The URL can be used to link to this page

11/07/1989 - Minutes PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 7, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, 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. The Council interviewed Mr. showed a plan for the proposed Lynn Beckstead in consideration of annexation and explained that the his appointment to the Planning Council should accept the annex- Commission. They asked him to ation in concept and formally act confirm his interest in the Com- on the issue next week when the mission and his ability to manage correct ordinance was available. the time commitment. Regarding the petition by Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Kevin Koncar, Councilmember Stoler Executive Director, reviewed the commented that the neighborhood Council ' s engagement calendar. council had no previous knowledge She also announced that Sgt. Dana of this item. Orgill, newly appointed to the Police Department' s Crime Preven- Ms. Gust-Jenson announced the tion Unit, would be in attendance resignation of Kathryn Burrows, for Tuesday night Council meet- Administrative Assistant, as a ings. result of her husband's transfer to Elko, Nevada. Ms. Gust-Jenson asked for and received confirmation that the She concluded the briefing Council preferred to begin the for the Council noting that a Committee of the Whole meeting on citizen, Oscar Bourg, had request- Thursday at 4:00 p.m. rather than ed to be placed on the agenda the usual 5:00 p.m. due to the during the comments period to scheduled agenda. discuss a housing enforcement issue. Councilmember Hardman Ms. Gust-Jenson then reviewed provided background information the evening' s agenda, noting that regarding previous efforts to a photographer would be present to assist Mr. Bourg with this issue. take pictures, including Council- members, during the "Women Helping The briefing session was Women" presentation if the Council concluded in preparation for the desired. She pointed out that the regular Council meeting. Council could consider an extended or specific time period regarding an ordinance on the "alley vaca- tion fee waiver" issue. In regards to the Holyoak petition for proposed annexation, Allen Johnson, planning director, 89-301 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT*, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, November 7, 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, Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Fonnesbeck conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES more than 300 low-income women participated. He said Pyke Manu- #1. Police Chaplain Roy facturing donated over 2, 000 Cazares gave the invocation. pieces of clothing valued at $30,000. #2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance. He said this year, they went to the community and women' s #3. Councilmember Kirk organizations for clothing dona- moved and Councilmember Godfrey tions. The fair took place on seconded to approve the minutes of October 14, 1989, at the Salt Lake the Salt Lake City Council for the Skills Center and close to 600 low regular meetings held Tuesday, income single women participated. October 10, 1989, and Thursday, He said 5,000 pieces of clothing October 12, 1989, which motion were donated of which 2,000 pieces carried, all members voted aye. were again donated by Pyke Manu- (M 89-1) facturing. Approximately 80 women volunteered to help on the day of #4. The City Council and the fair. Mayor presented Certificates of Recognition regarding the "Women On behalf of the community Helping Women" project. and Salt Lake City, the Mayor recognized the women who played a Mayor DePaulis said that key role in this effort: Linda "Women Helping Women" began in Gobble, Community Services Coun- 1988 when a group of women decided cil, Rieneke Orlandi, Office that a good way to help low in- Supervisor at Pyke Manufacturing, come, single women, especially Jeanne Pierce, Salt Lake Community mothers, in their attempt to College Skills Center, and Vicki become employed, would be to Fuller, member of the Philanthrop- solicit good business clothing to is Educational Organization. The be worn in interviews and to Mayor said this program meant a subsequent jobs. He said the lot to the women who participated first year, clothing was solicited and was an important element to only from city employees. The the community. fair was held May 16, 1988, and 89-302 PROCEOINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI* UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 He also noted other contrib- the Urban Forestry Board. utors: Little Ceasars Pizza, Holy (I 89-3) Cross Hospital, the Community Services Council, Executive Women #2. RE: Approving the ap- International, J.C. Penny Corpora- pointment of Mike Martin to the tion, and Little America. He said Central Business Improvement Dis- that other cities across the trict. country had inquired about this (I 89-11) program and were considering implementing it in their communi- #3. RE: Adopting Resolu- ty. He said this program would tion 121 of 1989 authorizing the be a national example to other execution of an Interlocal Cooper- cities and communities. He also ation Agreement between Salt Lake acknowledged Tamara Wharton and City and Salt Lake County allowing Lynn Zimmerman from his office, for a temporary extension of time who had both done a tremendous job to install curb, gutter and side- in making this possible. walk located on Danish Road. (C 88-155) The Mayor and Councilmembers Kirk and Fonnesbeck presented the #4. RE: Setting a date to certificates. hold a public hearing on December 12, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain COMMENTS public comment regarding Petition No. 400-710 submitted by Gilbert #1. Oscar Bourg, owner of a and Thelma Iker requesting that residence at 376 East 700 South property located at 1307 South 900 and two residences at 400 East 800 West be rezoned from "R-2" to "B- South, referred to a letter he had 3"; also that the northwest corner addressed to the Council explain- of 1300 South and 900 West be ing his concern. He said he had rezoned from "B-3" to "R-2" . been fighting with the city for (P 89-174) three years and said he felt they were not consistent with either #5. RE: Setting a date to their enforcement or interpreta- hold a public hearing on December tion of the law. He said in his 12, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain opinion they arbitrarily inter- public comment regarding an ordi- preted the law and became very nance electing the city to partic- vindictive and in his case rather ipate in the Public Safety Non- than the city working with him, he Contributory Retirement System. thought they had attacked him. He (G 89-20) said he felt like a victim and was looking for help to resolve his #6. RE: Setting a date to issue. hold a public hearing on November 21, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain CONSENT AGENDA public comment regarding amending the Fiscal Year 1989-90 Budget to Councilmember Godfrey moved reappropriate fund balances in the and Councilmember Hardman second- CDBG grant operating fund relating ed to approve the consent agenda, to Administrative carryovers and which motion carried, all members to make other adjustments. voted aye. (B 89-5) #1. RE: Approving the ap- pointment of Christine Chalkley to 89-303 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITI, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS costs of enforcement and mainte- nance were more than what the city #1. Re: An ordinance amending recouped in fees charged. Title 18, Chapter 16, Salt Lake Councilmember Godfrey said he City Code, by repealing Section would like the Planning Commis- 030 relating to license bond sion' s feedback about this issue. requirements. Councilmember Fonnesbeck ACTION: Without objection, asked if they would receive infor- Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred mation about the budgetary impact. this to the consent agenda. Cindy - Gust-Jenson, Council (0 89-42) Executive Director, said when this issue was discussed in the Commit- #2. RE: An ordinance rezoning tee of the Whole, the Council the area between Redwood Road to instructed the staff to get cost approximately 3000 West and Indi- impact information to them in six ana Avenue extension/Surplus Canal months. to I-80 from M-1 and C-3 to M-1A. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said ACTION: Without objection, this would have a budget impact Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred midyear and she asked how they this to the Planning Commission. would deal with it. Mike Zuhl, (P 89-232) Chief of Staff, said they expected this to have a minimal impact but UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS they would monitor it and if it was an onerous burden on the #1. RE: An ordinance adding department, they would request a Section 21. 10.090 providing for budget opening for an additional waiver of fees for alley vacations allocation from contingency. in residential districts. Councilmember Stoler asked if ACTION: Councilmember this excluded commercial property. Bittner moved and Councilmember Councilmember Bittner said the Horrocks seconded to refer this to ordinance only referred to resi- the Planning Commission and rec- dential property. ommend that the fees be suspended (0 89-43) indefinitely, which motion car- ried, all members voted aye. PUBLIC HEARINGS DISCUSSION: Councilmember #1. RE: A public hearing at Bittner recommended that of the 6:20 p.m. to obtain comments two possible ordinance options, regarding Petition No. 400-713 the Council accept the option to submitted by Wynn Johnson of the suspend the fees indefinitely. Johnson Land Company requesting Councilmember Godfrey suggested an amendment to the Perry's Hollow sending both ordinance options to #1 Subdivision to allow an access the Planning Commission for their road through the existing Lot #3. recommendation. ACTION: Councilmember God- Councilmember Bittner said frey moved and Councilmember Kirk the alleys were expensive to seconded to close the public maintain and it had been a Council hearing, which motion carried, all policy to encourage closing them. members voted aye. She said she was sure that the 89-304 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 Councilmember Godfrey moved keep it landscaped, or combine it and Councilmember Kirk seconded to with the two building lots to the adopt Ordinance 68 of 1989, which east. motion carried, all members voted aye. Mr. Johnson said they had presented this proposal to the DISCUSSION: Alan McCandless, Greater Avenues Council and re- planning staff, outlined a map of ceived their approval. He reiter- the area. He said on August 10, ated that the lots were large so 1989, the Planning Commission there was sufficient square foot- approved the SugarloafSubdivision age on each -lot to provide for a and the access road which would go significantly sized home without through the Perry' s Hollow Lot #3. impinging on the 40% slope. He said currently on the Perry's Hollow #1 Subdivision there were No one from the audience no existing homes. spoke. (P 89-348) He said amending an existing recorded subdivision required a #2. RE: A public hearing at public hearing before the City 6:30 p.m. to obtain comments Council, which had to take place regarding Petition No. 400-569 - before the amendment was recorded. OKOA Annexation submitted by He said the staff recommended William D. Holyoak requesting the approval. property located on the northeast corner of 3300 South and 1100 East Councilmember Fonnesbeck be annexed into Salt Lake city for asked if this had gone before the the purpose of developing new Greater Avenues Community Council. commercial retail uses. Mr. McCandless said it had and there were also several people who ACTION: Councilmember God- spoke at the Planning Commission frey moved and Councilmember meeting on August 10. He said he Hardman seconded to close the had not received any written public hearing, which motion comments. carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck Councilmember Kirk moved and asked if this amendment would Councilmember Horrocks seconded to create any lots which required approve the annexation in concept, variances. Mr. McCandless said it which motion carried, all members would not and the only question- voted aye. able lot would either be combined with the one next to it or be DISCUSSION: Gary Heintz, landscaped. He said the lots were planning staff, outlined the area very large and the 40% slopes had on a map. He said this request been delineated on the preliminary was submitted two years ago and at plat; none of the buildable areas that time the petitioner repre- or the road would be on the 40% sented six property owners. He slopes. said the case had been reviewed by the Planning Commission which Councilmember Horrocks asked supported the annexation with what would be done with the un- conditions. buildable lot. Wynn Johnson, petitioner, said their intention Currently the petitioner was was to either landscape it, and representing five properties. He 89-305 PROCE INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY", UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 said the Planning Commission and submitted by Kevin Koncar request- staff supported the annexation ing the property located at 2613 with the following conditions: East 2325 South be rezoned from an 1 ) That the one property "R-2" to a "B-3" classification. currently excluded become part of the annexation to eliminate the ACTION: Councilmember possibility of a peninsula. Hardman moved and Councilmember 2 ) Include an 8-foot dedica- Horrocks seconded to close the tion of the petitioner' s property public hearing, which motion for expansion of 3300 South. carried, all members voted aye. 3) Install sidewalk, curb and - - gutter, and landscaping improve- Councilmember Stoler moved ments. and Councilmember Horrocks second- 4) Zone the property "C-3A" . ed to table this issue to the 5 ) That the "Barbara Jensen" December 12, 1989, agenda in order building be retained as noncon- to allow the neighborhood council forming. the opportunity to review this 6 ) That an annexation plat issue, which motion carried, all be drawn up to include all six members voted aye. parcels. DISCUSSION: Gary Heintz, He said the Planning Commis- planning staff, outlined two sion and staff supported the parcels on a map: One zoned "B-3" annexation with the conditions. and the other zoned "R-2" . He said the petitioner, representing the Councilmember Godfrey asked strip retail center, had negotiat- if the conditions would be re- ed with the LDS Church, owner of flected in the ordinance. Mr. "R-2" parcel, to trade their Heintz said the staff was in the parcel (used for a parking lot) process of negotiating an annex- for the petitioner' s "B-3" parcel. ation agreement with the petition- The petitioner was now requesting er and those conditions would be to have the "R-2" parcel rezoned contained therein. to "B-3" so the day care facility in the retail center could use Councilmember Fonnesbeck this as an outdoor play area. asked if this was the final step. Allen Johnson, planning director, He said the staff and the said the only step remaining was Planning Commission both supported for the petitioner to submit an the request and the rezoning would accurate annexation plat to in- square off the ownership boundary. clude two additional parcels. He said after they received the new No one from the audience plat and the annexation agreement, spoke. they would schedule the ordinance (P 89-351) on the Council ' s agenda for adop- tion. #4. RE: A public hearing at 6: 50 p.m. to obtain comments No one from the audience regarding Petition No. 400-719 spoke. submitted by Lester Johnson re- (P 89-347) questing an amendment to the Bambrough Place P.U.D. Subdi- #3. RE: A public hearing at vision to allow one of six duplex 6:40 p.m. to obtain comments buildings to be located five feet regarding Petition No. 400-720 nearer the street. 89-306 411 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIT , UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 ACTION: Councilmember Councilmember Hardman who was Godfrey moved and Councilmember absent for the vote. Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all Councilmember Godfrey moved members voted aye except and Councilmember Bittner seconded Councilmember Hardman who was to approve the reduction, which absent for the vote. motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardman Councilmember Kirk moved and who was absent for the vote. Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 69 of 1989, DISCUSSION: Dick Fox, bond which motion carried, all members counsel, said the Compeq project voted aye except Councilmember had grown to almost $30,000,000 Hardman who was absent for the so bonding for $10, 000, 000 became vote. too restrictive. He explained that if bonds were issued for not DISCUSSION: Alan McCand- more than $1,000,000 then other less, planning staff, outlined the financing was unlimited but bond- area on a map and pointed out the ing for $10, 000,000 limited the existing single units, existing company to spending no more than duplex and proposed duplex. He that amount. said the amendment went before the Board of Adjustment and the Councilmember Bittner asked Planning Commission and both about the status of the project. bodies approved. He said the Mr. Fox said the company had petitioner proposed to realign the acquired the land in the Interna- dwelling by five feet in order to tional Center and had received a accommodated construction. He commitment from a Taiwanese let- said this change would also add ter-of-credit bank; Zions Bank additional square footage to the would place the bonds and the dwelling for a dining area. He financing was in place for the said this change had to be amended remainder of the project. He said by ordinance since it was an the size of the building would not amendment to a recorded subdivi- change even though the budget had sion plat. tripled; the most expensive aspect of the project was the equipment No one from the audience and the pollution abatement devic- spoke. es. He said the company was (P 89-350) projecting that they would employ- ee 400 to 500 people and would #5. RE: A public hearing at produce the greatest number of 7:00 p.m. to obtain comments con- printed circuit boards in North cerning a reduction in the amount America. He said they had to of the issuance of the proposed close the financing this calendar bonds, Compeq International Co. , year and they were planning an 18- Ltd. , from not to exceed $9,300, - month construction period. 000 to not to exceed $1,000, 000. No one from the audience ACTION: Councilmember spoke. Godfrey moved and Councilmember (Q 89-3) Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all The meeting adjourned at 7:05 members voted aye except p.m. 89-307 PROCEhNINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY", UTAH TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989 COUNCIL . AIR CI Y RE ' E 89-308 425 -Reoie ) of- calehdae ® Darla nea Crime Preue,noi rev"' v/41741, eb Thursday's ( 'Y.. LAKE CITY COUNC11. AcENl)A i - £/:Gn 514/7//0f i T? C(l(1Nc i L C:HnMITR Bka q ? ;ys` ROOM "315, D CITY AND COUNTY BUILD 1NC; s. r 64/4451 SOUTH STATE STREET 6u a 9"46-01- Tuesday, November 7, 1989 6:00 p.m. A. BRIEFING ES SIGN: 5:00 - 5: 55 p. m. , Room :325 City and County Building, 451 South state. 1. Report of the Executive Director. dte The Council will interview Lynn Beckstead for appointment to the Planning Commission. B. OPENING CEREMONIES: 1.. Invocation. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval of the Minutes. 4. The City Council and Mayor will present. Certificates of Recognition regarding the "Women Helping Women" project. --Cte,5 GngaY LL lk 1:4 C. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Citizen Comments to the Council. (a) Oscar Bourg will address the Council regarding an issue relating to housing enforcement. D. CONSENT: 1. Urban Forestry Board Appointment Consider approving the appointment of Christine Chalkley to the Urban Forestry Board. ( I 89-3) Staff recommendation: Approve. 2. Central Business Improvement District Consider approving the appointment of Mike Martin to the Central Business Improvement District. ( I 89-11) Staff recommendation: Approve. 3. Interloca1 Cooperation Agreement. - Salt Lake County Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County allowing for a temporary extension of time to install curb, gutter and sidewalk located on Danish Road. (C 88-- 1' 5 ) :art reror -prldar ion: Adopr. t . PHt ; I i en Nii 0)e)- 71O iii y It t ed `iv (-11I- ,u! ,) lc) '111(' H t :F,r. Ser. (tare rc) hold d public hearing on rece7bor I2t -1 at 6: 2.0 p. . 0> obtain public comment and consider adopting an ordinance regarding Pet ifir>n i )). 400-710 siibsitted by Gilbert and Thelma 'ricer requesting the property located at 1307 South 900 West be rezoned from "R-2" to "8-3"; also that the northwest corner of 1300 S rith and 900 West be rezoned from "8-3" to "R-2". (P 89- 174 ) Cor19deit'd hrieN 41 a p/Yuii PObli c hearini ra d iain f Flo ,peob1 Staff reco-m:endation: Set. date. 5. Public: Safety Non-Contributory Retirement Act Set date to hold a public hearing on (December 12th at 6: i0 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding and consider adopting an ordinance electing to participate in the Public Safet Non-Contributory Retirement. System. (C 89-2 0) W V 1 Z •4 5la / Aq,7 t� was ad d 4 evelos Staff recoman: Set date. 6. Budget Ad;nendi:en t No. 4 Set date to hold a public hearing on November 21st at. 6: 30 p. m. to obta i n public comment concerning and consider adopting an ordinance regarding amending the Fiscal Year 1989-90 Budget to reappropriate fund balances in the CDRG grant operating fund relating to Administrative carryovers and to make other adjustments. (B 89-5 ) hag' II pOpert0(,l46 d S4144 re[ommendrehar► 01 acl wank. fi n) Staff recommendation: Set date. E. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance amending Section 18. 16. 080, Salt Lake City Code Consider adopting an ordinance regarding amending Title 18, Chapter 16, Salt Lake City Code by repealing Section 030 relating to license bond requirements. hcosektuplAv . (0 89-42 ) Staff recommendation: Refer to Consent. 2. Legislative Action _ Council Member WayneHorrocks Consider adopting an ordinance rezoning the area between Redwood Road to approximately 3000 West and Indiana Avenue extension/Surplus l Canal to T-80 from P1-1 and C-3 to M-IA. 61%0(5 rk C PeA ac1dresSed b�( G (P 89-232 ) ?f4UICOS le4uslaihie &( l \ . Staff recommendation: Refer to Planning Commission. F. UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS: 110 Alley Vacation Pee Waivers Consider adopting an ordinance adding Section 21. 10. 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts. (0 89- 3) — It wash '4 dear; ID me (AJhefsr doU wane (a- Send LJhale mix, +3 P nho� -po,ss an ar,dinanc( -t htct l-Paula +{� -hme ram< raff recorr(mendatlon. Refer to Planning Commission. b- end one Or 44 o pen, or one 41,vd esf6{0(i ies 4 speci-AL time frame {- reuiet,) . —Tke._ -hon did .heqUesf 0, we ri f(Drr\ F(4AAiu4) cot Cost (4l abler' G ku) mon-fltts. f1W1 NC - 1. Petition No. 400 -74 2 submitted by Wynn ,Johnson of the Johnson Land Company 6: 20 i�public comment c ne r--rlixrcl and consider adopting an ordinance regarding Petition No. 400-713 sub:Atted by Wynn Johnson of. the ,Johnson Land Company requesting an amendment to the Perry's Hollow i 1 Sutxiivision to allow an access road through the existing Lot. 43. (P 89-348) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. ?.. / Petition No. 400 569-OKOA Annexation submitted by William D. Holyoak 6 3o p A p 2c�, i i�llill< , ��, /)a,Lf Obtain public comment. concerning and consider.- adopting an ordinance (ol d regarding Petition No. 400-569-0K0A Annexation submitted by William 0. 5-4cy Holyoak requesting the property located on the northeast. corner of 3300 South and 1100 East be annexed into Salt Lake City for the purpose of developing new commercial retail uses. ( P 89-347) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. // y. - ' 3.) Petition No. 400-720 submitted b Kevin K nc� c /-„�, � cm) xx) • 6: 40 p. m. 7j0 d Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting an ordinance regarding Petition No. 400-720 submitted by Kevin Koncar requesting the property located at. 2613 East. 2325 South be rezoned from a "R-2" to a "B-3" classification. ( P 89-351 ) 4��l-e Staff recommendation: Clos. hearing and adopt. 4. Pet.i t i on No. 400-719 submitted by Lester Johnson 6: 50 p. m. Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting an ordinance regarding Petition No. 400-719 submitted by Lester Johnson requesting an amendment to the Bambrough Place P. U. D. Subdivision to allow one of six duplex buildings to be located five feet nearer the street. (P 89-350) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 5. Indust.rical Development Revenue Bonds - Compeq-Internatiional Co. , Ltd. 1:A c1. -F6e UAL be-N 7:00 p. m. Obtain public comment concerning and consider approving a reduction in the amount of the issuance of the proposed bonds from not to exceed ?9, 300, 000 to not to exceed $1,000. 000. (Q 89-3) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and approve. H. Al) JOI.1RN1•jF NT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA [A'1'LI): BY: C .0 t STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the 3rd day of November, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and ixor;ted copies of the same in conspicuous vie.-, at the follo.;ing tines and location?, within the City and County Rui ldinq, 451 South State Street, Salt. Lake City, lihih: 1. At. 5:00 p. :r. in the City Recorder ":,, Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p. m. in the Newsroom, Room 343. . p ,�/' -- 717L1444. 4c, _ _ CI`T •CORI Subscribed and scorn to before -e this 3rd day of November, 1989. _-'cy Pubiic: `es id __ i the State of Utah '`�1 My Co:r�?ission Expires: ,� PubibI I ••:tb'� kycan n �'=sState a� 1 APPROVAL: = DIRECTOR PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Thursday, October 12, 1989, at 5:00 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 Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, was present. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, and Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, were absent. Council Chair Stoler presided at and conducted the meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS opment of 400 West. He said this was the only logical way to get #1. RE: A motion expressing people off the freeway who were the Council ' s position regarding driving from Davis County. He the North Temple Interchange. said the traffic engineers needed to find a solution to make this ACTION: Councilmember Bitt- feasible. He suggested that the ner moved and Councilmember Hor- Council meet with the Mayor and rocks seconded to encourage the the engineers to make definite Mayor not to support the North plans. Temple Interchange, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said a vote in opposition to this issue DISCUSSION: Councilmember would make the statement that Bittner said the Council had there were more important things extensive discussions and hearings than the ability to drive anywhere about this issue. She said busi- quickly. She said she thought nesses on North Temple were asking this was an issue of the conve- for the interchange because they nience for drivers versus the wanted and needed the traffic. values of neighborhoods. She said But she said since then there had she thought there were ways to been significant changes such as manage traffic without destroying the placement of the Jazz arena, neighborhoods and she saw this as which she said in her opinion the first step to make the deci- would create gridlock. She said sion to care more about people in there was no question about not neighborhoods than cars. putting in the interchange and the (G 88-6) city and state traffic engineers needed to look at options such as a 400 West exit off of 600 North PUBLIC HEARINGS and improving the 4th West off- ramp at the North Temple viaduct. #1. RE: A public hearing at 5:00 p.m. to obtain comment con- Councilmember Horrocks con- cerning and consider adopting an curred with Mrs. Bittner and said ordinance amending the budget of the arena would mandate the devel- Salt Lake City, Utah. 89-294 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey ment concerning and consider moved and Councilmember Hardman adopting an ordinance regarding seconded to close the public the appointment procedures to the hearing, which motion carried, all Historical Landmark Committee. members voted aye except Councilmember Kirk who was absent ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey for the vote. moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to close the public hear- Councilmember Godfrey moved ing, which motion carried, all and Councilmember Bittner seconded members voted aye. to adopt Ordinance 67 of 1989, which motion carried, all members Councilmember Hardman moved voted aye except Councilmember and Councilmember Horrocks sec- Kirk who was absent for the vote. onded to adopt Councilmember Hard- man' s proposed ordinance, which DISCUSSION: Steve Fawcett, fi- motion failed, Councilmembers nance office, said four items were Bittner, Fonnesbeck, Godfrey and included in the budget opening Kirk voted nay, and Councilmembers and the primary one was to appro- Horrocks, Hardman and Stoler voted priate $2. 5 million of funds aye. received from the settled STT account. He said a discussion was DISCUSSION: Councilmember held some time ago about using the Hardman said he felt that a major- funds toward a parking facility ity of the City Council Members for the State in conjunction with supported geographical diversity their employment security building on city boards and commissions, on the block north of the City and equal opportunity for public County Building. He said the city service, and equal access to the had an agreement with the state to political process. He said many appropriate funds by November 1. of the Council Members also felt He said the funds were in the bank that access was now restricted and they wanted to create a new because of where individuals project for the parking facility. lived. He referred to the current ordinance and said the intent was He then outlined additional that it would have broad member- changes: $109, 500 from Salt Lake ship but currently 10 out of 12 County to use on an existing pro- members on the Historic Landmarks ject titled the New Women' s Shel- Committee were from the Avenues ter, receipt of a private contri- (District 3 ) . He said the current bution of $5, 500 to complete and ordinance and membership had close out the Art Barn CIP pro- served the city well but said he ject, and $18, 000 from UDOT for thought it was now time to broaden the Redwood Road Safer Sidewalk the membership. Project to be used to complete the 700 North Redwood Road pro- He said there were currently ject. four historic districts in the City: Two in District 3 (Avenues No one from the public ad- and the Capitol Hills) , one in dressed this issue. District 4 (Exchange Place) , and (B 89-5) the South Temple district which was shared by both Districts 3 and #2. RE: A public hearing at 4. He said there was currently a 7: 20 p.m. , continued from Tuesday, proposal for two new districts October 10, 1989, to obtain com- which would both be in District 4: 89-295 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 The 6th East Parkway 10th Ward and of the city. He asked people to the University area. He said view this as a positive change and there were also 178 landmark sites set aside their selfish interests dispersed throughout the city. and elitist attitudes. He said he was not proposing The following people opposed broad changes but was only modify- the proposed change: ing the ordinance to mean what it said. He said he created four Qita Woolley, representing the categories of membership which Salt Lake Chapter of the AIA, corresponded to the existing reiterated the AIA' s opposition to ordinance. The first category the proposed amendment. She said would be historic district members the current ordinance had been and not more than two members carefully researched and the could live in or own property in AIA' s concern was that they would the same historic district. The be limited to who they could total number of committee members appoint. She said the AIA recom- would change as historic districts mended who they considered to be were created. the best candidates and they didn't want to be limited to mak- The second category would be ing decisions based on where at-large members who would bring a people lived. broad viewpoint and broad experi- ence to the committee and would Councilmember Hardman asked if represent many of the other his- she thought there wouldn' t be toric landmark sites throughout qualified people living in the the city. He said the at-large two new districts. Ms. Woolley members would be limited to five said that people who had an inter- and could not live in historic est in history and had developed districts. The predominant number an expertise, tended to live in of members would always represent historic districts. She said it a historic district. was possible that all the histori- cal districts would have their He said the third category allowed number of representatives would be designated members who ( 2 ) , and the AIA would have to would represent the AIA, the Utah choose from people living outside Heritage Foundation and Planning a historical district. She said and Zoning Commission. He said the AIA wanted to make the best these members could or could not recommendation based on the inter- live in a historic district, but est and expertise of people and there could still only be two not where they live. people representing a historic district. He said the final John Pace, 52 Exchange Place, category would be ex-officio said he thought the proposed members, the same as the existing change took the wording of the ordinance. current ordinance out of context. In reference to membership, he He said his proposed ordi- said the current ordinance was nance also contained the same specific about how the board would caveat as the current ordinance be composed. which was that each voting member would be a resident of the city Sanford Barrett, 1103 3rd interested in preservation and Avenue, and Nancy Pace, 1524 knowledgeable about the heritage Arlington Drive, opposed the 89-296 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 amendment. Ms. Pace said the was discriminatory because if an proposed change would have a individual lived in a historic serious impact to those people who district and was nominated by the lived in their district (District AIA, they couldn't serve if there 3 ) as well as on the original were already two people from that intent of the ordinance. She said same area. She said the Council they believed in balance on any could suggest names if they felt citizen board with geographical their areas were underrepresented. distribution being only one part of that balance and she said they Randall Dixon, vice chair of believed the current ordinance the Historical Landmarks Com- provided balance. mittee, said there were currently four members on the committee who Ms . Pace said the Committee as did not live in historic districts it presently operated under the and said members generally didn' t current ordinance, appeared to be discuss where they lived. He said working well and the City Attor- when the Capitol Hill Historic ney' s interpretation of the ordi- District was created, two seats on nance was that there wasn't a the committee were automatically problem with how representation added. He said there were cur- was being achieved. She said the rently several vacancies and it community was served best if the was often hard to get people to board had people with the inter- volunteer their time. He said the est, expertise, a variety of back- Landmarks Committee discussed this grounds and commitment. She said issue and agreed that the current the City Council had consent power ordinance was sufficient. regarding nominations and said she thought the amendment was unneces- Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked sary, limiting and discriminatory. Mr. Hardman if he had suggested names for the Landmarks Committee Mr. Barrett said he didn' t see that had been turned down or this as an elitism issue or a ignored; he said no. Council- District 3 issue. He said he saw member Fonnesbeck suggested that this as an issue regarding people he try the process before wanting who live in historic districts to change the ordinance. being represented on the Landmarks Committee. He asked why the The following people support- people who live in the historic ed the proposed change: areas shouldn't have more input and said as more historic dis- Vickie Michelson, 229 So. tricts were formed he believed 1200 East, said her house was on they should be represented. He the national register and said she said it had been clearly voiced felt subject to regulation without that people were against the representation. amendment. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said Councilmember Hardman asked the available positions on the Ms. Pace to define her use of the committee rotated and people left word discriminatory. Ms. Pace almost on a yearly basis. She said there were many people who also said that a designated his- lived in District 3 who wanted to toric district was guaranteed serve the city and had the time representation. She said the law and commitment. She said she required that every historic believed Mr. Hardman' s proposal district be represented by two 89-297 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 people. She said Mr. Hardman' s equal access to the political proposal was not giving more process. representation to districts but was limiting representation from Councilmember Horrocks ex- existing districts. pressed his concern that there seemed to be an attitude that Lynn Jacobsen, 274 So. 1200 anyone who lived in Central City E. , said her house was on the or on the West Side didn't have national register and she was the the ability to serve on commit- chair of the committee working to tees. establish the University Historic District. She said those on the Councilmember Bittner said committee felt strongly about she thought Mr. Hardman was at- having representation on the tempting to address the inequity Landmarks Committee and she said in the way the Landmarks Committee 10 out of 12 members from the same was structured. She said the area did not represent the city as interest in this committee was a whole. She said there were many expanding and she wanted to see people in the city who had the ex- the representation expand with it. pertise and knowledge to serve on She said she thought the balance the Landmarks Committee. She also on this board needed to be ad- said their neighborhood differed dressed, whether or not the ordi- from the Avenues and Capitol Hills nance passed, and said it was areas. essential that other areas be represented. Arla Funk, 1265 East 100 South, said she had served on a Councilmember Godfrey said he number of community and school was not upset that his district boards. She said at times it was had the second least number of difficult to get representatives representatives on boards and but it was worth the effort to commissions since he believed the seek out those who would serve city should try to find capable rather than just rely on volun- people to serve. He said a number teers. She supported having the of people who spoke at this meet- city seek out those who would be ing had no idea where other com- willing to serve and said there mittee members lived since their was a broad city interest since interest was with the work they there were over 160 individual were doing. He suggested that the historic sites. problem of where people lived was generated from members of the City Councilmember Hardman read a Council and he expressed concern letter from Virginia Walton, chair that this would lead to appoint- of the Central City Neighborhood ments based on location rather Council, supporting the amendment. than expertise. Councilmember Hardman said Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the intent of the original ordi- there had been a lot of comments nance was that membership be about equal representation but broadly based. He reiterated that she said the Landmarks Committee the current membership had served was not like any other board. well and said he viewed his pro- She said there may be inequality posal as a positive change. He on this board because of the said the city needed equal oppor- inequality of those affected. tunity for public service and She said the vast majority of 89-298 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 those affected by the Board lived houses, lived by the same restric- in District 3 and this ordinance tions. She said having half of affected her entire neighborhood the members on the board not not just individual houses. living by the standards of the ordinance could jeopardize the She suggested that if this board. ordinance passed then the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill areas She said she didn't think it should divide into smaller areas was within the right of the City of about 40 houses each since that Council to tell the Mayor how to was the size of the small dis- make selections to boards since tricts. She said it was not fair this was clearly an administrative to compare Exchange Place, where function. She said initially she no one lived, with the Avenues and suggested that the Council recom- Capitol Hill where thousands of mend to the Mayor that the five people lived. She said Mr. Hard- at-large seats be selected from man' s ordinance would place unfair areas where there were pockets of restrictions on historic districts historical homes so there was a but would allow for unlimited broader representation through the representation from areas outside selections. of historic districts. She reiterated that she She said this was not a city- thought Mr. Hardman' s ordinance wide ordinance; it came from the would close and limit this board Avenues and Capitol Hill as a way and she had not met anyone affect- to impose self rule and now Mr. ed by this ordinance who viewed it Hardman was suggesting that this as positive. She suggested that power be taken out of the hands of this looked like "Avenues bashing" those who asked for the ordinance since this affected their style of and were affected by it. She said living. several things could happen: First her area could divide into Councilmember Kirk expressed 15 or 20 districts, and second, her frustrations with this issue she thought they could challenge since no one was really interested this in court since they were in a compromise. She said the being denied equal access. She Planning Commission suggested an said the worst case situation alternative, which was turned would be an uprising from people down. She didn't see a win/win living in historic districts option at this point. because of being told what to do by those living outside historic Councilmember Hardman said districts. She asked why people that Councilmember Fonnesbeck had living on the east bench would talked about power. He said other want to tell people what they areas of the city wanted to share could and couldn' t do with their the power and he wanted to assure property in a historic district. that the historic districts in District 4 were on the same foot- She said the proposed ordi- ing as other districts throughout nance would close the process. the city. She said this was a neighborhood (0 89-7) ordinance and one thing that made it work was that the people who told the neighborhood what they The meeting adjourned at 9 :30 could and couldn' t do with their p.m. 89-299 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 • COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 89-300 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, October 10, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Sydney Fonnesbeck Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Councilmember Hardman was absent. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting. The Council interviewed Council may anticipate some pub- Christine Chalkley for appointment lic attendance and comment regard- to the Urban Forestry Board. ing this issue. Council Chair Stoler asked Ms. Chalkley to express her interest She reviewed the resolutions and qualifications for appointment to be presented to Jackson Elemen- to the Urban Forestry Board. Ms. tary, Northwest Intermediate, West Chalkley said she was interested High and Judge Memorial High in preserving national resources Schools. and promoting forestry. Ms . Chalkley, currently a state em- In reference to the consent ployee, said she felt capable of business items on Block 57 and serving effectively. Compeq, Dick Fox, bond counsel, was present and briefly explained The Executive Director, Cindy these items to the Council. The Gust-Jenson, reviewed the schedule public hearing for Compeq would be of upcoming events. Ms. Gust- to approve a reduction in the Jenson also reviewed the schedule amount of the issuance of bonds for Thursday' s meeting (October from $9,300, 000 to $1, 000,000. 12) . She said the Council would The Council needed to approve the convene and discuss matters as the Block 57 resolution even though City Council, Committee of the they also acted on it as the RDA. Whole and Redevelopment Agency Board. The two items to be dis- Kathy Marshall, City Recorder cussed as Committee of the Whole briefly explained the tally ab- were not rescheduled because these stract of the primary election. items were suggested by Council- She indicated the vote totals may members. Councilmember Fonnesbeck not always be equal to the number requested that the groups inter- of individuals who voted, due to ested in the North Temple Inter- spoiled ballots. change issue be informed of the meeting Thursday. The Executive Director re- ferred to the Legislative Intent The Executive Director re- item on the Historical Landmark viewed the evening ' s agenda noting Committee and mentioned Council- the following: member Hardman' s request to delay action on this item during his The Council Office had re- absence from this meeting. ceived several phone calls inquir- ing about the cross-country ski The briefing session was track at Mountain Dell so the concluded. 89-279 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, October 10, 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 Sydney Fonnesbeck Roselyn Kirk Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Willie Stoler Councilmember Hardman was absent. Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present. Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting and Councilmember Horrocks conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES adopt Resolution 116 of 1989, which motion carried, all members #1. Police Chaplain Bob Buh- present voted aye. ler gave the invocation. (R 89-1) #2. The Council led the #5. The City Council . and Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor presented a resolution to Northwest Intermediate School #3. Councilmember Godfrey which was recently cited as an moved and Councilmember Kirk exemplary school by the United seconded to approve the minutes of States Department of Education. the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, Councilmember Bittner read October 3, 1989, and Thursday, the resolution and she, the Mayor October 5, 1989, which motion and Mr. Stepan presented it to the carried, all members present voted vice principal of the school. aye. (M 89-1 ) Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to #4. The City Council and adopt Resolution 117 of 1989, Mayor presented a resolution to which motion carried, all members Jackson Elementary School recog- present voted aye. nizing Barbara Lewis ' problem (R 89-1 ) solving classes and her students who have received national and #6. The City Council and local awards for service to the Mayor presented a resolution to community. West High School commending Prin- cipal Harold J. Trussel who was Councilmember Bittner read selected as the Principal of the the resolution. She, the Mayor Year for the State of Utah and and Keith Stepan from the Board of commending the school which was Education presented the resolution recently honored by the United to Barbara Lewis and her class. States Department of Education. Councilmember Godfrey moved Councilmember Bittner read and Councilmember Kirk seconded to the resolution and she, the Mayor 89-280 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 and Mr. Stepan presented it to CONSENT AGENDA Harold Trussel. Mr. Stepan said he appreciated the Mayor' s and Councilmember Godfrey moved Council ' s recognition of these and Councilmember Kirk seconded schools. He said the school to approve the consent agenda, systems were working hard to do a which motion carried, all members good job and were grateful for present voted aye. having been recognized by the United States Department of Educa- #1. RE: Adopting Resolution tion. 120 of 1989 accepting the OKOA Annexation petition submitted by Councilmember Godfrey moved William Holyoak, Petition 400-569, and Councilmember Kirk seconded to for City Council review. adopt Resolution 118 of 1989, (P 89-347) which motion carried, all members present voted aye. NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS (R 89-1 ) #1. Re: The reappointment of #7. The City Council and George Maxwell to the Salt Lake Mayor presented a resolution to City Arts Council. Judge Memorial Catholic High School which was recently honored ACTION: Councilmember Stoler by the United States Department of moved and Councilmember Bittner Education. seconded to suspend the rules and approve the reappointment on first Councilmember Godfrey read reading, which motion carried, all the resolution and he and the members present voted aye. Mayor presented it to John McGean, ( I 89-7) principal. Mr. McGean thanked the Council for this recognition. He #2. RE: The reappointment of said the cooperation between the Carleen Jimenez to the Salt Lake private sector, the Catholic City Arts Council. educational system, the State of Utah and public sector had always ACTION: Councilmember Stoler been excellent. Councilmember moved and Councilmember Bittner Horrocks said that Judge Memorial seconded to suspend the rules and had always set an example of approve the reappointment on first excellence in education, reading, which motion carried, all members present voted aye. Mayor DePaulis said it was (I 89-7) significant for the city to recog- nize the schools represented at #3. RE: The reappointment of this meeting and know that these Lyle Knudsen to the Historical schools represented the school Landmark Committee. system. He said this was a symbol of the strength and diversity of ACTION: Councilmember Stoler the city. moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to suspend the rules and Councilmember Godfrey moved approve the reappointment on first and Councilmember Kirk seconded to reading, which motion carried, all adopt Resolution 119 of 1989, members present voted aye. which motion carried, all members ( I 89-18) present voted aye. (R 89-1) 89-281 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 #4. RE: The reappointment of seconded to refer this to the Louis Schricker to the Historical Committee of the Whole, which Landmark Committee. motion carried, all members present voted aye. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler (I 89-5) moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to suspend the rules and #9. RE: The appointment of approve the reappointment on first Beverly Peck to the Salt Lake City reading, which motion carried, all Recreation Advisory Board. members present voted aye. (I 89-18 ) ACTION: Councilmember Fonnes- beck moved and Councilmember Kirk #5. RE: The reappointment of seconded to refer this to the France Davis to the Housing Committee of the Whole, which Authority. motion carried, all members present voted aye. ACTION: Councilmember Stoler (I 89-21) moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to suspend the rules and #10. RE: A resolution con- approve the reappointment on first senting and approving the reading, which motion carried, all financing by the Redevelopment members present voted aye. Agency of certain public improve- (I 89-19) ments in Block 57, declaring that such improvements are of benefit #6. RE: The reappointment of to said project area, and related Andy Gallegos to the Utah Air matters. Travel Commission. ACTION: Councilmember Fonnes- ACTION: Councilmember Stoler beck moved and Councilmember moved and Councilmember Bittner Bittner seconded to suspend the seconded to suspend the rules and rules and adopt Resolution 115 of approve the reappointment on first 1989 on first reading, which reading, which motion carried, all motion carried, all members pre- members present voted aye. sent voted aye. (I 89-20) (Q 89-6) #7. RE: The reappointment of UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS Virginia Buchanan to the Utah Air Travel Commission. #1. RE: Canvass of the Pri- mary Election and the Municipal ACTION: Councilmember Stoler Election/Olympic Games Opinion moved and Councilmember Bittner question. seconded to suspend the rules and approve the reappointment on first ACTION: Councilmember God- reading, which motion carried, all frey moved and Councilmember members present voted aye. Stoler seconded to adjourn as the (I 89-20) City Council, which motion car- ried, all members present voted #8. RE: The appointment of aye except Councilmember Fonnes- Lynn Beckstead to the Planning beck who was absent for the vote. Commission. Councilmember Godfrey moved ACTION: Councilmember Fonnes- and Councilmember Stoler seconded beck moved and Councilmember Kirk to convene with the Mayor as the 89-282 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 Board of Canvassers, which motion ACTION: Councilmember Stoler carried, all members present voted moved and Councilmember Kirk aye except Councilmember Fonnes- seconded to adopt Ordinance 63 of beck who was absent for the vote. 1989, which motion carried, all members present voted aye except Councilmember Godfrey moved Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was and Councilmember Bittner seconded absent for the vote. to approve and certify the ab- (P 88-146) stract of votes constituting the canvass of the Primary Election #3. RE: A reduction in the held October 3, 1989, for Council amount of the issuance of the Members in Council Districts 1, 3, proposed Industrial Development 5, and 7, which motion carried, Revenue Bonds (Compeq Internation- all members present voted aye al Co. ) from not to exceed $9, - except Councilmember Fonnesbeck 300,000 to not to exceed $1, 000, - who was absent for the vote. 000. Councilmember Godfrey moved ACTION: Councilmember God- and Councilmember Kirk seconded to frey moved and Councilmember authorize the City Recorder to Bittner seconded to set a date for prepare an abstract of the votes a public hearing to be held on cast in the Municipal Election to Tuesday, November 7, 1989, at 7:00 be held November 7, 1989, for p.m. , which motion carried, all Councilmembers of Districts 1, 3, members present voted aye except 5, and 7, and the Olympic Referen- Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was dum, which motion carried, all absent for the vote. members present voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was DISCUSSION: Councilmember absent for the vote. Bittner said she hoped that at some point the city could find out Councilmember Godfrey moved if this company was really going and Councilmember Horrocks second- to move to Salt Lake. She said ed to recess as the Board of this was a Taiwanese company that Canvassers, which motion carried, had announced they were coming to all members present voted aye Utah. except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director, said she spoke Councilmember Godfrey moved with Dick Fox, bond counsel, and and Councilmember Kirk seconded to he indicated that this project was reconvene as the City Council, progressing. which motion carried, all members (Q 89-3) present voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was #4. RE: Reducing various absent for the vote. funds and increasing the Steiner (U 89-1 and U 89-2) Aquatics Center by $733,329. #2. RE: An ordinance clos- ACTION: Councilmember Cod- ing a portion of Elgin Avenue frey moved and Councilmember Kirk located west of 1100 East Street seconded to reduce the FY 89 and close a dead end stub of 1100 CIP/GF contingency by $620, 000, East Street located south of Elgin reduce Fire Station #10 by $51, - Avenue pursuant to Petition 400- 000, reduce Riverside Park parking 350 submitted by Harold Wilkinson. by $50, 000, reduce FY 88 CIP/GF 89-283 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 slippage by $7,240, reduce FY 87 random with the philosophy of CIP/GF slippage by $795, reduce FY broad geographical representation. 86 CIP/GF contingency by $4, 294, He said the Mayor requested that and increase the Steiner Aquatics the Historical Landmark Committee Center by $733, 329, which motion and the Planning Commission review carried, all members present voted the proposed change. He said both aye except Councilmember Fonnes- groups voted against Mr. Hardman' s beck who was absent for the vote. proposal and the Planning Commis- (B 89-7) sion recommended a revised draft. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following citizens spoke: #1. RE: A public hearing at Willy Littig, 121 D Street, 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment con- past chair of the Avenues Communi- cerning and consider adopting an ty Council, said the Avenues ordinance regarding the appoint- Community Council questioned the ment procedures to the Historical proposed change since a maximum of Landmark Committee. only eight people from the Avenues could be on the board. He said ACTION: Councilmember God- currently there were unfilled frey moved and Councilmember Kirk positions on the Landmarks Commit- seconded to continue the public tee and the City Council could hearing to Thursday, October 12, approve or not approve names which 1989, with a 15 minute time limit, were submitted. He said the pro- which motion carried, all members posal seemed like unnecessary present voted aye. control over a body of people living in historic homes and said DISCUSSION: Councilmember because people in this area lived Fonnesbeck said she had spoken in historic homes, they were with a number of people who wanted interested in participating on to address Councilmember Hardman the Historical Landmarks Commit- about this issue. Since he was tee. He didn' t think the Council absent, he had requested that the would want to limit participation Council delay action until Novem- but would want to encourage it. ber 7. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she did not want to delay the Michael Stransky, chair of hearing until November 7 since the Landmark Committee, speaking this issue had been pending for for himself and two other members, several months and was of great said peoples' interest in serving concern to many people in her was the most important qualifica- district. She suggested that the tion and where they lived was Council hold the public hearing as secondary. He said it was impor- scheduled and then continue it to tant not to penalize one district Thursday, October 12, for a period because that area was interested of 15 minutes so people could in participating. He thought the address Mr. Hardman directly. proposed ordinance was too narrow in focus and said a well-qualified Bil Schwab, planning and architect nominated by the heri- zoning, said that late in 1988 tage foundation would not be able Councilmember Hardman proposed an to live in the Avenues. He said ordinance which addressed appoint- the existing ordinance allowed ments of membership. He said the approval of all appointees by the current procedure allowed for Council and the Council could appointments by the Mayor at nominate other members. He sup- 89-284 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 ported the Planning Commission's people serving on the Landmarks version of the ordinance. Committee. She said she was on the Urban Forestry Board and said Robert Bliss, 27 University it was hard to find good people to Street, representing the Salt Lake serve. She suggested that if the Chapter of the American Institute Council wanted a broader geograph- of Architects, said he served two ical representation then they terms on the Landmarks Committee. should communicate their desires He said he believed that the to the Board and she said she committee was working well except thought the various boards were that it didn't have its quota of responsive to what the Council members. He said the Salt Lake wanted. Chapter of the AIA believed the ordinance should remain as it now Brigitta Wray, chair of the existed. Greater Avenues Community Coun- cil, said they rejected the pro- Hermoine Jex, 272 Wall, posed ordinance for the following speaking for herself, Faye Nic- reasons: 1 ) The current ordi- hols and Norma Amodt, said the nance contained a provision for Historic Landmark Committee was a "advice and consent" by the Coun- remnant of what she started 40 cil . 2) To require that a person years ago as chair of the valley not live in a given part of the wide chapter of the Utah State city disenfranchised interested Historical Society. She said and qualified citizens. 3 ) Three several months ago the Capitol seats on the committee were "des- Neighborhood Council and the ignated members" : one from the Association of Councils took the Salt Lake Chapter of the American position that the existing plan Institute of Architects, one from was working, members were dedicat- the Utah Heritage Foundation and ed and responsible, and with new one liaison member from the Plan- historic districts being formed ping Commission. Nominees from city-wide representation would these bodies sometimes lived in a follow. historic district and under the proposed ordinance, either a She said the geographic current member living in the same balance of representatives on the district would have to resign or Historical Landmarks Committee was the nominee would have to be not as important as having members rejected. who cared about saving the heri- (0 89-7) tage. She said Councilmember Hardman' s proposal was too limit- #2. RE: A public hearing at ing and made little sense. She 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment con- said the crucial point was that cerning and consider adopting an the Mayor and Council appointed ordinance regarding closing Walker persons who were willing to give Place, Carson Street in Block 40, the time and energy, had the and Eardley Avenue in Block 21, expertise, lived in heritage homes Salt Lake City Survey, pursuant to and were devoted to historical Petition 400-761 submitted by preservation. Sinclair/Little America - R.E. Holding. Jennifer Harrington, 480 F ACTION: Councilmember Kirk Street, opposed changing the moved and Councilmember Godfrey ordinance. She said it was seconded to close the public important to have interested hearing, which motion carried, all 89-285 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 members present voted aye except 5) The public would benefit Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was from the improved appearance of absent for the vote. the southern gateway to downtown. Councilmember Godfrey moved 6) The public would receive and Councilmember Kirk seconded to financial benefits by placing the adopt Ordinance 64 of 1989, which property on the tax roles. motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember He said the Planning Commis- Fonnesbeck who was absent for the sion found that the existing vote. rights of way were not presently used for any substantial public DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, benefit and the location of the director of planning and zoning, rights of way were inconsistent outlined the area on a map and with any desirable future benefit. said the city had previously He said there was substantial closed the north half of Carson benefit to be obtained with the Street. He said the Planning immediate beautification of the Commission recommended that the block faces. streets be closed as requested and sold at fair market value, based On a drawing, Mr. Johnson on a fair value exchange similar showed where the petitioner in- to what the city did with the Rick tended to beautify the street- Warner project and the Clark scape. He said this was important Financial project in Sugar House. because the south end of downtown was considered a "thorn" and this He said the Planning Commis- was a chance to make the south sion determined the following: half of downtown as beautiful as the north end. He said the peti- 1 ) A portion of Eardley tioner intended to landscape the Avenue was not a functional street areas on the four blocks consis- and the adjacent land could be tent with the landscaping scheme better utilized if the public on the Little America block. He street was closed. said the petitioner would improve the sidewalks and curbs and gut- Mr. Johnson pointed out that ters, which was important since they would only close the rear there were a number of deteriorat- portion of Eardley and would leave ed sidewalks. He said the bene- 100 feet open since it was used as fits which Salt Lake City would access for the businesses on the receive were immense in terms of south side of Eardley. landscape beautification, improve- ments to the infrastructure, and 2 ) Walker Place and Carson the public liability and safety. Streets served no vital transpor- tation function. Councilmember Stoler said at a previous meeting the Council was 3 ) The closures would create informed that the property owners more buildable parcels on Blocks did not object to closing Walker 40 and 21 . Place. However in the Council ' s Committee of the Whole meeting 4 ) The public would receive prior to this Council meeting, a safety, liability and aesthetic representative for one of the benefits from the improved infra- property owners (Holbrook) indi- structure. cated that there was a problem 89-286 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 since Walker Place added value to Mr. Johnson verified on a his client' s property. map for Ms. Holt which portion would be closed and which portion Mr. Johnson indicated on a would remain open. He also point- map the property which the Hol- ed out that if in the future a brooks owned and said they had a petitioner requested closure of 20 to 30 foot access off the end the additional portion of Eardley of Walker Place into the back of Avenue, the request would have to their property. He also indicated go through the public hearing the surrounding property which the process before the City Council. petitioner owned. He said he Councilmember Horrocks pointed out talked with Bruce Baird and Steven that the City Council was sympa- Allred from the Attorney's Office thetic to property owners if and discussed whether or not street closures would be detrimen- closing the Holbrook' s portion tal. would be denying access to their property. He said the attorneys Mr. Peterson said they had no felt that the city had the author- intention of closing the portion ity to close the street since the of Eardley Avenue to which Ms. Holbrook' s primary access was off Holt referred. He pointed out, of West Temple and any litigation however, that her tenant did not would not be successful against use Eardley for access but used it Salt Lake City. He also said for parking additional used cars there was no definitive informa- for sale. He said they had asked tion as to whether or not the him to move the cars. Mr. Holbrook' s property was more Peterson also said that the tenant valuable because of Walker Place. had opened a towing business on a portion of the petitioner' s prop- Chris Peterson, representing erty without their permission. the petitioner, said he believed this closure was a good idea since Benson Hathaway, counsel for it would allow for beautification the owners of the Brookson Build- of a major portion of the south ing (Holbrook) , said the owners end of Salt Lake, it would allow had approximately 20, 000 square the master planning of this five- feet at the end of Walker Place. block area to continue, it would He said his clients had never been reduce the city' s obligation to approached by anyone with respect maintain a street not serving the to what was happening with the public interest, and it would add block. He said the notice of the over 45, 000 square feet of street Planning Commission' s meeting was space to the tax rolls. their first indication that there was any effort to close the Martha Holt, property owner street. of 651 South Main, said if the 100 feet of Eardley Avenue was not He said according to the closed, this would solve her Brookson tax notice, 33 feet of problem. She expressed her con- the 66-foot wide Walker Place ran cern that if that portion were into their property for approxi- closed her property wouldn't have mately 16 feet. He said Brook- access and her current lessee son and their tenants had used wouldn't renew his lease. She this street as access to load and indicated that if a portion of unload trucks and this street had Eardley Avenue remained open then previously been used by Paramount she wasn't opposed. Beauty Supply before their fire. 89-287 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 Because of that use, this portion given for the denial of access. of Carson Street was not closed when previously requested. Councilmember Godfrey said this issue was not dealing with He said Little America was condemnation. He said the Coun- interested in receiving this cil was considering a request to property in exchange for improve- close certain streets and they ments and he asked whether or not would consider whether or not a they intended to improve the property owner needed the streets portion of the block owned by for access. He said the general Brookson. He also asked if the policy had been that the streets value of the improvements was would not be closed if the proper- commensurate with the fair market ty owners required their use for value of the property. He said if access to their property. this road was closed, Brookson would be denied their rear prop- Mr. Hathaway said he was erty access. He also said this arguing that there was a property was not an abandoned roadway interest, the access, which would since there was curb and gutter be denied if the Council approved and people parked at the meters. the street closure. Mr. Godfrey said Mr. Hathaway had made it He said it was well estab- clear that his clients were not lished in Utah that access over a using this street for access to public roadway was a property their property at the present right and was protected by the time. Mr. Hathaway affirmed "not Constitution so it couldn't be at the present time. " taken without just compensation to whom access was denied. He said Councilmember Stoler said Brookson was willing to purchase Mr. Hathaway indicated it had the property in order to preserve legally been established that if the access and felt it enhanced the road was used for access then the property. He did not dispute it was a property right. He that the city could close this asked when a person would lose property but said it must be taken that property right. Mr. Hathaway for a public use. He expressed said the cases he reviewed stated his opinion that the only interest that when there was an access being served was that of Sinclair across a public roadway, to im- and he said their plans showed use pinge or deny access was equiva- of the Brookson property when no lent of taking away a property one had approached Brookson. right. He said there was no public Steven Allred, deputy city reason to deny access and abandon attorney, agreed that there was a the roadway and said just compen- property interest to access but sation would be denied if the disagreed that the property owner city exchanged the property for had an interest to a particular improvements. He requested that access. He said the owners had a the road not be closed but if the right to access and their access Council felt strongly about aban- would be retained on West Temple. doning the property, he suggested He said he didn't think that any that the proper avenue to pursue property owner had an interest in was a condemnation proceeding so a particular road and the recent a public use could be demonstrated line of cases would state that it and just compensation could be didn' t even need to be the most 89-288 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 convenient access. He said, bid for the property if the Coun- therefore, that as long as there cil closed it. Mr. Hathaway was West Temple access the city' s confirmed that this was the case. requirements had been fulfilled. Mr. Allred said in the past Councilmember Horrocks asked the city had been in situations if there was a perpetual right where there were divergent inter- associated with access when it had ests in purchasing property. He been used previously. Mr. Allred said the Real Property Management said a private property owner did Office had done one of two things: not have the ability to adversely 1 ) put the property out for bid possess public property. By using when authorized to do so, or 2 ) public property they did not gain made a determination that only one a private interest in the proper- property owner could put the ty. property to its highest and best use. Councilmember Bittner asked if any of the other property Mr. Johnson said from the owners on Carson Street were standpoint of assembling a "build- opposed. Mr. Johnson said the able" parcel, turning the property petitioner owned all the property over to the petitioner addressed except the 33-foot stub at the this issue. Mayor DePaulis said end. He said the only other this issue was before the Council property owner was Ms. Holt whose as a result of a petition and not property was on Eardley Avenue. because this property was consid- Councilmember Horrocks asked how ered surplus property. He said many property owners were involved normally there wouldn' t be a and Mr. Johnson said three: the bidding process on a street clo- Holts, Mr. Holbrook (Brookson) , sure hearing. and Sinclair, the petitioner. Mr. Johnson said the Real Mayor DePaulis reiterated Property Management Division that the issue of access dealt requested that this property be with availability of access and appraised and the reported value not dual access. Mr. Allred said was $647, 500. He said exchange of the city didn' t guarantee a par- improvements would be similar to ticular access. what the city did with Clark Financial or the Gateway project. Mr. Johnson said if the He said the city would receive property were to redevelop, Carson $647, 500 plus in improvements on Street was a substandard street in the blocks. terms of how it ended into the Holbrook property. He said cur- Councilmember Horrocks asked rent policy was to either put the if closing this street would terminus into a cul-de-sac or devalue Mr. Holbrook' s property. hammerhead turn around. He said Mr. Johnson said he thought it even if the street was left in would have a neutral effect. He place they would need a street said if the street remained open, dedication to make the 33 feet the city would require a cul-de- conform to present policy. sac or hammerhead turn around and substantial curb and gutter im- Councilmember Stoler said he provements which would offset any understood that Mr. Hathaway' s value from having a 30-foot access client wanted the opportunity to off the stub of a dead-end. 89-289 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 Jim Gibson, 3315 East Nutmeg he was reluctant to delay this Street, said he worked in the issue or ask the property owners downtown area and rented covered to negotiate. parking space. He was concerned that he would lose his parking in Councilmember Kirk said the Walker Place. idea behind negotiating was that there was a possible solution. Mr. Peterson said they would She said it seemed to her that the maintain much of the area in two property owners would always parking but the building Mr. disagree about this issue so she Gibson referred to was unsafe and didn' t see how negotiation was so it would need to be torn down. possible. Councilmember Stoler He said they planned to expand said it seemed to him that the two their parking operation. property owners hadn't even gotten together to talk about this issue. B.T. Price, city resident, suggested that the Council consid- Ken Knight, representing the er this issue carefully. petitioner, said they had conver- sations with the Holbrooks on a Councilmember Stoler ex- continuous basis and had offered pressed his concern about the to purchase their property on property conflict and suggested numerous occasions for the ap- that the Council delay action praised value. He said the Hol- until the property owners had an brooks had denied their offer, and opportunity to negotiate. He said had not wanted to deal on the he wanted to see the property appraised value. assembled but didn't feel comfort- able acting under the present Councilmember Godfrey asked circumstances with the property what discussions Little America owners. had with the Holbrooks about the closure of the street. Mr. Knight Councilmember Godfrey said said they hadn't talked to them the property owner needed access about the closure. He expressed to his property and he had that on his opinion that the Council West Temple. By closing the either closed or didn't close the street no one would lose access street. and he said it was no different than anything else they had dealt Mayor DePaulis said at the with before. initial meetings the administra- tion was not aware of any opposi- Councilmember Stoler suggest- tion although the access question ed that both property owners be had been raised before. He said given the opportunity to bid for this issue was not about a single purchase of the property. access being denied but the ques- Councilmember Godfrey said the tion being raised was about dual issue was who could make the best access. Mayor DePaulis said the use by assembling the property. petitioner was hoping that the He said the petitioner requested improvements could be installed the street closures and was not this construction season and said trying to steal someone' s proper- the proposed improvements were a ty. He said by closing the significant trade off for the streets the city would not deny public good. anyone access. He said the peti- tion went through the process and 89-290 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 Councilmember Bittner said development on this property she she disliked denying any property should support the petitioner so owner rights to their property and he could continue the project. said it seemed to her that part of the issue was the value of the Councilmember Horrocks asked property. She said the petitioner if the abutting property owners agreed to install improvements had been notified throughout this equal to the value of the property petition process. Mr. Johnson and she wondered if this offer had said Salt Lake City complied with been extended to Mr. Holbrook to the notice requirements prescribed allow him to do the same. by the State of Utah and city ordinance. He said the first Mayor DePaulis reiterated notification was for a Planning that this was not a surplus prop- Commission informal hearing and a erty issue and therefore required copy of the staff report was hand no bidding process. Councilmember delivered to the abutting property Bittner said one issue was to owners. He said notices were assemble a developable portion of advertised in the newspaper and land and the other issue was the agendas were posted in conformance value of the street. She said in with sunshine requirements. He the past the city had enabled said the City Recorder' s office adjacent property owners to share followed the requirements for in the cost of the street and keep noticing public hearings before it open. the City Council. Mr. Johnson said in this case they sent notice Councilmember Godfrey said to the recorded property owner and that if the Council wanted to keep hand delivered a copy to the the street open then they wouldn't tenant. support the petition or they would amend the proposed ordinance. He Ira Holbrook, general partner said the Council was not in the for the Brookson property, said business to sell streets to the after the fire at Paramount Beauty highest bidder. He said when the Supply he approached Little Ameri- city sold a street to someone it ca about purchasing his property was for a purpose; in this case to but told them he wouldn' t dicker. amass land for a project. Mayor At that time they wouldn't pur- DePaulis pointed out that this chase his property but he said issue was the same as the Shopko sooner or later they would need proposal that the Council recently to talk to him and he asked why approved. they wouldn' t do it now. Councilmember Horrocks said Councilmember Godfrey said it if the city kept the street open, seemed clear to him that the issue it would be the city' s responsi- for Mr. Holbrook was about selling bility to maintain it. his property to Little America. He said it appeared that the Councilmember Bittner said Council was getting into part of there was no plan for the immedi- those negotiations which was not a ate use of the property aside from function of the Council. He said landscaping. Councilmember Godfrey the issue before the Council was said this was similar to Block 57 whether or not to close the in terms of assembling the proper- streets and sell the property to ty and he suggested that if the petitioner. Councilmember Bittner wanted a 89-291 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 Councilmember Bittner said clair property but he could still she was uncomfortable about go in and out on his own property. getting into any kind of negotia- (P 89-319 ) tion between two property owners. She said her concern was to be #3. RE: A public hearing at careful to not cut off a legiti- 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment con- mate access. cerning and consider adopting an ordinance regarding vacating Councilmember Stoler asked if Coatsville Alley between 316 Mr. Holbrook was using the street Coatsville and 322 Coatsville for access. Mr. Johnson said Mr. pursuant to Petition 400-722 Hathaway' s testimony at the submitted by Dale Smith. Planning Commission meeting was that delivery trucks had been ACTION: Councilmember God- using it because it was easier frey moved and Councilmember than coming off of West Temple. Bittner seconded to close the He said in some cases they were public hearing, which motion crossing over Mr. Holding's prop- carried, all members present voted erty to access the back of their aye except Councilmembers building. Fonnesbeck and Stoler who were absent for the vote. Mr. Peterson pointed out on a map how the Holbrooks were Councilmember Godfrey moved accessing their property. He said and Councilmember Kirk seconded there was a grade change at the to adopt Ordinance 65 of 1989, end of the street and it was not which motion carried, all members possible for a truck to drive over present voted aye except Council- it. He said the only access to members Fonnesbeck and Stoler who the Holbrook property via Walker were absent for the vote. Place had been by crossing the 33- foot section owned by Sinclair. DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, He said for $1 .00 they had leased planning director, outlined the the property to the Holbrooks. area on a map and said the alley He also noted that the petitioner was 12 feet wide and 110. 5 feet had 1,200 feet of frontage on long. He said both property this street and Holbrooks had owners approved the petition and about 50 feet of frontage. He said no one else had access from the if the Holbrook property was alley. He said the planning staff redeveloped to its maximum possi- recommended approval of the peti- ble density, the current building tion. No one from the audience could be replaced with a building spoke. about 3, 000 feet bigger. (P 89-349) Councilmember Stoler asked #4. RE: A public hearing at Mr. Holbrook if he was using the 6: 50 p.m. to obtain comment re- Sinclair property to access his garding and consider adopting an property and Mr. Holbrook said no ordinance amending Section 5.04. - they were not. Councilmember 070 relating to the exemption from Stoler asked Mr. Holbrook if he payment of a portion of business could access his property over the license fees. incline. Mr. Holbrook said his access was easier using the Sin- ACTION: Councilmember God- frey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public 89-292 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1989 hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote. Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Ordinance 66 of 1989, which motion carried, all members present voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote. DISCUSSION: Bob Bridge, lic- ense supervisor, said the current ordinance was cumbersome, bur- densome and expensive to admin- ister. He said the Treasurer' s Office estimated that it cost $40.00 in order to give a $25.00 refund. He said the proposed ordinance would make the process less of a burden on the city and would conform with other political subdivisions in the valley. He said the staff recommended that the Council adopt the ordinance. No one from the audience addressed this issue. (0 89-38) The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CITY RECORDER 89-293 1 + SALTS CND?' OJ RATI QE mcni OFFICE;OF, THE CITY-','COUNCIL 0 !'.`: SUITg 300. CITY HALL sZ4324 SOUTH STATE.STREET' tAKE-..GI-TYUAH 84 T November 3, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Kathryn Burrows RE: Committee of the Whole Schedule This memo is to provide you with a tentative schedule of the upcoming Committee of the Whole meetings. The tentative schedule is as follows: Thursday, November 9 (meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. ) Discuss proposed home occupations ordinance Receive update from Steven Holbrook regarding S. L. Community Shelter and Resource Center RDA Meeting Interview Human Resource & Administrative Services Audit firm candidates ( 30-40 min. each, 2 firms) Thursday, November 16 Review draft. of Side Yard/Rear Yard Set. Back Ordinance Thursday, December 7 Interview board nominees Interview Consolidated Dispatch Audit firm candidates ( 30-40 min. each, 2-4 firms) Review draft of Recreational Vehicles in Side Yard Ordinance Thursday, December 14 RDA Meeting Note: There may b e items added to the agenda as issues are referred to the Committee of the Whole meetings from the Tuesday Council meetings. PALMER DEPAULIS Rom d`e Oil"G ; ?. dal MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7704 MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Gust-Jenson From: Lynne Zimmerman Date: November 2, 1989 Topic: Recognition of Women Helping Women Volunteers This year' s Women Helping Women Career Clothing Fair took place Saturday, October 14, at the Salt Lake Skills Center. Approximately 550 low-income single women participated. Five thousand pieces of clothing were donated. Of these, 2000 pieces were donated by the Pyke Manufacturing Company. More than 70 women volunteered to help out the day of the Fair. Our office will furnish certificates. The Mayor, with the help of one or more Council Members, will present them to four individuals at the Council meeting. The Women Helping Women Career Clothing Drive and Fair actually began in 1988 when a handful of women decided that a good way to help low-income single women, especially mothers , in their attempt to become self employed, would be to solicit clothing in good condition that these women could wear to interviews and, later, to their jobs. The first year of the project, clothing was solicited only from City employees. The day of the Fair, which was held May 16, 1988, more than 300 low-income women participated. Pyke Manufacturing gave us a big boost by donating 2000 pieces of clothing valued at $30,000. When we looked at repeating the Drive and Fair this year, we decided to go to the community for clothing donations; specifically , to women's organizations. Scores of organizations were contacted. The project became much more complicated. At the same time we were contacting women's organizations, we were inviting more self-sufficiency agencies to inform their clients about the event (each eligible client had to have an "invitation" from us) . While there were many, many individuals who helped make this Drive and Fair a success, four women played a key role. They are the following: Linda Gobble Community Services Council Linda was tireless in her efforts to help with this project. Primarily, she oversaw the screening and sizing of the clothing that was donated to the project at the Pyke Manufacturing Warehouse the last four Fridays of September. It was an awesome task. She also helped oversee those women who volunteered to help coordinate outfits for participants the day of the Fair. Reineke Orlandi Office Supervisor, Pyke Manufacturing Reineke coordinated Pyke's donation of the 2000 pieces of clothing, as well as the use of one of their warehouses, where pieces donated from women in the community could be stored. She also helped screen and sort the clothing and oversaw with Linda the clothing -coordination group. Jean Pierce Salt Lake Community College Skills Center Jean oversaw whatever activities took place at the Skills Center prior to and during the Fair. Another tireless worker, she attended all our meetings, providing good ideas as we continually reworked our approach to this project. As a side note, in 1988 when Tamara called various self-sufficiency organizations asking if they would be willing to hold the Fair on their premises, Jean was the only one to agree to do it. Vickie Fuller member, Philanthropic Education Organization Vickie, who is Duane Fuller's wife, by the way, took on the responsibility of organizing the volunteers. Volunteers were divided into such areas as child care, dressing rooms, clothes coordination, check in and check out. As I mentioned earlier, more than 70 women eventually volunteered their time the day of the Fair. November 3, 1989 Council Members: Attached is background information which was delivered to our office by Mr. Oscar Bourg, a citizen who has a complaint relating to the City"s procedures on building and housing enforcement. We told Mr. Bourg we would provide this information to you in advance of your meeting, and that he could address you under the citizen comments portion of you agenda, although his time would be limited. I contacted the City Attorney"s Office regarding this situation and was told that their understanding is that Mr. Bourg has appealed the case once and it is, of course, within his rights to do so again. For this reason, you may want to avoid making specific comments. Please let us know if there is further information you .•;oul.d like in advance of the meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson Oscar Bourg 376 E 700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 2 November 1989 Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Council Members: I need help. I was under the impression Salt Lake City is a large city made up of a lot of people . City government is to help these people. I have spent the last year and half having this idea destroyed. Building and Housing has accused me of violating Salt Lake City Ordinance # 5-7-2. Not only was I tried, but I was found guilty. This may not mean much to you now, but I hope to show you it gives Building and Housing unlimited powers. I do not care if they have these powers, but I would hope that they would be used in a way that is good for the City and agrees with the Council's desires. I think this is the reason you have adopted the Uniform Building Code and written the City Ordinances. Salt Lake City Ordinance #5-7-2 adopts the building code and its standards. Yes the Uniform Building Code is needed, but who is not in violation of it? The code is very descriptive and specific. Salt Lake City has no telling how many people working in Building and Housing. They also have access to the City Attorney's office not to mention the City prosecutor's office. Rather than being specific, as required by state law, they chose to say I was in violation of the whole code. It makes a very hard case to defend. Also it gives them unlimited powers to prosecute, and it gives them unlimited powers to dictate what they want. In my case I think they went around the UBC and the desires of the Council . If they did act in a way in which the Council wants I would like to discuss other ideas. I once heard a warden, who was having problems in his prison, say, "What we need is a better class of prisoner." I think this could be said about the vagrants around Salt Lake. If we had a better class of vagrant I am sure they would see a boarded building and leave it alone. This does not seem to be the case. A boarded building is like a neon sign which invites them in . Not only does it invite them in. but they usually destroy the building. The building, also, is not attractive to the neighborhood. I think a secure building would be a much better solution. If the City and all its powers works against you rather than with you this is anything but true . If you will read Chapter 3 Permits and Inspections, a copy which is enclosed, you will see that a permit is required to do almost anything to your home. This gives the building officials a chance to inspect your work to insure it is being done right . You can obtain a permit for your own home. What happens if you own other property? State law states that only a licensed contractor can work on these properties. A lot of the older homes that have become rental property in Salt Lake fall into this category. This is not bad, but what happens if ANYBODY complains about your property? Please read the Notice and Order dated 10-19-87. After a complaint; this was my first communication with the City. Needless to say I became very defensive. Not only are you defensive, but if you take this list to a contractor, it would cost about what the house fixed up would sell for. In other words your investment cost would be lost. I hope this explains why a lot of older homes are left vacant around Salt Lake. I would like for all of you to look at my home at 376 E. 700 South, and if you would like to come in I would be glad to show you around anytime I am home. I have completely remodeled it, obtaining the proper permits. I am very proud of the work I have done. Please excuse the incompletion of the house, but I am under a Stop Work Order, because I have not completed the work. What I am trying to say is I think I am capable of remodelling a home. This does not matter the state says I need to be licensed contractor. A committee recommended that the legislature pass the bill and it did, unanimously. I think that more than half of the committee's members were licensed contractors. I think it would be very benefical to Salt Lake City to have this law changed. Giving a person a driver's license doesn't keep the drunks off the road. A contractors license doesn' t necessarily guarantee good or bad work. I think it is the job of the inspector to insure it is done right. Now the problem is I can't do any work on my house unless it is my personal house. The Notice and Order posted on my house acted in much the same way as boarding it up. In broad daylight my fence was taken. The people said I wouldn't mind, because the house was going to be demolished. Read the Notice and Order and guess where that idea came from. Window shutters were also taken, not to mention the general vandal isms. I was issued a Stop Work Order and the City wouldn't issue me a permit. Now comes the funny part. The City Health Department hired just anybody to board up the house anyway he wanted. In other words the person that did the work was not licensed. Not only that, he didn' t do it in compliance with the City Boarding Permit. Explain to me how the City can work in the City and not get it right. I think confusion is the answer, and I plan to show how I think there is a lot of confusion in Building and Housing. Early one morning , before anyone else came to work Roger Evans did issue me a permit. I had argued for about three years this was legal . Jud Weiler in the State Licensing Department agreed with me. The law was changed in April 1989 . Finally the Director of Building and Housing must have agreed with me, but nobody else would write the permit. I secured the house. It became hard to work on the house, because the work I did in the daytime was stolen at night. Roger Evans did agree the house was secure . Fred Christensen, an inspector for Building and Housing, did not agree. He wanted the house boarded up. Since I was in court and being accused of #5-7-2, they said he had the rights. I have always, even in court asked what I was accused of . I didn't then and don' t now think there is a law that states a house must be repaired or demolised. Sometimes it is not economically feasible or possible to repair it. It doesn' t matter; I was found guilty and ordered to REPAIR, DEMOLISH, OR BOARD UP. I have not figured where board up comes from. City Ordinance 18.48.060 does list REPAIR OR DEMOLISH. It list this under abatement work and also states a hearing must be held. City Ordinance 18.48. 140 does tell how a bulling is to be boarded up. I assume this is to be determined in the abatement hearing. Otherwise if you had a rent house that didn't have renters to have it temporarily secured, it would need to be boarded up. I have addressed many letters, as some of you can attest to, to Roger Evans. I did receive two answers from his assistant Harvey Boyd. I call your attention to the second page of his enclosed letter, and I quote: Athough the term "repair" is used in the code, it is it (sic) my understanding that "repair" includes the act of boarding a building. I have a real hard time dealing with this. You mean to tell me we have all of the Uniform Building Code and all the City Ordinances, and we have to understand that Harvey Boyd understands the word repair is to board up. To me, they seem sort of contradictory. Now we can deal with Fred Christensen's understanding of the word secure. The Notice part of his Notice and Order dated 3 April 1989 states: Notice is hereby given that the above referenced property is vacant and unsecured . If the structure is left unsecured, it is likely to become a haven for vagrants and a dangerous eyesore for the entire neighborhood . Section 9. 16.030 of the Salt Lake City Ordinance require that all unsecured structures be legally boarded, so as to prevent entry to unauthorized persons. Boarding must be completed as per Salt Lake City Ordinance, Sections 18.48.090 and 18.48. 140. Section 9. 16.030 states : It is unlawful for any person, corporation, partnership or other legal entity owning or occupying real property in the city to fail to maintain the hight of weeds, as provided in Section 9. 16.040 below, or its successor, on such property: or to fail to remove from the property any cutting from such weeds, or any solid waste, unsightly or deleterious objects or structures, or to fail to effectively secure any vacant structure after haven been given written notice from the department or inspector . (Prior Code # 18-29-3) have a hard time believing the Council went to so much work to define weeds, and would mean for secure to mean anything but SECURE. I , also wonder why a written notice, wasn't Notice and Order. Sections 18.48.O90 and 18 .48 . 140 are mentioned above and deal with abatement proceedings. It is neat to read under Order and see Fred gives you ten days to obtain a permit. Under 18.48.090 it clearly states: "Such application must be made within thirty days of service of Notice and Order. " After about two years of trying to find out what I was accussed of Bill Cupit did give me a copy of his work sheet. I had tried to obtain information from the City Atorney's Office, but Bruce Baird wouldn't talk to me, beause I had a pending case. Is the City there to help its citizens, or they there to prosecute? I have been led to believe the latter is true. On Bill Cupit's worksheet he uses UHC Sec 1001 and 1401 . Sec 1001 defines a Substandard Building . See if any of your houses have any of these defficiences. Sec 1401 deals with the Enforcement of the Order . I will never understand how he skips over Sec 1101 -1103. This sections states how to deliver a Notice and Order and it aso deals with vacant houses. Read Sec 1103 (1) (iii) : If the building does not constitute an immediate danger to life, limb, property or safety of the public it may be vacated, secured and maintained against entry. Again we see the word secure and another understanding. My first dealings with the City were REPAIR OR DEMOLISH. These are harsh words, which I do not think the City can legally use. If they can I would appreciate someone showing this law to me. I think I would be more than justified in suing the City, but I have learned you can't sue the City unless they give you permission. Does this enable them to do anything they understand or want to due? I showed a letter similar to this to a lawyer, and he said that if he had done it, I could not afford it. I have no legal experience. I do not have a large office staff, the City Attorney's Office or the City Prosecutor's Office to access, but that is what the City used to prosecute me, and I think I have more than brought some doubts in their procedure. I hope someone agrees with me, so that we can have Building and Housing acting in support of the Council 's desires and in a legal way . I don't think many people would endure what I have gone through . It is for this reason I think many people accept the unjust rulings from Building and Housing . I am a guilty man. There is not much you can do for me, but : hope you have read this. If you agree with me, maybe you can help control Building and Housing, so that we can make Salt Lake City a better place to live, rather than the boarded up City. Thank you for your consideration. Oscar Bourg Homeowner and Property Owner Salt Lake City, Utahp T1jiv4 Circuit Court September 13 , 1989 Mr. Oscar Bourg 376 East 700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Bourg: Re : Salt Lake City Corp v. Oscar Bourg Case # 881000914 MC Enclosed please find a certified copy of the copy of the sentence form you left for Judge Palmer. Thank you for calling to our attention the omission of the charges on the Sentence form. This is now corrected and a certified copy is enclosed for your information. A copy will also be forwarded to the Court of Appeals . Just so there is no further misunderstanding you are charged with violating the Salt Lake City Building Code under the City Ordinance # 5-7-2 . Sincer , U Gloria Russo Clerk for Judge Palmer GR:hs cc: Court of Appeals 451 South 200 East / Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 / 801-533-3900 :8.32.010 18.32.130 UBC Appendix Chapter 70 / codified in this section;they provide for the issu- e amended—Excavation and ance of permits and the collection of fees *re- grading. for, and provide penalties for the violation of the 18.32.140 Senior citizen apartment fee provisions thereof. Hereafter, all references in abatement. the Salt Lake City Code to the Uniform Building 18.32.150 UBC Section 205 amended— Code and Uniform Building Code_Standards Violations and penalties. 1982 Edition adopted by Section 18.32.020,,or its successor, are amended to:,read the.--Uniform Building Code, 1988-Edition. (Amended during . 18.32.010 Aged and handicapped planning 1/88 supplement; prior code § 5-7-2) and design criteria adopted. The division of construction and maintenance 18,32.030 Uniform Building Code— facilities Planning and Design Criteria to Prevent Deletions and omissions. Architectural Barriers for the Aged and Phys- Expressly exempted. deleted and omitted ically Handicapped. 1973 edition, is adopted by from the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition. the city as an ordinance, and rules and regula- adopted by reference in Section 18.32.020. or its tions of the city. three copies of which criteria successor, of this chapter are Chapters 1, 12, 35, shall be filed for use and examination by the 38, 49, 51, 53 and 57 of the Appendix to that public in the office of the recorder of the city.The code. (Amended during 1/88 supplement; prior purpose of the criteria is to provide minimum code § 5-7-3) requirements for the protection and welfare of the aged and physically handicapped in using 18.32.040 UBC Section 104(g)amended— • facilities and buildings provided for the general Existing occupancy conversions. public and financed in whole or in part by the use Section 104(g)of the Uniform Building Code, of state, county or municipal funds, or the funds 1988 Edition, adopted by Section 18.32.020 of of any political subdivision of the state. (Prior this chapter, or its successor, is amended by code § 5-7-1) adding a provision relating to change of occu- pancies which shall read as follows: 18.32.020 Building code and standards adopted. Sec. 104(g). Existing occupancy, conver- A. B. . _ � e ulha sions. Buildings in existence at the time of the )bicrrr-Building Code-Standard 1988,Ed't eI , passage of this code may have their existing gwiLappendices.thereto,pre,adoptedAtt*M1 use or occupancy continued, if such use or as the__ordinances,.rules and regulatk4134 occupancy was legal at the time of the passage tv subject to the amendments-and- .;. of this code, provided such continued use is thereto as hereinafter set out; three,,,cop.e .,af„' not dangerous to life. which codes shall be filed for use and exam a* tion of the public in the office of the city re..c_oritez Any change in the use or occupancy of any B. The codes designated in subsection"_A cz existing building or structure shall comply this section deal with and establish. rules�anc with the provisions of Sections 307 and 502. A regulations for the erection,repair,constn tio,o, substantial change in ownership in existing enlargement, alteration, equipment. use, height, nonconforming group R occupancies caused area and maintenance of buildings and/or struc- by conversion shall constitute a change of tures in the city after the date of the ordinance: occupancy and said structure must conform • (Salt Lake Cit I-S8) 698 . • • • 301-302 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE , 1988 EDITION Chapter 3 2. Describe the land on which the propo description, street address or similar descript PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS definitely locate the proposed building or wort 3. Indicate the use or occupancy for which Permits 4. Be accompanied by plans,diagrams,cot Sec.301.(a)Permits Required. Except as-specified in Subsection(b)ot:this other data as required in Subsection(b)of this section, no building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, con-: 5. State the valuation of any new building or strutted,enlarged,altered,repaired,moved,improved,removed,converted-or- eling or alteration to an existing building. demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been 6. Be signed by the permittee,or his author: obtained from the building official. (b)Exempted Work.A building permit shall not be required for the following: 7. Give such other data and information as official. I. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not (b) Plans and Specifications. Plans,engine exceed 120 square feet. other data shall be submitted in one or more 2. Fences not over 6 feet high. permit.The building official may require plans. to be prepared and designed by an engineer or 3. Oil derricks. practice as such.Submittals shall include constrt 4. Movable cases,counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches high. defined in Section 302(c). 5. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured from the EXCEPTION:The building official may bottom of the footing to the top of the wall,unless supporting a surcharge lotions.construction inspection requirements, or impounding Class I,II or Ill-A liquids. • work applied for is such that reviewing of plans 6. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed with this code. 5000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed (c)Construction Inspection.The engineer of two to one. of the structural design work shall include in t. 7. Platforms,walks and driveways not more than 30 inches above grade and following: not over any basement or story below. 1. Special inspections required by Section 30t 8. Painting,papering and similar finish work. 2. Other structural inspections required by the 9. Temporary motion picture,television and theater stage sets and scenery. sible charge of the structural design work. 10. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R, Division 3, (d)Information on Plans and Specifications and Group M Occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches. be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or cloth a I I. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 Occu- 4 to indicate the location,nature and extent of the wi pancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and if that it will conform to the provisions of this coy the capacity does not exceed 5000 gallons. • nances,rules and regulations. Unless otherwise exempted, separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical Plans for buildings more than two stories in hi. permits will be required for the above exempted items. : Division 3 and M Occupancies shall indicate hoc Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not he deemed to resistive integrity will be maintained where a grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the electrical,mechanical,plumbing and cummunicah provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. systems. Application for Permit Permits Issuance Sec.302.(a)Application.To obtain a permit,the applicant shall first file an Sec.303.(a) Issuance.The application, plans, application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the code enforcement and other data filed by an applicant for permit shal agency for that purpose. Every such application shall: official.Such plans may be reviewed by other depa 1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which verify compliance with any applicable laws under: application is made. ing official finds that the work described in an app a I\ L ie • • DE1'AR'1'NI;NT OF BUILDING AND IIOUSIr; Albert C. Blair, 324 South State Street Room 205 Director SALT LAKE CITY, UTAII B4111 Date issued 10-19-87 Laura Landikusic, Cert. Hail No. * Enforcement Official NOTICE AND ORDER • *P-500 375 813 TO: Oscar A. Bourg _ -_. . . - . 376 East 700 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • RE: 404 East 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah /// COM AT NW COR LOT 5 BLK 6 PLAT B SLC SUR E 61.75 FT S 5 RDS W 61.75 FT N 5 RDS TO BEG. •5595-1495 NOTICrt E. Notice is hereby given that the subject property is found to be in vio- lntion of Snit Lake City Building/(lousing, ordl.nnnces necessary to maintain the life, hbnitlt, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of Salt Lake City. This Notice is pursuant to an inspection which was conducted on 5/7/87 (Date) . --SEE INSPECTION REPORT • ORDER: You are hereby ordered to correct these deficiencies. Your options are: --REPAIR OR DEIIOLISII 'l:o meet codes --APPEAL this order TO REPAIR OR DEMOLISH: 1. Commence the required work within _5 _ days, and complete the required work within 30 days from service of tills Notice and Order. 2. Obtain required permits, for repair or demolition before starting the work. RIGHT TO APPEAL: Any person having any record, title, or legal interest in thin building may appeal thls Notice and Order. Obtain forms from Room 205 and appeal in writing to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board within 3U days from date of service of this Notice and Order. Failure to appeal within the time specified will con- • atitute a waiver of all rights to an administrative hearing in this matter. If you fail to obey this Order within the time allotted, this department is • empowered to take the following actions: • --File a Certificate of Non-Compliance to be recorded againni the property. --Order the building vacated and posted to prevent further occupancy, end/or --Cause the building to be repaired or demolished or closed end secured, and grounds cleaned with the costs charged to the owner(a) and/or --Initiate criminal action against the person(a) to whom this Order is directed. is.riC lj � /� �~ / 1c?/7 - Fred Christensen - - - -�Ln t dlkunlc, En orcement officio Name phone 535-7142 ,....- --..... .�..._.... ,: ._.. . - NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES Property inspected 40"4 East 800 South Date of inspection May 7 , 1987 Salt Lake City, Utah fhe inspection revealed that the following conditions were not in compliance with the re- quirements of the following codes : UNIFORM HOUSING CODE (UHC) AND THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS (UCADB) The deficiencies indicate that the following permits must be taken to complete repairs: Ed Building ® Electrical (1 Mechanical (] Plumbing • [] Violation Code UHC Chapt. 10 -Front and back doors of house are open allowing entry Sec . 1001 (d) of vagrants , vandals and children. UHC Chant. I0 -Electrical service panel inadequately wired , placed, Sec. 1001 (e) protected and secured. -Non-metallic sheathed cable wiring leadin,g to light above kitchen sink is spliced without junction. 3ox and outlet lacks outlet box. -Non-metallic sheathed cable wiring in kitchen cabinets is spliced without junction boxes and is not adequately secured or protected. -Light switch F electrical outlets in living room lack protective • covers . -Cover missing from light switch in north east bedroom. -Cover missing from light switch in bedroom south of north east bedroom. -Cover missingTrom light switch in kitchen_ UPC Chant. 3 -Addition built on east side of house without permits Sec. 302_ or inspections . UHC Chapt. 10 -Addition on east side of house lacks adequate foundation. Sec . 1001 (c) -Addition also lacks exterior siding. -Mortar missing and deteriorated in top few rows of • bricks near top ot chimney. UHC Chapt. 10 -Thermostat damaged and broken in living room. -"- Sec . 1001 ( 11HC Chant. 10 -Sill plate for addition on east site of house-Ts not - Sec. 1001 (j ) decay resistant wood. UHC Chapt. 10 -Roof covering is extremely deteriorated and moisture Sec . 1001. (h) is leaking into the interior of the house causing damage to kitchen ceiling and bedroom walls . -Exterior paint is peeling and deteriorated . -Large hole in stucco near north west corner of house. Stucco on east side of building is inadequately patcE e3 -Holes in stucco on north side of building. -Front door is broken and window Wane is front door is missing. -Broken window panes on all sides of the house. -Rain gutter over front door is loose and detached . -Rain gutter at south west corner of building is loose and detached. _Fascia boards rotted and detached on north side of house and on west side of house near north end. • Continued on page 2 Notice of Deficiencies (Continued) Address 404 East 800 South Violation Code UHC Chapt. 10 -Kitchen ceiling covering is peeling and ceiling is Sec. 1001 (b) moisture damaged . -Kitchen floor is deteriorated. Tiles are loose and broken. -Floor in bathroom is moisture damaged. Undertayment is swollen. -Toilet in bathroom is broken. -Kitchen cabinets are dilapidated and lack repair. -Holes in plaster of walls in north east bedroom. -Wall under north window of north east bedroom is moisture damaged . Plaster is ready to fall from lath. -Wall under east window of bedroom south of north east bedroom is moisture damaged. -Carpets and floor coverings throught house are filthy and deteriorated. TJHC Chant. 10 -Trash and debris in living room and kitchen. Sec. 1001 (k) Junk and trash in rear yard. Garage is filled with junk. UHC Chapt. 10 -Faucets tor tub in bathroom are located below rim of Sec. 1001 (f) tub creating potential cross syphon problem. . .Chapt. _ 3 Sec -Garage door is open and buildingis vacant and accessible Sec . 302 to vAndalst vagrants and childrn. -Garage siding is broken, detached and missing iI places . Siding on a large section of the east wall of the garage is missing . -Root covering on garage is deteriorated and iouf has large holes in it. -Exterior paint on garage is Peeling and deteriorated. -Addition or lean-to built on south side of garage has siding made of plywood which is not exterior grade and not intended for exterior use. UHC Chapt . 2 -Because of the preceding deficiencies , the house and Sec. 202 garage are determined to be substandard and dangerous UCADB Chapt. 2 and are hereby declared to be public nuisances which Sec. 202 must be abated by repair , rehabilitation, demolition, or removal . Because of the seriousness of these _dPfirienries , this house is closed to occupancy until the above conditions are corrected. UHC 1001-E The electric service has been disconnected because of its deteriorated and hazardous condition. SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND HOUSING SERVICES , Enforcement Officer Name Bill Cupit Telephone No. 535-6705 18.48.050 for a period of six months, however, HAAB's the City should not abate by repair or demoli- official record shall be the permanent summa- tion a substandard or dangerous building or rized minutes prepared and approved by structure constituting a public nuisance. HAAB. which shall be placed on file in the office of the Building Official. Notwithstanding the provision of any other ordinance pertaining to hearings before the (c) Reporting.The proceedings at the hear- Mayor.said hearings may be held either before ing shall also be reported by a certified court the Mayor or the Mayor may direct the matter reporter if requested by any party thereto who to be heard before a panel of hearing exam- submits the fee prescribed therefor. Such fees iners of HAAB to conduct such hearings to may be established by HAAB. but shall in no determine the facts and make recommenda- event be greater than the cost involved. tions and findings to the Mayor. (d) Continuances. HAAB may grant con- (b) Panel ofhearing examiners.In the event tinuances, for good cause shown; however. the Mayor may direct a panel of hearing exam- when a panel of hearing examiners has been iners from HAAB to act as hearing examiners assigned to such hearing, no continuances in abatement proceedings, HAAB shall select may be granted except by the panel for good at least three individual members of its board cause shown, provided the matter remains to act as the panel of hearing examiners and before at least three of the same panel mem- designate one as acting chairperson. The bers. Mayor or said panel of hearing examiners shall (Amended during 1/88 supplement: prior code§ have the power and authority to call, preside 5-11-5) at. and conduct hearings to consider whether or not structures are dangerous or substandard 18.48.060 Performance of abatement work. buildings under this code constituting a public Chapter 15 of the Uniform- Housing Code. nuisance to be abated by the City by demoli- 1988 Edition, and Chapter 8 of the Uniform tion or repair. including the power to issue Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings; subpoenas, administer oaths, examine wit- nesses,receive evidence,compel attendance of 1988 Edition, relating to performance of abate- witnesses and/or the production of witnesses ment work shall be amended to read as follows: or evidence;and based upon the evidence pre- ; sented,prepare for the approval of the Mayor, PERFORMANCE OF ABATEMENT WORK OR REPAIR OR DEMOLITION findings of fact, conclusions of law and pro- posed orders for said board. Hearings shall be conducted as provided in this code. The Section 1501 UHC and Section 801 UCADB. owner(s) shall have the right to appear at said Procedures. hearing in person or by counsel or both, present evidence and oral argument, cross- (a) Petition for hearing. When any abate- examine witnesses, and in all proper ways ment work of repair or demolition is to be defend the owner(s)' interest. done or requested by the City pursuant to the enforcement provisions of this code,except in (c) Notice of abatement hearing. Reason- emergency situations, the Building Official able notice (not less than ten [10] days) of the shall petition the Mayor to hold ahand time and place of said hearing together with a order the property owner(s)to show causewhy petition for abatement setting forth the nature 735 (salt Lake city 1-88) N 1 18.48.090 Article II.Temporary Securing of Buildings B. The following fees for the initial condi- tional permit or extension thereof must be paid 18.48.090 Conditional permit—Required and accompany the application to offset city when—Application. inspection and surveillance expense: With the prior approval or upon the order of HAAB,a conditional permit to secure a building Initial 120 days $10.00 for temporary nonoccupancy may be issued by Each subsequent 30-day period(up the building official subject to the conditions and to an additional 120 days) 30.00 requirements set forth in this article.Application Each subsequent 30-day period for a conditional permit to secure may be made thereafter 60.00 by the owners)of the building in violation of the (Prior code§ 5-11-8(c)) ordinances contained in this title, who has received from the building official a notice of deficiencies and order to repair or demolish. 18.48.110 Permit—Expiration—Termination Such application must be made within thirty conditions. days of service of the notice and order, and must A. Failure of the owner to pay required permit be accompanied with a declaration of intent con- fees, obtain a permit, commence or complete cerning the plans.use and/or anticipated disposi- tion work as ordered, or to correct securing deficien- tion of the building, together with a specific date cies as required in this article will result in the for the permit's termination and the anticipated termination and cancellation of the conditional permit fees established in Section 18.48.100, or permit. Notice of the expiration or termination its successor. HAAB, upon its own motion, may shall be delivered personally or by certified mail approve the issuance of a permit conditioned and shall be effective five days thereafter unless upon payment of the permit fees and compliance any deficiencies are corrected and the building with the provisions of this chapter. The issuance official reinstates this permit. Said permit is not of such a conditional permit to secure shall act as transferable and will terminate upon the owner's a temporary stay of the notice and order until the transfer of the property. permit expires, or is terminated or cancelled. B. If a conditional permit expires or termi- (Prior code§ 5-l 1-8(a)) nates,the preexisting stay to the notice and order will be automatically vacated and the original 18.48.100 Permit—Terms and fees. order reinstated. The building official may pro- A. Unless specifically stated otherwise by ceed for abatement of a public nuisance by HAAB, an initial conditional permit to secure repair, demolition or securing of the building, shall extend for one hundred twenty days, after with the abatement costs, together with any which it will expire. Extensions of up to thirty unpaid permit fees,to be charged to the owner or days may be authorized by the building official levied against the property pursuant to pro- where reasonable,but in no event shall the build- cedures set forth in Chapters 15 and 16 of the ing official grant an extension in excess of sixty Uniform Housing Code, as amended in this days without HAAB's approval,and the building chapter. (Prior code § 5-11-8(e)) official shall report all extensions granted to HAAB. Unless provided otherwise, securing 18.48.120 Permit—Effect of recording. authorized under such a permit shall be corn- The action of the HAAB in ordering the menced within seven days of its issuance.and the approval or denial of a conditional permit permit will expire if the work is not completed application shall be recorded against the prop- within fifteen days of its issuance. erty in the Salt Lake County recorder's office, (Salt Lake cit' 1-88) 742 18.48.120 and shall constitute notice to the public, includ- plywood sheathing covering over all exterior ing future bona fide purchasers. that the build- openings,overlapping the opening on every edge ings and property violate code requirements and by three inches, nailed along the edges by eight- are the subject of an outstanding notice and penny common nails spaced every six inches. order for noncompliance which has temporarily B. Alternately, the openings may be secured been stayed pursuant to a nontransferable condi- by conventional wood-frame construction. The tional permit to secure.A notice of expiration of frames shall use wood studs of a size not less than cancellation shall also be recorded after expira- two inches by four inches placed not more than tion becomes final indicating the stay is vacated twenty-four inches apart on center. The frame and the order is reinstated. Such findings shall stud shall have the four-inch sides or the wide specify that the permit is nontransferable and dimension perpendicular to the face of the wall. shall terminate upon any transfer of the owner's Each side of the frame shall be covered with interest in the property. (Prior code§ 5-11-8(f)) plywood sheathing of at least one-half inch thick- ness or equivalent lumber nailed over the open- 18.48.130 Administrative review—Time ing by using eight-penny common nails spaced limitation. every six inches on the outside edges and every A. Any aggrieved property owner or other twelve inches along intermediate stud supports. interested party may seek review of HAAB's C. All coverings shall be painted with the decision regarding a conditional permit by filing same color as the building or its trim.Whole glass a petition for review, together with advertising areas above ground floor are acceptable so long costs, requesting a public hearing before the as they remain intact.but if broken,they must be office of the mayor, if brought within thirty days covered as provided above. Exterior doors shall of HAAB's written decision.The petitioner shall be secured by a strong non-glass door adequately be responsible for all costs of advertising. On locked to preclude entry of unauthorized per- review, the office of the mayor shall determine sons,or shall be covered as an opening described from the minutes whether or not HAAB's deci- above. (Prior code§ 5-11-8(b)) sion was reasonably related to the information provided and, if so, shall sustain its action. Only 18.48.150 Property maintenance if the office of the mayor should find HAAB's responsibilities—Inspection. decision to be unreasonable or arbitrary insofar A. The property owner shall be responsible to as it is unsupported by the facts and evidence pay all anticipated permit fees and obtain a per- presented in HAAB, shall it reverse or modify mit to secure following approval from HAAB. HAAB's decision. The owner shall be responsible to maintain all B. Any party which fails to request a review as buildings in a properly secured fashion as pro- provided herein,shall be deemed to have waived vided in Section 18.48.140 of this chapter, or its such review(Amended during 1/88 supplement; successor,and to maintain and keep the property prior code§ 5-11-8(h)) free from debris, litter and weeds. B. The building official will cause a 18.48.140 Method of securing buildings. bimonthly inspection to insure the buildings A. All buildings to be temporarily secured remain properly secured and maintained. If after shall be boarded in the following manner:Unless HAAB approval the owner fails to timely obtain specified otherwise by HAAB,all openings in the a permit or comply with any terms hereof, the structure on the ground floor or easily accessible owner shall receive a warning by telephone (if from the ground floor shall be secured either by possible)together with a written confirmation of erecting a single one-half-inch-thick layer of the warning from the building official. The 743 (Salt Lake city 1-88) ROGER R. EVANS *.ZA12,��a�Gc,�'IT��et12 \.Li jita HARVEY F. BOYD DIRECTOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Building and Housing Services 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 •TELEPHONE 535-6436 S4)tember 5, 1989 Oscar Bourg 376 East 700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Boarding and Repair Procedures Follow-up Letter Dear Mr. Bourg: My purpose in writing is to clarify the points you requested in my letter dated August 22, 1989. The following are your questions and my response: (1) Does a house have to always meet the currently adopted Uniform Building Code? The Uniform Building Code states in Section 104 (c) "Buildings in existence at the time of the adoption of this code may have their existing use or occupancy continued, if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the adoption of this code, provided such counted use is not dangerous to life. . . ." The Building and Housing Department has used this code statement to require changes to buildings that are hazardous to the life and safety of the building occupants. Common items that are often required to be corrected include: stairs, windows, doors ceiling heights and the need for special occupancy separation requirements. (2) Who is to board a building? Section 1501 (a) of the Uniform Housing Code states "When any work or repair or demolition is to be done pursuant to Section 1401 (c) 3 of this code, the building official shall cause the work to be accomplished by city personnel or by private contract under the direction of the building official. " What this code statement is inferring to is that after notification has been given to the owner to correct the code deficiencies, as stated in the procedures for notification of the owner, the building official can have the repairs made to the building (please refer to the letter dated August 21, 1989 for information pertaining to the abatement process) . Although the term "r"repair"- is used in the code, it is it my understanding ° epelev-includes the act of boarding a building. „- I have distributed the letters you delivered to the Building and Housing office. If you should have any further questions regarding these issues, please feel free to contact me, but I feel that any further clarification can best be handled by the City Attorney's office. Respectfully, Harvey F. Boyd Assistant Director Date Issued April 3, 1989 J. Cert. Mail No. P 834 357 233 File No. ��4 ROGER R. EVANS .2 L�� 1 � % �'+�r.�+t.,0'�+1 DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HARVEY F. BOYD Building and Housing Services ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 205 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-6436 N l CE AND ORDER 10: Oscar A. Bourg 376 East 700 South • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 R Property located at 404 East 800 South, Salt Lake City, Utah. Sidwell Number: 16-07-253-001. NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the above referenced property is vacant and unsecured. If the structure is left unsecured, it is likely to became a haven for vagrants and a dangerous eyesore for the entire neighborhood. Section 9.16.030 of the Salt Lake City Ordinances require that all unsecured structures be legally boarded, so as to prevent entry to unauthorized persons. Boarding must be completed as per Salt Lake City Ordinance, Sections 18.48.090 and 18.48.140. ORDER You are hereby ordered to obtain a permit to Board and Secure. The permit to Board and Secure must be obtained within ten (10) days. This permit may be obtained at 324 South state Street, Roan 110. Failure to obtain a permit to Board and Secure within the ten (10) day time frame, will cause this office to hire a contractor to Board and Secure the property. The charges will then be levied against the property in the form of a property tax lien. ' An administrative expense of $170 will also be added to the property tax lien. This is the only notice that you will receive regarding this problem. Your cooperation is appreciated. Questions regarding this Notice and Order may be directed to 535-7142. ks Fred Christensen, Housing/Zoning Officer 9.16.020 I. Dry grasses, stubble, brush, tumbleweeds occupying real property in the city to fail to and clippings which endanger the public health maintain the height of weeds, as provided in and safety by creating a fire hazard, insect or Section 9.16.040 below, or its successor, on such rodent harborage, or any other nuisance; property; or to fail to remove from the property 2. Poison ivy, when the public health and any cuttings from such weeds,or any solid waste, safety in residential or other developed and pop- unsightly or deleterious objects or structures, or ulated areas are affected; to fail to effectivel cu any vacant structure 3. Those plants named in the Utah Noxious after having been give* written notice from the Weed Act, Title 4, Chapter 5, Utah Code Anno- department or inspector. (Prior code § 18-29-3) tated, and its subsequent regulations and suc- cessor sections. (Prior code § 18-29-2) 9.16.040 Weed control specifications. 9.16.030 Real property to be kept clean and7 A. Weeds shall be maintained at a height of secured.,._ not more than six inches (15.2 cm) at all times. It is unlawful- for any person, corporation,' and the cuttings shall be promptly cleared and partnership or other legal entity owning or removed from the premises. ( • (Salt Lake Cit I-88) 340-4 7 C' : e • INFORMATION WORK SHEET • SALT LAKE CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE Uniform Housing Code Sec. 1001 (d) Open, vacant building/public nuisance ORDINANCE I1 `� " 1401 (a) Failure .to comP1ATE with Notice and Order Nov. 25,. 1987 WARRANT SUMMONS X?CC ATTORNEY Spikes ############################################################################################# DEFENDANT Oscar A. Bourg ADDRESS 376 East 700 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 COMPLAINANT Fred Christensen, Housing Officer SLC Building F Housing Services ADDRESS Suite 205, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RESIDENT PHONE WORK PHONE 535-7142 '•5l?j. DATE OF OFFENSE November 25, 1987 TIME all day PLACE 404 Fast 806 South ########################WWW#############################################################; WITNESSES: • 1. Fred Christensen ADDRESS Suite 205, 324 S. State 2. Bill Cu-pit ADDRESS Suite 205, 324 S. State 3. ADDRESS OFFICERS REPORTS: INCLUDED TO BE SUBMITTED OTHER: Notice and Order of housing violations is attached. NOTIFIED OF $25.00 WITHDRAWAL PENALTY YES NO INFORM COMPLAINANT TO INFORM THIS OFFICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS IN HIS/HER PART YES NO. NOTIFIED IF NOT GUILTY PLEA ENTERED THEY WILL BE SUBPOINED FOR COURT YES NO. AFFIDAVIT INFORMATION FOR WARRANT: 1001 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE 1988 EDITION 1001 Chapter 10 5. Members of walls,partitions or other vertical supports that are of insuffi- SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS cient size to carry imposed loads with safety. Definition members Members of ceilings,roofs,ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members which sag, split or buckle due to defective material or � �QQl.i(a}general.Any building or portion thereof which is determined to deterioration. • bran unsafe building in accordance with Section 203 of the Building Code;or any 7. Members of ceilings,roofs,ceiling and roof supports,or other horizontal building or portion thereof, including any dwelling unit,guest room or suite of members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. rooms,or the premises on which the same is located,in which there exists any of 8. Fireplaces or chimneys which list,bulge or settle,due to defective material • the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life,limb,health, or deterioration. property,safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed 9� i{t p� iaces or chimneys which ara'bf insuffieient size or strength to carry and hereby is declared to be a substandard building. .,�.� seed loads wit fax. (b) Inadequate Sanitation. Inadequate sanitation shall include b a not be (d)Nuisance.Any nuisance as defined in this code. limited to the following: I. Lack of,or improper watercloset,lavatory,bathtub or shower in a dwelling (e) Hazardous Electrical Wiring. Electrical wiring which was installed in unit or lodging house. violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical 2. Lack of,or improper water closets,lavatories and bathtubs or showersper wiring not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices number imprs in a hotel. in areas where no codes were in effect or which has not been maintained in good condition or which is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered 3. Lack of,or improper kitchen sink in a dwelling unit. substandard. 4. Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a hotel. (f)Hazardous Plumbing. Plumbing which was installed in violation of code 5. Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit requirements in effect at the time of installation or plumbing not installed in or lodging house. accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no 6. Lack of adequate heating facilities. codes were in effect or which has not maintained in good condition or which is not 7. Lack of,or improper operation of required ventilating equipment. free of cross-connections or siphonage between fixtures shall be considered substandard. 8. Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation required by this (g) Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment which was code. installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or 9. Room and space dimensions less than required by this code. mechanical equipment not installed in accordance with generally accepted con- 10. Lack of required electrical lighting. struction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or which has not been 11. Dampness of habitable rooms. maintained in good and safe condition shall be considered substandard. (h)Faulty Weather Protection,which shall include but not be limited to the 12. Infestation of insects, vermin or rodents as determined by the health officer. following: 13. General dilapidation or improper maintenance. 1. Deteriorated,crumbling or loose plaster. 2. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls,roof,founda- 14. Lack of connection to required sewage disposal system. 15. Lack of adequate garbage and rubbish storage and removal facilities as [ions or floors,including broken windows or doors. determined by the health officer. 3. Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings,includ- ing lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved (c)Structural Hazards.Structural hazards shall include but not be limited to protective covering. the following: I. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 4. Broken,rotted,split or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings. 2�Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. I (i)Fire Hazard. Any building or portion thereof, device, apparatus, equip- ment,combustible waste or vegetation which, in the opinion of the chief of the 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. fire department or his deputy,is in such a condition as to cause a fire or explosion or provide a ready fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion 4. Members of walls,partitions or other vertical supports that split,lean,list arising from any cause. or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. (j) Faulty Materials of Construction. All materials of construction except 22 23 . . -. - - _ __�.__ a t 1 1001 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE 1 1988 EDITION 1101 those which are specifically allowed or approved by this code and the Building Code,and which have been adequately maintained in good and safe condition. { Chapter 11 (k)Hazardous or Unsanitary Premises.Those premises on which an accu- i NOTICES AND ORDERS mutation of weeds,vegetation,junk,dead organic matter,debris,garbage,offal, OF BUILDING OFFICIAL rat harborages, stagnant water, combustible materials and similar materials or conditions constitute fire,health or safety hazards. j General (I) Inadequate Exits. Except for those buildings or portions thereof which Sec.1101.(a)Commencement of Proceedings.Whenever the building offi- have been provided with adequate exit facilities conforming to the provisions of i cial has inspected or caused to be inspected any building and has found and this code, buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities were installed in t determined that such building is a substandard building, he shall commence I violation of code requirements in effect at the time of their construction or whose proceedings to cause the repair, rehabilitation, vacation or demolition of the exit facilities have not been increased in number or width in relation to any building. increase in occupant load due to alterations, additions or change in use or (b) Notice and Order. The building official shall issue a notice and order occupancy subsequent to the time of construction shall be considered directed to the record owner of the building.The notice and order shall contain: substandard. I.The street address and a legal description sufficient for identification of the • Notwithstanding compliance with code requirements in effect at the time of their construction,buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard premises upon which the building is located. when the building official finds that an unsafe condition exists through an 2.A statement that the building official has found the building to be substand- improper location of exits,a lack of an adequate number or width of exit,or where ard with a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the other conditions exist which are dangerous to human life. building dangerous under the provisions of Section 202 of this code. (m)Inadequate Fire-protection or Fire-fighting Equipment.All buildings 3.A statement of the action required to be taken as determined by the building or portions thereof which are not provided with the fire-resistive construction or official. fire-extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those (i) If the building official has determined that the building or structure must buildings or portions thereof which conformed with all applicable laws at the time be repaired, the order shall require that all required permits be secured of their construction and whose fire-resistive integrity and fire-extinguishing therefor and the work physically commenced within such time (not to systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation exceed 60 days from the date of the order)and completed within such time to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition,or any change in occu- as the building official shall determine is reasonable under all of the panty. circumstances. (n) Improper Occupancy. All buildings or portions thereof occupied for (ii) If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be living,sleeping,cooking or dining purposes which were not designed or intended vacated, the order shall require that the building or structure shall be to be used for such occupancies. vacated within a certain time from the date of the order as determined by the building official to be reasonable. (iii) If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be • demolished,the order shall require that the building be vacated within such time as the building official shall determine reasonable(not to exceed 60 days from the date of the order); that all required permits be secured therefor within 60 days from the date of the order,and that the demolition be completed within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable. 4.Statements advising that if any required repair or demolition work(without vacation also being required) is not commenced within the time specified, the building official(i)will order the building vacated and posted to prevent further occupancy until the work is completed,and(ii)may proceed to cause the work to be done and charge the costs thereof against the property or its owner. 5. Statements advising (i) that any person having any record title or legal interest in the building may appeal from the notice and order or any action of the building official to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, provided the 24 25 1101-1102 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE 1988 EDITION 1103-1104 appeal is made in writing as provided in this code, and filed with the building Repair,Vacation and Demolition official within 30 days from the date of service of such notice and order,and(ii) i Sec. 1103.The followin s bybuilding that failure to appeal will constitute a waiver of all right to an administrative g tandards shall be followed athe official hearing acid determination of the matter. (and by the.Housing Advisory and Appeals Board if an appeal is taken)in ordering the repair, vacation or demolition of any substandard building or structure: (c)Servicelof Noticean and Order.The notice and order,and any,and d or f strut c. Any building declared a substandard building under this code shall be made supplemental notice and order,shall be served upon the record owner,and posted on the property;and one copythereof shall be served on each of the followingif to comply with one of the followin P Pe Y: g 1. known to the building official or disclosed from official public records:the holder (i) The building shall be repaired in accordance with the current Building of anymort aee or deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance of record;the owner Is g Code orothercurrent code applicable to the type of substandard conditions or holder of any lease of record;and the holder of any other estate or legal interest requiring repair;or of record in or to the building or the land on which it is located.The failure of the (ii) lire building shall be demolished at the option of the building owner;or building official to serve any person required herein to be served shall not (iii) the building does not constitute an immediate danger to the life,limb, invalidate any proceedings hereunder as to any other person duly served or relieve property or safety of the public it maybe vacated,secured and maintained any such person from any duty or obligation imposed on him by the provisions of against entry this section. 2. If the building or structure is in such condition as to make it immediately (d)Method of Set-vice.Service of the notice and order shall be made upon all dangerous to the life,limb,property or safety of the public or of the occupants,it persons entitled thereto either personally or by mailing a copy of such notice and shall be ordered to be vacated. order by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to each such Notice to Vacate person at his address as it appears on the last equalized assessment roll of the Sec.1104.(a)Posting.Every notice to vacate shall,in addition to beingserved • county or as known to the building official. If no address of any such person so as provided in Section 1 101(c),be posted atorubuilding, appears or is known to the building official,then a copy of the notice and order shall be in substantially the following form: upon each exit of the and shall be so mailed, addressed to such person, at the address of the building involved in the proceedings.The failure of any such person to receive such notice DO NOT ENTER shall not affect the validity of any proceedings taken under this section.Service by UNSAFE TO OCCUPY certified mail in the manner herein provided shall be effective on the date of , It is a misdemeanor to occupy this building, mailing. or to remove or deface this notice. ' (e)Proof of Service.Proof of service of the notice and order shall be certified Building Official to at the time of service by a written declaration under penalty of perjury executed of by the person effecting service, declaring the time, date and manner in which (b) Compliance. Whenever such notice is posted, the building official shall service was made. The declaration, together with any receipt card returned in include a notification thereof in the notice and order issued by him under Subsec- acknowledgement of receipt by certified mail shall be affixed to the copy of the (ion(b)of Section 1101, reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions notice and order retained by the building official. which necessitate the posting. No person shall remain in or enter any building Recordation of Notice and Order which has been so posted,except that entry may be made to repair,demolish or remove such building under permit. No person shall remove or deface any such notice after it is posted until the required repairs, demolition, or removal have Sec. 1102. If compliance is not had with the order within the time specified therein,and no appeal has been properly and timely filed, the building official been completed and a Certificate of Occupancy issued pursuant to the provisions shall file in the office of the county recorder a certificate describing the property of the Building Code. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a and certifying(i)that the building is asubstandard building,and(ii)that the owner misdemeanor. has been so notified.Whenever the corrections ordered shall thereafter have been completed or the building demolished so that it no longer exists as a substandard building on the property described in the certificate,the building official shall file a new certificate with the county recorder certifying that the building has been demolished or all required corrections have been made so that the building is no ' longer substandard,whichever is appropriate. 26 27 --- • I 1401 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE • 1988 EDITION 1402-1403 Chapter 14 ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER Extension of Time to Perform Work OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL See.1402.Uponreceiptofanapplicationfromthepersonrequiredtoconform OR THE BOARD OF APPEALS to the order and an agreement by such person that he will comply with the order if allowed additional time, the building official may, in his discretion, arant an Compliance extension of time,not to exceed an additional 120 days,within which to complete • Sec.1401.(a)General.After any order of the building official or the Housing said repair,rehabilitation or demolition, if the building official determines that Advisory and Appeals Board made pursuant to this code shall have become final, such an extension of time will not create or perpetuate a situation imminently no person to whom any such order is directed shall fail,neglect,or refuse to obey dangerous to life or property.The building official's authority to extend time is any such order.Any such person who fails to comply with any such order is guilty limited to the physical repair,rehabilitation or demolition of the premises and will of a misdemeanor. not in any way affect or extend the time to appeal his notice and order. (b) Failure to Obey Order. If, after any order of the building official or Interference with Repair or Demolition Work Prohibited Housing Advisory and Appeals Board made pursuant to this code has become Sec. 1403. No person shall obstruct, impede or interfere with any officer, final,the person to whom such order is directed shall fail,neglect or refuse to obey such order,the buildingofficial may(i)cause such person to be prosecuted under employee,contractor or authorized representative of the city or with any person • Subsection(a)of this coon or(ii)institute anyappropriate acon to abate such who owns or holds any estate or interest in any building which has been ordered repaired, vacated or demolished under the provisions of this code,or with any building as a public nuisance. person to whom such building has been lawfully sold pursuant to the provisions of (c)Failure to Commence Work.Whenever the required rcpair or demolition is this code,whenever such officer,employee contractor or authorized representa- not commenced within 30 days after any final notice and order issued under this five of this jurisdiction. 1 person having an interest or estate in such building or code becomes effective: I structure.or purchaser is engaged in the work or repairing,vacating and repair- . The building official shall cause the building described in such notice and ing,or demolishing any such building pursuant to the provisions of this code,or in order to be vacated by posting at each entrance thereto a notice readine: performing any necessary act preliminary to or incidental to such work or SUBSTANDARD BUILDING authorized or directed pursuant to this code. DO NOT OCCUPY It is a misdemeanor to occupy this building. or to remove or deface this notice. Building Official of 2. No person shall occupy any building which has been posted as specified in this subsection.No person shall remove or deface any such notice so posted until the repairs, demolition or removal ordered by the building official have been completed and a Certificate of Occupancy issued pursuant to the provisions of the Building Code. 3. The building official may,in addition to any other remedy herein provided, cause the building to be repaired to the extent necessary to correct the conditions which render the building substandard as set forth in the notice and order;or.if the notice and order required demolition, to cause the building to be sold and demolished;or.to be demolished,and the materials,rubble and debris therefrom removed and the lot cleaned. Any such repair or demolition work shall be accomplished and the cost thereof paid and recovered in the manner hereinafter provided in this code.Any surplus realized from the sale of any such building,or from the demolition thereof,over and above the cost of demolition and of cleaning the lot shall be paid over to the person or persons lawfully entitled thereto. 34 35 • U1C , i ?. : ' '^� JJ f Cry C fl °,' WPM I M PALM ER DEPAU LIS �\�; ACC /f^��,� GJ �l A�y��ry��.fif MAYOR 1i`y_ Q FII1-F. Or. .'J•11.'._JTIH1OR�- i' ::.Gl :4F P;GQUNTh'BU)L.,op G 451 SS UTH iSTAT Ivi E STREET.•E2QO :306 ` D iSAIL' LAK6r-Gk Y, UTAI--,'84Th • July 31 , 1989 Willie Stoler, Chairperson, and Members of the Salt Lake City Council 324 South State Street, Room 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Willie: I am transmitting herewith recommendations for board appointments which I would appreciate the Council to advise and consent upon: BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS Theophile J. Syms to be appointed to replace Eric Kankainen for a term extending through March 1, 1994 SALT LAKE CITY LIBRARY BOARD Alicia Suazo to be reappointed to serve a second term extending through June 30, 1992 Verda Mae Christensen to be reappointed to serve a second term extending through June 30, 1992 SALT LAKE CITY/COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Cindy Gust-Jenson to be reappointed to a second term extending through August 29, 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Rosemarie Rendon to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July, 1992 Ranae Pierce to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July, 1992 Rawlins Young to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through July , 1992 Marion Willey to be reappointed to his first full term extending through July, 1992 7-- Carol A. Maul to be appointed to fill Peter Netka's unexpired term extending through July, 1990 Glenda Armour to be appointed to fill a vacant position, for a term extending through July, 1992 TRACY AVIARY BOARD Karel Doop McDonough to fill Virginia A. Walton 's unexpired term, extending through October 31, 1990 Kevin Anderson to be reppointed to fill a second term extending through October, 1991 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Ralph Becker to be reappointed to fill his first full term, extending through June 30, 1993 LaVone Liddle-Gamonal to be reappointed to a second term, extending through July 31 , 1992 Victoria Palacios to be appointed to replace Kathy Wacker for at term extending through July 1 , 1992 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Curtis Decker to be appointed to replace Lynn M. Thatcher, for a term ending December 31 , 1990 URBAN FORESTRY BOARD Christine Chalkley to be appointed to fill Barbara Jean Ray 's unexpired term extending through April 8, 1992 Pamela R. Heal to be appointed to fill Robert Adams' unexpired term extending through April 8, 1992 SALT PALACE/FINE ARTS BOARD Anthony L. Rampton to be reappointed to fill his first full term extending through July 1 , 1992 SALT LAKE ART DESIGN BOARD Charles Loving to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through March 8, 1992 Kip K. Harris to be reappointed to fill a second term extending through March 8, 1992 CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Mike Martin to be appointed to fill Daniel McNeer's unexpired term extending through January, 1991. I would appreciate your consideration of these appointments and ask that they be placed on the Council 's agenda at the earliest opportunity. If I can provide you with any further information, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, GAG,(,(-cv CLc,/,. Mayor PD/jf Enc. URBAN FORESTRY BOARD ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.26.010 - 2.26. 160 MEMBERSHIP: 9 TERM: 3 years QUALIFICATIONS: One member from each Council District, one member from the Central Business District and one member from the Sugarhouse Business District. ADVICE AND CONSENT: Yes OATH OF OFFICE: Yes PURPOSE: The Board serves to advise the Mayor, City Council, Urban Forester and the public on matters concerning the City's urban forestry program. Recommending, reviewing, and developing policies related to the proper management and perpetuation of the City's urban forest resources. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1. Paulette Mounteer 1 4/11/89 1st Term 1553 Talisman Street 4/8/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Phone: (H)359-4549 2. Kathy Kinney 2 1/8/89 1st Term 1188 West 500 South 4/8/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Phone: 364-2809 3. Jennifer Harrington 3 4/8/86(4/8/88) 2nd Term 480 F Street 10/88 4/8/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Phone: 532-6726 4. Orson Gibb 4 4/8/86(4/8/87) 2nd Term 314 South 1200 East 8/8/87 4/8/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: 583-0951 5. Barbara Jean Ray RESIGNED 5 9/1/87 Unexpired Term 1146 Princceton Ave. 4/8/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: (H)582-4348 (W) 359-7711 6. Robert Adams RESIGNED 6 7/00/88 Unexpired Term 1649 E. Downington Avenue 4/8/89 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: 583-5028 7. Lloyd Siegendorf 7 7/1/86(4/8/87) 2nd Term 1998 South 1400 East 8/88 4/8/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 Phone: 467-4372 - URBAN FORESTRY BOARD PAGE TWO 8. Jan Strifel CBD 1/1/89 1st Term 444 South 300 West #120 4/8/91 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: 466-7278 9. Rick Graham SHBD 4/8/88 1st Term 1558 South 1400 East 4/8/90 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Phone: 466-8104 Meeting Schedule: First Tuesday, 6:00pm Planning Commission Conference Room Staff Support: Steve Schwab 972-7800 ec 4/12/88 CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE CITATION: 2.36.010 MEMBERSHIP: 13 Members: 9 voting members: ( 1-2) Citizens-at-large (3) SLC Chamber of Commerce (4) Retail Merchants Association (5) Property Managers Association (6) parking lot operators (7) professional service groups (8) the Mayor or designee (9) financial institutions. 4 Ex-Officio, non-voting members: ( 10) The Mayor (in the event he shall not be a voting director) ( 11 ) City Council member (12) City Attorney ( 13) City Engineer. TERM: 4 Years QUALIFICATIONS: 21 years old and a resident of the State of Utah. ADVICE AND CONSENT: yes OATH OF OFFICE: yes PURPOSE: The CBID extends through the heart of downtown Salt Lake from South Temple to 400 South and from West Temple to State Street. All firms located within these boundaries are members of the District. The purpose of the CBID is to initiate projects, which add to the appeal and growth of the downtown area. These activities are designed to encourage people to come to the downtown area for business and entertainment. NAME COUNCIL INITIAL TERM DISTRICT APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION DATE 1 . Daniel McNeer N/A 9/88 U/T Crossroads Plaza 1/91 50 South Main Street 475 Salt Lake City, Utah 84144 Phone: (W)363-1558 (H)561-4796 Home Address: 929 Well Spring Rd. 84047 2. John Williams 3 1/85 1st Term Gastronomy Inc. 7/86 1/90 60 Post Office Place Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Home Address: 574 No. East Capitol 3. Fred S. Ball 3 1/82 2nd Term Executive Vice President 7/86 1/90 Salt Lake City Chamber Of Commerce 175 E. 400 S. Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 364-5918 Home address: 809 16th Avenue 4. C. Reuel Ware N/A 2/88 1st Term 370 South West Temple 1/92 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: 355-1713 Home address: 5791 Whitewater Drive, 84121 .—emrr.w.- r-.. _a�. . �.... .sue.-r.lrn�+v.wa.+.aw._ve++r •..w.r..u.wvu �ar _.. u.. .v.rr.<-�...�ai.ira at.nCM.s..M.w.c1. . L_� a'la4iLr 9.iif.Vrae. ...!!iY_✓.iati��v�.::YL^'. ..._un1�Y.i�1_ CBID Page Two 5. Richard Coles N/A 11/88 1st Term 4983 Regency Street 1/92 Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (W) 321-8700 (H)278-5743 6. John Pace 3 1/85 1st Full Architect Representative 3/87 1/91 Babcock and Pace 52 Exchange Place Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 531-1122 Home Address : 1524 Arlington Drive 7. Jan Graham 11/88(3/89) U/T Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough 1/93 1500 First Interstate Plaza Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: (H) 487-4471 (W) 521-3200 8. William Cutting 5 10/86 1st Term Penna/Powers/Cutting/Hayes Inc. 1/90 51 East 400 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 466-1672 Home Address: 1233 South 800 East 9. James Stewart N/A 4/89 1st Term CEO Continental Bank 1/93 200 South Main Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Phone: 534-6097 Home Address: 8026 South Top of the World Drive, 84121 10. Mayor Palmer DePaulis 4 Ex-Officio 500 City Hall 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7704 11 . Councilmember Roselyn Kirk 6 Ex-Officio 300 City Hall 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7600 12. Roger Cutler Ex-Officio City Attorney 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-7788 CBID Page Three 13. Max Peterson Ex-Officio City Engineer Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 535-6231 Meeting Schedule: Third Wednesday, 12:00 p.m. Staff Support: Jill Remington, Economic Development Assistant Director, 535-7777 Carole Dibblee, Administrative Coordinator 328-3211 ec 4/22/89 c 3 LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. DIRECTOR • - W ATER SU E. &WATER O P.E. VA t�1 it 1� � `r f SUPERINTENDENT l fl1P jjjj,«i WATER SUPPLY 8 WATERWORKS E. TIM DOXEY SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT,OF:.PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER RECLAMATION WATER SUPPLY-& WATERWORKS PALMER DEPAUUS JAMES M. LEWIS, CPA. WATER RECLAMATION MAYOR CHIEF FINANCE 8 -ACCOUNTING OFFICER 1530,.SO.UTH"WEST-TEMPLE-' GEORGE JORGENSEN, PE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 CHIEF ENGINEER September 29, 1989 TO: Salt Lake City Council RE: Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for extension of time. Recommendation: That the Council approve the agreement and forward to Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. Availability of Funds: None required. DISCUSSION; Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities installed a new pump plant on Danish Road at approximately 3390 East in Salt Lake County. In order to obtain a building permit, the City had to meet County requirements. The requirements that the County included were curb, gutter and sidewalk. Because of the unimproved road section at the location a curb, gutter and sidewalk could not be installed at the present time, therefore the County has agreed to a temporary extension of time. 1. Please return four (4) agreements to this office to be forwarded to the County for final execution. Submitted by: LEROY W f HOOTON, Director Department of Public tilities /srb V1 Attachments File C-10 RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Title 11 Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953 as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . That it does hereby approve the attached agreement generally described as follows: An Agreement whereby the County grants the City up to 20 years in which to install curb and gutter on City owned property located outside City limits, with conditions . 2 . Palmer A. DePaulis, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation and to act in accordance with its terms . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER RLM:cc ,b IAM Vi CRAIG E. PETERSON �� t®.�ry� l �l�jI I ,l\� $ ""-'o` iO" 'I DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council October 20, 1989 Re: Petition No. 400-710-89 submitted by Gilbert and Thelma Iker. Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on Decemberj2,, 1989 at 6:2D p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-710-89 submitted by Gilbert and Thelma Iker. The petitioners are requesting that property located at 1307 South 900 West be rezoned from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3"; also that the northwest corner of 1300 South and 900 West be rezoned from a Business "B-3" to a Residential "R-2" district as initiated by the Planning Commission. Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: The petitioners are requesting that the property now used for parking and open space for their existing office building be rezoned to allow for the expansion of their office building. The original petition requested that only 40 feet of their corner lot be rezoned from the "R-2" to the "B-3" and was ready to submit to the Council for approval but the Iker's were successful in purchasing the adjacent lot from the owner who was concerned about the rezoning request. The Iker's now own the entire corner and have requested that it be rezoned to the "B- 3" classification. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Iker's request and has recommended approval. The Planning Commission has also recommended that the property across the street, the northwest corner of 900 West and 1300 South, be rezoned from the current "B-3" to a "R-2" classification. The "R-2" classification better reflects the current residential use of this area. The housing located along the west side of 900 West, north of 1300 South is identified as historically significant by the Salt Lake City Architectural Survey. This rezoning is consistent with the update master plan for this area. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: LELB.- - Acting Dir Community and Economic Development lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located at 1307 South 900 West from "R-2" to "B-3" and then northwest corner of 1300 South 900 West from "B-3" to "R-1" pursuant to Petition No.400-710-89 and Planning Commission initiative) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 . 14 . 020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND FIXING OF BOUNDARIES OF USE DISTRICTS . WHEREAS, in response to the rezoning petition initiated by GILBERT and THELMA IKER, No. 400-710-89 , and a Planning Commission initiative, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations , the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the properties located at 1307 South 900 West from "R-2" to "B-3" and the northwest corner of 1300 South 900 West from "B-3" to "R-1" is appropriate for the development of the community in that area; THEREFORE, The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to the Use District provisions of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That the Use District Map, as adopted by Section 21 . 14 . 020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries of Use Districts , be, and the same hereby is AMENDED to read as ' -,? lows : 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-2" (Parcel 1 ) and Business "B-3" (Parcel 2 ) are hereby rezoned Business "B-3" (Parcel 1 ) and Residential "R-2" (Parcel 2 ) and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Parcel 1 "R-2" to "B-3" BEGINNING at monument 6423 at the center of the intersection of 1300 South and 900 West, located in Block 5 , 5 Acre Plat B, Big Field Survey of Salt Lake 4^ City; thence N 89°57 ' 37" E 257 . 5 ft. ; thence S 10a$9 0°10 ' 50" W approximately 394 . 35 ft. ; thence S 86°24 ' 08" W approximately 254 .43 ft . ; thence N 0°10 ' 30" E approximately 394 . 43 ft . ; to point of BEGINNING Parcel 2 "B-3" to "R-2" FROM monument 6423 at the center of the intersection of 1300 South and 900 West; thence West 38 . 2 ft . ; a thence North 22 . 15 ft. to point of BEGINNING; thence .� North 125 . 0 ft . ; thence West 125. 0 ft . ; thence South ' 'ooka% 125 . 0 ft. ; thence East 125 . 0 ft. along the north R.O.W. 1 of 1300 South; back to the point of BEGINNING. SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON -2- SALT CIPAYCORDr °4' CO. ALL EN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING AN'ITNG DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS- W ILLIAM T_ WRIG HT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER ;;I.UIY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL .1,-ERJAJR TONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET - LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN August 18 , 1989 Mr . Craig Peterson, Director Community and Economic Development Room 218 , City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re : Petition 400-710-89 , by Gilbert and Thelma Iker requesting rezoning property at 1307 South 900 West from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3" ; also to rezone the northwest corner of 1300 South and 900 West from a Business "B-3" to a Residential "R-2" district as initiated by the Planning Commission Dear Craig : Please find attached Petition 400-710-89 , from Gilbert and Thelma Iker requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located on the southeast corner of 1300 South Street and 900 West Street from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3" . The proposed use is an expansion of the Ikers ' office facilities on the petition site. At their regular meeting , August 10 , 1989 , the Salt Lake City Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this request to the City Council . The Planning Commission also recommended rezoning the northwest corner of the same intersection from . a Business ''B-3" to a Residential "R-2" district . The current "B-3" zoning is incompatible with the residential use of the corner and the Westside Communily Master Plan . The legal descriptions of the rezonings are as follows : Craig Peterson letter , Petition 400-710-89 , p. 2 Residential "R-2" and existing Business "B-3" to Business "B-3" : BEGINNING at monument 6423 at the center of the intersection of 1300 South and 900 West , located in Block 5 , 5 Acre Plat B, Big Field Survey of Ralt Lake City; thence N 890 57 ' 37" F 257 . 5 ft. . thence S 0 10 ' 50" W approximately 394 . 35 ft . 6 thence S 86 24 ' 08" W approximately 254 . 43 ft . ; thence N 0 10 ' 30" E approximately 394 . 43 ft. ; to point of BEGINNING Business "B-3" to Residential "R-2" : FROM monument 6423 at the center of the intersection of 1300 South and 900 West; thence West 38 . 2 ft. ; thence North 22 . 15 ft. to point of BEGINNING; thence North 125 . 0 ft. ; thence West 125 . 0 ft . ; thence South 125 . 0 ft. ; thence East 125 . 0 ft. along the north R.O.W. of 1300 South; back to the point of BEGINNING . A copy of the planning staff report and supporting documentation is attached for your reference. If you have any questions , please contact me or Neil Olsen, the Westside Community Planner . Sincerely, r (46<ifr VU William T. Wright , AICP Deputy Planning Director WTW: nho attachments cc: John Schumann , Chairman, Planning Commission Wayne Horrocks , Councilman , District 2 Gilbert and Thelma Iker , Petitioner File • Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission Petition 400-710-89 by Gilbert and Thelma Iker OVERVIEW The petitioner is requesting expansion of an existing Business "B-3" zone on the southeast corner of 1300 South Street and 900 West Street from its present 125-foot boundary to include the eastern 40 feet of the petitioners ' parcel . Staff recommends extending the rezoning to include all of the Residential "R-2" zoning district west of a line 231 feet east from 900 West Street and between 1300 South and California Avenue. If granted, the zoning change would facilitate the expansion of office facilities on the petition site. Additionally , it is requested that the existing Business "B-3" zoning district on the northwest corner of the same intersection be rezoned to a Residential "R-2" district. Vicinity Map of Petition Area ls Inar74 n o • a ••EL]: . . iiii an o , o w g i ! ;ø4 . ' r .."..17.:-1 r0.11.4,i4—.„udI-3mr/1. am . / •M111 T 7j111!ai tL_,A T_A eel le" I. li BACKGROUND The petitioner has requested that property now used for parking and open space for an existing office building be rezoned to allow for the expansion of that office building . This portion of the petition site was granted a conditional use to allow parking in a residential zone for the adjacent office building. The surrounding area adjacent to the petition site is generally occupied by single family homes , neighborhood businesses , and one nonconforming business . On April 19 , 1982 , the Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment granted Case No . 8909 , which allowed the petitioner to construct a parking lot in a Residential "R-2" zone. This lot is located immediately east of the office building which was also constructed in 1982 . Petition 400-710-89 , p. 2 On April. 13 , 1989 , the Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of this petition, agreed with the staff recommendation of expanding the Business "B-3" zone, and suggested that staff explore the feasibility of including the northwest corner of the same intersection--a residential area incompatibly zoned Business "B-3" . ANALYSIS The petitioner had originally requested that only the eastern 40 feet of their corner lot be rezoned from a Residential "R-2" classification to Business "B-3" . The staff concurred in expanding this request to include all the parcels from the east line of the petitioner ' s parking lot west to 900 West and between 1300 South and California Avenue. After discussing this with the petitioner , it was agreed that while this area is substantially larger than what was requested in the original petition, it could provide the flexibility to instigate additional reinvestment and development in the area . The petitioner has since acquired all but one parcel of the remaining land in the proposed rezoning . The land use of the area includes the petitioner ' s office building , built in 1982 , which was the last substantial investment made in this neighborhood . Single family homes directly to the south of the petition area are in substandard condition . Other structures in the area include an abandoned single family home , a nonconforming office and storage building which is accessory to the petitioner ' s main office building . Last year , the city widened the 900 West Street right-of-way. The existing homes south of the petitioner ' s office building are now located within a few feet of the public sidewalk . Initial research for the Westside Community Master Plan Update acknowledges the properties between 1300 South and California Avenues on the east side of 900 West Street as transitional . Neighborhood-oriented business located at the northeast corner of California Avenue and 900 West Streets is the recommendation of staff in that preliminary Master Plan Update. The Planning Commission directed the staff to research the northwest corner of 900 West and 1300 South Streets , which is currently zoned Business "B-3" . This zoning is incompatible with the long-standing residential land use. RECOMMENDAT I ON The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Petition 400-710-89 and expand the Business "B-3" zoning district to include all of the area west of the property line 231 feet east of the southeast corner cf the intersection of 900 West and 1300 South Streets . This recommendation is based on evidence that the proposed development would generally be in keeping with the master plan now being developed for the area and Petition 400-710-89 , p. 3 appropriately market the property for reinvestment and redevelopment of this neighborhood . Additionally, the staff recommends the rezoning of the northwest corner of the same intersection from Business "B-3" to Residential "R-2" . The 1974 Westside Community Plan designates this area for residential use. The Updated Plan acknowledges the inconsistency between the existing residential land use and the existing "B-3" zoning . Housing located along the west side of 900 West north of 1300 South is identified as historically significant by the Salt Lake City Architectural Survey--Southwest Survey Area . Vicinity Map of Staff Recommendation STAFF RECOMMENDED' • - +4..*** 4;;s4. - ZONING CHANGE 1300 SOUTH 1 r - { NORTH o i Q) CALIFORNIA AVENUE Neil H. Olsen, AICP City Planner II 18 July 1989 PC MINUTES Page 4 August 10, 1989 Petition No. 400-7541 by U.S. West for a permit to place concrete in the landscape park strip on City property at 250 East 200 South. Mr. Doug Dansie presented the staff report and stated that this is a request by U.S. West for a permit to place concrete in the park strip on City property at 250 East 200 South in a C-3 district. The C-3 zone does not require on- site landscaping. The site presently has tile in the park strip which is breaking up and needs to be replaced. The project has been reviewed by the City's One-Stop Committee and the Engineering and Transportation departments have approved the plan. Transportation normally requires an eight foot clear area for pedestrian traffic in the Downtown core and six feet in other commercial areas. This proposal exceeds the standard. The Plaza creates a large amount of pedestrian traffic which would make maintenance of grass difficult. The majority of properties between 200 and 300 East have concrete park strips. As a general rule, properties outside the Central Business District should not have concrete paving in the park strip, but the Bell Plaza would be considered the eastern most edge of the CBD. The staff recommends this petition be approved because there is sufficient pedestrian activity to warrant a wider sidewalk for Bell Plaza and the adjacent properties have concrete park strips. This approval is subject to the following conditions; 1. Existing trees are kept and properly maintained. 2. All work meets Salt Lake City Engineering specifications. Ms. Stacey Jones, representing U.S. West, 250 Bell Plaza, stated that the existing tile is difficult to maintain and a hazard for the pedestrians. She requested the Planning Commission approve this petition. Mr. Nicolatus moved to approve Petition No. 400-754 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Howa seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. INFORMAL HEARING - Petition No. 400-710 by Gilbert and Thelma Iker requesting Salt Lake City to rr=re ornre. - n7 iHh (r0 `Nest fr,ThiTl ? ?,e-- tia1 "R-2" to a Business "B-3" zoning district. Also, to rezone the northwest corner of 1300 South and 900 West from a Business "B-3" district to a Residential "R-2" zoning district as initiated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission had heard this matter in the format of an informal hearing in April, 1989. At that time, a property owner in the area expressed great concern about the staff's recoituuiendation to rezone a larger area than the petitioner had requested. The Planning Commission made the recommendation to rezone only that portion of the area requested by the petitioner and directed the Planning Staff to research this matter. Since that hearing, the petitioners, Gilbert and Thelma Iker, have purchased the property directly south of their former property, specifically, the property PC MINUTES Page 5 August 10, 1989 owned by the person who had been concerned about the rezoning. Therefore, the Planning Staff felt it was the proper time to bring this matter back before the Planning Commission for a more comprehensive rezoning of the area, including the northwest corner which currently exists under a business classification. Mr. Neil Olsen presented the staff report and stated that the petitioner is requesting expansion of an existing Business "B-3" zone on the southeast corner of 1300 South Street and 900 West Street from its present 125 foot boundary to include the eastern 40 feet of the petitioner's parcel. Staff recommends extending the rezoning to include all of the Residential "R-2" zoning district west of a line 231 feet east from 900 West Street and between 1300 South and California Avenue. If granted, the zoning change would facilitate the expansion of office facilities on the petition site. Additionally, it is requested that the existing Business "B-3" zoning district on the northwest corner of the same intersection be rezoned to a Residential "R-2" zoning district. The petitioner has requested that property now used for parking and open space for an existing office building be rezoned to allow for the expansion of that office building. This portion of the petition site was granted a conditional use to allow parking in a residential zone for the adjacent office building. The surrounding area adjacent to the petition site is generally occupied by single family homes, neighborhood businesses and one nonconforming business. On April 19, 1982, the Board of Adjustment granted Case 8909, which allowed the petitioner to construct a parking lot in a Residential "R-2" zone. This lot is located immediately east of the office building which was also constructed in 1982. On April 13, 1989, the Planning Commission moved to recomend approval of this petition, agreed with the staff recommendation of expanding the Business "B-3" zone, and suggested staff explore the feasibility of including the northwest corner of the same intersection---a residential area incompatibly zoned Business "B-3" . The petitioner originally requested only the eastern 40 feet of their corner lot be rezoned from a Residential "R-2" classification to Business "B-3" . The staff concurred in expanding this request to include all the parcels from the east line of the petitioner's parking lot west to 900 West and between 1300 South and California Avenue. After discussing this with the petitioner, it was agreed that while this area is substantially larger than what was requested in the original petition, it could provide the flexibility to instigate additional reinvestment and development in the area. The petitioner has since acquired all but one parcel of the remaining land in the proposed rezoning. The Planning Corrunission directed staff to research the northwest corner of 900 West and 1300 South Streets which is currently zoned Business "B-3" . This zoning is incompatible with the long-standing residential land use. The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Conunission approve Petition No. 400-710 and expand the Business "B-3" zoning district to include all of the area west of the property line 231 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of 900 West and 1300 South Streets. This recommendation is based on evidence that the proposed development would generally be in keeping with PC MINUTES Page 6 August 10, 1989 the master plan now being developed for the area and appropriately market the property for reinvestment and redevelopment of this neighborhood. Additionally, staff recommends the rezoning of the northwest corner of the same intersection from Business "B-3" to Residential "R-2". The 1974 Westside Community Plan designates this area for residential use. The Updated Plan acknowledges the inconsistency between the existing residential land use and the existing "B-3" zoning. Housing located along the west side of 900 West, north of 1300 South is identified as historically significant by the Salt Lake City Architectural Survey -- Southwest Survey Area. Ms. Thelma Iker stated that they purchased the property at 1309 South 900 West since the hearing in April, 1989. Mr. Gilbert Iker explained that they also had put down an earnest money payment for additional land in the area. Mr. Iker said Phase I of their plan is to expand their current building, and Phase II is to acquire the property further south of their property. Mr. Iker said they are interested in acquiring the property further south in order to maintain it and keep it consistent with the quality of upkeep on their property. The Ikers requested the Planning Commission approve this petition. Mr. Ellison abstained from the discussion and voting procedures on this portion of the Planning Commission meeting due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Cromer said her understanding was that the expansion/rezoning issue to the east of the Iker's property had already been handled. Mr. Wright explained that the City Council tabled that action at the request of the Ikers. Mr. Bethel asked what the outcome for the houses east of the Iker property would be. Mr. Wright said those houses all front off of 1300 South and the master plan intends these houses to remain residential. Mr. Bethel said he felt comfortable rezoning the property to the south but felt the property to the east would be better left under the conditional use format. Ms. Cromer said she was not concerned about what the Ikers might develop but rather, what future developers might develop. Mr. Schumann opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Mel Ingersol, a property owner about a block-a block and a half east of the Iker's property, stated that he believes this area will become a blight area if this petition is not approved. He requested the Planning Coi►uuission Since no one else wished to address the Planning Coiiuuission, Mr. Schumann closed the hearing to the public. Ms. Cromer asked the if the property owners in the area had been notified of this hearing. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative. Mr. Nicolatus moved to approve the petition subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Howa seconded the motion; all voted "Aye" with the exception of Mr. Ellison who abstained from the vote. The motion passes. br KAREN SUZUKI-HASHIMOTO Miff • A k °V 1 ir ll/`r��/i MINN�NN PALMER DE:PAULIS DIRECTOR MAYOR FRANK ERASER DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND PATRICIA CAMPBELL. C.C.P. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMPENSATION S BENEFITS MANAGER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-7900 October 31, 1989 Salt Lake City Council 304 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Attn: W.M. "Willie" Stoler Chairperson Dear Chairperson Stoler: The Utah Legislature enacted the Public Safety Non- Contributory Retirement Act (the "Act" ) which was effective July 1, 1989 . According to the Act, political subdivisions may elect to participate in the Non-Contributory Retirement System, however, such election must be made by ordinance or resolution before December 31, 1989 . In the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the City and the Salt Lake Police Association, the City agreed to participate in the Public Safety Non-Contributory Retirement System as provided by the Act subject to the adoption of appropriate ordinances or resolutions . In order to make an election to participate in the Public Safety Non-Contributory Retirement System, the statute requires that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the question of whether the City should participate in this Non-Contributory Retirement System. Notice of the hearing must be mailed to all Public Safety employees at least 30 days prior to the hearing. After the hearing, the Council would be requested to enact an ordinance making the election. Salt Lake City Council October 31, 1989 Page -2- Consequently, it is requested that the City Council schedule a public hearing for December 12, 1989 to hear comments on the question of whether the City should participate in the Public Safety Non-Contributory Retirement System. Further, on said date, if appropriate, the City Council will be requested to enact an ordinance electing to participate. If the meeting is set for December 12, 1989 , the City Recorder' s office will mail all appropriate notices as required by the Act. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincer y, KAREN SUZUKI-HA IMOTO Director Human Resource Management KSH:cc Transmitted through Emilie Charles, Mayor' s office. LINDA HAMILTON 1 ►' ' ; © n°a�I;ONj PALMER DE PAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MAYOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT Policy and Budget Division 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 248 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE (801) 535-7810 October 12, 1989 TO: W. M. "Willie" Stoler Chairman, Salt Lake City Council RE: SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - NOVEMBER 24, 1989 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 I respectfully request that the City Council set a date for a Budget Amendment Public Hearing during their November 7 meeting. I request that the hearing to amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 Budget be set for November Z4, 1989. One purpose of the amendment will be to reappropriate fund balances in the CDBG grant operating fund relating to Administrative carryovers . Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance LH/SF:rl CRAIG E. PETERSON SAS° A, .�'� TY�OORO'°;e �IONT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council October 20, 1989 Re: Proposed Ordinance repeal Section 18.16.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Reco1Iullendation: That the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance that repeals Section 18.16.030 of the Salt Lake City Code regarding license bond requirements. Availibility of Funds: Not applicable Dicussion and Background: Salt Lake City currently requires a bond in the sum of one thousand dollars from each contractor who works in the City. This requirement is outdated and a nuisance to contractors who perform work. Currently the State of Utah has bonding requirements which protects the property owner. The ordinance is part of the building code and the Attorney's Office has determined that a public hearing on this issue in not necessary. Legislative Action: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is attached for your action. Submitted by: CHAEL B. Z Acting Directo Community and Economic Development ROGER R. EVANS S EJj i �1,1q.1Cl T�"��R �� ' (111. HARVEY F. BOYD DIRECTOR SA IT�� .t. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Building and Housing Services 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-6436 October 6, 1989 - Mayor Palmer DePaulis City & County Building, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Palmer: I have attached a draft proposal of repeal of Section 18.16.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. This draft document has been approved by the City Attorneys Office and would repeal the license bond requirements. Salt Lake City currently requires a bond in the sum of one thousand dollars frc.n a each contractor who works in the City. This requirement is outdated and a nuisance to contractors who perform work. Currently the state of Utah has bonding requirements which protects the property owners. I should be contacted to testify before the Council should they request someone to testify. Sines ly, _ 1q Roger f Etvans Director RREdk Attachment DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. OF 1989 ( License Bond Requirements ) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 16, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, 1989, AS AMENDED, BY REPEALING SECTION 030 RELATING TO LICENSE BOND REQUIREMENTS, AS FOLLOWS: Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Title 18, Chapter 16, Section 030, Salt Lake City Code, Salt Lake City, Utah, relating to license bond requirements, be, and the same hereby is, repealed. [18. 16.030 License bond requirements. Every plumbing, mcchani a-I and elcctri al contractor shall nd shall be surety authorized to do bu3iness in the state of Utah, which bond shall be approved by the city and filed with the building official, and conditioned that the applicant, during the t&rm for which such cicctri al, plumbing and mechani al work, and such bond shall reason of the failure of the applicant to comply with such erdi-naftee3. (Prior c ] SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER ( SEAL) Bill No. of 1989. Published: . GRH:ap -2- LEGISLATIVE ACTION ACTION PROPOSED BY: Council Member Wayne Horrocks PROPOSED ACTION: Amend Petition 400-749 to include the area between Redwood Road to approximately 3000 West and Indiana Avenue extension/Surplus Canal to I-80 to be rezoned from M-1 and C-3 to M-1A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Petition 400-749 has previously been submitted to the Council as a legislative action. It requests that the area between Redwood Road/Surplus Canal to approximately 3000 West and Indiana Avenue to 2100 South be rezoned from an M-3 to M-lA and C-2 classification. This request was forwarded to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Upon planning staff review, the amendment stated above was recommended. REFERRED TO: Planning Commission. u•.w:'.f.:: --_:+�.ra_.T:'a •a.._..l.:.Irsail:JYisetl.r_:.i.:..ivJ.:.^f<;G�r'a.Jlet'.:l•.iia,'S'.._ _ .. r....�_..+ei .�«u.:�. •tir.rrl,f. --ti.:,�� '.: :nS. .:mod' 'aa ' ^'. } .....x.�.�.y..:. it 1rI i 1,1 SALT- 4 MAr t RPORA TIONE OFFmCE,OF:THE, CITY COUNCIL :i ,SUIT�3OO. CITY•HALL ,' . 324.SOUTH,STATE STREET.' SALT LAKE c W jJTAH 84iSj_ October 24, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL CHAIRMAN STOLER & COUNCIL MEMBERS /FROM: COUNCIL MEMBER WAYNE HORROCKS RE: LEGISLATIVE ACTION -- REZONING The City Council has previously submitted by legislative action petition 400-749 at my recommendation. The petition requests that the area between Rect::cod Road/Surplus Canal to approximately 3000 West and Indiana Avenue to 2100 South be rezoned from an M-3 to M-lA and C-2 classification. Upon recommendation from the Planning staff, I would like to amend the legislative action to also include the area between Redwood Road to approximately 3000 [W1est. and Indiana Avenue extension/Surplus Canal to I-80 to be rezoned from M-1 and C-3 to M-1A. I have requested this legislative action be placed on our November 7 agenda. Attached for your information is a map of the area. cc: Mayor Palmer PePaul i s Mike Zuhl Allen Johnson . A :::,•,:; •..,,,. . ,k„„ -,, ..i AAA . •.0.000.0...0 q., lett414N." -.:7 ' • ' NwNits :e& Ni.\ • -N - eeb t..as ....x.� . ..,...„. ,N,. ,,,,,,, t. ,x L,w:m.•%, ?sfA• •.. • )\\\\ \ "i\v 'N‘%*'*4 NN*.*4"% \*N.46 % k‘tS 5)7- Wjj.1 vm ,41 1 //; !::$ N.N4.*'c%14%**.,* / // . "*.,.., : ... I 11111•1•..,4/,,,,t004, \\, 6:‘\‘‘\:\k/‘0,ig , irlamair : \N • A .0110111111.1...' Nig,:I- 11111P-- -- 1 , i 1 71,11411k41 ..., ... ''. \ \ ‘'IrW;;;I4e#A. 1 k. /A A-,1: :.:-.:,- .1:-.:-.-.. :..:::.:7_,• d ,,,A,7 , ey/77firfivg. Iii /�(/ A . I 7 l e ,'!4� r/� c ,' //JLI ' au. --.. • . Ifir\S •••., 1/1/y1 /... ... .A:•:•:A:'V 4.A11141.1111A/e.4:/ 10 bi T___-.)."' al :.::‘,.__:.A:.::.::P:1.::.'n-.1-1...:-'..1/,'. , 114. 14": I. •I A A 4 A / mot,, 41;��I�� /�/ /I ';i � . J A A A / f�.\ � , `'��_ �i Wit. °� , A Ail .41 ,5:371 •..A.:.:1 A A A 4 jui d J. 4,4 ve 4 r /7 1:: Z.i'V ' 971 .,A7/7" , A A A r 1 C ••• -.4" % vow* •;,, /4// 0 4 A A - A V; A 0.:4484h.'54•v•4,0444,441,01 ....m,....4•441.1 .A., j,, t 4 ......,, A/ .w�i�is•i1.Oirii •. ••.�. • •♦07:Zoe i. ••tile••i♦i♦♦♦qv f +:ii.Ar. A I ►♦♦Mi►••♦i♦I►♦♦i�♦•. ♦♦♦•••�•♦••�i#-;•i ► �•yi`(NV.•�. • tt w p ♦♦•Oi♦•♦• ♦ •• •• •♦ ►•�1•♦•4 •. •♦,: a.• A A Y c ►1 ••♦♦ .♦1•♦♦� ♦♦1•♦♦♦♦♦••♦,•. �i,♦•••�0:.0•♦�',, ti t • ►. ♦♦ X♦♦•♦1♦ t••••♦♦•♦♦••�♦♦♦ST g.•• •• ♦••1•` o,A, •• A A A A • *11n •♦•��-V 0 r♦1....�♦•�•�♦�♦• 4. .V •••� •♦•••1♦V.•.0 A, A A �1.1 j•/♦♦11♦•♦ells`♦♦♦♦1♦••♦••♦i i�••K. IL.%4 ♦••i•..M t"i♦••V. • _ p ) ��•♦•♦♦♦•••♦•♦1•••♦ �♦_ • ...u.,.1. • = A 4� • r1♦♦♦•1.•♦♦� • v ••••',.. ♦�' i • yam♦'•+";6.0 • A -1- •••�•. i WV•,•i!i!i:i��•!♦!.!•!�!.�.�♦.ak 4:I. ) ;aA!•!.!•!•!:!•!•! 0� -I L` 64i A 7 AA \A -. - ��i�♦.4_k.♦!♦:♦ �i " Dili 4:-4••i•♦♦♦•• := g i. i1�•♦�',•. !,. * ; A /AA • A ` •� •1. * • ♦• . �. /.'. ,; .....a A y1I i�♦�,.�❖i• ►.• ►1.♦•♦ • •♦wi � ,♦♦i c ♦•♦ A A A • A A ♦ ♦♦.:♦:••:••••#e4 •.M.a►♦♦•••♦♦♦ il♦ ♦♦� •�••� \O p A AA A• ♦•••♦ •F �•' "• A "♦•♦♦1 •-♦'�••*- ,. —:•7• ♦ 4.1.!.i► .r•!A41,.2•!♦?A• - A A A •( ►•�►.♦••1• ♦♦'•♦1♦1� ..C.A••♦.•.♦. �r • A '♦�♦1• �♦�♦w♦♦ '• _ _ . it �Se' //A A i• Oi'♦♦ 4 ♦SO-.•;►*i! , 'A, �♦••♦ .I.�p •ovio•D.AirAZ,A,♦ .b1♦•♦� i♦ ♦ Vt. i♦ i Oi♦ ♦•.♦ ♦• «� � s♦e♦�1e�♦•♦♦♦�♦�4`P•'�'"•••�jtiD♦�'�a ••9�i�i♦•%ii ♦•: %i►,:�i3i c N o p t S l 7,' , ♦.•♦� •♦p.♦� i0♦O♦01•♦ ♦♦•♦•,►• •1 k .♦•4•.44r0••♦♦♦♦i••i•••'' . ' C.a. • I I ; • i+ SAM OFFICE OF,THE:CITY .COUNCIL I;SUITE 3O0..CITY HALL 324 SOUTH STATE•STREET • SALT,L;AKE.CIT,Y;:UTAH:.8411i, •' 535=7600 November 3, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON RE: ALLEY VACATION FEE WAIVERS Attached are two ordinances which have been prepared as a result of your. October 12 Committee of the Whole discussion regarding waiving the $100 fee for alley vacations in residential neighborhoods: The first option waives the fee indefinitely. The second allows you to establish a time period during which fees would be waived. • You could either discuss this briefly at the Tuesday evening Council Meeting and refer just one ordinance to the Planning Commission, or you could refer both to them. Following are draft motions for each of those options: I move we refer this issue to the Planning Commission for their. recommendation. OR I move we refer the ordinance waiving the fee indefinitely to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. OR I move we refer the ordinance waiving the fee from DATE__ _ to DATE to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS ROGERCITY ATTORNEY CUTLER ' 1 'a Q air�,p' i n °Tt �T ArT( RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED vjl�l 11 V��J 1ii GREG R. HAWKINS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY LAW DEPARTMENT LARRY V. SPENDLOVE BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 October 24, 1989 TO: Cindy Gust-Jenson Executive Director OCT 2 C 1989 Office of the City Council FROM: Bruce R. Baird J4 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Assistant City Attorney 1 RE: Alley Vacation Fee Waivers Pursuant to your letter of October 17 , 1989 to Roger Cutler I have drafted an ordinance providing for the waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts . As we discussed on the phone this ordinance would include waiving fees for apartments within residential districts . As you requested, I have made two drafts of the ordinance . One is a complete waiver and the other is limited to a specified time (whatever is filled in the blanks ) . Of course, since this ordinance is within Title 21 it should be referred to the Planning Commission for their input . If you have any questions please let me know. BRB:cc .7\H ;: A '1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Adding Section 21 . 10 . 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 . 10 . 090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows : 21 . 10.090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts shall not be required to pay any filing fees or advertising fees for the petition. 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 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -2- uAA y $ A rn2 \.\cc' SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Adding Section 21 . 10 . 090 providing for waiver of fees for alley vacations in residential districts ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21 . 10 . 090 PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF HEARING FEES FOR ALLEY VACATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS . WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that it would be in the interest of the City to waive all required fees for alley vacations in residential zoning districts . NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21 . 10 . 090 be enacted to read as follows : 21.10.090 Residential Alley Vacations. Petitions for the vacation of alleys lying wholly within residential zoning districts shall not be required to pay any filing fees or advertising fees for the petition. The fee waiver provided by this section shall be in effect only from , 19 to , 19 . 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 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc sit r CRAIG E. PETERSON a DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council September 18, 1989 Re: Amendment to Perry's Hollow #1 Subdivision Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on November 7, 1989 at 6:20 p.m. to discuss a proposed amendment to the Perry's Hollow #1 Subdivision to allow an access road through existing lot #3 to the proposed Sugarloaf Subdivision. Availability of Maids: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of this request. The applicant has not obtained all the signatures of property owners within the subdivision and adjacent to the subdivision, therefore, the notice will be advertised in the newspapers for once a week for four consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: /)// CHAEL B. Z Acting Direc Community and Economic Director SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending the Perry' s Hollow #1 Subdivision pursuant to Petition No. 400-713-89 ) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE PERRY' S HOLLOW #1 SUBDIVISION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 57-5-8, UTAH CODE ANNOTATED PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-713-89 . WHEREAS , Petition No. 400-713-89 was filed with the City by Wynn Johnson of the Johnson Land Company requesting the City to allow the amendment of the Perry' s Hollow #1 Subdivision to allow an access road through existing lot #3 to the proposed Sugarloaf Subdivision; and WHEREAS , one hundred percent of the owners of the property within and adjacent to the subdivision have not consented to the amendment; and WHEREAS , the Council has , therefore, held the required public hearing after giving the required notice; WHEREAS, good cause exists for the amendment of the plat and no person will be materially injured by the proposed amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . The City hereby approves the proposed amendment to the Perry' s Hollow #1 Subdivision to allow an access road through existing lot #3 to the proposed Sugarloaf Subdivision . The Planning Director is authorized to grant final plat approval subject to compliance with applicable City ordinances . SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ' _,_�_ -., •-A- Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:ap • S_MIT r�a ii1(�.�� '„;R I®Nf ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING ANO ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE MANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN JESGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWARALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN September 5, 1989 Michael B. Zuhl Chief of Staff Department of Development Services 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Michael, Attached is petition 400-713 by Mr. Wynn Johnson, representing the Johnson Land Company, requesting Salt Lake City amend the Perry's Hollow #1 subdivision lot number three in order to allow for an access road for the proposed Sugarloaf subdivision. On August 10, 1989 the Salt Lake City Planning Commission made the motion to approve the preliminary plat for the Sugarloaf subdivision based on conditions listed in the minutes. The Planning Commissions intended to also approve the petition request along with the subdivision due to the fact that the access for the proposed Sugarloaf Subdivision depends upon receiving access through lot number three of Perry's Hollow #1 Subdivision. Perry' s Hollow #1 Subdivision is a recorded subdivision and currently has no existing homes on the lots. Minutes from the August 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting are included for your reference. Utah State Senate Bill number 19 was passed in November of 1986 dealing with the amendments to approved subdivisions. The law now requires that if the petitioner of the amendment does not provide all signatures of property owners within the subdivision and all signatures of property owners adjacent to the subdivision, Section 57-5-7. 5 requires the city to 1 ) publish the notice once a week for four consecutive weeks preceding the hearing in a newspaper in the City, 2 ) mail the notice to all owners appearing on the county assessment rolls. Please refer to the attached Senate Bill number 19 for the detailed wording. The amendment to Perry" s Hollow #1 (petition 400-742 ) subdivision therefore should be presented to the City Council for a public hearing and final approval prior to the final recording of the Sugarloaf subdivision. The applicant has not obtained all signatures of property owners within the subdivision and adjacent to the subdivision, therefore advance notice in the newspapers should be made each week for four consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing with the Council as required by state law. Respectfully Submitted, Allen/C. J hnson, AICP Planning irector AC J: AGM attachments cc: John Schuman, Planning Commission Chairman L. Wynn Johnson, petitioner Jim Webster, subdivision planner PC MINUTES Pace 7 August 10, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS NFCRMAL HEARING - Sugarloaf Subdivision preliminary approval at North Bonneville Drive, west side of Perry's Hollow. Also, consideration of Petition No. 400-742 recuesting an amendment to Perry's Hollow Subdivision, Lot 3. Mr. Wright stated that it was not a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance to hold informal hearings on subdivision approvals. He added, however, that since this matter was of significant interest to the neighborhood, the Planning Staff decided to hold an informal hearing. Mr. Allen McCandless presented the staff report and stated that preliminary approval for subdivisions is the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission with final approval by the Mayor. Mr. McCandless stated that there are two issues before the Planning Commission, 1) Preliminary approval for the Sugarloaf Subdivision, and 2) An amendment to Perry's Hollow Subdivision, Plat "J". Mr. Wynn Johnson (owner) , and Jim Webster (James Webster Associates) are requesting preliminary review and approval of the Sugarloaf subdivision. The proposed nine lot subdivision adjoins the south boundary of Perry's Hollow #1 Subdivision located along North Bonneville Drive. All lots and streets are within the R-1 and R-2 zones and are also located within the F-1 (foothill overlay) zone. 1. SUCARLQ F SUBDIVISICN The subdivision has been reviewed by the required city departments, including the Planning Staff. Public Utilitics. A letter from Leroy Hooton (June 19, 1989) states that plans for the sewer pump station access will need to be submitted. Discussions have indicated the station will most likely be along the south edce of lots throe or four. Transportation. A letter from Scott R. Vaterlaus (July 5, 1989) states their main concern was that during the review process of Perry's Hollow #1 subdivision, a loop road was to connect from Brockland Drive to Northland Drive. Mr. Wynn Johnson has indicated a willingness to connect a loop road, though it is now proposed to connect from Brockland Drive to Lot 43 of Perry's Hollow 41 Subdivision. This connection is agreeable with the Transportation staff. The letter also indicates the widths and minimum radius curves for the street are substandard. Due to the hillside topography and the lots being proposed only on one side of the street, Transportation feels the street widths and curves as proposed would be accepted by the City with proper sicning and planning. PC MINUTES Page 8 August 10, 1989 Engineering. Nick Kappas of the Engineering Department reviewed the proposed subdivision and had no comments. Planning. Chapter 3 of the Site Development Regulations was used in reviewinc this subdivision. The following points require careful consideration and should become conditions of approval of the final subdivision plat. Some of the points are to be accomplished before the approval of the final plat. Due to the lots being on only one side of the roadway, it is recommended that a sidewalk be approved only on the side with homes. Avenues Community Council. Mr. McCandless met with the Avenues Community Council at their August meeting. Willie Littig, Avenues Community Council Chairperson spoke with the staff and recommended the subdivision be approved. He was particularly pleased with the size of lots proposed. Willie was also in agreement that the street connection from Northland Drive to North Bonneville be made. He also agreed with the condition of not allowing fill materials to be pushed over the steep edges of the hillsides since this subdivision is so visible. 2. PETITION 400-742 - AMENDMENT 1U PERRY'S HOLLOW SUBDIVISICN, PLAT "J" Mr. Wynn Johnson, in conjunction with the Sugarloaf Subdivision, is requesting to amend Perry's Hollow nl Subdivision, Lot 43 to allow an access road for the Sugarloaf Subdivision to be constructed. The owner is Johnson Land Company, Inc. A letter from Mr. Johnson (June 13, 1989) indicates that Von R. Brockbank, owner of eleven of the seventeen lots, supports the amendment for the roadway. There are no existing homes on the lots of the Perry's Hollow Subdivision. The review by the City's Transportation Division initially recommended the roadway from Brockland Drive to Northland Drive be constructed, but is willing to support a connection from North Bonneville Drive (July 11 DCT meting) . The Planning Staff can support this amendment to the Perry's Hollow Subdivision if the owners agree to the amendment as proposed, and that an amended plat be submitted and approved by the City. The Planning Staff therefore, recommends preliminary approval of the Sugarloaf Subdivision subject to the following 15 conditions: 1. Plans for the sewer pump station access are to be submitted to and approved by Public Utilities. 2. Engineered cross sections for the road,•iav _, he submitted and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Plans to show heights, retaining systems, extents of cuts and fills, curves, street light locations, constructed as per section 47-3-4(4) of the Site Development Regulations. PC MINUTES Pace 9 August 10, 1989 3. A loop road connecting North Bonneville Drive with Northland Drive should be accomplished and indicated on the final plat. 4. A Landscape Plan is to be submitted prior to final plat approval and approved by the City for cuts and fills for the roadway, as well as for other areas for potential erosion. 5. All public utilities are to be placed underground with utility easements to be shown on the final plat. 6. Construction of all water conveyance systems for roofs, patios and hard surfaces will be strictly accomplished to prevent the loss of water to the subsurface. 7. A plan indicating the intended use and maintenance of the remnant of Lot #3, Perry's Hollow #3 Subdivision is to be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 8. All slopes of 40% and above should be delineated and shaded on the final plat. All shaded areas are unbuildable areas and are to contain no structures. No grade chances over two foot from the original natural grade shall be permitted for yards or structures. 9. Cross section plans for lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 should be submitted Prior to final plat approval in order to ensure that homes and yards can be built without extensive excavation, or intrusion into the 40% slope area. Driveway slopes should be indicated on the cross sections (16% percent maximum slope) . 10. Sidewalks be approved only cn the downslcpe side of the roadway where homes will be located. (Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street unless waived by the Planning Commission. ) 11. No debris or topsoil is allowed to be deposited on any of the 40% or greater slope faces. Preferably, homes should be on natural soil, or if required, minimal amounts of well compacted, engineered fill material. 12. Footings for structures located on Lots 2 through 7 be above the Bonneville silts (a minimum of four vertical feet) . 13. A Plan for erosion control showing methods for controlling erosion during the period of construction is to be submitted to the City prior to approval of the final subdivision plat. 14. Lot #2 of Perry's Hollow #1 should not receive fill materials over two foot in depth for improvement of the building pad, as was planned in the preliminary grading report. No fill material should be deposited on the 40% slope area cf this Lot #2. 15. A grading plan is to be prepared by a registered engineer prior to the final plat containing information requested on pages 49 through 51 of the Site Development Regulations, or section 4.7-3-5 (3) . PC MINUI:ES Pace 10 August 10, 1989 The Planning Staff recommends approval of Pctition 400-742, the amendment request for Perry's Hollow Subdivision, Lot #3, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the amendment to the Perry's Hollow Subdivision 41, Lot 43 to allow an access road to the Sugarloaf Subdivision. 2. A plat of the amended Perry's Hollow 41 Subdivision be submitted and approved. Mr. Wynn Johnson, the Petitioner, 1002 North Bonneville Drive, stated that he had read the staff report and was in agreement with it. He added that Condition #3 was slightly confusing to him. Mr. Wynn Johnson said Traffic had recommended a temporary cul-de-sac with a right-of-way to the edge of the property and yet the staff report states "A looped road will be accomplished " Mr. Wynn Johnson said a funding a looped road at this time had not boon their intention. He said they had intended to give the right-of- wav and then fund the road when further development occurs. Mr. McCandless said the City owns some of the property adjacent to the Johnson property and the staff is concerned about safety and access issues, and therefore, there needs to be a second access into the area. Mr. Schumann opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Coiiwission. Ms. Kathy Dunlop, 609 North Perry's Hollow, stated that she was in favor of responsible development but is concerned about road surfaces and cuts being put in place if the lots never get sold and developed. She added that she is very concerned about the drainage, on-going drug deals in the area, dumping and excessive traffic. Mr. Wynn Johnson responded that they are also concerned about these same issues since they are residents of the same area. He added that as the developer, they will not be constructing streets until they know the lots will ell. ter. Ron Borg, 523 Perry's Hollow Road, stated that he is concerned about the revecetaticn issue and added that he feels something needs to be done to lessen the visual impact and severity of the cuts. Mr. Wynn Johnson explained that the primary cuts will be on the north/south portion of the main cul-de- sac at the bottom of the Sugarloaf Subdivision. Mr. Wynn Johnson said their intent is to put in a retaining system with watering facilities along the inside of Sugarloaf. Ms. Pam Johnson, one of the petitioners, 1002 North Bonneville, stated that the retaining wall on the inside of Sugarloaf will keep off-read vehicles away from Sugarloaf. She added that they intend to plant it, water it and light it to make it as attractive as possible. • PC MINUTES Page 11 August 10, 1989 Mr. 0. wrc1 Moyle, 7358 Tomahawk Drive, stated that his concern is that there be as little disturbance to the natural landscaping as possible. Mr. Lee McCullough, 1003 North Bonneville, stated that he is in favor of this development because he feels it will put a step to the drug dealing, partying and excessive recreational vehicles. Ms. Pam McCullough, 1003 North Bonneville, stated that she is concerned about the fire threats they have to face during the July holidays. She said she feels this development will cut down on the threats of kids throwing fireworks around. Since no one else wished to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Schumann closed the hearing to the public and opened it up for Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Ellison said it appeared that the road cuts across the 40% slope and he doesn't feel the Planning Commission could approve an exception to the site development ordinance. Mr. Wheelwright said this is only the preliminary plan and the roadway will not cut into the 40% slope on the final plat. Mr. Becker expressed his concern that the Planning Commission does not have control over the review process for the design of the homes that will be impacting the view of the foothills from the valley floor. Mr. Howa moved to recormund preliminary approval for the Sugarloaf Subdivision subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Nicolatus seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." INFORMAL HEARING - Ensign Downs Plat "J" - Preliminary approval of west extension of Ensign Vista Drive. Allen McCandless presented the staff report and stated that Chris Robinson, Ensign Downs Inc. (property owner) , and Scott Turville (McKinley Oswald and Company) , are requesting preliminary review and approval of the Ensign Downs Plat "J" subdivision. The proposed 15 lot subdivision is a west extension of Ensign Vista Drive. The proposed subdivision is entirely within the R-1 (single family residences) and F-1 (Foothill Overlay) zoning districts. This subdivision is a continuation of the Ensign Downs development area located north of the State Capitol building. The subdivision has been submitted and reviewed by the required City departments including the Planning Staff. The Plat "H"as been revised twice to reflect the requested changes by the reviewing departments. The following are the remaining comments from the various City departments. Fire Department: Rae Hunsaker has reviewed the subdivision and has provided the location for two hydrants. The engineers for the subdivision, Eckhoff Watson and Preator Engineering, have placed Hydrant locations as requested from the Fire Department on the preliminary plat. JOHNSON LAND CO. , INC. 1002 North Bonneville Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 34103 801-355-7206 aSC'S`vS� 30 Sune 13 , 1989 ovVILE Palmer DePaulis =11 Cit_i , Ctah Petit_On to amend =erry ' s Hollow Subdivison Nc . 1 'favor DePaulis : `_y company recently purchased aptroximatelv 30 acres of located north of Chandler Drive and abutting the referenced suod_-. _lion ( see Zxhibi One) on our northern boundary. We have submitted a preliminary plat to the Salt Lake City Planning and Department to develop nine estate-sized lots on the bue' Pb1P=_ portion of our property . The plat we have submitted (see Exhibit Two) envisions a _.._._- ; street accessing our land through lot three of the r_f :_ enced Subdi icn . `'1y company owns lot three . The developer e.:iSti::o subdivision, who still owns eleven of the . _ men lots , has approved our plan (see Exhibit Three) . We contacted the three remaining owners by telephone orlet ter , two of the three remaininc owners each own two Lots ) and , as of 7.1. 2 date , have not received any written . c nc'nse to our letters ;,;:nib . .. re snt with self-addressed envelopes included) . :nasmuch as the majority of the lot owners are in support of our plan to allow a public roadway co be construct lc: chre , I respectfully request your support c=":1-i: .:t tC the referenced 5:.:bdi'✓1Si0ii. _ha:_._ you y __ _, _Quillen to this request . lcly yours , L . Wynn 1 :hnson cc : Alan Johnson Doug Wheelwricinc im Webster 'von R . Brockbank 42-) CRAIG E. PETERSON Si <L G TXY(�,,©RP 0 N1 DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council September 20, 1989 Re: Resolution Accepting the OKOA Annexation - Petition No. 400-569-89 Recommendation: That the City Council accept the attached resolution for review for the OKOA Annexation - Petition No. 400-569-89 submitted by William D. Holyoakon behalf of the owners. The petitioners are requesting that property located on the northeast corner of 3300 South and 1100 East be annexed into Salt Lake City for the purposes of developing a new conulrcial retail uses. It is further recommended that the City Council set a public hearing date on November 7, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. for said petition. - r Availability of Funds: Not applicable. Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of this annexation request with the following conditions: 1. Approximately 8 feet of the petitioners' property along 3300 South Street shall be dedicated to Salt Lake County to widen the public right-of-way to 40 feet from centerline; 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements shall be constructed within the public right-of-way and the parking strip be landscaped with grass and trees and maintained with a sprinkler system along 3300 South Street and 1100 East street according to Salt Lake City Engineering specifications at the time of development or redevelopment. Improvement cost will be borne by the developer and/or property owner; 3. The property to be annexed shall be zoned Commercial "C-3A" and contain an extension of the Brickyard Liquor District "A" and 3300 South Street between 1100 East and 1300 East Streets designated as a major street. 4. The "Barbara Jensen" building, which is proposed for a rehabilitation, and its associated parking, shall be annexed as "nonconforming" to Salt Lake City zoning standards with respect to landscaped setback only. However, this portion of the development project shall be upgraded to the following standards. A five-foot landscaped setback from the property line shall be provided in the area immediately fronting the west facade of the building along 1100 East Street; The landscaping and public sidewalk shall be protected with a six inch high back curb; The parking lot design shall conform to Salt Lake City standards. The remainder of the site shall conform to Salt Lake City site design standards when new development is constructed. 5. An Annexation Plat shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor meeting all Salt Lake City standards for such a document. This area is identified as a desired annexation in the Salt Lake City Master Annexation Policy and is support in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary resolution and is attached for your action. Submitted by: ICHAEL B. ZUHL Acting Director Community and Economic Development ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS. WILLIAM T. WRIGHT. AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL secRErA: ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWARALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN September 18, 1989 Mr. Mike Zuhl, Acting Director Community and Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Petition 400-569 Dear Craig: Attached please find Petition 400-569 submitted by William D. Holyoak on behalf of the property owners of six parcels of land located on the northeast corner of 3300 South and 1100 East Streets requesting annexation to Salt Lake City for the purposes of developing the site. The property is contiguous to the City boundary along the south property line of the "Brickyard Plaza" . Mr. Richard Gushman proposes to redevelop the 1.81 acres of property to new commercial retail uses. The proposed site plan is still being developed and refined. The 1979 Salt Lake City Master Annexation Policy Declaration identifies this area as a desired annexation area to Salt Lake City. Additional policy support for annexation is contained in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The objectives of the City's Master Plan are to improve the neighborhood convenience commercial uses along 3300 South Street. New development will provide an improved urban design including landscaped building setbacks, proper off-street parking with identified access, and improved curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Also attached is a copy of the Salt Lake City Amendment to Area 5 (Brickyard Area) of the Master Annexation Policy Declaration Amendment 5-C as it pertains to this annexation proposal. On Thursday November 12, 1987, the Planning & Zoning Coinniission discussed the petition and recommends approval of the annexation request in concurrence with the conditions recommended by the Planning Staff. These conditions include: Petition 400-569 Page 2 1. Approximately 8 feet of the petitioners' property along 3300 South Street shall be dedicated to Salt Lake County to widen the public right-of-way to 40 feet from centerline; 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements shall be constructed within the public right-of-way and the parking strip be landscaped with grass and trees and maintained with a sprinkler system along 3300 South Street and 1100 East Street according to Salt Lake City Engineering specifications at the time of development or redevelopment. Improvement cost will be borne by the developer and/or property owner; 3. The property to be annexed shall be zoned Commercial "C-3A" and contain an extension of the Brickyard Liquor District "A" with 3300 South Street between 1100 East and 1300 East Streets designated as a major street. 4. The "Barbara Jensen" building, which is proposed for rehabilitation, and its associated. parking, shall be annexed as "nonconforming" to Salt Lake City zoning standards with respect to landscaped setback only. However, this portion of the development project shall be upgraded to the following standards: * A five-foot landscaped setback from the property line shall be provided in the area immediately fronting the west facade of the building along 1100 East Street; * The landscaping and public sidewalk shall be protected with a six inch high back curb. * The parking lot design shall conform to Salt Lake City standards. The remainder of the site shall conform to Salt Lake City site design standards when new development is constructed. 5. An Annexation Plat shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor meeting all Salt Lake City standards for such a document. An Annexation Plat Map is prepared and addresses items 1 and 5. An Annexation Agreement has been prepared to address the conditions of the annexation. Both drafts are attached. Th Potition 400-569 Page 3 It is the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that the City Council hold the required public hearing and that the City approve this annexation petition with conditions. Respectfully, Allen C. Jo on, AICP Planning Dir for ACJ:GRH attachments RESOLUTION NO. OF 1989 (Accepting the OKOA Annexation Petition No . 400-569-87 for review by the City Council) A Resolution accepting the OKOA Annexation Petition No . 400-569-87 for purposes of City Council review. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has received Petition No. 400-569- 87 requesting the annexation of unincorporated territory contiguous to Salt Lake City' s southern boundary and the Brickyard Shopping Center area known as the "OKOA Annexation" ; and WHEREAS, the signatures of the petition appear to constitute a majority of the owners of real property and the owners of more than one-third in value of all the real property as shown by the last assessment role; and WHEREAS, petitioners have submitted a map of the territory proposed for annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory within the petition is contiguous to the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and lies within Study Area No. 5 projected for municipal expansion by Salt Lake City' s Master Policy Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that it does hereby: 1 . Accept Petition No . 400-569-87 for annexation of land designated as the "OKOA Annex" for the purposes of considering said annexation for the expansion of the City' s municipal limits by way of reviewing: The existing Master Policy Declarations regarding Study Area No. 5 previously adopted by the City, and the proposed amendment thereto specifically relating to the OKOA Annexation. For purposes of review, the petition and proposed amendment shall be scheduled and processed concurrently. 2 . Direct the City Recorder to set a public hearing before the City Council to review the proposed annexation petition, the proposed zoning classification of Commercial "C-3A" as recommended by the Planning Commission, and adoption of Amendment 5C to the Master Policy Declaration for Study Area No . 5 as it relates to this specific annexation proposal; and to provide newspaper and mail notice to petitioners , landowners within the proposed annexation, and affected entities as required by law. Be it further resolved that nothing hereunder shall be construed to vest petitioners with rights to require annexation of said property; to bind the City Council to finally approve the petitioners ' annexation; to vest the petitioners with rights to develop under any particular zoning, subdivision or site development ordinance; or to require Salt Lake City to exercise jurisdiction over the area until such time as a decision to annex and extend the corporate limits has been made and all annexation formalities and documentation have been completed, including the preparation of the final plat according to City Engineer specifications , appropriate ordinances, annexation agreements and other documents verifying the sufficiency of the petition. -2- Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 198 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc -3- ) - A \ NFXATO \ DLAI 'OKOA INC ANNEX TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH AN ANNEX TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, OF PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK 27, TEN ACRE PLAT ' A" , BIG FIELD SURVEY. PARCEL DESCRIPTION: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2, BLOCK 27, TEN ACRE PLAT " A" , BIG FIELD SURVEY, SAID POINT BEING N 89' 45' 30" E ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE 31 .83 FEET AND N 0" 14' 30" W 32.87 FEET FROM THE SALT LAKE CITY MONUMENT j IN THE INTERSECTION OF 3300 SOUTH AND 1 100 EAST STREETS; THENCE N 0' 04' 23" E 360.09 FEET ALONG 1HE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, TO THE RIGHT BANK OF THE LOWER COTTONWOOD CANAL; THENCE ALONG SAID BANK S 54' 28' 58" E 46.64 FEET AND S 50' 17' 58" E 118.65 FEET AND S 64' 45' 58" E 76.84 FEET AND S 56' 48' 58" E 62.99 FEET AND S 4?' 46' 58" E 176.47 FEET; THENCE N 89' 46' 48" W 64.06 FEET; THENCE S 0' 13' 12" W 60.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE S 89' 52' 12" W 307.5.) FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 1 .81 ACRES. SALT LAKE CITY AMENDMENT TO AREA 5 BKICKYARD AREA of the MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION AMENDMENT 5-C • SALT LAKE CITY AMENDMENT TO MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION AMENDMENT 5C • Petitioned Sub-part of Area 5--Brickyard Area Cushman Annexation November 1987 Praoar d by Salt Lake City Planning & Zoning Division Department of Develocment Services CONTENTS Topic Page - 5C Introduction 1 5C.1 Area Considered for Annexation 1 5C.2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics 1 5C.3 Property Value 2 5C.4 Comparison of Cost of Government Services 2 5C.5 Water 2 5C.6 Sewer 2 5C.7 Fire 2 5C.8 Police 3 5C.9 Planning and Zoning 3 5C.10 Refuse and Garbage Collection and Disposal 3 5C.11 Streets and Highways 4 ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES Topic Page Map of Proposed Annexation Area 5 Table 1: Comparison of City and County Tax Rates 6 Tntroduction The following information is provided to satisfy requirements of the Utah Boundary Commission Act of 1979 as set forth in Section 10-2-401 through 10-2-423 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. In harmony with the intent of the act, Salt Lake City prepared a Master Annexation Policy Declaration in 1979. The petitioned area is a sub-part of Area 5--Brickyard Area as defined in that Declaration. This report updates and amends the Master Annexation Policy Declaration with respect to the petitioned area. 5C.1 Area Considered for Annexation The map on page 5 depicts the proposed annexation area. It includes unincorporated land contiguous to Salt Lake City's southern boundary east of 1100 East Street to the existing city limit line and north of 3300 South Street legally described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 27, Ten Acre Plat "A", Big Field Survey, said point being N89*45'30"E along the monument line 31.83 feet and NO*14'30"W 32.87 feet from the Salt Lake City Monument in the intersection of 3300 South and 1100 East Streets; thence NO*04'23"E 360.09 feet along the West line of said Lot 2, to the right bank of the Lower Cottonwood Canal; thence along said bank S54*28'58"E 46.64 feet and S50*17'58"E 118.65 feet and S64*45'58"E 76.84 feet and S56*48'58"E 62.99 feet and S42*46'58"E 176.47 feet; thence N89*46'48"W 64.06 feet; thence SO*13712"W 60.00 feet to the South line of said Lot 2; thence S89*52' 12"W 307.50 feet along said Sc .zth line to the point of beginning. Contains l.61 acres. ' 5C.2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Characteristics The proposed annexation area is 1.81 acres of commercial land presently with vacant and occupied commercial buildings and a vacant lot. The proposed redevelopment is a retail commercial center on 1.81 acres of land fronting on 3300 South and 1100 East Streets. 1 5C.3 Property Value The proposed annexation area lies exclusively within Salt Lake County Tax District 17A. Market value of the property, compiled from the 1987 tax rolls in the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor's office, is $1,249,970. 5C.4 Comparison of the Cost of Government Services Table 1 of page 6 compares the present tax rate with the post-annexation tax rate. Tax District 17A (unincorporated area) has a 1987 tax rate of .0183970. If the area is annexed, it will become a part of Tax District 13B with a 1987 tax rate of .0201020, or a .0017050 rate increase. 5C.5 Water The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department currently provides water service to the proposed annexation area. 5C.6 Sewer The Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary District Number 1 currently provides sewer service to the proposed annexation area. 5C.7 Fire Protection The annexation area is within the service area of the Salt Lake City Fire Department's Station Company No.3 at 1085 Simpson Avenue. The Department has sufficient equipment to provide fire protection service and emergency medical service to the annexation area. 2 5C.8 Police Presently the area receives law enforcement services from the Salt Lake County Sheriff's office. The proposed annexation area will receive law enforcement services at the same level as currently provided to other city areas with similar population, business, and transportation densities. 5C.9 Planning and Zoning The subject property is adjacent to the Sugar House Community. In the community master plan, this area is identified as a potential annexation area. The master plan recommends that land use for this area be neighborhood convenience retail commercial. The plan also recommends urban design guidelines as specific development objectives. For this area the guideline is: " improve the neighborhood convenience commercial strip along 3300 South Street with landscaped building setbacks, proper off-street parking with identified access, and improved curb, gutter and sidewalk". The proposed annexation area will be zoned to city standards concurrent with the annexation. 5C.10 Refuse and Garbage Collection and Disposal • Sa',t Take City orovides waste collection tion service to one, two, and three unit residential structures only. All others, including commercial and industrial uses, must contract privately for such service. Upon annexation, the City Public Works Department will assume responsibility for waste collection in accordance with •the above mentioned policy. Therefore, the proposed commercial development will need to contract for solid waste disposal services and there will be no impact on city garbage collection services. 3 5C.11 Streets and Highways This annexation will not include 3300 South Street right-of-way or the 1100 East Street right-of-way. However, new curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements will be required, as a part of the redevelopment process, along 93300 South Street and portions of the 1100 East Street frontage. These improvements will be required to meet the standards set by Salt Lake City's Department of Public Works. Street services will continue to be provided by the county in the same manner they are currently providing. Street maintenance, street lighting, parking enforcement, installation and maintenance of traffic signals, signs and pavement markings will continue to be provided by the county. 4 COMPARTSON OF CITY AND COUNTY TAX RATES IN TAXING JURISDICTIONS AND SERVICE DISTRICTS WITHIN STUDY AREA 5 FOR 1987 Service Departments Tax Rates County City Tax District: l7A 13B Salt Lake County .0029210 .0029210 Salt Lake City ---- .0043700 Salt Lake County Government Immunity .0000330 .0000330 Salt Lake County Bond .0005040 .0005040 Salt Lake County Flood Control .0003440 .0003440 Salt Lake County Municipal Type Service Dist. .0021000 Salt Lake City School District .0080240 Granite School District .0090400 Salt Lake County Library .0007250 ----- Salt Lake City Library .0007900 Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary District .0014690 .0014690 Salt Lake City Metropolitan Water District .0003860 Central Utah Water Conservancy .0004000 .0004000 Salt Lake City-County Health Dept. .0002520 .0002520 Hans�n Pl art2r_um 7und .0000400 .CCCJ vu South Salt Lake County Mosquito Abatement Dist. .0000320 .0000320 Tax Administration Levy .0005370 .0005370 1CTAL TAX RATE .0183970 .0201020 6 S�_'� �T' r^� a��'CiTY(GORPt °2�S1IOI CRAIG E. PETERSON o`a... DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council September 8, 1989 RE: Petition No. 400-720 submitted by Kevin Koncar WMAnbew 7 Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on Geteber--24', 1989 at 6:Y0 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-720 submitted by Kevin Koncar. The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City to rezone property located at 2613 East 2325 South Street from Residential "R-2" to a Business "B-3" classification to facilitate an existing day care facility. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has recommended approval of the zoning change. The rezoning will simplify the zoning boundary line between the LDS Church and the business center. This rezoning will also nullify a ten foot landscaped buffer variance. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: M CHAEL B. Z Acting Director Community and Economic Development lf/ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Rezoning property located at 2613 East 2325 South from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3" pursuant to Petition No. 400-720-89 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 Kevin Koncar, No . 400-720-89, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing and demographic details of the area and the Master Plan as part of its deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at 2613 East 2325 South from Residential "R-2" to Business "B-3" 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-2" is hereby rezoned Business "B-3" and the Use District Map is amended accordingly: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 17, Laurel Subdivision, as recorded with the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; said subdivision being located in the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and running thence North 23°26 ' West along the West boundary line of said Lot 17 , 60 . 96 feet; thence South 51°00' East 89 . 19 feet to the South boundary line of said Lot 17; thence North 89°45 ' 00" West along said West boundary line 45 . 07 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE AND CONDITIONS . This ordinance shall become effective 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 BRB:pp -2- • ROGER F. CUTLER SAL11' Miyirc s RP®.:v ICI 1`\� ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY RAY L. MONTGOMERY STEVEN W. ALLRED LAW DEPARTMENT GREG R. HAWKINS DE.I'TY CITY ATTORNEY CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING LARRY V. SPENDLOVE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 BRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE FRANK M. NAKAMURA SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 CITY PROSECUTOR (801) 535-7788 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS FAX (801) 535-7640 DONALD L. GEORGE CECELIA M. ESPENOZA August 7 1989 RICHARD G. HAMP g / GLEN A. COOK Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Community and Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Mr. Allen C . Johnson, AICP, Planning Director Planning Division Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Petition No . 400-720-89 Dear Craig and Allen: Pursuant to Allen Johnson' s letter of July 19 , 1989 to Craig Peterson, I have drafted an ordinance rezoning certain property pursuant to Petition No. 400-720-89 . You will note that the draft ordinance does not include the "conditions" discussed by the Planning Commission . As I am sure you are aware, "conditional zoning" is generally unacceptable under the theory of uniform zoning. In this case, the conditions sought to be imposed were imported from a preexisting variance. Unfor- tunately, while conditions are quite easy to apply in the variance or conditional use areas , they are generally inappropriate in a zoning context . Conditions precedent to zoning approval are generally acceptable but "operational" conditions which seek to regulate the use of the property beyond the zoning requirements are unacceptable. In the instant case, the conditions mentioned in Allen' s letter to Craig are effectively met anyway. Condition No . 1 is simply already in the zoning ordinance . Condition No. 2 is , at the present time, impossible to violate given the location of the building. Condition No. 3 would be impossible to verify. Condition No. 4 is probably factually not a problem and is , anyway, regulated by the sign ordinance. Mr. Craig Peterson Mr. Allen C . Johnson August 7 , 1989 Page 2 If you have any questions , please call . Sincerly, 7 , , r / BRUCE R. BAIRD Assistant City Attorney BRB:pp jL. 2tCD ' . .a ITYr 0 M•isiL ION• ( ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS IJILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SI.PERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND JRBAT DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWARALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN July 19, 1989 Mr. Craig Peterson, Director Community and Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State, Utah 84111 RE: Petition 400-720 Dear Craig: At it's regularly scheduled meeting on July 13, 1989 the Planning Commission reviewed a request from Kevin Koncar to rezone property located at 2613 East 2325 South Street from Residential "R-2" to a Business "B-3" zoning classification for the purpose of allowing an existing daycare facility. I am forwarding a copy of the staff report along with the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning CoIIIIIIission felt the rezoning would simplify the zoning boundary line concurrent with the property lines between the LDS Church and the business. In addition, granting of this rezoning request will nullify a ten foot landscape buffer variance. The Planning Commission approved this rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. That a ten foot landscape buffer be maintained from property line. 2. There is no vehicular access from Stringham Avenue to the property. 3. The employees are not required to park on the street. 4. That no signs are oriented to the north faces of the building fronting on Stringham Avenue. Respectfully, Allen . Jo on, AICP Planning Dir ctor ACJ:GRH SALT INS CITY PLANNING AND ZCNING 03vMTSSION STAFF REPORT Petition 400-720 by Kevin Koncar OVERVIEW The applicant, Kevin Koncar, is requesting Salt Lake City to rezone property located at 2613 East 2325 South Street from Residential "R-2" to a Business "B-3" zoning classification for the purpose of allowing an existing daycare facility. This 1200 square foot triangular Residential "R-2" parcel is located adjacent a LDS Church parking lot zoned Residential "R-2" to the north and a retail center zoned Business "B-3" to the south. uu +iRYu dddNos; '�'ut� 4)- SIYP�OF Ar� °O°O°0 AI A !- z ° l tA 13 r 6 �. WAY • • O°° 0. '• Cy P• \' i'\.: BR[MTWOu. .'��r'l��i�•��OOO z n m CIR =•� ��. RWa•DL•�•• , ' ♦ YN�t�•,..` . . . • ,, ;Mu AY WOOD �•l.f6a4•ha •t1► e l 1 u 1 CI KAQW000; .. . . ^ xn r Ri a cm. ! \ ��1\. BACKGROUND 1 Approximately one year ago, the retail center was built. To facilitate the development, a triangular piece of property was exchanged with the LDS Church (see map below) . The property exchange included Parcel "A" now owned by Highline X Realty Trust (zoned "R-2") , and Parcel "B" now owned by the LDS Church (zoned "B-3") . The petitioned area includes the rezoning of Parcel "A" from its current "R-2" zoning st -atus to a Business "B-3". y w T • Z i. .+ .LY 4 -CrJt S •s!' 9 1,f- ..::�`� ;*! Z T4--,- lF G:uiT = ;Peon !:-`-, 1. ,� -� t . ...,, -� = sue, C..:'\ -I•.u,, -- - —' ,�.._ -.. 1 . \ t . \.a t- \,.- �� \I ,5.�L4 '�;i __� _ Z-�. \�-----\ jr- \ ' - Existing Land Use The Business "B-3" Zoning District is contiguous to the west, south and east property line of the petitioned area and contains retail establishments, restaurants and office uses fronting Parley's Way. The Residential "R-2" and "R-2A" Zoning Districts to the north consists primarily of single family detached homes, apartments and the LDS Church fronting Stringham Avenue. Previous Board of Adjustment Case On May 11, 1987, Highline X Realty Trust received a variance to construct a retail commercial building located at 2647 Parley's Way without the required ten foot landscaped buffer in a Business "B-3" District, provided: 1. There is no vehicular access from Stringham Avenue to the property. 2. The employees are not required to park on the street. 3. That no signs are oriented to the north faces of the building fronting on Stringham Avenue. To the best of our knowledge, the developer complied with the provisions of this variance. In addition, granting of this rezoning request will nullify this ten foot landscape buffer variance. The rezoning will simply make the zoning boundary line concurrent with the new property lines between the LDS Church and the business. Master Plan Considerations The 1987 East Bench Community Master Plan identifies the need to maintain, protect, and upgrade its residential community. The master plan also recognizes the need for other neighborhood uses to serve its community if carefully designed to harmonize with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The East Bench Future Land Use Plan does support neighborhood business activity to front Parley's Way at this location. RECOMME )ATICN The planning staff feels that the requested rezoning of property located at 2613 East 2325 South Street from Residential "R-2" to a Business "B-3" zoning classification is consistent with the East Bench Community Master Plan. In addition, the granting of this rezoning request will nullify a ten foot landscape buffer variance. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. That a ten foot landscape buffer be maintained from property line. 2. There is no vehicular access from Stringham Avenue to the property. 3. The employees are not required to park on the street. 4. That no signs are oriented to the north faces of the building fronting on Stringham Avenue. Gary R. Heintz June 20, 1989 APPLICATION FOR ZONING AMENDEMENT To be filed in duplicate with the department of Development Services 324 South State Street Suite #201 Filing Fee $100.00 Advertising Fee* $100.00 (*if a public hearing is held) Application is hereby made to the Mayor and City Council of Salt Lake City i'tah, to: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance. By amending Section (Use reverse side for requested text change) Amend the Use District (Zoning) Map. Of Salt Lake City by reclassifying the following property located at: Ztv(3 E. Z3Zs :o • ZC<-( s PAuys GOAN/ from a - Z classification to a B-3 classification (Use reverse side for legal description) ATTACH 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. Sidw•ell Parcel Identification Number. THE ABOVE INFORMATICN, IN DETAIL, MUST AC ANY THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER FOR THE PE.TTI'rIONT TO HE PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING ING�7 IISSION. cur Signature of the applicant krL ��-, Address ?)' 49 5r P - I -C , Telephone Number 7? 3 -7,jC{Cq Zip Code OA �( FILL OUT REVERSE SIDE Attach all exhibits and supporting data to application. Petition No. 1jOO- '7a O Date 4///cii/6 Receipt No. (6-,3036,�L� Amount $ /( 2 ) ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION 1 . The parcel is approximately 1Z0o square feet and lies in between a retail/office complex and an LDS Ward parking lot . The parcel is adjacent to commercial property on the west, and the parking lot on the east , with a retaining wall and six foot fence separating the parcel from the parking lot. 2 . Approximately one year ago, the retail center was built. To facilitate the development, a triangular piece of property was exchanged with the LDS Church. The piece that Highline X received in the exchange is zoned R-Z, and the piece the Church received is zoned B 3 . Now, one of the tenants in the development is a daycare center which requires the use of the landscaped area behind the building. The current zoning does not allow the children to play in the triangular area. 3 . The property shall be used for an area that the tenants (primarily the daycare center) of the development can use. The area is landscaped and is well maintained. The fence that separates the parcel from the parking lot contains slats so there is a visual barrier between the properties. 4 . The affected parcel is a part of a larger parcel that is currently zoned B 3 . The change in zoning has no effect on the abutting properties. Currently, the children can walk out of a door, and walk approximately 30 feet to the area that is now zoned B-3 . This change in zoning promotes the effective use of the property and has no impact on the abutting property. 5 . Attached are copies of executed amendments to restrictive covenants of Laurel Subdivision, of which the property is a part. The LDS Church and other owners within the subdivision consented to the use or uses which were not permitted in the originial restrictive covenants . In addition, the LDS Church exchanged property with Highline X, so that Highline could construct a shopping center on the property. CRAIG E. PETERSON ' , `' •� 11 CI Wi(GORPOI,ONJ.. I 'e.a w� �.c:.-.a v.cr�....:.-� DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 218 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE 535-7777 To: Salt Lake City Council September 12, 1989 Re: Petition No. 400-719-89 submitted by Lester Johnson Nove+-wb4 7 Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on October 24, 1989 at 6:50 p.m. to discuss Petition No. 400-719-89 submitted by Lester Johnson. The petitioner is requesting to amend the Bambrough Place P.U.D. Subdivision to allow the location of one of the six duplex buildings to be located five feet nearer the private street that originally approved in 1988. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The petitioner has indicated difficulty in constructing the offset roof line while building the sister building in the first phase of construction. The change would eliminate the 5 foot jog in the duplex dwelling which would simplifying the roof line construction. It will also add about 50 square feet of living space in both units of the duplex. The Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of this petition. The petition also has consent of 100% of the owners of the units in the project. Legislative Documents: The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved the necessary ordinance and is ready for your action. Submitted by: ,2/,, I MICHAEL B. Z Acting Director Community and Economic Development SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending the Bambrough Place PUD Subdivision pursuant to Petition No. 400-719-89 ) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT OF THE BAMBROUGH PLACE PUD SUBDIVISION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 57-5-8 , UTAH CODE ANNOTATED PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-719-89 . WHEREAS, Petition No . 400-719-89 was filed with the City by Lester A. Johnson requesting the City to allow the amendment of the Bambrough Place PUD Subdivision to allow the location of one building in the six building project to be located 5 feet near the private street than was originally approved; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent of the owners of the property with in the subdivision have consented to the amendment; and WHEREAS, good cause exists for the amendment of the plat and no person will be materially injured by the proposed amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . The City hereby approves the proposed amendment to the Bambrough Place PUD Subdivision moving one of the buildings 5 feet closer to the private street than in the original plat . The Planning Director is authorized to grant final plat approval subject to compliance with applicable City ordinances . SECTION 2 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication . Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER BRB:cc S .� ' !\ 41 GWGRP ° �ION1 ALLEN C. JOHNSON, AICP PLANNING AND ZONING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS. WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN DESIGN THOMAS A. ELLISON SANDRA MARLER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET . LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SECRETARY ROOM 406, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RICHARD J. HOWA RALPH P. NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M. SCHUMANN August 28, 1989 Craig E. Peterson, Director CoIIIH!unity and Economic Development City and County Building 451 So. State St. Salt Lake City, Ut 84111 RE: Petition 400-719, by Lester A. Johnson request Salt Lake City to amend the Bambrough Place P.U.D. Subdivision. Dear Craig, Transmitted herewith, please find petition 400-719 of 89 by Lester A. Johnson, requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Bambrough Place P.U.D. Subdivision, to allow the location of one building, in the six building project, to be located five feet nearer the private street than when originally approved in 1988. The petitioner has indicated difficulty in constructing the off-set roof line while building the sister building in the first phase of construction. The requested change would eliminate the 5 foot jog in the duplex dwelling building, simplifying the roof line construction. The requested change would also add about 50 square feet of living space in both units of the duplex, to dining room. This petition to change the subdivision plat as to the location and shape of this one building, was considered and approved by the (3oard of Adjustment at its meeting May 22, 1989 and by the Planning Commission at its meeting May 11, 1989, both bodies recommending approval of the petition to the City Council. • The petition to amend, and the resulting Amended P.U.D. Subdivision plat have the support and consent of 100% of the owners of the units in the project. The City Council needs to schedule this petition for a public hearing to consider the matter. Crain T . Peterson August 28,1989 Page Two The staff report and minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commissions meetings are attached. Planning staff member Doug Wheelwright will be available for City Council briefing as may be requested. Respect lly Submitted, Allen C.,; Jo nso , A.I.C.P. Planning Direc r SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING CCMMISSICN STAFF a 1V41 PETITION 400-719 BY LESTER A JOHNSCN Requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Bambrough Place PUD Subdivision and Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval for the amended Bambrough Place PUD Subdivision. OVERVIEW This is a request by the owner/developer of the Bambrough Place PUD Subdivision to amend the Subdivision Plat relative to the size and location of two of the eight units in the project. BACKGROUND This project was approved by the Board of Adjustment as Case No. 254-B on August 4, 1986, for four units lacking frontage on 1700 South Strcct. After construction began, the owner/developer decided to subdivide the project so he could sell the individual units. When the subdivision was presented to the Planning Commission about 1987, the Commission expressed concern over this project being a de-facto Planned Unit Development in an R-2 Zone. However, the Subdivision was approved because the project was under construction based upon the Board of Adjustment approval. The Subdivision was registered with the County Recorder on May 6, 1988. ANALYSIS The petitioner has requested the Subdivision amendment based upon two factors. 1. There are two duplex units and four single family units in the eight unit project During construction of he first duplex, the builder had difficulty in constructing the roof due to the five foot jog in the building alignment along the common wall. He wishes to eliminate the jog in alignment to simplify the roof lire construction in the second duplex which has not yet been built. This causes a change in the front setback from the private street (decreasing it by five feet for one-half of the building) , and an increase in the rear yard setback along the west boundary of the project of five feet (for one- half of the building) . 2. The change also adds 50 square feet of living space to the dining rooms of each unit. Mr. Johnson owns five of the units in the project. The owners of the other three units have signed a consent to amend the plat. This amounts to 100 percent of the owners within the Subdivision Plat petitioning for the change. • RECCVVENDATICNS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Petition 400-719 of 1989 be the subject of a Public Hearing as required by law and pending the favorable outcome, recommends approval to amend the Subdivision. The Staff further recommends that the Planning Coirunission grant preliminary Subdivision Approval to the amended plat and authorize the Planning Director to grant final plat approval subject to compliance with City Ordinances and approval of the amendment petition by the City Council. Douglas L. Whcclwright May 3, 1989 . . , • . .. , ' . . . • . .. 1\i. • 1700 S am S.-kli-z-J- .m /— • • l7ae • ,9c..r:• 2.4. I :• 1.,6 C _' '''' r, r /ten/f„� ' o• `", 1 / , . I -= - •r:/' , / C,,I ,t ..<___� . 1- Ls1 [i/4.�� •_ 8 " , /1':; 'o 'u�•l.rc ' T ':' . /f /' 1'I I ' N •� f / eL.o >e _c • r I r '�—'• Y T,•. •I Ia y;^,t\r\\f... '$0.0'�, `\ \\\ ...�9 0r • •�t ex,o 7 i'^ -,+i .J 17 c 7 ,'.+I . ♦7 ' 'u\ \\\\\ \\\\' N.a' I': -fts \„ie U \`1. .a - t, N \\\~,•\i �.,,. _-\ f—i^'-I r�6.. --•\ ,7• •.\ .\ :M •o t,,.,.• - ' \ • . \ \\•\`'\ ` -r„14^;. ,';i' \ \ \ \ o.* r.•..m u.,, , .---„, ,,,,„:„. ...,.\\,......,-,...:,::,.:::....,..,. ,„ ,...;.:,...„..„...,..,....: Lic",_, .4.....,...__,/,\,...,.... ....: ...„ ...s.....,,....:.\\ , •,.. • .,. .._„... 0., ,1„.,.:., t _.• .. ......„. . .., • ... ...„..........„_..-..,.,-„........ , . - (.,......,,.... ..,....,.......,......., -,..,, s. ‘,.,..-,....., ...„..„. .. 107 rInti, to .. am. '� • l.1'. I� 1: > 37.0 -:'e 'IN �.... n 1, aN ...tt•if'v a.T 44,•.• • 1/i''/.`r tom �j •'17. +s••�I� • w///, !/` ' ram/ �J ��s� .. ,^_„. .Q II1` 1V.'I// ./,/'///' '' ,�/,. rr IS.Z I E • s %// I�k 7.t I�7, ri jfi- !/, ..,!•w y,,_ r -M¢'a' C'1� //' / .wirl,1:4 /ice r-. - // ,' r� I R.. mrr r / • / !ty� 1��\.', sets' .`:��..y{I''. r• N..r'J of v,. 2:0o a r,II IfA• 1�1 j ��jz'z' .•,.I-li r.:' I \J 1.-• .., / • I/�/. r:-. •,• . iJ.lei .yyll j, ` ,fna T1^�1 Il ,I i 2,.. ray=J^r-•w f� II .' , ( r ', a • '` 'Y s t', r ' II• .1. ..' 04.0' •��^,�i�e•.. ,'�.v.�/ /'< •< . :"' � • .e'.- /0J1'6 - a: , e ir•\ ,i-. .. " , . ., \\ � ,Jc4J7 ' t,,t rrA:s .- \ , ;.a ` ' 7. • .r� l f • t ni'1\\\ \ \1.,\ . ♦1 .^ 47 \.- {- 'dam--'-�'�-, ` ( ' S\ 1; yl �,1:� • Ir ..w l \\\ ;, \\ . .•\\ \Ill i\\ ` \ ' ` s: a.1,=. -t•1 1\!� \ . \ .\ .'I �.\ _ - . .I\ I. .co:\ `, \ \ \ � _ • - � \ \ ��,_i4\ t I 1a\. .0 ---r.- �-�- r.-,.-�,—�IIS� • t .„I:2 , \ _ , ' 1L L. 1... 2.x2 _. . ... 1..1a.1<(,:)...L) N o5•S2',.J 2G1,•)I•A.4v.: -'I i.=1_-L A f a c tTC_.D.I t•u o I r ." -_..1 ^ ,-r.y. .,, ----.-'S"' •.•.•�• ..w.. ,..a.- .L r..+.w.. ... �..,.. , .+�., +w.Ywul,• _I A 7JIt:'1_1 1 r•.;;,' c..- or• v u MOT.MI •' 1` • ••I:1•...�..• -.. ..b_I rl••I1...-..I d••....e(+.vii;nr...�.I�IaR..rh rr....hr I •!1+ ..-t-:ve•_ ruvr�Y wni n:.Y. K.>1�t/.,',�.•t—� rlu....la..o.n........:,... lo..1,aisle. 1..<Lr.... ....<r Kt.,•....o. ...m.•I.nsl 1,1r.I..•.u.l.tr.ti ',.rr 1...v.1.1 b m:,w .la r....11l 41.. • ../L.. •-- ...rawly vla.:al 3ut•11r.>1.1e In./wr r.1.ti...I.r., :1v .,.tn tY u114 IY!•.ts 3 l J:1_•Ln- .+•.,l — ^ - = 3 ALLEN C. JOHNSON MEMBERS. PLANNING CIRECTOR NANCY K. PACE. CHAIRWAN BRENT B WILDE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROBERT LEWIS DOROTHY PLESHE ZONING AD Board• of Adjustment on Zoning PETER VAN ALSTYNE GEORGINA DuFOUR 324 SOUTH STATE STREET. ROOM 200 I. J. WAGNER SECRETARY �- SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 ALTERNATES 535-7757 FAUN 0 HANSEN W. KENT MONEY June 2, 1989 Mr. Les Johnson 2132 East 1700 South Salt Lake City, Ut 84108 Dear Mr. Johnson: On May 22, 1989 the Board of Adjustment considered your request to modify a variance granted on Case No. 254-B. The Board did grant a modification to said variance allowing you to modify the lot boudaries so that a different shaped building can be constructed on the property, as per the plan presented by you, which changes the subdivision boundary around the building. This will require filing a new plat. Sincerely, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Geor ina DuFour Secretary d u4 Enclosure • PC MINUTES May 11, 1989 Page 11 neighborhood who are opposed to the granting of this petition. The signatories of these petitions are opposed to this petition due to the elementary school; the crime and prostitution in the area, the close proximity of the liquor store, the clientele attracted to the plasma center in the neighborhood and the existence of a similar type of drug rehabilitation center in the same neighborhood. Those petitions are filed with the minutes. Mr. Pettigrew also mentioned that most of the property owners in the neighborhood were not notified of the Planning Commission noting on this matter. Mr. Wright informed Mr. Pettigrew that this was not a hearing and the Planning Commission was not required to give notice of the mooting to the property owners in the area. Mr. Wright added that the Planning Commission would only be making a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment who would then hold a public hearing which would be published in the paper and notices sent to abutting property owners. Mr. Pettigrew stated that the drug use, crime and prostitution in this neighborhood do not make it conducive to the environment the petitioner is seeking. Mr. Pettigrew said that just because the transition house has good management today does not mean it would have good management tomorrow. Mr. Neilson stated that it sounded like the petitioner should be more concerned about the neighborhood than the neighborhood being concerned about the petitioner's request. Mr. Peter Gallegos, principal of Jackson Elementary stated that they are opposed to this petition being granted and requested the Planning Commission submit a recommendation for denial. Mr. Remington stated that they would not be rehabilitating criminals, but rather people who were recovering from substance abuse. He added that these people would be part of the neighborhood, helping to get it cleaned up as well as fixing up the house they would be residing in. Mr. Remington stated that good management today certainly did not guarantee good management tomorrow but good management could be preserved through the bylaws and regulations of the transition house. Q Mr. Nicolatus asked Mr. Pettigrew if the neighborhood had done anything to try and clean up the area. Mr. Pettigrew responded in the affirmative but added that they felt they had not received the support they should have received from the city. Ms. Liddle-Camonal moved to approve staff's recomendation to recommend approval of this petition to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Howa seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. SUBDNISIC1 S Petition No. 400-719 - Lester H. Johnson requesting Salt Lake City to amend the Bambrough Place Subdivision. Mr. Doug Wheelwright presented the staff report stating that this is a request by the owner/develoner of the Bambrough Place PUD Subdivision to amend the PC MINUTES May 11, 1989 Pace 12 Subdivision Plat relative to the size and location of two of the eight units in the project. Mr. Wheelwright stated that this project was approved by the Board of Adjustment as Case No. 254-B on August 4, 1986, for four units lacking frontage on 1700 South Street. After construction began, the owner/developer decided to subdivide the project so he could sell the individual units. When the subdivision was presented to the Planning Commission about 1987, the Commission expressed concern over this project being a de-facto Planned Unit Development in an R-2 Zone. However, the Subdivision was approved because the project was under construction based upon the Board of Adjustment approval. The Subdivision was registered with the County Recorder on May 6, 1988. The petitioner has requested the Subdivision amendment based upon two factors. 1. There are two duplex units and four single family units in the eight unit project. During construction of the first duplex, the builder had difficulty in constructing the roof due to the five foot jog in the building alignment along the cannon wall. He wishes to eliminate the jog in alignment to simplify the roof line construction in the second duplex which has not yet boon built. This causes a chance in the front setback from the private street (decreasing it by five feet for one-half of the building) , and an increase in the rear yard setback along the west boundary of the project of five feet (for one- half of the building) . 2. The change also adds 50 square foot of living space to the dining rooms of each unit. Mr. Lester H. Johnson owns five of the units in the project. The owners of the other three units have signed a consent to amend the plat. This amounts to 100 percent of the owners within the Subdivision Plat petitioning for the change. Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Petition 400-719 of 1989 be the subject of a, Public Hearing as required by law and pending the favorable outcome, recommends approval to amend the Subdivision. The Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission grant preliminary Subdivision Approval to the amended plat and authorize the Planning Director to grant final plat approval subject to compliance with City Ordinances and approval of the amendment petition by the City Council. Ms. Cromer moved to approve staff's recommendations on Petition No. 400-719 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Liddle-Camonal seconded the motion; all voted "Aye" with the exception of Mr. Neilson who abstained from the vote. The motion passes. • Lester H. Johnson 1731 Bambrough Place Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (801) 583-8195 March 30, 1989 The Honorable Palmer De.Pauliis Mayor Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Mayor DePaulis: As owner and developer of Bambrough Place sub-division I respectfully petition for an amendment to said sub-division. Bambrough Place is located at approximately 2132 East 1700 South. It consists of eight residences—six of which are sold. Four are now occupied and two are in the finishing stages—estimated completion is about May 15, 1989. Upon completing the six, the occupying residents have suggested that the foundation of the dining room bay be extended on the remaining two. The dining room bay areas now extend over the window wells, making them impractical. The floor plan would remain the same except for the dining room extension, increasing the square footage by approximately 50 square feet. Also, consideration has been given to aligning the proposed twin-house with the adjacent house, which would be more appealing as seen from the private street serving Bambrough Place. Thank you, Les ter�Johnson Y�J DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUH STATE STREET, SUITE 404 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 October 5 , 1989 TO: Willie Stoler, Chairperson Salt Lake City Council RE: Compeq International industrial revenue bonds Attached is a letter from Mr. Richard Fox, bond counsel for Compeq International, with a project status report and an explanation for requesting a public hearing to facilitate the extension of the State bond quota allocation for the project. While the amount of the tax exempt bond issue will be reduced, it is encouraging to note that the scope of the project has increased substantially since it was first presented. To accommodate project time and funding needs, I would appreciate your consideration of this request that on October 10 the City Council set a public hearing for November 7 , 1989 for the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds for Compeq International in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1, 000, 000 . Thank you. Sincerely, 1 ) Rosemary Davis, Director „^q RR/RB 7/1�1 LAW OFFICES BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL zor� FLOOR 30 SOUTH 17T1 STREET !INCLUDING THE PUBLIC FINANCE PRACTICE OF THE FORMER FIRM OF PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 FOX,EDWARDS,GARDINER 6 BROWN) ji)J ONE WESTLAKES AMERICAN PLAZA II, SUITE 400 235 WESTLAKES DRIVE BERWYN. PA 19312 57 WEST 200 SOUTH SUITE 2300 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 1225 I7rH STREET DENVER,CO 80202 801 359-1800 SUITE 900 EAST • TELECOPIER:801 521-5364 555 13,1 STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON,D.C. 20004 RICHARD S. FOX October 5 , 5989 Mr. Robert Buchanan Grants Officer Capital Planning Division City and County Building Suite 406 451 South State Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Bob: As mentioned in our recent telephone conversation, we have requested a second public hearing for the Compeq International Revenue Bond issue . The capital expenditure budget for the Compeq project at the Salt Lake International Center has more than doubled as management has selected the very best equipment and pollution abatement facilities . The plant, we are assured, will be state of the art with equipment that is second to none . The small issue exemption from federal income tax offers two alternatives . If the bond proceeds do not exceed $1 , 000 , 000 , then capital expenditures financed from all other sources can be unlimited. If the bonds exceed $1 , 000 , 000 then aggregate capital expenditures financed from all sources over a six-year period cannot exceed $10 , 000 , 000 . Initially it was hoped that all the equipment could be leased making it unnecessary to include that category of assets in the capital expenditure budget. The federal restrictions became unduly burdensome when it appeared that the assets being leased would cost more than twice what the assets being purchased • would cost. Under these circumstances , Compeq has elected to stay within $1 , 000 , 000 of bonds issued. It will then utilize taxable conventional financing for the remainder of the capital expenditure budget. In order to be in a position for issuance of the bonds prior to the expiration of the quota allocation , we respectfully ask Mr. Robert Buchanan October 5 , 1989 Page 2 that you request a hearing date of November 7 , 1989 . This will allow us more than 15 days after the publication date of a proposed Notice of Second Hearing, a copy of which is enclosed. Your cooperation in obtaining a hearing date from the City Council will be appreciated. Your support in the past has been most helpful . Very ,truly yours , RICHARD S . FOX RSF/ka / Enclosure / cc : C. Y. Chen Timothy Bridgewater Roger Cutler Katherine Marshall Buzz Hunt Cindy Gust-Jensen Rick Burtenshaw L131909 BD11858 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY NOTICE OF SECOND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, November 7 , 1989 at 6: 00 p.m. , or as soon thereafter as the matter can be considered, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah ( the " Issuer" ) will hold a second public hearing in the City and County Building, 3rd Floor Council Chambers, at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed issuance by the Issuer of its industrial development revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1 , 000,000 (the "Bonds" ) . The Bonds are to be issued pursuant to the Utah Industrial Facilities and Development Act, Chapter 17, Title 11 , Utah Code Annotated 1953 , as amended (the "Act" ) . The Bonds will finance a portion of the cost of the acquisition of equipment for a manufacturing facility which will produce printed circuit boards and electronic products. The facility will be located on approximately fifteen acres within the Issuer' s city limits in the Salt Lake International Center on Lot 1 , Plat 16 on Harold Gatty Drive . The manufacturing plant will contain approximately 140,000 square feet and will be owned and operated by Compeq International Co. , Ltd. , a Utah corporation, or an affiliated company. On May 9 , 1989 a public hearing was held in connection with this project. This second hearing is required because of a reduction in the amount of the issuance of the proposed Bonds from not to exceed $9 , 300, 000 to $1 , 000, 000 . The proposed Bonds will not constitute general obligations of the Issuer. The Issuer will not be obligated to pay costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds nor will it be liable to make payments of the interest or principal on the Bonds (other than as provided in the Act) . This public hearing is required by Section 147( f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Comments at the public hearing are invited. Written comments may be submitted to the Issuer at the office of the Salt Lake City Recorder, located at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah until 5 : 00 p.m. on November 7 , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY /s/ Kathryn Marshall City Recorder Published , 1989 .