City million. Engineering Office for tabulation of (Q 89-3) protests, which motion carried, all members voted aye. PUBLIC HEARINGS DISCUSSION: Rick Johnston, Engineering Division, addressed the #1 RE: A public hearing at 6:00 Council and said the date for filing of p.m. to obtain comment concerning the protests ended on May 8th and they had proposed issuance of not to exceed received only one protest, from $9,300,000 by Salt Lake City Corporation Overnight Construction. He said that of its Industrial Development Revenue since the time the Council had approved Bonds for the purpose of land advertising of the SID they had been acquisition, construction, and equipping approached by the property owner on the a project for Compeq International Co. , south side of California Avenue, Rex Ltd. Dahlberg, who now requested to be added to the district. He said the addition ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved of Mr. Dahlberg's property would not and Councilmember Stoler seconded to impact the city's portion or the previ- close the public hearing, which motion ous abutters of the SID. carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember 'Bittner asked if the DISCUSSION: Richard Fox, bond interchange was a requirement of UDOT, attorney, 57 West 200 South, said and Mr. Johnston said it was not, that Compeq had a plant in Taiwan and planned this was a separate issue that involved to establish a second plant here in the California Avenue from Pioneer Road to International Center. He said the 3400 West. He said California Avenue project had been measured against the was listed as one of the major arteries city's criteria and would fit nicely and to serve the Northwest Quadrant and as be an excellent addition to - the such, it 's future function would be a International Center. seven-lane road but right now they were only addressing the outside portions. Councilmember Godfrey questioned He said in the future the road would why the sales tax benefit to the city hook up with the West Valley Highway and would be zero, and Mr. Fox said it was roads further west as the area devel- because they did no retail business. oped. (Q 89-3 Councilmember Horrocks asked if the prices quoted to property owners 89-124 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1989 represented a set cost or preliminary estimates, and Mr. Johnston said they COUNCIL CHAIR were preliminary estimates and they were usually estimated a little high. Joseph Sletten, representing Overnite Transportation, 2500 California Avenue, said they had complete access to all roads from their location and had no use for the proposed road. He said he understood that the driving force behind CITY RECORDER the SID was the property owner to the south. He said they were told there had been a meeting regarding the SID but his company had not received notification of it. He said his company felt the figures presented to them were high, and they could see no reason at the present time for a multi-lane road there. Jerry Hill, representing Roadway Express, 1234 South 3200 West, said his company did not oppose the SID but they were concerned about the median strip on California Avenue. He said the plans would not allow their trucks to make a left turn onto California Avenue and this presented a problem to them based on the construction his company had already done. He said there was to be an opening in the median 150 feet west but it was to accommodate the property owner to the south, and he felt the engineers should either put a wider median opening in or put another one in to accommodate his company. Councilmember Horrocks asked Mr. Johnston if this could be done, and Mr. Johnston said yes. He said he had been in touch with a representative of Roadway in their eastern office and they had discussed this issue. He said they were interested in alleviating any problems and he would be happy to meet with Mr. Hill after the meeting to firm up plans. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 89-125 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 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 NON-CONTIGUOUS STREETS, CURB AND GUTTER EXTENSION NO. 38-819 PROVIDING FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW PAVEMENTS, CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, STREET TREES, SOD AND TOPSOIL; INSTALLATION OF MAJOR STORM DRAINS AND A PUMP STATION 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 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 this 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. CERTIFICA7E OF R ECGNITICIV 70 KFJI OWLEY The Mayor will present a certificate of recognition to Ken Cowley, Director of 1MS (Information Management Services) for leading the department in its efforts to hire persons with disabilities. Ken was recently honored by the Salt Lake Camunity College/Skills Center for showing outstanding support and employment opportunities for students with disabilities of the computer training program. Over the last three years, three trainees from this program have gone through an internship with IMS and two of these persons have been hired as full time employees. Ken has demonstrated Salt Lake City's commitment to the principle of equal employment opportunity by his affirmative action. The Mayor will present the certificate Tuesday, May 16, 1989, 6:00 P.M. at the City' Council meeting. The City Council chambers are located in roan 315 of the City & County Building, 451 South State. The Handicapped entrance is on the South side of the East Entrance. For more information, contact Becky Sanchez (535-7915) 4 , s ex 91 fiRP DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. 5TH FLOOR LINDA HAM ILTOC SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAYOR (801) 535-7676 May 10, 1989 TO: W. M. "Willie" Stoler Chairman, Salt Lake City Council RE: SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - JUNE 6, 1989 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 5 I respectfully request that the City Council set a date for a Budget Amendment Public Hearing during their May 16 meeting. I request that the hearing to amend the Fiscal Year 1988-89 Budget be set for June 6, 1989. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/lc DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES .:2AI> E. PETERSON 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 201 UIREC:TOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council April 17, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-713-89 submitted by First Charter Development Corporation • Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on July 11, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-713-89 submitted by First Charter Development Corporation. The petitioners are requesting Salt Lake City to rezone the approximately 35 acres located below the University of Utah's "U" from "R-1" to "R-lA" classification. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The rezoning request was made to allow for narrower private roads to be constructed. The narrower roads will mean reduced visual and environmental impact on the site and to surrounding areas due to the reduced amount of cuts and fill required for the narrow private roads. The "R-1" zone requires public roads built to City Engineering widths and specifications, the "R-1A" zone allows Planned Unit Developments and accompanying private roads. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the rezoning subject to the following conditions: 1. The zoning be conditional upon the final approval and recording of a PUD subdivision. 2. The rezoning remain "R-1" until said subdivision is approved for recording with the County Recorder. 3. The zoning change be conditioned upon the project being approved as a single family detached development. The Planning Collunission noted that many detailed development issues need to be resolved, separate from the rezoning issue. These issues will be resolved through the subdivision approval process for the Planned Unite Development. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: CRAIG E. PEI' SON Director ]_f/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located below the Block U from "R-1" to "R-lA" pursuant to Petition No. 400-713-89 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21. 14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by FIRST CHARTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, No. 400-713-89, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located below the Block U from the present "R-1" to "R-1A" classification is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21. 14.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts, be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as follows: Sec. 21.14.020. Boundaries of Districts - Use District Map Adopted. That the following-described parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Residential "R-1" is hereby rezoned Residential "R-lA" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Beginning at a point that is North 89 ° 58 ' 03" East 877. 57 feet along the South line of Arlington Park Subdivision from the Southwest corner of Lot 19, Arlington Park, a recorded subdivision in Section 33, Township 1 North, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence North 89° 58 ' 03" East 337.38 feet along said South line to the Southeast corner of Lot 10 of said subdivision, thence South 13. 61 feet; thence South 89 ° 58 ' 15" East 1, 309 .32 feet; thence South 0° 00 ' 17" lc\'41 East 1, 014. 62 feet to the North line extended ' 0 'j of Federal Heights Subdivision, Plat "F" ; thence South 89°58 ' 03" West 1, 286. 60 along rl " said extension and North line of Federal Heights Subdivision, Plats "E" and "F" ; thence North 0° 00 ' 17" West 392.38 feet; thence South 83° 44 ' 01" West 88. 23 feet; thence North 65° 13 ' 44" West 300. 00 feet; thence North 0°00 ' 17" West 520. 99 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 34.926 acres. SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS. This ordinance shall not become effective until recorded and the Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to record this Ordinance until the Mayor certifies that the following condition has been met: 1. An approved Planned Unit Development Subdivision for development of the property has been recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. If the foregoing condition is not completed within one year from the date of passage of this Ordinance, the time may be -2- extended for an additional year by certification from the Mayor. If the condition has not been met by the expiration of one year or any extension, this Ordinance shall be null, void and of no effect and shall not be recorded. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -3- ALLEN C. JOHNSON e ` gf MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR NANCY K. PACE. CHAIRMAN BRENT B. W!LDE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROBERT LEWIS TONING ADMINISTRATOR Board of Adjustment on Zoning DOROTHY PLESHE PETER VAN ALSTYNE GEORGINA DuFOUR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 I. J. WAGNER SECRETARY SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 ALTERNATES: 535-7757 FAUN O. HANSEN March 15, 1989 W. KENT MONEY Craig E. Peterson, Director Department of Development Services 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • Re: Petition 400-713, Block "U" Subdivision Dear Craig: Attached is petition 400-713 by Mr. Brent Beesley, representing First Charter Development Corporation, requesting Salt Lake City to rezone approximately 35 acres located below the University of Utah " s "U" ( Attachment B ) . The request is to rezone the property from the existing R-1 to R-1A in order to allow a planned unit development single family subdivision ( p. 3 Attachment B ) . The rezoning request has been made to also allow private streets, thereby reducing the amounts of necessary cuts and fills for roads. The zoning surrounding the project is R-1 with P-1 zoning to the east and north. `Phis parcel has been discussed for many years concluding with a complicated land trade between the Board of Education, Salt Lake City, and the Department of the Interior in 1985. The development of this property with low density residential subdivisions is consistent with the 1979 Avenues Master Plan, and the July 1987 Avenues Master Plan Update. The detailed development issues are presented in the February 22, 1989 staff report to the Planning Commission ( Attachment A) . A briefing of the recent meetings prior to the March 9th Planning Commission Meeting is found in Attachment I. On (larch 9, 1989 the Planning Commission held an informal hearing and received comment from neighboring residents, property owners, the Avenues Community Council, and Citizens of Salt Lake City. The Planning Commission noted that many detailed development issues need to be resolved, separate from the rezoning issue. Those issues will be resolved through the subdivision approval process for this Planned Unit Development. The issue of access and easement locations through the future City park and the continuation of Eleventh Avenue are pivotal issues for this development proposal. The Planning Commission concluded with a recommendation to approve the rezoning and for the City Council to hold a public hearing. The rezoning to "R-lA" will permit a subdivision development consistent with the Avenues Master Plan. The Planning Commission recommends its approval subject to three conditions: 1. The zoning be conditioned upon the final approval and recording of a PUD subdivision, 2. The zoning remain R-1 until said subdivision is approved for recording with the County Recorder, 3. The zoning change be conditioned upon the project being approved as a single family detached development. Lespectfully Submitted, Allen C. Johnson, AICP Planning Director attachments ACJ: AGM cc: John Schumann, Planning Commission Chairman Jim Huppi , Petitioner ( local representative ) Brent Beesley, Petitioner SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PETITION 400-713 FROM FIRST CHARTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL R-1 TO RESIDENTIAL R-1A FOR A PROPOSED 31 LOT PUD SUBDIVISION OVERVIEW Mr. Brent Beesley, president of First Charter Development Corporation, is requesting a zone change for the block "U" area located east of the Virginia Street Park. The rezoning is to accommodate a 31 lot single family subdivision on 34. 90 acres. The request is to change the zoning from the existing R-1 ( Single Family Dwellings ) to R-1A ( Single Family and/or Planned Unit Developments ). The local representatives for this petition are John Pace, Babcock Pace Architects, and James Huppi, Bush & Gudgell, Inc. • ^ , n A ', •.'" - I A �.,.°, < ""°°` A ` n VICIP�TY MAP o t F ,t i 0 El Li (�f _ Parcel to be 1 ! I Hid OSEY y -\ ,, "mr"""� Rezoned PDlU Jl . � . WO .. .. — ^ ( n L n At ` ,>4R l OAROEHS A i' ,..9. :,, -10 t DI.0 CITY N a:l..c. a -11�: Q: ` mit PROPERTY 1 t A 1 A A t 4 A z p� i , �:- • P Ham; � r H ❑ ❑ ❑ i L ^ x 1R� fl a III ❑ ❑ LI ❑ ❑ ❑:❑ll A 1 • " 1 \ AJ, i'�-; I. r-, r—i in r-i r-i n n n n FIR f ^—i l�. ^ 4.. i:27' 1‘' ' GENERAL INFORMATION OWNER: Board of Education PARCEL NUMBERS: 9-33-251-001, ( 30. 0 acres ) 9-33-176-013, ( 4. 90 acres ) REQUESTED CHANGE: R-1 to R-1A PROPOSED LOTS: 31 single family lots STREETS: Eleventh Ave. - Proposed Public Street Balance - Proposed Private Streets OVERLAY ZONE: F-1 ( Foothill Development Overlay Zone ) LOT SIZE RANGE: 18, 500 to 43, 560 ( 1 acre ) square feet BACKGROUND This area has received much discussion over the past years and is brielfy summarized as follows: - A complicated land trade between the Board of Education, Salt Lake City, and the Department of the Interior occurred in 1985 placing the properties in their current ownerships. At that time agreements were written that Salt Lake City would use the park property only for park and recreation purposes. - This area has also been discussed in both the 1979 Avenues Master Plan and the July 1987 Avenues Master Plan Update. - To date the City has met on several occasions to work on an acceptable conceptual subdivision design for this property. - This subdivision was briefly presented and discussed at the February 1, 1989 Avenues Community Council Meeting. The proposal for this subdivision more formally was presented to the Community during the Avenues Community Council ' s March 8, 1989 meeting. The comments received from the meeting will be presented at the Planning Commission Meeting. ANALYSIS The request for the change in zoning from R-1 to R-1A has been made to allow for narrower private roads to be constructed. The narrower roads will mean reduced visual and environmental impacts on the site and to surrounding areas due to the reduced amount of cuts and fills required for the narrow private roads. The R-1 zone requires that public roads be built to City Engineering widths and specifications, however, the R-1A zone allows Planned Unit Developments and accompanying private roads. Avenues Master Plan Update. The Avenues Master Plan Update mentions several points relating to this proposal: "The concerns are regarding new construction that is not compatible with established neighborhood character. " ( p. 2 ) "Many of the incompatibility problems created by new construction in residential areas are associated with excessive building height; new dwellings that tower over adjacent homes . . . " (p. 2 ) "Properties that the city should preserve as natural open space through the use of zoning regulations and through prohibiting access across city-owned property" ( p. 4 ). The master plan update map classifies the Virginia Street park as, "Parks and Open Space" and the subject property as, "Very Low Density" residences ( 1 to 4 units per acre) ( p. 7 ) "Larger lots in the foothills will respond positively to the following concerns. . . Traffic congestion, Views, Visual Appearance. . " ( p. 5 ) Eleventh Avenue. The Master Plan Update provides a discussion of Eleventh Avenue on Page 6. Summarized, the following issues remain unresolved: - Eleventh Avenue has been proposed to facilitate local traffic between the upper Avenues and the University. - There continues to be some disagreement among Avenues residents regarding the Eleventh Avenue extension. - No definite decisions have been made regarding the eastward extension of Eleventh Avenue. - The Planning Commission accepts a concept of the eastward extension, but has not endorsed the extension. - The City to date has not agreed to allow access to this development as proposed across the adjacent park property. The proposed subdivision plan depends on this extension of Eleventh Avenue. - The City may desire to require dedication of the eastern portion of Eleventh Avenue to allow for the eventual continuation of the right of way in the future. This dedication would be required during the subdivision process. Additional considerations expressed for Eleventh Avenue are: - The City Traffic Department is in the process of preparing an Avenues traffic study. The study is proposing Eleventh Avenue only as a future long term goal. - If Eleventh avenue is to continue eastward from this project, the right of way will cut across forty percent slope areas, which areas are prohibited from development. University of Utah "U" . The northeast corner of this project contains the "U" of the University of Utah. The conceptual lot layout excludes this area and also provides an access for maintenance of the "U". Legal easements exist surrounding this structure. This portion of land including the "U" , and the buffer area surrounding the "U" should not be included in the rezoning with the subdivision. Additional Property to the East. During meetings with the applicant, Mr. Beesley has expressed a desire to acquire additional property for lots. The conceptual subdivision plat shows a Cul-de-Sac touching the eastern border of the property. These lots would eventually obtain access from this cul-de-sac. This additional property would likewise require a zone change, and the filing of a subdivision at a future date. The City shold maintain a protection strip along this side of the cul-de-sac. Slopes. Jim Huppi, engineer for Bush and Gudgell, Inc. has been preparing the engineering and slope maps for this project. The conceptual subdivision has been platted over ground with portions of the property with up to fifty percent slopes. It appears that the subdivision can be built without disturbing major forty percent slopes. Eleventh Avenue is shown on the conceptual lot layout as being optionally continued or with a cul-de-sac at the eastern end of this project. Zoning Options. The two options presented at this time are either leaving the property R-1, or changing the zoning to R-1A. The R-1 zone would require the streets built to City widths and standards, and would also be maintained by the City. The R-1A zone will allow narrower private streets, and would be therefore privately maintained. The R-lA zone also allows, ". . . clustered owner-occupied detached and attached single family dwellings, and multiple family structures under various ownership patterns including condominiums, and individual ownership of a building and its site by following the conditions and procedures as outlined . . . " The staff is recommending that as a condition of rezoning to R-1A that this project only be approved as a single family detached development as a condition to the rezoning. RECOMMENDATION The Staff respectfully recommends a change in the zoning for the above described property from R-1 to R-1A, and 1 . The zoning be conditioned upon the final approval and recording of a PUD subdivision, 2. The zoning remain R-1 until said subdivision is approved for recording with the County Recorder, 3. The zoning change be conditioned upon the project being approved as a single family detached development. Allen G. McCandless Environmental Planner February 22, 1989 SEC FEB 2 1 1988 First Charter Development Corporation 95 East Tabernacle Street. St. George, Utah 84770 Telephone:(801)628-0433 Telecopier: (801)628-5638 February 17 , 1989 The Honorable Palmer A. DePaulis Mayor Salt Lake City 342 South State Street, Suite 500 Salt Lake City , Utah 84111 Re : Realignment of Easement through Virginia Street Park Dear Mayor DePaulis : On July 12 , 1988 , First Charter Development Corporation ( "First Charter") acquired approximately 34. 9 acres of real estate from the Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District ( the "School Board") . This land is east of and adjacent to the proposed Virginia Street Park. The School Board acquired these 34 . 9 acres from Salt Lake City in trade for the land upon which the Virginia Street Park is being built . At the time of the trade , Salt Lake City conveyed to the School Board an "easement for construction, maintenance and repair of an access road in and over a strip of land fifty feet in width . " This easement runs along the south border of Salt Lake City ' s park property . This easement was sold to First Charter by the School Board along with the 34. 9 acres . Within the next few days , First Charter will be making an application to Salt Lake City for approval of a subdivi- sion on the 34 . 9 acres . It is contemplated that access for this development will be through the Virginia Street Park along our deeded easement or along the existing rough cut road . There are several significant advantages to using the existing rough cut road as opposed to constructing a new access road through our deeded easement . Hon. Palmer A. DePaulis February 17 , 1989 Page 2 First, a road through our deeded easement would have to cross several areas where slopes are steeper than 40%. The new cuts and fills could detract from the beauty of the park and the neighborhood. Second , a road through our deeded easement would be adjacent to the back yards of all the neighbors which border the park on the south and could create a concern for these families . Third , a finished road along the existing cut would provide public access to a larger portion of the park. Fourth, finishing and landscaping a road along the existing cut would enhance the beauty of the park as the existing cut is unsightly and appears to be a project that has been abandoned. Accordingly, First Charter respectfully requests that Salt Lake City exchange the existing easement owned by First Charter for an easement that would utilize the existing cut. If this realignment can be made , First Charter proposes to bear the cost of completing a public road along the existing cut as the City may design. We would envision a low-speed, relatively narrow road for vehicles and paths for pedestrians and bicycles from the end of the improvements in Phase One of the new park approximately 2 ,000 feet to the east end of the City' s property. It should be noted that the Federal Government approved the granting of our existing easement through the proposed park. We do not consider that a realignment of our easement would require additional approvals or that a road through the park is , in any event , inconsistent with the development and utilization of the park . However , if it is deemed that Federal approval is required to realign our easement from its current location to the location of the existing cut, we will be pleased to work with the City to obtain this approval in a timely manner . The present plans for the development of the Virginia Street Park call for the construction of improvements on our deeded easement which could interfere with our construction of an access road in the event an agreement to realign our easement can not be reached. Therefore , today I have also written Parks Director John Gust requesting him to consider not going forward with the construction of those improve- ments in the new park that would impair our use of the deeded easement. Hon. Palmer A. DePaulis February 17 , 1989 Page 3 Enclosed is a. drawing which shows the 34 . 9 acres which we have acquired from the School Board , our deeded easement through the park, the Virginia Street Park property and the proposed new easement along the existing cut . Also enclosed is a copy of part of the plans for the Virginia Street Park which illustrates how the proposed improvements are inconsistent with the use of our easement for an access road. We appreciate your attention to this matter and will be pleased to work with any of your staff to whom you may direct us . Since y . Brent Bee ey President Enclosures CC: Hon . Sidney Reed Fonnesbeck Rodger F. Cutler , Esq. John Gust Allen C. Johnson Douglas Wheelwright Allen McCandless W. Gary Harmer , Salt Lake City School Board John E. Pace , Babcock Pace and Associates James Huppi, Bush & Gudgell , Inc . Wayne G. Petty, Esq. , rayle and Draper I Ij � \ �/ y / i / :• • ' --- .... IP e . ,;.-t-. .,,----. . / 1 �. /' /1 / ti a-- ,' j r r / • �i , ; / /' .... ..' .._ f ; ' / 27 71.,_/. 1 ., / ,/ / , . .-._- /_. / , ;cv/ / \J V r J Q _-_oe8s , ,. - I • : - p, . 17,: 3-••••...,,,,...„............,4/,,i . rn , If, } t. i , • ' a; ' .. - 0 ,,i_.: �, �` • } e -'.. $ ....'.. - �.d- A .II , '01I ,r • 1 .„,( . q 1•/ m 'C.. f.�'. i (/ ,J� / ,\ I 1 / J/ , c• ( „,..-„,.......-1/ / 4; • ) . si. : / r—L) , ,,,c... -, •, ( , c- _ („) .,.. ....... , ,_, , , , 1/ , z . -I, ._. .... , . ri' 1 1 r ' '17 / Z \. / • ,7 ) 1 • . . (7_, 4. (I. ' • r. •J . = 2 � � m O rn ID 0 , -----4: / 111 • Qn ail f 1 r r; Z f • '/ 'C i / • . I - t . ,a'i �f }. /I:� ? < "Ii 'C- < 11 ge , r .J H W 1 < < p,, 1' .-....-4i.,. '3 I fa . .. .. .. ..... w.. I. , . _ . . . . „Lit....„) . . 1!,4 ., W a.: ' • ........7) ‘ ...---f%-... :: r. 4e.--' .4, (.1.) 11 I:4 ff tLI ,f., rt. ►-, I '� • ., / s . . , '_ i 4 L .. 0f v 1S `''ill le ...._ _•••.____, ... .. y_.. ._., ., Oa�� 1 c', I � . .... . ...... t.4 .. \ :: .. 1,,. 11 •-• .• REM FEB 2 1 1989 First Charter Development Corporation 95 East Tabernacle Street. • Sc.George,Utah 84770 Telephone:(801)628-0433 Telecopier.(801)628.5638 February 17 , 1989 Mr. John Gust , Director Salt Lake City Parks Department 1965 West 500 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84014 Re : Development of Virginia Street Park -- Phase One Dear Mr . Gust: On July 12 , 1988 , First Charter Development Corporation ("First Charter") acquired approximately 34. 9 acres of real estate from the Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District (the "School Board") . This land is east of and adjacent to the proposed Virginia Street Park. The School Board acquired these 34. 9 acres from Salt Lake City in trade for the land upon which the Virginia Street Park is being built . At the time of the trade , Salt Lake City conveyed to the School Board an "easement for construction, maintenance and repair of an access road in and over a strip of land fifty feet in width . " This easement runs along the south border of Salt Lake City ' s property. This easement was sold to First Charter by the School Board along with the 34. 9 acres . First Charter has recently become aware that certain improvements related to the construction of the Virginia Street Park may be on this easement and may interfere with our construction of an access road over the easement . It would seem sensible to modify the easement to coincide with the new road and parking lot which the Parks Department is building in the new park. I have written to Mayor DePaulis requesting that our deeded easement be realigned to conform to the improvements in the park and also to the rough cut road to the east. However , until our deeded easement is realigned , we request that you consider not going forward with the construction of those improvements in the new park that would impair the use of our deeded easement in the event we are required to build our access road on our easement. Mr . John Gust February 17 , 1989 Page 2 Within the next few days , First Charter will be making an application to Salt Lake City for approval of a subdivi- sion on the 34. 9 acres which contemplates the construction of an access road along our deeded easement or through the park along the existing rough cut road . To avoid the need to destroy or reconstruct any of the proposed improve- ments in the new park, we would like to work with you to make certain that these improvement will accommodate the new access road. It appears from what we know of the proposed improvements for the park that it would require significant modifications in order to build a road of the type we understand the City will require for the new subdivision. There are other matters that may also require coordina- tion. If, for example , a sewer line is required to be built from the 34.9 acres through the new park to Virginia Street, hopefully this could be done before the improvements in the new park are completed. Enclosed is a drawing which shows the 34 . 9 acres which we have acquired from the School. Board , our deeded easement through the park, the Virginia Street Park property and the proposed new easement along the existing cut . Also enclosed is a copy of part of the plans for the Virginia Street Park which illustrates how the proposed improvements are inconsistent with the use of our easement for an access road. Within the next several days you will be contacted by Mr . Jim Huppi. of Bush & Gudgell who is doing the engineering on the proposed subdivision . Mr . Huppi will be calling to set up a meeting where , hopefully , we will be able to work out a satisfactory solution to these issues . Sinc , i Bren Be ey President Enclosures CC: Hon. Palmer A. DePaulis Hon. Sidney Reed Fonnesbeck Rodger F. Cutler , Esq. Allen C. Johnson Douglas Wheelwright Allen McCandless W. Gary Harmer , Salt Lake City School Board John E. Pace , Babcock Pace and Associates James Huppi, Bush & Gudgell , Inc . Wayne G . Petty , Esq . , Moyle and Draper ALLEN C. JOHNSONi•r tX Tj� s K _ ^ - I1(Ilt' I MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR - - Y tti� IJ �'I to 54// -A _ ��7] , .._•�� ,..1� l° - '--CINDY CROMER -.. SANDRA MARLER ,�.� % 1 ' ,varil rit(DIR�D e fJl Mr THOMAS A. ELLISON SECRETARY 11 1 ��, .,�, ,��__�1�1 LAVONE LIPDLE•GAMONAL Ex-OFFICIO MEMBERS: DEPARTMENT,OF DEVELOPMENT_SERVICES RICHARD HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY ; Planning 'and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET.:ROOM 200 JOHp1 M.SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER _SALT_L,AKE CITY,..UTAH. 841-11 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL _ PETER VANALSTYNE 535.7757 KATHY WACKER H. Brent Beesley First Charter Development Corp. 5260 South Geneva Way Englewood, Colorado 80111 February 21, 1989 I have met with the City Attorney and have reviewed the documents pertaining to your proposed subdivision of the property near the block "U" . I understand your plans for this subdivision require Eleventh Avenue to continue eastward across the City"s Virginia Street Park property to serve as access to your proposed subdivision. Unfortunalely, agreements with the Federal Government do not allow Salt Lake City to extend Eleventh Avenue across this park property as shown on your proposed plat. The agreement dated April 29, 1985 between the U. S. Department of the Interior and Salt Lake City states , "Whelreas , the Salt Lake City Corporation has agreed that it will use said replacement lands exclusively for park and recreation purposes, subject to reversion to the United States of America for failure to so use said property. " The deed conveyed to Salt Lake City in 1984 further states this land is to be used only for park and recreation purposes. The exchange of deeds between the School Board and the City was "Without Warranty" and the access easement was clearly described in both deeds . The City therefore has no liability for any access other than as specifically provided in the deeds. To construct Eleventh Avenue across this park property could place this park property in jeopardy of reversion to federal ownership if used for any other purposes other than for park and recreation. Salt Lake City would not necessarily object ::to your:attempt7to modify these federal restrictions resulting in more flexibility in development options than we currently enjoy. -_ We are generally pleased with your proposal for the subdivision. '-The design seems to take into consideration the concerns of the citizens and City .• development goals. - We would like to _keep a dialogue open as your plans evolve. Please feel free to call if you have questions regarding this topic. Sincerely, 4,/ Allen •hnson AICP Planning Director • • Attachment F MAR 2 1989 . • WGER F. CUTLER CORPORATION; ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS ;SALT' , , CITY( DRPORATI RAY L. MONTGOMERY CITY ATTORNEY GREG R. HAWKINS CHERYL D. LUKE i_ !_� LAW DEPARTMENT LARRY V. SPENOLO_VE CITY PROSECUTOR 324 SOUTH STATE, FIFTH FLOOR STEVEN W. ALLRED SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BRUCE R. BAIRD - (801) 535-7788 -" FRANK M. NAKAMURA FAX (801) 535-7640 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP February 24, 1989 GLEN A. COOK H. Brent Beesley First Charter Development Corporation 95 East Tabernacle Street St. George, Utah 84770 Re: Realignment of Easement through Virginia Street Park Dear Mr. Beesley: Your letter to Mayor DePaulis, Roger Cutler and others in the city was referred to me today for response. There is no question that the federal government did approve the easement described in the deeds between the City and the School Board which, pursuant to its terms, runs along the westerly and southerly boundaries of the property. By virtue of topography an access road on this easement would not be buildable. There is further no question that there is no specific provision in the acceptance by the federal government for the City to unilaterally realign the easement. It is, accordingly, our position that the City does not have the unilateral right to realign the easement without the prior written approval of the Secretary of the Department of Interior. If you wish to seek approval from the Department for such a change the City may be willing to cooperate . The proper procedure to follow when dealing with property owned by the City is to initiate a petition with the Real Property Department for the change you propose. That petition would then be circulated to all of the relevant departments for comment. Assuming a favorable comment is received from all departments the City might H. Brent Beesley February 24, 1989 Page -2- agree to realign the easements after you have obtained approval from the Department of Interior. You should note that the easement alignment which you propose might adversely affect the Virginia Street Park requiring compensation to the City. That would, of course, be a determination by the Parks Department in conjunction with the Real Property Department. If you have any further questions please feel free to call. Sin e1 E R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRB:rc cc: Mayor DePaulis Sydney Fonnesbeck / John Gust Allen C. Johnson Doug Wheelwright W. Gary Harmer, Salt Lake City School Board John Pace, Babcock, Pace and Associates Jim Huppi, Bush & Gudgel Wayne G. Petty, Moyle & Draper SALT' ¢LAKE'C IT y=` CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 333 SOUTH 200.EAST, SUITE 291 JOSEPH ANDERSONFt PUBLIC WOORKSSDIRECIRECTORR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER (801) 535-6630 March 6 , 1989 Doug Wheelwright City Planner Planning and Zoning RE : Request for Review, Petition #400-713 - Block U Subdivision Dear Doug : The Transportation Division has no concerns in regard to the above referenced petition . Sincerely , JkxL W . Steve Me er , P . E . Deputy Transportation Engineer WSM/ lh PC MINUTES March 9 , 1989 Page o • required, the costs might be high enough to endanger the entire project. Mr . Schumann opened the hearing for public comment and asked if anyone wishe. to address the Planning- Commission. Mr . Kim Anderso ' , 768 North Redwood Road, stated that he is in favor of the project only if the entire project is developed. He also said he does of want . any businesses in the project offering 24 hour services . Since no one else wa ', desirous of speaking on the matter, Mr . Schumann closed the hearing to the public. Mr . Howa asked if the rezoning would be limit-d for this particular developer or if any B-3 use could go into th".s site . Mr . Johnson explained that the Planning Commission could"recommend to the City Council that the rezoning be subject to the \ onstruction of this project under this configuration, but not '. ecessarily to this particular developer . Mr . Johnson furth-r explained that the staff recommendation requests that t`ve zoning change not become effective until the building pemits have been bbtained ( the developer has one year from the :pity council hearing to obtain those permits) . If the permits a - not obtained within the one year period , the rezoning issue di-. . Mr . Schumann then pointed out that this would give the develo.-r one year to obtain financing and line up tenants . Mr . Neilson inquired if this means all .'ermits have to be applied for simultaneously. Mr . Schumann responded in the negative and stated that the permits could be obtained ' n different phases . Mr . Nicolatus moved to accept staff ' s recom -ndation ( includinc seven master plan considerations and two cone tions listed in the retort) to recommend approval of Petition No . 400-705 to the City Council . Mr . Howe seconded the motion; all voted "Aye. " The motion passes . INFORMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-713 , First Charter Development requesting the property located at approximately 1800 East llth Avenue be rezoned from a Residential "R-1" to a Residential "R-lA" zoning district . Mr . Allen McCandless presented the staff report stating that Mr . Brent Beesley is requesting a zone change for the block "U" area located east of the Virginia Street Park . The rezoning is to accommodate a 31 lot , single family dwelling subdivision on 34 . 9 acres . Mr . McCandless added that this area has received much discussion in the past and is summarized as follows : 1 . A complicated land trade between the Board of Education, Salt Lake City, and the Department of the Interior occurred in 1985 placing the properties in their current PC MINUTES March 9, 1989 - Page 7 ownerships. At that time, agreements were written that Salt Lake City would use the park property only for park and recreation purposes . 2. This area has also been discussed in both the 1979 Avenues Master Plan and the July 1987 Avenues Master Plan Update. 3 . To date, the City has met on several occasions to work on an acceptable conceptual subdivision design for this property. 4 . This subdivision was briefly presented and discussed at the February 1, 1989 Avenues Community Council Meeting. The proposal for this subdivision was presented to the Community during the Avenues Community Council ' s March 8, 1989 meeting . The request for the change in zoning from R-1 to R-1A has been made to allow for narrower private roads to be constructed. The narrower roads will mean reduced visual and environmental impacts on the site and to surrounding areas due to the reduced amount of cuts and fills required for the narrow private roads . The R-1 zone requires that public roads be built to City Engineering widths and specifications , however , the R-1A zone allows Planned Unit Developments and accompanying private roads. Mr . McCandless stated that the following issues remain unresolved in connection with the Avenues Master Plan Update: Eleventh Avenue has been proposed to facilitate local traffic between the upper Avenues and the University. There continues to be some disagreement among Avenues residents regarding the Eleventh Avenue extension. No definite decisions have been made regarding the eastward extension of Eleventh Avenue . The Planning Commission accepts a concept of the eastward extension, but has not endorsed the extension. The City, to date, has not agreed to allow access to this development across the adjacent park property as proposed . The proposed subdivision plan depends on this extension of Eleventh Avenue . The City may desire to require dedication of the eastern portion of Eleventh Avenue to allow for the eventual continuation of the right-of-way in the future. This dedication would be required during the subdivision process . PC MINUTES March 9 , 1989 Page 8 Mr . McCandless said the staff is recommending that, as a condition of rezoning to R-1A, this project only be approved .as a single family detached development. Mr . McCandless further stated that the Planning Staff recommends a change in the zoning for the above described property from R-1 to R-1A, subject to the following conditions : 1 . The zoning be contingent upon the final approval and recording of a PUD subdivision. 2 . The zoning remain R-1 until said subdivision is approved for recording with the County Recorder . 3 . The zoning change be contingent upon the project being approved as a single family detached development. Mr . Brent Beesley, the petitioner said he concurs with the staff recommendations . Mr . Schumann opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to speak . Mr . James Richards 1555 Federal Heights Drive, said they are concerned about the access issue and asked if there are specific rules regarding access. Mr . Johnson responded that the subdivision plat has to be ready for recording before the subdivision can be developed , and this requires the access issue be resolved. Mr . Richards said he supports the rezoning but is concerned about the access . Mr . Ernest Dixon , 77 "C" Street said he is concerned that the community won' t be given the opportunity to express their opinions . He also stated that he would prefer access other than llth Avenue. Mr . Beesley stated that the reason for the rezoning request is solely to allow for private roads in the subdivision. The configuration, as presently shown could be developed in the existing zoning . He added that the reason for the private roads is because they can be narrower than public streets and would require less cut and fill . Mr . Beesley stated that the civil engineers are going to try and develop alternative access other than the access from Virginia Street Park. Ms . Hermoine Jex, representing Land Use and Natural Resources and SLACC, handed out copies of a letter to the Planning Commissioners , a copy of which is filed with the minutes . She stated that they believe no action should be taken on this matter until the issue of access has been settled . Ms . Jex said they are requesting denial of this petition until all pertinent facts are disclosed to the community . Ms . Deedee Corradini , 1600 Tomahawk , stated that they realize this land will be developed at some point in time and said she is in favor of this particular development over anything else they have reviewed . Ms . Corradini said she would prefer a development with large lot sizes over some future development which might not be as good . PC MINUTES March 9 , 1989 Page 9 Mr . Stan Penfold, 715 Second Avenue, stated that there is tremendous concern in the community about the llth Avenue Extension. , Mr . Nicolatus asked how the residents in the back portion of the site would cope with only one access if there was a fire blocking the entrance of the access . Mr . Nicolatus also inquired about garbage collection. Mr . Beesley stated that the issue of the fire is probably one of the reasons the city is desirous of having private roads in the area and that this issue needs further investigation. He added that the cost of garbage collection would have to be absorbed by the property owners . Mr . Nicolatus expressed concern about losing sight of the "U" on the side of the mountain due to development that is too close to the site. Mr . James Huppi stated that no one can build within 100 feet of the "U" and the homes closest to the site will be 70 feet below the "U" which will keep it in clear view. • Mr . Howa inquired how they will deal with the Chevron and Mt. Fuel pipelines . Mr . Huppi responded that they might have to move the Chevron pipeline and that the city has requested that no lots front on the lower road of the subdivision. He added that at this point, no homes are designed that conflict with the Mt. Fuel pipeline. Mr . Neilson pointed out that the area is already zoned "R-1" and the only real issues in rezoning to "R-lA" are the width and ownership of the streets involved . Mr . Nicolatus moved to approve recommending approval of Petition No . 400-713 to the City Council , subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr . Howa seconded the motion. Mr . Neilson asked if this restricts the development to the 31 lots shown in the current site plan . Mr . Johnson responded that with the Planned Unit Development ( PUD) , the developer will have to come back before the Planninc Commission for approval . He added that they could handle the number of lots allowed at that time . Mr . Huppi informed the Planning Commission that Mr . Beesley might possibly purchase additional land which could add another three lots to the plan . All voted "Aye" to the motion . The motion passes . Ms . Liddle-Gamonal stated that she is in favor of holding a hearing on this matter due to the number of concerns the neighbors have expressed regarding the 11th Avenue access . Mr . Wright suggested that when the PUD issue comes back before the Planninc Commission as a part of the subdivision, the Planning Commission could hear the matter in the format of an fe informal hearing . ATTACHMENT I Summary of Events Jan 23, 1989 - Initial meeting with City concerning the proposed subdivision development . Conceptual subdivision plans were presented and discussed with several City staff members . Feb 7, 1989 - Meeting with Allen Johnson, Roger Cutler, Syndey Fonnesbeck, Bruce Baird, Doug Wheelwright, Allen McCandless to discuss City' s position on the Eleventh Avenue Extension. Feb 13, 1989 - Meeting with Brent Beesley, Jim Huppie, Doug Wheelwright, Allen McCandless to discuss next steps necessary in the subdivision approval. Feb 14, 1989 - Rezoning Petition submitted by Brent Beesley for the proposed subdivision, petition # 400-713 ( Attachment B ) . • Feb 17, 1989 - Letter from Brent Beesley to the City concerning the realignment of existing easement through • Virginia Street Park ( Attachment C ) . Feb 17, 1989 - Letter from Brent Beesley to John Gust, Director of Salt Lake City Parks Department concerning the existing access easement for the proposed subdivision ( Attachment D ) . Feb 21, 1989 - Letter from Allen Johnson to Mr. Beesley regarding the City ' s position of allowing Eleventh Avenue through the park property ( Attachment E ) . Feb 24, 1989 - Letter from Bruce Baird to Brent Beesley concerning the right of way over the City Park Property ( Attachment F ) . Mar 1, 1989 - Plan and profile for roadway on existing 50 foot easement filed with Development Coordination Team for review. Mar 8, 1989 - The plans for the proposed subdivision were presented formally to the Avenues Community Council for comments and review. Major negative comments were concerning the eventual extension of eleventh avenue. Mar 9, 1989 - Petition for Agreements with Salt Lake City was presented to the City ( Attachment C ) . Mar 9, 1989 - Planning Commission review and motion to approve of the rezoning request from R-1 to R-1A. Surrounding property owners were notified of the informal hearing with the Planning Commission ( Attachment H - Minutes ) . i?rT' r- rj 0 sAPPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDS IENT • To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services' s • - 324 .South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 � . Advertising Fee* $100.00 .} - • (*if a public hearing is held) -- , Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City Utah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: approximately 1800 East llth Avenue fran a R-1 classification to a R-1A classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATTAM TO APPLICATION * 1. The reasons why the present zoning is not proper for the area. * 2. Changes which have taken place in the area which justify a change in zoning. * 3. Description of the proposed use to be made of the property. 4. Other items which justify a change in the existing zoning. 5. Indication of support for rezoning from all affected property owners. 6. Any other information or exhibits which would aid the planning Commission in arriving at a proper recommendation. 7. Sidwell Parcel Identification Number. * See Attached Sheet. 'iris ABOVE INFORMATION, IN DETAIL, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THE PETITION TO BE PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE PLN III CD MISSION. First Charter Development Corp. Signature of the applicant Address 5260 S. Geneva Way, (303) Englewood, CO Telephone Number 7 -8720 Zip Code 80111 Local Representative: James Huppi Bush & Gudgell , Inc. gru, OUT REVERSE SIDE 555 South 300 East Utah 84111 Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. y "'r7/B Date ,-;?1/y/cE 9 . Receipt No. ,16, - Amount $ /c0,()b �. l 3.;h1 lye DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VERL "BUZZ" HUNT Treasurer PALMER DEPAULIS TREASURER CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING MAYOR 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228 LANCE R. BATEMAN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (801) 535-7946 MEMORANDUM TO: Willie Stoler, Chair, City Council FROM: Buzz Hunt, City Treasurers, DATE: May 11, 1989 SUBJECT: Council Resolution Approving Contents and Distribution of Preliminary Official Statement and Notice of Sale for Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1989 As you know, the City issues tax notes every year for the purpose of providing short-term financing (12 months) for the City's general fund cash- flow needs. Basically, as in years past, this borrowing covers the temporary 5-month cash-flow deficits incurred prior to receiving property tax revenues in December of each year. Tax notes are a general obligation debt, requiring the Council to covenant to levy taxes on taxable property sufficient with other general fund revenues to pay principal and interest on the notes when due. Since tax notes are issued and repaid within the same fiscal year, no election is required even though tax notes are a general obligation debt. This coming fiscal year, we anticipate issuing approximately $17.5 million in tax and revenue anticipation notes. The notes will be issued in bearer foam with a fixed interest rate and will be sold by competitive public sale (sealed bid form and notice of sale is included in the Council packet) . This Tuesday the Council is scheduled to consider for adoption a resolution authorizing the following: ° Advertisement for the sale of the notes; and, ° Contents and distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement. SAI;I !LAKE' IZTY(G90RPORATION 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: APRIL 21 , 1989 REFERENCE : Bids for Non-contiguous Streets Special Improvement District , Project No . 38-819 will be opened at 2 : 00 p . m . on Tuesday, May 16 , 1989 , a tabulation of the bid will be made to the City Council on May 16 , 1989 at 6 : 00 p . m. RECOMMENDATION ; 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 received prior approval by the City Council . A portion of the money is budgeted in the 1988/89 Capital Improvement budget , with the remaining to be budgeted in the 1989/90 Capital Improvement budget . DISCUSSION ; N/A SUBMITTED BY : JOSEPH R. ANDERSON , PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JRA : JH : po • • • L _ r-„4;:e.• -,,-,1•,,T:--.:,,, - :., ...,1 L. • r,-M "`"~r ,- "- =_, A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE ' . u:=; ::;:: t ': ;; CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF tir "; r'�'`` �'` Via' SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH es.4._ -;�. }. :;_:... . -;!"r.;; 4 ; WHEREAS, The Salt Lake County Jail faces serious overcrowding problems - which create increased dangers for jail staff and inmates; 4. :' _ _ 1`=' •- - : ~; - and = i r, • � Y,' F• _� -44 • WHEREAS, . A growing local inmate population and mandates from Federal ilVi:r ;-v-'rsv 1 ;-1: jail space 01 _,: ::.h 4-: ";=- - ".;;�v__1- ,� ' Courts make the construction of additional �,,tzt n";.'°__ .�, _,-` -.:-.< necessary; and : : ::_+ =' ' ''_ >' '== WHEREAS, Salt Lake County has committed to build a new minimum ;�,:�. ; , security facility to ease overcrowding and has designated.:' =` • .n Tuesday, 23 May, 1989, for a General Obligation Bond Election q�is � `-�•<.�=': : to fund construction of that facility; and • 1= - " "a'.::-: r_==;. :;.r' =a WHEREAS, A General Obligation Bond is one of the least costly methods - 'K� F'"='.`=:b:;==° =`x�,: "r<a.' of financing major public structures. .r.. RN�a'..:z` 'camti i=.::�,.V; _5'.r,r :'•.g:•S�";_-" •-; <�. *� :_-_•- ,,. , a, ` NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor _ { i " _ ' „ ;,: Palmer DePaulis that the citizens of Salt Lake County n*1-i ` = :'' _Y"tom``` .ny-4 • are encouraged to support the General Obligation Bond ; � issue for construction of a minimum security jail facility. Tir�3 .a;- ;_- _ `4 s BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis �5�`.-<,L.. z`*;f yr. 3+. `;'.:�. .f ; .:.:,, i _•.,. encourage the County Commission to explore all possible �;.;.•.�, :.YI`; sites for the jail facility as some concern has been expressed` 5 - ; F<:=' r - _=' 'r�::s about the Oxbow location. tt,F.}j ` '''" 'i r F ; '=4,= -.) DATED this 16th day of May, 1989. -'" ; at•-Y oer, it:,, -,- 44 <: ,,.r= ,, : .; a mer De au �s4__&,..d., _ yori ie yid ;?ti:.- - r•.-_, � _-=,•r: ,....may? _ t lit `" Drente , ittner . ayne rroc s f. ;. .k. ?ram .} _ ;'aaL -j r a y+n i, +nnesbeck an Hardman redv,Y ,y;.,.iv,.. --tom:.. • .. _ 1 n,.. 1.5„ 3 .+r''i 5-y f.'yam o. _ ...-------- ,,. ...,,..".i ;r,, w =-L • -..•= ;Pt Tom Godfrey Rose yn k { "1 3".ram,�,r a ;s , E ;dS!c }r 444 fi i s , ' 4, kl s� 'Sj t `'f ' -ff,,- :.,,,•.,',,..77,'........1..,::1:1' 7 f y + iY s . F/ :e °_aJ at @ON 01MONI DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 240 `, R SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 RECEIVE!' E 535-7902 MAY 0 g 1989 May 8, 1989 MAYOR'S OFFICE TO: W.M. "Willie" Stoler, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council RE: APPROVAL OF A PENDING RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL STATEMENT REGARDING 15TH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE SUBSEQUENT INTER-LOCAL GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO RECEIVE SUCH FUNDING. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution specifying allocation of 15th Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and authorizing the Mayor to sign the inter- local grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pending receipt of the original contract documents from Denver HUD. Background: Salt Lake City will be receiving $3,947,000 in 15th Year CDBG funds and reprogramming $200,000 past CDBG slippage for a total of $4,147,000 available July 1, 1989 . These funds will be used as approved by the Mayor and City Council . To facilitate the CDBG process, it is requested that the Council sign a resolution to adopt the use of the $4, 147, 000 for 15th Year CDBG projects and authorize the Mayor to sign the inter-local grant agreement forthcoming from HUD. The 15th Year CDBG application will be submitted to HUD in Denver after Council approval . They will review the application and send back a grant agreement to be signed and returned by the City before funding becomes available for approved projects . If the Council now authorizes the Mayor to sign this interlocal grant agreement pending the receipt of the original contract documents from Denver, it will be possible to begin projects up to two weeks earlier than before. Included with this transmittal is the current 15th Year CDBG funding resolution and a copy of last year's CDBG grant agreement which is substantially similar to the agreement we expect from HUD Denver in early July. At that time the Finance Department will review the contract and assign account numbers for each project and it will be routed through the Attorney's Office prior to signing by the Mayor. If you have any questions regarding the CDBG program or the procedures required to adopt 15th Year funding please do not hesitate to call . Sincerely, / T" �9 Rosemary Davis Director RD/SL/<cdplan>RES RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINAL STATEMENT REGARDING 15TH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ( 1989-1990 ) AND APPROVING INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND HUD WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is entitled under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, ( 42 USC 5301, et seq. ) and 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) , Part 570, to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the 15th Year CDBG Program ( 1989-90 ) in the sum of $3, 947, 000, and $200, 000 in CDBG carry-over funds, totalling $4, 147, 000 . WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the people of Salt Lake city that the City file an application with HUD for said 15th year CDBG funds in accordance with 24 CFR 570.302; and WHEREAS, the public notices, hearings, and other pre- submission requirements as set forth in 24 CFR 570.301 have been accomplished by the City, including but not limited to the following: 1 . A public hearing held Tuesday, May 2, 1989 to consider a tentative list of projects to be funded with the $3, 947, 000 in the 15th Year Community Development Block Grant funds and $200, 000 in CDBG carry-over funding, and to obtain the views of citizens regarding the City' s housing and community development needs; and 2. The publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake County, Utah, of the City' s proposed Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds; and WHEREAS, the City Council does now meet in public hearing this May 16, 1989 to consider any citizen comments and views received as a result of the aforementioned hearing and publication and to issue the City' s final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1 . That the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives of Salt Lake City regarding the 15th Year Community Development Block Grant Program be, and is hereby, adopted. These objectives are to accomplish the primary goal of the Community Development Program to revitalize, redevelop, and preserve our urban community by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate income. More specific goals of Salt Lake City are: I . The prevention of slums and blight and the elimination of blighting influences; II . The elimination of conditions which are detrimental to health, safety and public welfare through rehabilitation and related activities; III . The conservation and expansion of housing stock; IV. A more rational utilization of land and other natural resources; and V. The alleviation of physical and economic distress through the stimulation of private investment and community revitalization. In order to meet the goals of the Community Development Program, specific objectives have been identified. These objectives are: a. To concentrate funds through the targeting of neighborhoods, and in addition, specific areas where these improvements will favorably impact several neighborhoods or areas; b. To offer housing rehabilitation programs to owners of single-family and multifamily homes; c. To provide sidewalk, curb and gutter, and street improvements, in target neighborhoods, and in addition, specific areas where these improvements will favorably impact several neighborhoods or areas; d. To improve and provide recreational facilities specifically parks and community centers; e. To stimulate private investment and community revitalization by improving existing and proposed infra- structure through active capital improvement planning and programming; f. To provide comprehensive planning services encouraging better arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational activities; and -2- g. To provide limited public service programs for low and moderate income residents for programs where no alternative funding sources are available. Priority will be given to public service programs which complement physical development activities. 2. That to meet the aforementioned goals and objectives, Salt Lake City adopt, and does hereby adopt, as its Final Statement of Projected Use of the aforementioned $3, 947, 000 of the 15th Year Community Development Block Grant funds, and the said $200,000 in CDBG carry-over funds the allocation to the projects and program areas as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 3. That the Mayor be, and is hereby authorized as the official representative of Salt Lake City to submit the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds as set forth herein, together with such additional information and certifications as may be required under 24 CFR 570.302 and 24 CFR 570. 303, to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in connection with and application for the aforementioned 15th Year CDBG funds. 4. That the Mayor be, and is hereby authorized as the official representative of Salt Lake City, to sign and execute the HUD 15th Year CDBG Grant Agreement which shall be in a form substantially similar to the copy attached hereto for the 14th Year, FY 1988-89, funding, subject to final approval as to form of said Grant Agreement by the City Attorney. This authorization shall constitute compliance with all requirements regarding City Council approval of any interlocal cooperation agreement regarding 15th Year CDBG funds. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of May, 1989. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake ity Attorney's Office CITY RECORDER Date OY • I LVS: rc -3- (( /— P Funding Approval U.S.Deportment n ol '9 /% .r Under Title I of the Housing and Community e wi r Development Act of 1974(Public Law 93-383)as Amended Community Development Bla:k Grant Program HI-00515R 1.Noma N Gnome* 2. Oran No Salt Lake City, Utah 6-88-MC-49-0004 2. G•MIN•Adams,Li(wo.Sr...r C.rr.CO.:nrr Srrr•end i.0 Coos 4. Dave of:ub mN.W4 06-06-88 Capital Planning and Programming Division s. 0•NofNUi)R.e.rWolSubmission 06-13-88 324 South State Street, Room 240 Daft $04flfied JUL 3 1988 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 a""eM..eQr.nYear 07-01-88 I. CQ Original furrdr.e Ayge .$'• 0 aern..,a++.a.t AO...r.anr.rn too. All section taferences below are to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended,unless ofherw(se Indicated. 7. Ct+nray M Cwrs..wWy 00.01eprroanl 6400 Grant for Ma funding Amon D . (1;Mon.,)t►only on.,) APpaaVE a. 1M Entitlement(Sec. 106(b)) b. 0 HUD Administered Small Cities(Sec. 106)(d) (2) (8) 1988 c. Cl Secretary's Discretionary(Sec. 107) J`11- 2 Q• JO C. now„orCo.,n, tyo.»bpn..nlBlockG,.nd FY C1,Y RFCGR(ic.►t FY 1986 1988 a. Amount of CDBG Funds Currently Reserved for this Grantee s s _ 1 000 S 3,794,000 b. Amount of CDBG Funds Now Being Approved for this Grantee s __ S 1,000 s 3,794,000 c. Amount of Reservation to be Cancelled(Line ea minus Eb) $ — _ $ -0- S 3,794,000 HUD ACCOUNTING USE ONLY sATCH_1 TAC PAoORAL ,, Tiqf..G J A'1EA 10OCUMI.NT N;1 PROJCC7 NIJMUER —� I ( I � !! I7 r iI-_ �_i r ,i,_.._, - .J J _J 17 9 b 812, _f 1 I 1 Ji Lf ._. 1 4 9 12 13 14 16 18 23 3C 35 UTFGORY AMOUNT I EFrlf 11vE CA 7E b. AMOUNT I `�— SCHEDULE NO ".L.,.........1 iiiiii II 1 1 TJ-II t_i , 38 41 45 50 54 30 el 65 70 74 79 I. Dt.Npuaan a C.arraiiiinity o.www..nt abaci Grad FY -- FY �_. 1986 Fy 1988 a. Grant amount withheld for payment of principal and interest on loans guaranteed pursuant to Sec. 108 $ $ -0- S -0 b. Grant amount deducted by HUD to settle outstanding Urban Renewal Loans(Sec. 112(a)(1)) ' $ $ -0- S -0- c. sum of lines 9a,and 9b $ $ -0- S -0- d. Amount of CDBG Funds available for disbursement S s 1,000 s 3,794,000 (Line 8b minus 9c) CO.Amount ar awaMr.Urban florirusi Fun&e approved and bars.imam*(I.c 112(b)) a. Amount of surplus U.R. Funds reserved for this grantee S N/A • b. Amount of surplus U.R. Funds now being ap'-ned _ S N/A c. ealence of surplus U.R mine• ' •. . , •,• ^.;s 10^; s N/A t , ( HUO ACCOUNTING USE ONLY BATCH TAG o(`aRAM v a PEON AREA DOCUMENT NO PROJECT NUMBER $ 1 5 3 1 7 6 7 0 8 2 1 4 9 12 13 14 16 18 23 30 35 CATEGORv AMOUNT EFFECTIVE DATE F AMOUNT 2 SCHEDULE NO 38 41 45 50 54 60 61 65 70 74 79 11.Ma:Mwn,amount of loan qu.tom.s commitment..a1NON end.mount now WMq.ppw.d • a. Grantee's latest entitlement amount— x 3 S N/A b. Principal amount of outstanding loans pursuant to Section 108 S N/A c. Amount of outstanding loan guarantee commitments approved pursuant to Section 108 S N/A d. Maximum amount of loan guarantee commitment available(Line 11a minus 11b.and 11c) S N/A e. Amount of loan guarantee commitment now being approved S N/A 12.Recipient of lean guarantee(Chock.ppoca/N boll a. ❑ Grantee identified in block No.1 b. ❑ Public Agency designated to receive loan guarantee(Name and address) N/A 11 apoefal conditions(Check app/.cabl*boll a. 0 Not applicable b. ® Attached U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development By Actin Director, Department of CPD Titte 1 (� Date y 1 . 13. (b) Special conditions E.O. 12372 - SPECIAL CONTRACT CONDITION 1. Notwithstanding any provision of the Grant Agreement, no funds provided under this agreement may be obligated or expended for the planning or construction of water or sewer facilities until receipt of written notification from HUD .'• of the release of funds on coapletion of the review procedures required under the Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and HUD's • implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 52. The recipient shall also complete the review procedures required under E.O. 12372 and 24 C.F.R. Part 52 and receive written notification from HUD of the release of funds before obligating or expending any funds provided under this agreement for any new 'or revised activity for the planning or construction of water or sewer facilities not previously reviewed under E.O. 12372 and implementing regulations. 2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Grant Agreement, any requirements of amendments to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 which supersede or are not provided for in the HUD Program regulations shall govern the use of the assistance provided until revised regulations implementing such requirements are published for effect. • ( • • Grant Agreement and Loan U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development Guarantee Acceptance Provisions Community Development Block Grant Program Grant Agreement This Grant Agreement is made by and between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the city of Salt Lake City, Utah (the Grantee) pursuant to the authority of Title I of the Housing and Community Devel- opment Act of 1974(Public Law 93-383), as amended. The Grantees submissions for Title I assistance and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 570(as now in effect and as may be amended from time to time),which are incorporated by reference.together with the HUD Funding Approval Form 7082 and any special conditions.which are hereto attached. constitute part of the Agreement. In reliance upon and in consideration of the mutual representations and obligations hereunder.HUD and the Grantee agree as follows: Subject to the provisions of this Grant Agreement.HUD will make the funding assistance for Fiscal Year 19 88 specified in the attached HUD Funding Approval Form 7082 available to the Grantee upon execution of the Agreement by the parties.The obligation and utilization of the funding assistance provided is subject to the requirements of the regulations and any special conditions set forth in the HUD Funding Approval Form 7082, including the requirement for a release of funds by HUD under the Environmental Review Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58 for any activities requiring such release. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real ' Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970(42 U.S.C.4601)as specified in regulations issued by the Secretary and published in 24 CFR Part 42. The Grantee further agrees to assume all of the responsibilities for environmental review,decision making and actions.as specified and required in regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 104(f) of the Act and published in 24 CFR Part 58. The Grantee further agrees to accept responsibility for adherence to the Agreement by subrecipient entities to which it makes funding assistance hereunder available. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development By -"*\o&\.s— APPROVED Acting Director, Department of CPD Title _ _�� JUL 20 1988 APPROVED AS TO FORM Date Salt Lake City Afforney i Office CITY RECORDER Dais 7 ! S1 The Grantee li _ gd irLFunds Available By Finance Department i� Title Date 7_/74g 7_ 2a - Encueo .ed -efos(7 Date i i � Loan Guarantee Acceptance Provisions (Use only for Sectiori 1¢ Loa n an Guarantee Assistance to designated public agency) N/A The public agency hereby accepts the Grant Agreement executed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on with respect to grant number .as Grantee designated to receive loan guarantee assistance,and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.applicable regulations,and other requirements of HUD now or hereafter in effect,pertaining to the assistance provided it. Name of Public Agency/Grantee Signature of Authorized Official • Title Title - 1 2 ; OFFICE OF THE CITY 'COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY,-UTAH 84111 535-7600 • May 16, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JEt SON RE: CDBG INFORMATION -- LISTTEU BY PROGRAM At the request of a Council Member, I am providing for your convenience a listing of the proposed CDBG motions by program. The Council Member thought it may be easier for the Council to go through the process tonight if the motions are listed by program. No changes have been made in the motions. They are simply listed in a different format. As with the last list, I have listed the motions in order of the district number of the Council Member who may propose the motion. This is in no way intended to be the order in which the motions are to be discussed. REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING REHAB: Council Member Alan Hardman: I move we reduce funding for the Community Development Corporation by $50,000, ((q� to $100,000. (number 12 on page 2) l� I move we increase funding for the Redevelopment Agency Housing Rehab program by $50,000 to $700,000. (number 1 on page 1) a , NHS REVOLVING LOAN FUND Council Member Wayne Horrocks: I move we reduce funding for Downtown Plan Strategies by $30,000, to $35,000. (number 2 on page 15) , I move we increase funding for the clikRevolving Loan fund by $30,000, to $120,000. (number 3 on page 1) NHS SECURITY LOCK SERVICES Council Member Wayne Horrocks: I mov \ hat we desi at the Salt e City Police Depar nt Crime Pre ention Program the a cy to provide the rity Lock ' vices program. (n r 4 on page 1 _ Or: I move that the Security Lock Services program be put out to bid and that a recommendation be made to the City Council by the Community Development Advisory Committee and by the Mayor. (number 4 on page 1) Council Member Tom Godfrey: I move that we approve $30,006 to fund the Security Lock Services, but that we not designate a provider at this time. And, that we request the administration to put this program out to bid and make a recommendation, through CDAC, to the Council as to which agency should be designated the provider. (number 4 on page 1) • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Council Member Wayne Horrocks: i I move that we designate the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils as the incubator of the Community Development Corporation. (number 12 on page 2) Or: I move that the Community Development Corporation program be put out to bid and that a recommendation be made to the Council by the Community Development Advisory Committee and by the Mayor. (number 12 on page 2) Council Member Alan Hardman: • /I move we reduce funding for the Community Development Corporation item by ,, ,,_$50,000 to $50,000. (number 12 on page 2) 7 ( a move we appropriate $50,000 for SLACC staffing. (number 4 on page 15) I move we approve the remaining $50,000 in the CDC line item for start-up costs for a Community Development Corporation, but that we not designate a provider at this time. (number. 12 on page 2) I move that a task force consisting of five to ten individuals with expertise and interest in housing problems, finance, neighborhoods and other related issues be selected by SLACC. The task force"s charge would be review the range of community housing needs that may be accommodated within the context of a CDC. Their immediate task would be to make an investigation, and report to the Mayor and the Council within three months as to the need for a CDC and the housing problems it may be expected to address. The task force would also report to CDAC, the Mayor and the Council whether they wish to incubate the • CDC, or whether they recommend another agency to incubate the CDC. After this information is gathered, the Community Development Advisory Committee would make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council. (number 12 on page 2) Council Member Tom Godfrey: I move that we support the Mayor"s recommendation to establish a task force to review the range of community housing needs that may be accommodated within the context of a CDC. The task force members would be appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the Council, as all board appointments are done. Upon the group's review, they would recommend to the Mayor and Council, through CDAC, the most appropriate manner in which to handle the CDC start-up and incubation. (number 12 on page 2) DOWNTOWN PLAN STRATEGIES See motion contained under NHS Revolving loan fund, Council Member Wayne Horrocks CDBG MOTIONS PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Wayne Horrocks: v I move we reduce funding for Downtown Plan Strategies by $30,000, to $35,000. (number 2 on page 15) / I move we increase funding for the NHS Revolving Loan fund by $30,000, to $120,000. (number 3 on page 1) I move that we designate the Salt Lake City Police Department Crime Prevention L/ Program as the agency to provide the Security Lock Services program. (number 4 on page 1 ) Or: I move that the Security Lock Services program be put out to bid and that v a recommendation be made to the City Council by the Community Development Advisory Committee and by the Mayor. (number 4 on page 1) I move that we designate the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils as the incubator of the Community Development Corporation. (number 12 on page 2) Or: I move that the Community Development Corporation program be put out to bid and that a recommendation be made to the Council by the Community Development Advisory Committee and by the Mayor. (number 12 on page 2) Council Member Alan Hardman: I move we reduce funding for the Community Development Corporation by $50,000, to $100,000. (number 12 on page 2) I move we increase funding for the Redevelopment Agency Housing Rehab program ? by $50,000 to $700,000. (number 1 on page 1) I move we reduce funding for the Community Development Corporation item by $50,000 to $50,000. (number 12 on page 2) .I move we appropriate $50,000 for SLACC staffing. (number 4 on page 15) I move we approve the remaining $50,000 in the CDC line item for start-up costs for a Community Development Corporation, but that we not designate a provider at this time. (number 12 on page 2) I move that a task force consisting of five to ten individuals with expertise and interest in housing problems, finance, neighborhoods and other related issues be selected by SLACC. The task force's charge would be review the range of community housing needs that may be accommodated within the context of a CDC. Their immediate task would be to make an investigation, and report to the Mayor and the Council within three months as to the need for a CDC and the housing problems it may be expected to address. The task force would also report to CDAC, the Mayor and the Council whether they wish to incubate the CDC, or whether they recommend another agency to incubate the CDC. After this information is gathered, the Community Development Advisory Committee would make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council. (number 12 on page 2) Council Member Tom Godfrey: I move that we support the Mayor's recommendation to establish a task force to review the range of community housing needs that may be accommodated within the context of a CDC. The task force members would be appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the Council, as all board appointments are done. Upon the group's review, they would recommend to the Mayor and Council, through CDAC, the most appropriate manner in which to handle the CDC start-up and incubation. (number 12 on page 2) I move that we approve $30,000 to fund the Security Lock Services, but that we not designate a provider at this time. And, that we request the 7 administration to put this program out to bid and make a recommendation, through CDAC, to the Council as to which agency should be designated the provider. (number 4 on page 1) a. • ��'r r 0Ir G�, RPOLRA'I.gN� DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON _ ^-114 CITY AND COUNTY.BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, .535-7777 TO: Salt Lake city Council March 7, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-662-88 Legislative Action. • Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April-4, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-662-88 submitted as a legislative Action to rezone property located between 500 and 600. East and . Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" classification. • Availability of Funds: Not applicable _ Discussion and Background: The_Planning Commission held a public hearing on this petition and after a series of discussions recommended that the petition be denied. A motion was also passed to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this .particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. It was felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the Sugar House Master Plan. A copy of the minutes from both meetings is attached. The Sugar House Committee Council by Diana Smoot, Chair, has requested an appeal to this decision, therefore, the a public hearing needs to be held and that the property be rezoned to "R-3A" classfication. • Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: • Cl/ CRAIG E. PETERSON Director • lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 1989 (Rezoning property located between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues from "C-1" to "R-3A" pursuant to Petition No. 400-662-88 ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21. 14.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by Willie M. Stoler, No. 400-662-88, 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 between 500 and 600 East and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues 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 P g- parcel of real property in Salt Lake City, Utah, presently zoned Commercial "C-1" is hereby rezoned Residential --"R-3A" and the Use -District -Map is amended-- - accordingly: • • Commencing at a point of the east line of 500 East Street, said point being 125 feet north of the northeast corner of Stringham Avenue and 500 East Street and running thence north along the east line of 500 East Street 433. 1 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of Lot 17 of Wilmington Subdivision in Lot 8, Block 43, 10-Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey; thence east along the north line of the Reserve of Wilmington Subdivision 726 feet to the northeast corner of said Reserve, said point being on the west , line of 600 East Street; thence south along the west /Lq111�� line of 600 East Street 433 . 1 feet, more or less, to a • ' point 125 feet , north of the northwest corner of Stringham Avenue and 600 East Street; thence west along a line parallel to the north line of Stringham Avenue 726 feet, said line being .125 feet north of the north line of Stringham Avenue, to the point of beginning. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: • • CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. . • MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:pp • -2- 2i 4 / 4141.. -- z-zz ,;-•- ) v/ -7-e/ " e"-Z''' : :;/,-/z --- /, 74 --a, -:,',';:". /_. , ._ .-z Y/, 0 -7-7 :-/---,' ,Z.;)--J?)---y- • _,, , i,././ -4-24,z_t-Z. Z-4-Z` ,-/ -Z --- - !,-K- -i_a_,,c_____ _`')_ , ,_ , . / y2^z!d - , , - c__- -(7-,' '' //, ---; , / -76r-i-/ -i. -'- -,-T,'.•-v- -'--e.Z. ,---- -?.2-: .-7...: ."--;, ---Y---/"Z-1/Z/6:---74;Z ,.=--"---7/(72____,/ may, �-�� ,/ / � i%'; r. i 7 / . `- ;%-22-1Z-->-;' 2-, 7)6.i'...-- - _-/ %6-1-a, - :-"„-!<://, (1e6 7 -1-2' (--'. /- //7 .^7 77-/ , 7 , ,, ?.-.2-,/J., ,,,7. - ' L__, ZZ, .<41',,Z ./4 /- / Zi7 [V/n-'./if'ZZI_7 <X11e- fjliZZ i' 6/ 1 ' "%: ,6/. ( j/f. ,' •Z, /( // 17-ZZ 7 /2 _ 2 jk>-- /1 (, 4",/Z&,,,<;e: .77, / _ /-y, , 4 , , 7 ". (--///7Z(Z_ '//2 ' . _7),( /ix' •„- , -z-_-/-e__J 1(.--' - - 4>7 ,//_.ei-Z_.-/-"-;> /7 -6-7Y., -,_":-/ ; /J.le-- i J,' if,)-(_ , '2;71,-)--,-7 ., (-(z -„ . , . /, / , (--1/ ----; / / ___/ , Z / / _ 1 -7 - - c -V 7 _ -7 � �X/2,(- A ten ` 71, l ' Fr F= , ALLEN C. JOHNSON r r .. ; MEMBERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR A CINDY CROMER SALT ' ` - OITY' CORPORATION: THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER LAVONE LIDDLE•GAMONAL SECRETARY ...Y-. .'. :.•..: "', . DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD HOWA EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY r; Planning pnd Zoning :Commission' - GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 JOHN M.SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT__LAKE'CITY;•UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL 535.7757 PETER VANALSTYNE KATHY WACKER February 24, 1989 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Development Services 324 So. State, Suite 201 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Petition 400-662 L. Rezoning property between 500-600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from Commercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5". Dear Craig: • The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 8, 1988 concerning the rezoning request of Petition No. 400-662, submitted by Council Member Willie M. Stoler. The Planning Commission action was to deny the petition, however the minutes were not approved and the Planning Commission held the petition for reconsideration on the February 9th meeting. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission at it's February 9, 1989 meeting voted to recommend to the City Council to deny Petition No. 400-662. A motion was also passed to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. It was felt the 'intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the Sugar House Master Plan. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Everett L. Joyce. Sincere y, / //l+,,cam'.... Allyn C. J.hnson, AICP Planning Airector attachments ACJ:elj cc: John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman Council Member W. M. "Willie" Stoler, District Seven file x } . SALT LAKE CTTY PLA rtr AND ZCNT CCNMTSSTCN STAFF a • 4 ' Petition 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler OVER D The applicant, Willie M. Stoler, is requesting Salt Lake City rezone property located between 500-600 East Street and between Stringham and Wilmington . Avenue from Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning classification. EXisting zoning surrounding this subject parcel consist of Residential "R-2" properties to the north and south and Commercial "C-1" properties to the east. Property located west of 500 East Street lie outside Salt Lake City's - juristictional boundary, however, it is zoned Business "C" in Scuth Salt Lake. s l 1 I 1 L��l ` Nt Vl l 1 1�`fi 1� 1 1` 1 1, \` 1�"` Scum STREET • k •qw-w—mp•wommr..••••••.•~N ran.. \:\:\\_V\ 7,39 COMNW�Tr+ 0M(NWL�N NY-'44.fi , .. E L E k:•: M` i, 1 ,' WI L MING TON a \' I- WILMINGTON \� • `• •. • • T• • [50,,,,,,i,i, ...: • `�. - 9 ISS $IMP_ ' 3 r�•�ir • v1 N in+rTRINGHAM 3 W114 FAIRMON i � L4Y _ I-1H • -> PA v ♦v[ I A(M TON AV t� N r� 13 3 3 — C 1--�'� U OAIGGS / L..— Y�. — it -_ I PARKWAY BAC,.K Ct ND AND ANALYSIS Petition No. 400-277 of 1985 was filed to implement the recommendations of the Sugar House Community Master Plan by the Sugar House Community Council. A portion of that request included the rezoning of residential and commercial property located between 2100 South and 2700 South between 500 East and 1100 East. The purpose of that proposal was to conform the zoning classifications with the Master Plan policies. The request also included the rezoning of the subject property from Commercial "C-3 to Residential "R-5". On October 10, 1985, the Planning Coluzlission supported this request. However, the City • Council did not accept the recommendation of the Planning Comission and ultimately rezoned the subject property from Commercial "C-3" to Commercial "C-1" (Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 81 of 1986) . Existing Land Use The subject property is located in an area of multiple land uses ranging from single family residential to warehouse and commercial activity. The existing land uses along Stringham and Wilmington Avenue consists primarily of single family detached homes with clusters of multiple-family residential scattered _. throughout the area. Existing land uses along 500 and 600 East Streets are residential. • a ^� Land use in the petitioned area developed into warehouse, office and commercial activity due to irrunediate access to the Denver & Rio Grande railroad line. Today this railroad line is a spur that terminates at Granite Furniture warehouse. Existing Land Use Chart Address Property Owner Land Use 1) 2225 S. 500 E. Christiansen Investment Co. Commercial/Warehousing 2) 2233 S. 500 E. Paul V. Wells Pallet Manufacturing 3) 2253 S. 500 E. Boyd K. & Peggy Henrie Commercial Laundry 4) 2262 S. 600 E. Louis R. Racine, et al Boat Warehousing Some of these properties are nonconforming because of the 1985 rezoning frcm "C-3" to "C-1". If this petition is approved all of the properties will be nonconforming and will be allowed to operate under the provisions of Secticn 21.90 of Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Transportation access to these commercial properties is along 500 East and 600 East Streets. 600 East Street is a residential local street and 500 East Street is a -residential collector street. Both streets have a right-of-way of 66 feet. These streets are not designed to carry commercial oriented traffic. In 1986 the.State of Utah Division of Environmental Health conducted an investigation of hazardous waste materials found on the site at .2225 South 500 East, , known as "Wasatch Plaza". The study concluded that the materials had not migrated off-site and mitigations measures were undertaken to correct the cn-site problems. • Master Plan Considerations The 1986 Sugar House Master Plan identifies the petitioned area as a location desirable for new medium-density housing opportunities. Objectives for housing redevelopment opportunities include housing type diversity and densities, the introduction of public-assisted housing, and to encourage underground parking structures and on-site open space ame.Lities. Specific site redevelopment guidelines as proposed in the Master Plan include the following: Site Characteristics 1) Master Plan designation is medium-density residential 2) Density potential: 8-20 dwelling units per net acre 3) Parcel size: 7.2 acres 4) Potential units: 40-100 units 5) Accessibility: from 500 and 600 East 6) Adjacent land use: low and medium-density residential and neighborhood business center 1�. Mitigation of Development Constraints . .. 1) Potential redevelopment program • 2) Removal of D&RGI Railroad siding after it is abandoned by existing commercial users 3) Assembly of land parcels 4) Relocation of commercial and industrial businesses 5) Demolition of commercial and industrial structures 6) Rezoning parcel for appropriate residential land use Possible Residential Development • 1) Residential planned unit development consisting of townhouses, .. low-rise garden apartments, or cluster housing • 2) Provisions for a future bicycle path and pedestrian trail through the .site ae MfZATICN The staff recommends approval of Petition 400-662 requesting rezoning from Carnercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5". The staff supports the conservation and • preservation of the existing residential neighborhood. and supports medium- density housing redevelopment opportunities as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan for the petitioned area. This recommendation is supported by the Master Plan which include specific site redevelopment guidelines as outlined above. • • • • Gary R. Heintz October 14, 1988 / • - PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 - Page 8 council to get together with O.C. Tanner and the property owners as well as the Planning Staff, to try and resolve this matter before the hearing date. Mr. Ellison accepted that suggestion as part of his motion. Ms. Liddle- Gamonal accepted it as part of_her second; a _vot "Aye." In an unrelated motion, Mr. Ellison moved that the Planning Staff provide a • staff report for the January 12, 1989 Planning Commission meeting addressing the necessity of updating the 1974 People's Freeway master plan with respect to developments which have occurred on Main Street in this area, as well as suggesting future land uses to determine whether or not a formal amendment to this master plan is appropriate. . Mr. Ellison also requested a recommendation with respect to down zoning of the property consistent with the 1974 master plan, in his motion. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." INFORMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located between 500 East and 600 East Streets between the rear of the properties fronting along Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning district. Mr. Wright stated that a similar rezoning petition was heard in 1985 as a larger rezoning package, at the time of the completion of the Sugar House Master Plan. The Planning Commission's recommendation at that time was to support a zoning change on this parcel from Commercial "C-3" to Residential "R-5." This is, in effect, a resubmittal of that request. The action of the City Council on this matter back in 1985, was to change the zoning on this parcel from a Commercial "C-3" to a Commercial "C-1" zoning. Therefore, many of the properties on this site are in a nonconforming status at this time due to that earlier rezoning. Mr. Heintz presented the staff report recommending approval of this petition. The Planning Staff supports the conservation and preservation of the existing residential neighborhood and supports medium-density housing redevelopment opportunities as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan for the petitioned area. Mr. Heintz stated that in 1986 the State of Utah, Division of Environmental Health had conducted an investigation of hazardous waste materials on the site. The study concluded that hazardous waste materials were present in the ground at the site, but they had not migrated off-site and mitigation measures were undertaken to correct the on-site problems. Mr. Schumann asked if the petitioner wished to speak. Mr. Stoler, the petitioner was not present so Mr. Schumann then opened the hearing to the public for comment. • Mr. Brent Wall, an attorney representing Mr. Neil Christiansen, a property owner in the area in question, stated that they are opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. Mr. Wall stated that this area is clearly not residential property and that his client stands to lose a considerable amount of money with a rezoning. Mr. Wall expressed concern regarding a condemnation, by the city, of these properties. • Mr. Neil Christiansen, owner of the property located at 2225 South 500 East, stated that he is opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. ( :; PC MINUTES Y: • December 8, 1988 • Page 9 Mr. Christiansen stated that he has gone to considerable extremes and expense ._to maintain a good relationship with the neighborhood. Mr. Christiansen said he felt that if Planning-Commission members were prospective purchasers.of the... businesses in this area, they would be concerned about the zoning history 'bf this area going from "C-3" to "C-1" and now a request to "R-5." Mr. Scott Lee, an attorney representing Mr. Paul Wells, a property owner in the neighborhood, stated that they are opposed to this petition and requested that it be denied. Mr. Lee stated that a rezoning to "R-5" would knock out about 75-80% of Mr. Wells' land value. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Wells would not be able to sell this property for a reasonable amount due to the • nonconforming status restrictions and the loss of property value if the rezoning occurs. Mr. Johnson stated that the existing businesses are already nonconforming and that the rezoning would not prevent the continuation of the businesses that are currently in operation on this location. Mr. Johnson also informed Mr. Wall that the city had no hidden agenda to acquire these properties through a condemnation. • Mr. Brian Cannon, an attorney representing Boats, Inc. , on the southeast corner of the properties .in question, stated that he feels all that will happen with a rezoning of this area is the granting of lip service to the master plan for the area. Mr. Cannon requested that this petition be denied because his clients are concerned about their ability to sell their property_ in the future should the rezoning occur. Mr. Wells the property owner at 2233 South 500 East had his real estate agent address the Planning Commission. She stated that Mr. Wells would never have purchased this property had he boon aware of the master plan intentions for this area. She added that Mr. Wells stands to lose a considerable amount of money if the rezoning occurs, because the land will be worth far less than what he currently owes the bank for it. Mr. Wells stated that he has spoken with the railroad people and they have no intention of going out of business as long as Granite Furniture has a use for their services. Mr. Gene Davis, 865 Parkway Avenue, a representative of the Sugar House Community Council stated that a unanimous vote took place at the last council meeting to support the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Davis said they are in' favor of this petition being approved. Mr. Kurt Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, stated that he and his wife are in favor of denying this petition because they appreciate the businesses in the area • and are concerned about rental properties being constructed in place of the : businesses, since the existing renters in the area do not keep up the properties. Mr. Brent Wall said it is a strong likelihood that if the rezoning to an "R-5" takes place, an inverse condemnation action may well originate from the property owners because of the inability to make these properties economically viable. Mrs. Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, stated 'that she is in favor of the petition being denied because she is concerned about an increase in crime in the area if the rezoning is approved and additional rental units are constructed. • PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 10 •. • Mr. Schumann closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning - Commission discussion. . = • - Mr. Wright addressed the issue of the! hazardous waste investigation and stated that an intense investigation took place and that there were findings of contamination of the soil on-site. The conclusions were that the contamination had not travelled off-site but that on-site workers and neighborhood children may be exposed to this contamination. There is a plan to remove the hot spots of contaminated soil and replace them with "clean" soil. Mr. Nicolatus asked what caused this rezoning issue to be brought before them at this time .and if there is a developer in the background with plans for residential development of this area. Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Staff is responding to the petition request and is not aware of a developer in the background. Mr. Wright stated that this is a legislative action from the City Council sponsored by Councilmember Stoler. Mr. Wright added that it has been put on the City Council Agenda as a consent item to refer this issue to the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson added that if the Planning Commission's response is to deny the petition, City .Council will probably still hold their hearing on this matter. A discussion followed wherein the Planning Commission and Planning Staff reviewed the Sugar House Master Plan in regard to the properties in question. _ M Nicolatus said he felt this issue would be better handled at the time when a developer had actual plans for the area rather than to place restrictions on the area without development plans. Ms. Cromer said she regretted that the property owners had to go to the expense of hiring attorneys to represent them on this matter and moved to deny Petition No. 400-662 for. the following reasons: 1) there does not appear to be any closure of the railroad in the foreseeable future, 2) this parcel has multiple owners and Ms. Cromer stated the only way she can see amassing it for residential development is by condemnation, which she doesn't feel the rental market warrants, and she sees this action as taking the value of the owners property, and 3) the contamination that currently exists on-site should preclude this parcel from becoming residential property as a protection to children who might live on this site in the future. Ms. Liddle-Camonal seconded the motion. Mr. Ellison stated that he disagrees with Ms. Cromer on the issue of taking and Mr. Cannon's comment of giving lip service to the Sugar House Master Plan. Mr. Ellison stated that the Master Plan for the Sugar House area was not the result of a single meeting, but rather, a result of five years' worth of data collection, research reports, goals and policies. Mr. Ellison stated that under the established law, if rezoning occurs pursuant to a master plan, it is considered valid and not a taking; otherwise it becomes spot zoning. Mr. Ellison added that these same businesses can continue on these properties indefinitely, even with a rezoning. He added that the real issue here is the desire for long range residential use. Otherwise, the master plan needs to be amended to correct the long range residential use statements pertaining to this parcel. • PC MINUTES December 8, 1988 Page 11 • is. Cromer stated that she fools the time frame suggested in the Master Plan is not synchronized with the- existing_econemic. conditions. Mr. .Ellison expressed his concern about changing the master plan if that is not the intention. Mr. Schumann said he feels one of the critical issues is the future use of the railroad in this area. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Staff had contacted the railroad and the railroad's intent is to service Granite Furniture. Mr. Nicolatus said he fools the Planning Commission is not .abandoning, bisecting, or deleting a portion of the Sugar House Master Plan, but he feels the time to rezone for residential use is not now. Ms. Cromer amended her motion to include the statement that the Planning Commission is,not abandoning, bisecting or deleting a portion of the Sugar House Master Plan but that the time for rezoning for residential use is not now. Ms. Liddle-Gamonal accepted the amendment to her second. Mr. Nicolatus re uested that Ms. Cromer state in her motion that the Planning Commission is still supporting the Sugar House Master Plan. In a restatement of the motion, Ms. Cromer moved to deny Petition No. 400-662 for the following reasons: 1) there does not seem to be any closure of the railroad system in the foreseeable future, 2) the parcels in question are • multiply owned and it seems the only way to amass the entire area is through condemnation, which is not warranted at this time, and 3) the contamination ;is a concern when considering the property for residential use with children who will be constantly exposed. Ms. Cromer stated she continues to support the Sugar House Master Plan and the EVENTUAL use of the parcel for residential 'uses, but this does not appear to be the time frame for changing the zoning. ,Mr. Ellison requested that Ms. Cromer change the wording "condemnation" to "redevelopment." Ms. Cromer agreed. Ms. Liddle-Camonal seconded the motion. Mr. Neilson stated that he is going to vote in favor of the motion to deny the petition but he does not support the master plan with respect to this particular site. Mr. Becker stated that he is concerned about the setting of a precedent of denying a petition that is completely consistent with the master plan, even though the timing may be terrible, without having reconsidered the master plan. He stated that he feels the first step should be to table the matter at hand and reconsider the master plan. All voted "Aye" to Ms. Cromer's motion to deny with the exception of Mr. Ellison who was opposed. Mr. Schumann requested that the Planning Staff reevaluate the Sugar House Master Plan to sac if the portion of that plan dealing with the parcel of land ' pertaining to petition No. 400-662 needs to be opened up for reconsideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Ellison requested that the Planning Staff look at ways to conceptualize the implementation of that master plan around a site like this one in more detail, in order for the Planning Commission to sec how everything would go together and determine an appropriate time frame for implementation. • PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 5 ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee giving conceptual approval to the developer; 2) to table the matter and hold it until the - - ----developer -makes a presentation_to.the,P1anna.ng. ocm]issi,ort,, possibly through an ; informal hearing; and 3) to go ahead and let the conceptual approval stand, wait for the final approval of the Historical Landmark Committee and then either ratify or not ratify their actions. Mr. Johnson stated that if they choose to not ratify the actions of the Historical Landmark Committee, the developer may then appeal the case to the Board of Adjustment. He added that the down side of waiting until final approval comes before them, is that the developer will have spent a lot more money on the project by that time. Mr. Schumann suggested that they could ratify the Historical Landmark Committee's actions subject to an informal hearing. Mr. Schumann then asked if the developer had met with the neighborhood. Councilmember Hardman responded in the negative. Ms. Cromer said she had spoken with many of the neighbors in the area and the opposition to the office tower is overwhelming. Ms. Cromer moved to direct the developer and the architect on the project to . rr et with the community councils and that an informal hearing take place after those meetings. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. Mr., Howa asked if by voting on the motion they were endorsing the Historical Landmark Committee's actions on conceptual approval of the case. Mr. Schumann responded in the negative. Ms. Cromer stated that they were simply holding the matter until the developer has met with the neighborhood. All voted "Aye" on the motion. • Reconsider action on Petition NO. 400-662 by Willie M. Stoler, requestinq property located between 500 and 600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues be rezoned from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-5" zoning district. • Mr. Schumann stated that this matter had come before the Planning Commission previously and that City Council had requested this matter be reheard. Mr. . Johnson stated that the petitioner is requesting the Planning Commission also consider rezoning the area in question from a Commercial "C-1" to a Residential "R-3A" or a Residential "R-2A" zone as well as the Residential "R-5" zone request in the original petition. Mr. Schumann asked how these two additional zoning options would affect the businesses in operation in the area. Mr. Johnson said they are all nonconforming uses and as such, would be allowed to continue as they are now. He said they would also be allowed to sell their businesses to similar uses allowed in that zoning. Mr. Johnson added that the businesses would not, however, be allowed to expand. Mr. Johnson further explained that if a disaster were to occur, they might not be • allowed to rebuild, or if the business should become vacant for a period' of one year, they would not be allowed to continue those uses as they had before. • • Mr. Wright stated that this matter had come before the Planning Commission in • an informal hearing on December 8, 1988 where a motion for denial was passed. At the January 12, 1989 Planning Commission mooting, there was a motion and a • vote to reconsider this action, proposed by a Planning Commission member who had voted in favor of the motion at the December meeting. - • PC MINUTESPage 6 February 9, 1989 • ' Councilmember. Stoler, the petitioner, said he had did not wish to speak to the issue since he had not been present at the previous meeting. Mr. Schumann asked the Planning Commission if they were desirous of opening the discussion to the public since this was -not an informal hearing. The Planning Commission agreed and the discussion was opened for public comment. Mr. Johnson read a letter from Kurt and Charlotte Ovard, 2281 South 600 East, expressing their concern that this matter was once again coming before the - Planning Commission without having been resolved. They requested the Planning Commission deny the petition. Their letter is filed with the minutes. Mr. Alma Edwards, 554 Wilmington Avenue, said he is in favor of this petition and requested •the Planning Commission vote in favor of it. Mr. Edwards added that the businesses in this area have degraded their living conditions due to noicoc, smells and chemical compounds filling the air. Mr. Harold Luker, 550 Wilmington Avenue, said he is in favor of this petition for the same reasons given by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Schumann pointed out that even if the rezoning is granted, the businesses . . in the area may still continue to operate as they are currently operating. ' Mr. Rawlins Young, SLACC Chairman, stated that he believes the rezoning is what the Sugar House Master Plan calls for. He also stated he feels the Planning Commission should vote in favor of this petition because of the . public monies invested in this area. • IT'S. Diana Smoot, 2592 Elizabeth Street, Chairperson of the SugarHouse Community Council, said she is in favor of this petition because she feels it will upgrade the quality of the neighborhood and it is consistent with the master plan. Mr. Brian Cannon, attorney for Louis Racine, one of the property owners of the area in question, stated that if this rezoning occurs, he will advise his client to consider an action for condemnation because of the loss in property value. . Mr. Neil Christianson, 901 East 7800 South, one of the property owners, stated . that he is willing to remedy any complaints the neighbors encounter. He said he is opposed to this petition because of the loss in property value he will experience if this rezoning is approved. Mr. Scott Lee, attorney for Mr. Paul Wells, one of the property owners, stated • . that he is opposed to this petition and feels denying the petition is not inconsistent with the master plan. He referred the Planning Commission to Page Four of the SugarHouse Master Plan where it states that the railroad should be removed after it has bccn abandoned. Mr. Lcc pointed out that there is no information available at this time to indicate abandonment of the railroad. Mr. Paul Wells, one of the property owners stated that he has spoken to the railroad and they have no intention of withdrawing the railroad spur in that area at this time. • PC MINUTES February 9, 1989 Page 7 r'= = Mr. Johnson informed the Planning Commission that Utah Transit Authority had expressed interest in the rail in this area in connection with the possibility of the future light rail system. Mr. Schumann closed the discussion to the public and opened it up for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Nicolatus said he fails to see why this matter is an issue, at this point in time, since there is no developer in the background. Mr. Becker moved to approve Petition No. 400-662 for rezoning from Commercial "C-1" to Residential "R-5." Mr. Ellison seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Planning Commission had the option of rezoning to "R-5," "R-3A" or "R-.2A." Mr. Becker said his preference was R-5." Mr. Ellison agreed. Mr. Neilson said he does not believe down zoning, by itself, is an adequate strategy to implement the master plan, given the use of the railroad. Mr. Ellison said he felt the reasoning behind the down zoning was to discourage further commercial development in the area. 'Mr. Becker, Mr. . Ellison and Mr. Howa voted "Aye;" Mr. Neilson, Mr. Nicolatus and Ms. Cromer voted "Nay;" Mr. Schumann, as chairperson, voted "Nay," causing the motion to fail. • Mr. Ellison moved to consider amending the implementation procedures of the Sugar House Master Plan relating to this particular area, in order to better guide the transition from commercial to residential use. Ms. Cramer seconded the motion. Mr. Schumann said he felt the intentions of the railroad are a critical issue in the development of this site and those intentions need to be studied when examining this section of the SugarHouse Master Plan. Mr. Ellison accepted this as part of his motion; is. Cromer accepted it as part of the second. All voted "Aye." Mr. Ellison moved to table this petition until the Master Plan has been reviewed and possibly amended. Ms. Cromer seconded the motion. Mr. Ellison and Ms. Cromer voted "Aye;" Mr. Becker, Mr. Nicolatus, Mr. Neilson and Mr. Hcwa voted "Nay." Mr. Howa said he felt the matter needs to be dealt with now, without further delay. Mr. Nicolatus moved that a recommendation be sent to the City Council to deny Petition No. 440-662. Mr. Howa seconded the motion. Mr. Nicolatus, Mr. Howa and Mr. Neilson voted "Aye;" Mr. Ellison, Mr. Becker and Ms. Cromer • voted "Nay." Mr. Schumann as the Chairperson, voted "Aye." The motion rs. Cromer said she felt there seemed to be a number of enforcement issues which cannot be handled through down zoning and suggested the appropriate bodies address the violations. Ms. Cromer moved to have enforcement actions implemented, where appropriate, by the Board of Health, the City Business Licensing Division and any other relevant agencies, for the area between 500 and 600 East Streets and Stringham and Wilmington Avenues. Mr. Neilson seconded the motion. All voted "Aye" with the exception of Mr. Ellison who abstained. • .ate LEGISLATIVE ACTION tt.ft • _ DATE: September 29, 1983 SPONSOR: Council Member W. M. "Willie" Stoler, District Seven DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: An ordinance rezoning the property located between 500-600 Ea:t Streets and between Stringham and Wilmington Avenues from a Commercial "C-1' . to a Residential'•"R-5" classification. • • • • REFERRED TO: ( 1 ) City Attorney Roger Cutler for preparation of ordinance. (2) Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. r--- • nq • . r , • ALIEN C. JOHNSON r - MEMBERS: PUNNING DIRECTOR CINDY CROMER SANDRA MARLER SA;T 1oti THOMAS A. ELLISON •� f .\ '>@Jur� '� coGDRPORI a.�� •LAVONE UDE/LE•GA MONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT:OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RICHARD HOWA EX_OFFiC10 MEMBERS: RALPH P. NEILSON MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY Planning and Zoning Commission GEORGE NICOLATUS CITY ENGINEER 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 200 JOHN M. SCHUMANN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SALT_LAKE CITY,":UTAH 84111 F. KEITH STEPAN CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL • . 535-7757 - PETER VAr•IALSTYNE KATHY WACKER • September 23, 1988 Linda Hamilton, Executive Director Salt Lake City Council Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Linda; Councilman Willie .Stoler requested information concerning the rezoning of property in the Sugar House Community, specifically the Commercially zoned area between 500-600 East Streets and Wilmington and Stringham Avenues. _Attached is some specific information that should be submitted with a rezoning petition from him. Mr. Staler wants to sponsor the rezoning as a legislative request from the City Council to the Planning & Zoning Commission. My understanding is that the Council's policy concerning this type of issue is to place the request on the Council's Consent Agenda for approval by a majority of the Council. Mr. Stoler asked that I convey this request to you. If you have any : questions, please call me. Respectfully submitted; • F 'U . William T. Wright AICP Acting Deputy Director Long Range Planning & Urban Design Attachments cc: Craig E. Peterson RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TENTATIVE BUDGETS, INCLUDING THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR THE LIBRARY FUND, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1989 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1990 WHEREAS, the Budget Officer of Salt Lake City Corporation, has filed Tentative Budgets, including the Tentative Budget for the Library Fund, and a Budget Message pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 111, UTAH CODE ANNOTATED, 1953, as amended; and WHEREAS, State law requires the Council to meet and adopt Tentative Budgets and cause the same to be filed as a public record at least ten days prior to adopting the Final Budgets and at said meeting establish a time and place for a public hearing thereon, with published notice given at least seven days prior to the adoption of the Final Budgets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1 . The Tentative Budgets, including the Tentative Budget for the Library Fund, heretofore filed by the City' s Budget Officer are hereby adopted as the City' s Tentative Budgets and are ordered to be filed and maintained as a public record, available for public inspection in the office of the City Recorder (located at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah and on and after May 13, 1989, in the City & County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah) until adoption of the final budgets. 2. A public hearing on said Tentative Budgets shall be held Tuesday, May 16, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City &County Building, 451 South State Street, Room 315, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. The City Recorder is directed to cause a Notice of said Public Hearing to be duly published, consistent with the requirements of Section 10-6-1131, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. The City Recorder is further directed to appropriately agenda and schedule said hearing to comply with the requirements of the Utah Open Meetings Act. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office CITY RECORDER Date 4'�7 Y' At By if-1451LI7-- FMN:cc -2- IZ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE j No. of 198[4]9 (Salt Lake City Corporation Employee Compensation Plan) .:,... AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.52.010 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, AS LAST AMENDED BY BILL NO. [34] 44 OF 1988 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 2.52.010 of the Salt Lake City. {.`' Code, as last amended by Bill No. [34] 44 of 1988, be, and .ti .IS.. ' � is hereby amended as follows: • ''� Sec. 2.52.010. Compensation Program Adopted. - 5 _ A. The Compensation Administration Program for Salt t(rw Lake City Corporation [ (the "City" )] Employees, dated July C 1, 198[$]9, is hereby adopted as the official compensation -iktA . lik :.- ;_ _ plan for said employees (hereinafter referred to as the u '' -"Plan" ) . Three copies of said Plan or any amendment thereto :;;T: shall be maintained in the City Recorder's office for public 411. 1. inspection. The provisions of said Plan shall be effective iF under the terms thereof commencing July 1, 198[4)9, except " as they may be amended by the City Council or upon approval c - of Memoranda of Understanding between the City and _. recognized Employee Bargaining units. :,-Nc .. - 10 44, B. The Plan herein adopted and any amendment or modification thereto shall not apply to officers or employees whose employment terminated prior to publication of the ordinance codified in this chapter or to the adoption of any amendment or modification to the Plan. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 198[$]9 . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, :fig: this day of , 198[ ]9 .CHAIRPERSON '' - • ATTEST: • Yr If-a. • - k . CITY RECORDER , - 34h. Transmitted to the Mayor on E..r: : Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed 1Mi - - - .: . . MAYOR Bew.., ATTEST: . I • z '6.•`° _ CITY RECORDER . -. FMN:cc u • ;u sir t. -2- 1Y SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 198[8]9 ( Employee Compensation Plan for 500 Series Employees) AN ORDINANCE [ENACTING] AMENDING SECTION 2.52.116 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 500 SERIES EMPLOYEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 2. 52.116 of the Salt Lake City Code, be, and is hereby [cnacted] amended as follows: Sec. 2. 52.116 Compensation Plan Adopted - 500 Series IVEmployees. The compensation plan for Salt Lake City Corporation 500 series employees dated July 1, 198[8]9 is - ' .. hereby adopted as the official compensation plan for said - -_ employees. Three copies of said plan, or any amendment =_ thereto, shall be maintained in the City Recorder' s Office for public inspection. The provisions of said plan shall be effective under the terms thereof, commencing July 1, 198[$]9 and ending June 30, 19 [89]90 except as they may be amended by the City Council or upon approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the recognized employee bargaining unit. The plan herein adopted, and any amendment or `'"i modification thereto, shall not apply to employees whose r�`i. , ,,+ employment terminated prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or to the adoption of any amendment or ''' modification to the plan. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 198[4]9. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 198[$]9 . J t �• N a:: CHAIRPERSON 7 ATTEST: • I • ; '`` CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on • wr_ . Mayor's Action: $'6'.' - DATED this day of , 198[$]9 . g ir_ . . ..,.. , t ,,t, . • - MAYOR '#1 '; ATTEST: • .rat-s' i- ` CITY RECORDER - • i�r,� T' s-. i•-tFMN:cc• - tit -2- 3iRAVT � f SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 198[8]9 (Employee Compensation Plan for 400 Series Employees) AN ORDINANCE [ENACTING] AMENDING SECTION 2. 52. 115 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 400 SERIES EMPLOYEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: • SECTION 1. That Section 2. 52.115 of the Salt Lake City Code, be, and is hereby [cnacted] amended as follows: Sec. 2.52. 115 Compensation Plan Adopted - 400 Series Employees . The compensation plan for Salt Lake City 41 Corporation 400 series employees dated July 1, 198[8]9 is hereby adopted as the official compensation plan for said employees. Three copies of said plan, or any amendment thereto, shall be maintained in the City Recorder's Office .�;:. for public inspection. The provisions of said plan shall be effective under the terms thereof, commencing July 1, 198[8]9 and ending June 30, 19 [&3]90, except as they may be amended by the City Council or upon approval of a Memorandum r._" of Understanding between the City and the recognized employee bargaining unit. The plan herein adopted, and any amendment or �'' modification thereto, shall not apply to employees whose OD ordinance, or to the adoption of any amendment or modification to the plan. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 198[$]9 . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 198[$]9. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on !� Mayor's Action: • DATED this day of , 198[$]9 . • MAYOR ATTEST: "y= CITY RECORDER 474 FMN:cc • r:- -2- , 7 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Employee Compensation Plan for 200 Series Employees) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 2.52.118 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 200 SERIES EMPLOYEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 2.52.118 of the Salt Lake City Code, be, and is hereby enacted as follows: Sec. 2.52. 118 Compensation Plan Adopted - 200 Series Employees. The compensation plan for Salt Lake City Corporation 200 series employees dated July 1, 1989 is hereby adopted as the official compensation plan for said employees. Three copies of said plan, or any amendment thereto, shall be maintained in the City Recorder' s Office for public inspection. The provisions of said plan shall be effective under the terms thereof, commencing July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, except as they may be amended by the City Council or upon approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the recognized employee bargaining unit. The plan herein adopted, and any amendment or modification thereto, shall not apply to employees whose employment terminated prior to the effective date of this r ordinance, or to the adoption of any amendment or modification to the plan. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1989. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FO11:41 Salt Lake City Attcrrney's Office Date '21 CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: - DATED this day of , 1989. MAYOR ATTEST: • CITY RECORDER FMN:cc • -2- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Employee Compensation Plan for 100 Series Employees) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 2. 52 . 117 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 100 SERIES EMPLOYEES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 2. 52. 117 of the Salt Lake City Code, be, and is hereby enacted as follows: Sec. 2. 52.117 Compensation Plan Adopted - 100 Series Employees. The compensation plan for Salt Lake City Corporation 100 series employees dated July 1, 1989 is hereby adopted as the official compensation plan for said employees. Three copies of said plan, or any amendment thereto, shall be maintained in the City Recorder' s Office for public inspection. The provisions of said plan shall be effective under the terms thereof, commencing July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, except as they may be amended by the City Council or upon approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the recognized employee bargaining unit. The plan herein adopted, and any amendment or modification thereto, shall not apply to employees whose employment terminated prior to the effective date of this A. II/_ 1 • ordinance, or to the adoption of any amendment or modification to the plan. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1989. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: .'.r!Pr.0'.20 AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date ' 27_ By dv CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: DATED this day of , 1989. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc -2- • • • LEROY W. HOUIUN, JR. DIRECTOR WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. SUPERINTENDENT 2_i aJ 1t'I ,i�::.�..`�C•,7;1 WATER SUPPLY 6 WATERWORKS �Y E.TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION 'WATER SUPPLY &WATERWORKS• PALMER DEPAULIS JAMES M. LEWIS,C.P.A. = WATER RECLAMATION ` MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE ACCOUNTING OFFICER =.!1530 SOUTH•WEST TEMPLE_„ GEORGE JORGENSEN, P.E. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 • CHIEF ENGINEER April 27, 1989 TO: Salt- Lake City Council RE: AMENDMENT TO SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE SECTIONS 17. 16. 670, 17. 16. 680, AND 17.72.030, IN REGARDS TO PROPOSED WATER RATE INCREASE AND SEWER RATE DECREASE Recommendation: That the City Council approve the above rate increase and decrease. Availability of Funds: N/A • Discussion: It is proposed that the Salt Lake City Public Utilities water rates be increased to finance the major capital improvements required by the Water Utility Fund. The proposed rate increase would fund a waterline replacement program which is urgently needed. We propose a $1.00 per month surcharge be placed on the minimum bill or $12.00 per year for a residential 3/4-inch by 1-inch meter and a proportional amount by meter size. It is also proposed that the usage rate be increased by $ .04 per hundred cubic feet from $.38 to $.42 for City residents and by $1.06 per hundred cubic feet for our county customers. It is also proposed that the Salt Lake City Public Utilities sewer rates be decreased due to a revision of our financial projections for the 1989-90 budget request. It is anticipated that the sewer rates could be reduced and still finance the capital improvements required for the next 10 years. The sewer rate reduction would be from $.85 to $ .80, which would reduce the average residential users` bill by $.40 per month or $4. 80 per year. The net effect of these proposed changes would increase the average residential water and sewer user by $. 60 per month or $7.20 per year. LEROY HOOTON, JR. Director 40*) • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Water and sewer rates) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.16.670, 17. 16.680 AND 17.72.030 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO WATER AND SEWER RATES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Table 17.16.670 of Section 17.16.670 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to minimum charges, be, and the same hereby is amended as follows: Table 17•.16.670 Inside of Inside of Outside of Outside of FM. - City City City City Connection Monthly Bimonthly Monthly Bimonthly 3/4" & 1" $6.70 $13.40 $9.20 $18.40 1 1/2" 19.30 38.60 26.25 52.50 2" 29.10 58.20 39.10 78.20 3"- 58.50 117.00 79.50 159.00 4" '_ -90.20 - 180.407-~ 131.20 ,= 262 40 6" -192:55 385.10 263.50 `� ' 527.00 8" 287..30 574.60 393.30 _. • .;786...60 . . I 10" • 409.20 818.40 560.20 1,120,40 SECTION 2. ' That Section 17.16.680 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to meter rates, be, and the same hereby is amended as follows: 17.16.680 Meter rates. The rates for water supplied through meters to all places, after the minimum charges for the first one thousand cubic feet of water specified in Section 17. 16.670, or its successor, will be as follows: A. Inside the corporate limits of the city, forty two cents per one hundred cubic feet of water served through each service connection; B. Outside the corporate limits of the city, sixty two cents per one hundred cubic feet of water served through each service connection. SECTION 3. That subsections 3 and 5 of Section 17.72.030, of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to Schedule 3 - rates and fees, be, and the same hereby is amended as follows: 3. Sewer Charge. Each sewer service account shall be charged $3. 15 per month minimum charge or $.80 per 100 cubic feet of the average monthly water meter readings of those using solely city water during the consecutive months of November, December, January, February and March each year, hereafter "winter readings, " whichever is• higher. Said 'Winter fi readings shall be .the .basis. for .sewer billings for. the period July 1st through June 30th following such winter readings. Any user who had more than one water meter, one or more of which measures water eventually discharged into the sewer, and one or more other meters measuring water not entering the sewer, will be charged $. 80 per 100 cubic feet for all water used which may enter the sewer, but will not be assessed a sewer charge on water meter( s) which measure water no part of which flows into the sewer system. -2- For those not using city water or using some city water, the city may require a city-approved meter, at the sewer user's expense, on the well(s) or other source(s) of water supply, for measurement by city during said months to determine the sewer user's water use during said months, the average of which shall become the basis for sewer billings for said period. For each single dwelling unit not using city water and desiring not to install a water meter as required above, the director of the department of public utilities may waive the meter requirement, in which event the user will be charged for sewer service as provided in Subparagraph (5 )(a) hereof. * * * 5. New Sewer Connections or Change in Occupancy. Any new sewer service or existing sewer having changed occupants (applies only to one to three dwelling units) or those which 'do not have sufficient or accurate data to establish said monthly winter reading, sewer rate shall _be assessed monthly charges as follows until such data is available: (a) For each single dwelling unit, $6.40 per month. (b) For each duplex, $6.40 per month, per dwelling unit. (c) For each triplex, $6.40 per month, per dwelling unit. -3- (d) For each multiple dwelling, a minimum monthly charge of $6.40 per dwelling unit or $. 50 per 100 cubic feet of total water consumption, whichever is highest. (e) For all other users, a minimum charge of $6.40 per month or $. 50 per 100 cubic feet of total water consumption, whichever is highest. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc i\Trt AS 1Y '41 L.4: City 1 fri 'i 7 7 s -4- SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Adding Section 15.16.070 providing fees for Tracy Aviary) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 15. 16.070 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE PROVIDING FOR ADMISSION FEES TO TRACY AVIARY. WHEREAS, the City Council believes it appropriate to charge admission fees at certain times and for certain programs at Tracy Aviary. NOW, THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake. City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 15.16.070 be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: . 15.16.070 Tracy Aviary Fees. Admission and program fees for the Tracy Aviary shall be charged as follows: A. Between April 1 and October 31 of each year, admission fees shall be required except for Monday, and between the hours of 9 :00 a.m. and noon on Saturday, when admission shall be free. In the event that Monday or Saturday during the admission fee period shall be a legally designated state, federal or city holiday, the regular admission fees shall be charged. B. The individual admission fee schedule shall be as follows: Age Price Under 6 Years of Age Free 6 to 12 years $ . 50 13 to 64 years $1 .00 65 years and over $ .50 Admission fees shall be •waived for individuals or families paying yearly membership fees to the Friends of Tracy Aviary, Inc. C. Tour fees. Educational, religious or other organized clubs or groups visiting the Aviary during the periods specified above shall pay the following fees: 1. Unguided tours not accompanied by an Aviary staff member, when reservations are made at least forty-eight hours before the tour, shall pay $.25 per person under eighteen years old- and $.50 per person over eighteen years old. 2. Guided educational tours shall .pay $15.00 for the first thirty persons and an additional $.25 for each additional person under the age of eighteen and $.50 for each additional person over the age of eighteen. • D. Outreach programs. Aviary staff may conduct programs including demonstrations, lectures, field trips or other similar activities as requested at schools, clubs, religious organiza- tions or other similar organizations and shall charge a fee for such programs to be determined by the Director of Parks based on the nature, complexity and expense of each such program. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989. -2- CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Salt L`l•so 9,•;; ; w ' "1 By Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: - CITY RECORDER • BRB:pp -3-