Loading...
10/12/1989 - Minutes PROCIRINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , 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 PROC•INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIl, 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 PROCIRINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , 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 PROCMINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CI , 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 PROC,INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CIA, 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 PROCEIIINGS 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 CM, UTAH THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989 c 0 ii CO CIL CHAIR I Y RE D R 89-300 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CI'I'Y COUNCIL COMMITTEE ROOM AND COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROOM & 315 CITY AND COUNTY BUILI).TNG I TN—S PATE-ST Thursday, October 12, 1989 5:00 p.m. A. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Budget. Cron i ng 5:00 p. m. Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting an ordinance regarding appropriating funds for the parking facility for the Employment Security Building. (B 89-5) Staff recommendation: Close hearing and adopt. 2. Legislative Action - Council Member Alan Hardman 7: 20 p. m. Obtain public comment concerning and consider adopting an ordinance regarding the appointment procedures to the Historical Landmark Committee. (0 89-7) Staff recommendation: None. B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 1. North Temple Interchange Consider adopting a motion expressing the Councils position regarding the North Temple Interchange. (G 88-6) Staff recommendation: Discuss and adopt. C. ADJOURNMENT. ** FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA. DATED: BY: CI Y 1 STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. On the Ilth day of October, 1989, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt. Lake City, Utah: I , At. 5: 00 p.m. in the City Recorder 's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p. in the Newsroom, Room 343. Avi,/,/ 1°)i)d. 42d1.Z--• C. TY °F.00'ill Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of October, 1989. / •--r" ! Nolr)yIf A/S_ 6ii- ;1244/U4V ublic residing in the - ---- - State of Utah My Commission expires: - -i MotlyPubric LYNDA DOMINO I -- i--- -----Car&Gc 8411ua*Building _ I 1 r7%.ar-7,: i'. salt Lae City,.11tah 1 i ‘ .; 04,410, commismcn&Ores I - ' .? May 1,1993 I I - ' State of Utah _I APPROVAL: 0 7. . L '‘- • 3WC4--) EXECUT ' DIRECTOR S` _l "— SAW RAKE LTV(G. OR ION OFFICE OF. THE. C CITY;_CO(JN CIL „SUITE 3oo.:c TY'HALL 324 SOUTH STATE STREET s 3 SA LT,LAKE 7CIT,Y:,U TAH;:841�1 i- 535 CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND RDA BUSINESS OCTOBER 12, 1989 The official agendas for the Council, the Committee of the Whole and the RDA meetings have been posted. Following is a tentative outline of the time schedule for the meetings. All times listed are approximate. 5:00 Convene in Committee of the Whole and interview Mike Martin for CBID. 5: 10 Convene as the RDA and do the bid opening, then recess but don't adjourn. 5: 20 Convene officially as the Council for the Budget Opening, and then recess, but don't. adjourn. 5: 25 Convene as the RDA to finish all business on the agenda and then adjourn. 7:00 Break for Dinner 7: 20 Convene as the Council and conclude the Historic Landmarks public hearing and conduct the North Temple Interchange business item. 7: 50 Convene as the Committee of the Whole to conduct discussion of Legislative Action Items, and receive a report, on the plans for the upcoming Legislative session. STAFF RECOMMENDATION BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3 OCTOBER 10, 1989 STAFF RECOMMMENDATION: LEE KING ACTION OF COUNCIL:_ Amend Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 36 of 1989 adopting the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City Council will hold a public hearing on October 12, 1989 to receive comments pertaining to budget amendment number 3 for the fiscal year 1989-90 operating budget. The primary purpose of this amendment will be to appropriate funds for construction of a parking facility associated with the new Employment Security Building on Block 53. STAFF ANALYSIS: When Salt Lake City received the STT UDAG settlement from the Federal government the funds were placed in a grants fund account with the intent to fund the parking structure for the State Employment Security Building on Block 53. To complete the contract with State, the $2,500,000 in STT UDAG account needs to be appropriated to a new Parking Facility Fund account. Additionally, the Administration is requesting that the Council take action on three other projects. They are: ( 1 ) appropriate $109, 500 received from Salt Lake County to fund the New Women's Shelter project; ( 2) appropriate $5,500 in private donations from the Salt Lake City Art's Council to offset cost overruns in the rehabilitation of the Art Barn; (3) appropriate $18,000 received from UDOT for the Redwood Road-Safer Sidewalk project. RECOHNIENDED ACTION: Approve Budget Amendment No. 3 as proposed. RECOMENDED MOTIONS: I move that we close the public hearing. I move that we amend Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 36 of 1989 adopting the budget of Salt Lake City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990, as proposed. ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: NONE • `2. " �' (air , M D •tINW .FIDEPARTMENT,-OF,FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET„ROOM 228 LINDA HAMILTON SALT•LAKE CITY. UTAH 841e1,1 • PALMER DEPAULIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE - - MAYOR 7: -(8O 1)5357676 October 3, 1989 TO: W. M. "Willie" Stoler Chairman, Salt Lake City Council RE: SEa' DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - OCIOBER 12, 1989 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 3 I request that the City Council set a date for a Budget Amendment Public Herring during their October 5 meeting. I request that the hearing to amend the Fiscal YPar 1989-90 Budget be set for Octohhr 12, 1989. The primary purpose of the amendment will be to appropriate funds for construction of a parking facility associated with the new Employment Security Building on Block 53. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Linda Hamilton Director of Finance GRANT OPERATING FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 Amended Budget 10/12/89 Budget 1989-90 Amendments 1989-90 Resources State Grant $63,772 S - S63,772 UDAG Grant Repayments 423,719 - 423,719 Utah Transit Authority 5,000 - 5,000 Redevelopment Agency of SLC 15,000 - 15,000 Federal Grant 221,000 - 221,000 STT UDAG Settlement account - 2,500,000 2.500,000 Salt Lake County - 109,500 109,500 Prior year grant balances 647,442 - 647,442 Total Resources $1,375,933 52,609,500 $3,985,433 Uses Emergency Medical Services $63,772 S - $63,772 UDAG Revolving Loan Program 423,719 - 423,719 Downtown Parking Study 20,000 - 20,000 1989-90 Renter Rehab. Program 221,000 - 221,000 1988-89 Renter Rehab. Program 295,000 - 295,000 1987-88 Renter Rehab. Program 165,223 - 165,223 McKinney Shelter Project 62,000 - 62,000 Urban Homestead Program 125,000 - 125,000 Homeless Mentally Ill Study 219 - 219 Employment Security Parking - 2.500,000 2,500,000 New Women's Shelter - 109,500 109,500 Total Uses $1,375,933 82.609,500 $3,985,433 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FY 1989-90 Amended Budget Carryover 10/12/89 Budget 1989-90 Budget Amendments 1988-89 Resources Transfer from General Fund $4,980,000 $ - $ - $4,980,000 CDBG 1,607,150 - - 1,607,150 Salt Lake County 1,089,635 - - 1,089,635 Class 'C' Road Fund 1,250,000 - - 1,250,000 Redevelopment Agency of SLC 1,681,000 - - 1,681,000 Bond Proceeds 1,850,000 - - 1,850,000 Property Owners 2,435,000 - - 2,435.000 Charges for Services 203,500 - - 203,500 State of Utah 4,256 - - 4,256 Private danations - - 5,500 5,500 Carryover Funds 12,122,923 18,000 - 12,140,923 Total Resources $27,223,464 $18,000 5,500 $27,246.964 Projects Street Improvements: Sidewalk SID 210,000 - - 210,000 Local Street SID 990,000 - - 990,000 400 South to 500 South 1,000,000 - - 1.000,000 California Avenue 1,250,000 - - 1.250,000 Central Bus. Dist. Beaut 1,620,000 - - 1,620,000 Traffic Safety Management 60,000 - - 60,000 Street Light Replacement 135,000 - - 135,000 100% Sidewalk Replacement 200,000 - - 200,000 Argyle/Edmonds 85,000 - - 85,000 Euclid 60,000 - - 60,000 500 South-700/900 East 480,000 - - 480,000 Median Island Design 25,000 - - 25,000 Central City 5,000 - - 5,000 East Central 58,000 - - 58,000 Sugarhouse 35,000 - - 35,000 Future Street Redesign 15,000 - - 15,000 400 West Streets 40,000 - - 40,000 Main Street Curb & Gutter 20,000 - - 20,000 Total Street Improvements 6,288,000 - 0 6,288,000 Drainage Improvements: State Street 401,000 - - 401,000 Main Street 424,000 - - 424,000 South Temple-'M'/'O' Streets 250,000 - - 250,000 500 West-250/530 North 9,000 - - 9,000 Total Drainage Improvements 1,084,000 - 0 1,084,000 Parks and Public Facilities: Canterbury Apartments 60,000 - - 60,000 City and County Building 3,366,500 - - 3,366,500 Miscellaneous Facilities Repair 150,000 - - 150,000 Earthquake Hazard Imp 100,000 - - 100,000 Sunnyside Recreation Center 1,850,000 - - 1,850,000 Tracy Aviary 150,000 - - 150,000 Fire Station #10 Construction 305,000 - - 305,000 Park Facilities Fund 143,500 - - 143,500 Jordan Park Irrigation/Walk 95.000 - - 95,000 Athletic Park-Phase II 50,000 - - 50.000 Poplar Grove Park Irrigation 73,000 - - - 73,000 Farimont Pk. Improve. Design 10,000 - - 10,000 Urban Forestry Planting 50,000 - - 50,000 Marmalade Hill Center Rehab. 47,000 - - 47,000 Glendale Youth Center Design 25,000 - - 25,000 city/County Landfill 450.000 - - 450,000 Art Barn - - 5,500 5,500 Total Parks and Pub. Fac. 6,925,000 - 5,500 6,930,500 % for Art 16,400 - - 16,400 Contingency 782,885 - - 782,885 Slippage 4,256 - - 4,256 Carryover Projects 12,122,923 18,000 - 12,140,923 Total Projects $27,223,464 $18,000 $5,500 $27,246,964 gar r it fir rC..�:. 4., 1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROSEMARY DAVIS Capital Planning and Programming DIRECTOR CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUR STATE STREET, SUITE 404 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7902 September 28, 1989 TO: Steve Fawcett Budget Manager RE: OCTOBER 12, 1989 BUDGET REVISION Recommendation: That you review, verify and approve the following adjustments to the appropriate funds: FY 1989-90 Current Recommended Project Budget Budget Change Source Parking Facility -0- $2,500 ,000 $2,500,000 STT UDAG Fund Account (New Project) FY 1989-90 Grants New Women's -0- $109,500 $109,500 SL County Shelter/County (New Project) FY 1989-90 CIP Art Barn Res . -0- $5,500 $5,500 Private Pvt.Cont. Contribution PRIOR YEAR CIP/GF 700 No. $6 ,752 $24 , 752 $18,000 UDOT Redwood Rd. (83-88056 ) 1989-90 STT UDAG Account Discussion: The funding the City received from the STT UDAG Settlement has been deposited in a Grants Fund but has not been budgeted. The City is currently negotiating a contract with both the State and the Block 53 Developer's to allow the city to construct a Parking Facility to support the new State Office Building. The funds are now being budgeted in order to allow the City to enter into a contract obligating the money. FY 1989-90 Grants We are asking this budget to be appropriated in order to receive the County' s contribution to the new Women' s Shelter project. FY 1989-90 CIP The city has received $5 ,500 in private donations, from the Salt Lake City Art's Council to offset cost overruns in the rehabilitation of the Art Barn. We request this money be recognized by the CDBG/CIP fund to allow expenditure for the Art Barn project. PRIOR YEAR CIP/GF FY 1988-89 The City has received an allocation from UDOT in the amount of $18, 000 for the Redwood Road-Safer Sidewalk project. This budget revision will recognize these additional funds, allowing their expenditure. Sincerely, Rosemary Davis Director 1 (y )// JR/Sh cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis Mike Zuhl Emily Charles Linda Hamilton Scott Bond Steven Allred Larry Failner Frank Nakamura Bruce Baird Elwin Heilman Joel Harrison Nancy Boskoff Joe Reno File SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. OF 1989 (Amending the Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 36 OF 1989 ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1989 AND ENDING JUNE 30 , 1990 . PREAMBLE On June 13, 1989 , the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council" ) adopted the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990 , in accordance with the requirements of Section 118 , Chapter 6, Title 10 , of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Director of Finance, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public . The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on October 12, 1989 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget was held on October 12 , 1989 in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council . All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . Purpose . The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah as adopted by Salt Lake City Ordinance 36 of 1989 . SECTION 2 . Adoption of Amendments . The budget amendments attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30 , 1990, in accordance with requirements of Section 128 , Chapter 6 , Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3 . Certification to Utah State Auditor . The Director of the City' s Finance Department, acting as the City' s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4 . Filing of Copies of the Budget Amendments . The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5 . Effective Date . This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. -2- • Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,- this day of , 1989 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1989 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER FMN:cc (SEAL) Bill No . of 1989 APPROVED AS TO FORM Published Salt Lake City tits ;Ottica Date r - J, By _ ��7//gosA-- -3- .al srJ e SALT'IME,0GIY(6,11LPPO I.OI OFFICE OF:THE:CITY COUNCIL SUITE 3OO,:CITY.HALL 3.24 SOUTH STATE STREET ; 'SALT-LAKE CITX:..UTAH,84T7i— 535-76OO October 11, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS ��� FROM: CINDY GUST-JEN.SON C J►`" RE: HIS"TORICAL LANDMARKS ORDINANCE Inadvertently, the titles of the two proposed Historical Landmarks Ordinances were switched. The ordinance entitled "Planning Commission Version" is, in fact, Alan Hardmnan's version and the ordinance entitled "Alan's Version" is the Planning Commission's version. We apologize for the error. Attached are both versions of the ordinance with the correct. titles. If you should need further clarification, let us know. cc: Mayor 's Office, Planning Commission, Attorney's Office, Recorder's Office, Press 21.74.010 (-+- or other activity in the city, and so that such designated representatives)shall both serve as ex- `:0 districts and sites will be preserved for the use, officio members without vote.(Amended during observation, education, pleasure and general 1/88 supplement; prior code § 51-32-5(1)) welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City. (Prior code § 51-32-1) 21.74.040 Historical landmark committee— Organization. 21.74.020 Structure defined. A. The committee may elect from its mem- For the purpose of this chapter, "structure" bership a chairman, a vice-chairman and a means and includes all buildings, walls, fences, secretary who shall serve for a term of one year signs, utility fixtures, steps or appurtenant ele- each and who shall be eligible for reelection.The ments thereof. (Prior code § 51-32-10) chairman shall preside over the committee and shall have the right to vote. In the absence or disability of the chairman, the vice-chairman 21.74.030 Historical landmark committee— shall perform the duties of the chairman. Creation—Membership. B. A majority of the voting members of the A. The city council may establish and/.or ter- committee shall constitute a quorum and com- minute an historical landmark committee, mittee action shall require approval by at least a - hereinafter "committee," which may advise majority of the voting members at a meeting at planning in matters pertaining to historic dis- which a quorum is present. tricts and landmark sites, hereinafter "land- C. The committee shall adopt rules for the marks"; however, all final decisions regarding transaction of its business and consideration of the same shall be made by planning as here- inafter applications not inconsistent herewith, which B. The committee shall consist of not less shall provide for the time and place of regular meetings and for the calling of special meetings. than nine nor more than a maximum of fifteen All meetings of the committee shall be open to voting members. Each voting member shall be a the public and a public record shall be kept of the resident of the city interested in preservation and committee's resolutions knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. , proceedings and Members,to be appointed by the mayor with the actions. (Prior code § 51-32-5(5)) consent of the city council, shall be selected from the following.groups of experts and interested 21.74.050 Historical landmark committee— parties as follows: Term and compensation. 1. One member from the membership of the A. The terms of the committee members, Utah Society, American Institute of Architects; except for those designated in subsections B6 and 2. One member representing the historical B7 of Section 21.74.030, or its successor, maybe societies of the city; for not more than three years; provided, how- 3. One member from the Utah Heritage ever,that the terms of the first committee mem- Foundation; bers shall be as follows: 4. No more than two members who are resi- 1. Three members, one year; dents of or own property in each area designated 2. Three members, two years; as an historic district; - 3. Three members, three years. 5. Five members may be citizens at large; B. Members shall be eligible for reappoint- 6. One member of the planning commission; ment.Vacancies may be filled by the Mayor with 7. The directors of the planning division and the approval of the city council by appointment . c Building and Housing Services Division(or their for any unexpired term or for the full term as the 887 (Salt Lake City 1-88) ALAN ' S VERSION DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Amending Section 21.74.030 creating additional residency limitations on the Historic Landmark Committee) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 .74.030, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, CREATING ADDITIONAL RESIDENCY LIMITATIONS ON THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah believes it is important to have geographical diversity of membership on the Historic Landmark Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, Ee it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 21.74.030(B) , Salt Lake City Code, be amended to read as follows: 21.74.030 Historical landmark committee--Creation--Membership. A. * * * B. [Th • • r A less than nine cr 1 _ ] Each voting member shall be a -resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members[ , to] shall be appointed by the mayor with the consent • of the city council [ , vy ] as follows: 1. [gne—member f em—theme «ereh p of the—U eh Society— Architects] Historic Districts. From each area designated as an historic district not more than two • members who either reside or own property within the district; 2. [ore—member rcp-re-senng-hc hiotori al soe-i-e-t- es o€ the city] At Large. Five members who shall not reside or own property in an historic district; 3. [One member from the Utah Heritage Foundation] Designated Members. One member designated to represent the Utah Heritage Foundation; one member designated to represent the Utah Society of the American Institute of Architects; and, one member of the Planning Commission designated to represent the Planning Commission. In the event that a Designated Member resides or owns property within an historic district the Designated Member shall also be counted as one of the members allowed from that historic district. In no event shall the appointment of a Designated Member be allowed to increase the number of members residing or owning property in any historic district to more than two; 4. [rya—mere—than—t--we---membero who arc residents—of—or—own property in ach arca des4g-na-te r'3triet] Ex Officio. The directors of the Planning Division of the Building and Housing Division ( or their designees ) shall both serve as members ex officio without vote[t] . [5. Five—members maw be citizens—at large;] [4. ---e=re—m-embe-r -of the planning commission; ] [7 . The directors—of the—planning division and—Buz-lding an s—D ven---fer their designated representatives-}—s-1 e—l1—beth se-r-ve as ex—e-fficio member-s—w-ithou-t vote. ] -2- SECTION 2 . 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 ATTEST: CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: BRB:rc -3- PLANNING COMMISSION ' S VERSION t SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No . of 1989 (Amending Section 21.74 . 030 creating additional residency limitations on the Historic Landmark Committee) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 .74 . 030 CREATING ADDITIONAL RESIDENCY LIMITATIONS ON THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to have geographical diversity of membership on the Historic Landmark Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, • Ee it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21. 74 . 030 (B) be amended to read as follows : 21. 74.030 Historical landmark committee - Creation - Membership. A. * * * E. [The commit c� _� , l cc nirc • . . ] Each voting member shall be a resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members[ , to] shall be appointed by the mayor with the consent of the city council[ , shall be scicctod from the ] as follows : • ( 1 ) Historic Districts . From each area designated as an historic district, two members who either reside or own property within the district; [ • of the city] (2) At large. Five members who are residents of the city with consideration of broad geographical representation and with preference to citizens who live outside any historical district; [ • Foundation] ( 3) Designated members . Irrespective of residence one member designated to represent the Utah Heritage Foundation, one architect licensed in the State of Utah, and, one member of the Planning Commission designated to represent the Planning Commission) and [ • district; ] (4 ) Ex officio . The director of the Planning Division and the Building and Housing Division (or their designees ) shall both serve a members ex official, without vote. [ no at large; -2- • 7 . without votc. ] SECTION 2 . 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 ATTEST: CITY RECORDER • BRB:cc -3- OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 October 5, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CINDY GUST-JENSON RE: NORTH TEMPLE INTERCHANGE As you are aware, the Mayor has requested input from the Council prior to November 1 regarding the North Temple interchange issue. In discussing this with the Attorney's Office, it appears the best way for the Council to officially express its view is to pass a motion or resolution during an official Council meeting, rather than a Committee of the Whole. Because one of the Council Members is unable to attend Tuesday's meeting and because it, appears all Council Members will be here on Thursday, :this issue has been added to the unfinished business section of the OFFICIAL meeting schedule for THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12. As you will recall, you will be convening officially anyway on Thursday to hold a budget hearing. You will also be holding an RDA hearing in the Chamber that same night. We're working now to refine the specific scheduling dynamics with the RDA staff, and will report the specifics to you on Tuesday. Attached for your information is the draft of the Council staff report on this issue. Lee has attempted to just summarize the status of the issue for your convenience. We wanted you to have it earlier than usual in the event there is additional information you would like the staff to gather. If you have questions or need more information, please contact. Lee or me and we will do our best to gather it by Thursday night. sap t ;MIT ..; KILA[_[I;ON OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 304 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 535-7600 October 6, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members FROM: Lee King RE: North Temple Interchange Mayor DePaulis indicates that as a member of the Wasatch Front I-15 Transportation Corridor Policy Committee, he has been asked to take a position on the North Temple interchange by November 1 . The Mayor has requested the City Council's position on the interchange. It has been placed on Thursday's Council agenda. I have prepared the following information for your review. The Wasatch Front Regional Council commissioned a study during the fall of 1984 to make recommendations on improving traffic flow along Interstate 15 and improving accessibility to activities along the corridor including the Salt Lake City Central Business District. A preliminary report on the purpose and need for improvement was prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. The outcome of Phase I of the study identified several problems and needs for the corridor: The projected growth in population and employment in the corridor will create a travel demand which will far exceed the capability of the current system to handle the traffic demand for much of the day. The congestion will result in traffic seeking parallel routes outside of the corridor such as 700 East and Redwood Road thereby adding to the congestion of these facilities. While the impacts of traffic growth will be felt all along the corridor, the most critical location will be that section of I-15 between I-215 on the south and the I-80 Junction at 2400 South on the north. Traffic demand in this section will be sufficient to fill six lanes in each direction by the year 2005, which would be a doubling of the existing capacity. Several freeway sections require a substantial portion of the traffic to weave from one lane to another or across several lanes to reach desired exits. These weaving sections and the bottlenecks that currently exist at many of the interchanges also contribute to the congestion problem. The physical age of the freeway and arterial street system require that a major investment be made for pavement and bridge structure rehabilitation over the next five to ten years. The alternatives examined as part of the Phase I Study were improvement packages of highway and transit elements. One of the specific recommendations presented was for an Interchange at North Temple. Attached is an excerpt directly from the Parsons Brinckerhoff study summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of a North Temple interchange. As part of this process Mayor DePaulis formed a citizens committee made of up representatives from Community Councils and the business community. Their purpose was to review the Phase I study and make recommendations to the Mayor. There was no committee consensus on the North Temple Interchange. In general, the residential community council representatives, save one, were opposed to an interchange. The downtown organizations and university representatives on the Mayor 's committee were in favor of it. I have attached that portion of the Citizens report pertaining to North Temple. The City Council held two public hearings on the issue in May and August of 1988. At the conclusion of the August public hearing the Council voted to refer the matter to the Committee of the Whole for future information regarding the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and for technical information. Phase II of the project is the I-15/State Street Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Study. The objective of this phase is the evaluation of alternatives to select the best course of action; satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ; and satisfy the requirements of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's policy on major transit investments. The objective of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is the selection of an alternative for detailed engineering and implementation. The selection of a recommended alternative will be made by the Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority following circulation of the technical results of the study and public hearings. The decision on a preferred alternative for further development must be supported by both the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and Federal Highway Administration. Initially, it was our understanding that the EIS would be completed in January 1989. However, the study is still in draft at this time. The responsible Federal agencies, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration and the Federal Highway Administration, are in the process of reviewing it. The Wasatch Regional Council does not have an estimated time of publication. Although the EIS is in a draft form and has not been released to the public, previous studies, reports and public hearings indicate that the North Temple interchange would have traffic impacts in the surrounding areas between North Temple and Main Street. Previously presented public information also indicates there would also be an impact on the Jackson, Guadalupe, and Capital Hill neighborhoods. Under the North Temple Interchange proposal, professional estimates indicate there would be a traffic reduction on 5th and 6th South. We have asked a representative of the Wasatch Front Regional Council to be here Thursday night in the event you have questions. Attached for your information are copies of the minute of the two public hearings held by the Council on this topic. CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson Enclosures • Addendun to the North Temokliandout The following is distributed as an addendum to the North Temple interchange handout and is excerpted directly • from the study consultants'RESULTS REPORT:EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS. It further summarizes • - the advantages and disadvantages of a North Temple interchange presented in the handout and discussed by our -. committee on January 25..Please recall when reviewing the section on capacity of the interchange and North Temple Street that the traffic projection model did not consider existing street capacity. Therefore,the traffic volumes shown are a measure of the demand(or desire)to use North Temple if an interchange existed. In reality,traffic would approach capacity at some point before the year 2010 with the remaining traffic using the other interchanges,major streets or switching to transit. • 3.1 NORTH TEMPLE STREET • With the exceptions of Alternatives 1, 2, 7, and 8, the construction of an urban interchange at I-15 and North Temple Street is included as a part of the freeway improvement projects. The reason a North Temple interchange is proposed, is to provide an additional access point into the Salt Lake City Central Business District (CBD). While growth in the CBD is expected to lag behind other areas of the Count:, the area's growth will be significant enough for capacity to be reached at the 600 South Street freeway entrance to the City. Without better access the growth of the CBD would be impeded. Table 3.1 shows the expected traffic volumes at various locations with and without an interchange at North Temple Street. Southbound traffic on I-15 is assumed to exit at North Temple if egress is available. Of note is'the 12 percent reduction in traffic exiting I-15 at 600 South Street that could be attained by constructing the North Temple interchange. — '" An urban type interchange is proposed for this location, because an urban interchange takes less spa,:e and right-of-way, and provides greater capacity than a standard diamond_interchange. • • •• • Table 3.2 shows the expected 2010 average delay per vehicle and level of service for this proposed interchange. The initial analysis showed that the interchange would operate at or above capacity under any construction alternative by the design horizon year. *LRT Crossings occur in Alternatives 7, 9, and 11 where UPRR tracks cross the east- west streets and along 800 South to Main. They occur in Alternatives 8, 10, and 12 along State Street south of 4500 South and along Main Street north of 4500 South. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have no LRT. -9 • - • ` TABLE 3.1 EXPECTED A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SELECTED LOCATIONS - • • WITH AND WITHOUT A NORTH TEMPLE INTERCHANGE Without a With a North Temple North Temple Location Interchange Interchange G00 North Street West of I-15 1,085 1,230 East of I-15 2,573 1,873 East of 300 West 1,122 595 North Temple • • West of 300 West St. 3,510 5,850 East of State St. - Westbound 1,176 1,138 East of State St. - Eastbound 1,176 1,266 • • • 500 South - Entrance to I-15 2,904 • 2,668 • 600 South - Exit from I-15 4,500 3,915 TABLE 3.2 • PEAK HOUR INTERCHANGE CAPACITY NORTH TEMPLE AT 1-15 Analysis I Analysis II Average Level Average Level Vehicle of Vehicle of Alternatives Delay (Sec.) Service Delay (Sec.) Service 1,2,7,8 — — — — 3,5,6,9,10 64.8 sec/veh F 32.0 sec/veh D 4,11,12 53.8 sec/veh E 32.0 sec/veh D • -10- • The average number of vehicles projected to enter the North Temple/I-15 interchange area in the 2010 peak hour is 7400 vehicles. This extraordinarily high volume is in sharp contrast to other interchanges within the study area. For example, the 5300 South interchange, also predicted to carry a large volume of traffic should experience only 5,250 vehicles during this same period. As discussed above, the North Temple interchange will operate at or above capacity, level of service E or worse. The 5300 South interchange, however, is expected to operate at level of service D. Further comparison of these two interchanges indicates the following: the street geometry used for each interchange is appropriate for its area and requires only minor right-of- way additions; signal cycle length for North Temple was set at 129 seconds for its analysis, while the cycle length for 5300 South was set at 92 seconds. The major difference between these two locations is their projected traffic volumes. A second analysis of the North Temple/I-15 interchange was performed to determine what changes would be necessary for the interchange to operate at level of service D. The following changes were found to be necessary: • 1) 33% of the southbound off-ramp traffic was assumed to use the 600 North exit instead of North Temple; 2) North Temple Street is redesigned with six lanes for eastbound traffic (4 through, 2 left-turns), five lanes for westbound traffic (3 through, 2 • left-turns), and free right-turns for both directions; 3) southbound off-ramp is redesigned to allow three left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane; 4) signal cycle length is increased to 140 seconds. The intersection of 300 West and North Temple will also operate at capacity during peak hours. This impact can be mitigated by using 400 West as access to the Central Business District. Minor modifications to the intersection of 400 ;Vest and North Temple could make that street attractive to Central Business District bound traffic. North Temple and the intersections east of 400 West would benefit from this modification. -11- i • 3.1.1 Neighborhood Impact - Guadalupe. Jackson, Euclid Areas • The construction of a North Temple interchange will have an impact on three adjacent neighborhoods: Jackson, Euclid and Guadalupe. The Central Business District will also be impacted and, to a much lesser extent, the Avenues area will be impacted. Traffic patterns through the three first neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed interchange will change significantly with the construction. The actual impact on the local streets in the area can not accurately be predicted since the traffic model includes only theta higher volume and classified streets. Also, the construction of an interchange :nay cause pressure for development in its proximity. Salt Lake City_hasdeveloped a transitional zone classification to protect residents while allowing development to occur. —'"' With the construction of_the -interchange, traffic along several local streets will change significantly. ' 300 North, 900 West and 600 West can expect increases. The impact on uses adjacent to these streets may be either positive or negative. The Jackson School could be indirectly impacted by the increased traffic on. 300 North and 900 West Streets. . ----' " The construction of the North Temple interchange will require "00 West to become a one-way southbound street for one block, from 200 North to North Temple. Access to all properties will be maintained with the change. The one-way southbound street should insulate the immediate area from traffic sifting through local streets to and from the interchange. 3.1.2 Neighborhood Impact - Avenues, Capitol Hill Areas • • The construction of a North Temple interchange will also have some impact on traffic in neighborhoods to the east and away from I-15. Traffic in the lower Avenues, especially 2nd Avenue, will be impacted by the interchange construction. Traffic through the Capitol Hill area will also be impacted. With the construction of the interchange, traffic on 2nd Avenue is expected to increase seven percent over the projected 2010 volume without the interchange. Table 3.3 summarizes the impact on 2nd Avenue traffic with and without a North Temple interchange. -12- • TABLE 3.3 TRAFFIC ON 2nd AVENUE WITH AND WITHOUT A NORTH TEMPLE INTERCHANGE 2010 2010 Without With 1985 Traffic Interchange Interchange East of State Street 24 Hour Westbound 7,700 11,800 12,000 24 Hour Eastbound 10,700 11,800 12,500 A.M. Peak Hour Westbound 1,176 1,188 A.M. Peak Hour Eastbound 1,176 1,266 • East of "I" Street 24 Hour Westbound 5,400 6,000 6,000 . 24 Hour Eastbound 5,400 6,000 6,000 A.M. Peak Hour Westbound 378 420 420 Peak Hour Eastbound 486 540 540 • • .I -13- It should be noted that the traffic model used for analysis is based on expected land uses in all zones including the University of Utah. Major land use changes are not anticipated in this analysis. Also, the existing street system is not expected to change. Any closures or modifications to the east Avenues connections at the University could impact the traffic volume entering the Avenues at State Street. The Capitol Hill area would benefit from the interchange by a reduction in overall traffic. Less traffic would be expected to use ;Nall Street, Victory Road and 300 W ect as access to the Central Business District. The total volume on these streets will be reduced by approximately twenty percent with the interchange construction. 3.1.3 Central Business District The Central Business District of Salt Lake City will continue to be the main business district of the Salt Lake Valley. This area will continue to grow but at a rate slower than the rest of the valley. Traffic in the CBD is expected to more than double by the year 2010. Alternatives utilizing light rail are directed at reducing the rate o; increase in CBD vehicular traffic. A viable transportation system will ease_the traffic ► growth rate but can not be expected to solve all of the conzestion problems expected in the future. Table 3.4 summarizes the intersection capacity of key Central Business District intersections using expected 2010 volumes. The results anticipate the presence of an interchange at North Temple. Without the interchange, all intersections south of North Temple Street would be negatively impacted. Traffic volumes will increase and levels of service would be reduced. Since the capacity of u00 South Street and 900 South Street can not be expected to -increase, the peak hour capacity problem will extend beyond the hour resulting_in_significant delays. The analysis shows that this area would benefit from an interchange at North Temple Street. The modification of the I-80 eastbound, 500 South on-ramp, and I-15 southbound merge area, discussed at the February 3, 1987, interchange design work session, will improve egress from the Central Business District by reducing the conflicts that exist. Table 3.5 and Figure 3.1 tabulates the levels of service within each segment of I-15 from I- 80 east to I-80 west for each alternative. The configurations also indicate the analysis method used. These are as described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. -14- • TABLE 3.4 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS BY ALTERNATIVE . AVERAGE DELAY/VEHICLE—LEVEL OF SERVICE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Alternatives Intersection Of Alt. 1,2,7,8 Alt. 3,9,10 Alt. 4,11,12 I Alt. 5,6 State - 600 South 33-D 24-C 23-D 41-E 700 South 4-A 3-A 3-A 3-A 300 South 55-E 83-F 55-E 71-: Main - 600 South 10-B 10-B • 11-B 11-3 700 South 6-B 6-3 6-B 6-3 300 South 18-C 22-C 24-C 19-C • West Temple - 300 South 59-E 43-E 70-E 70-E 300 West - 800 South 21-C 23-C 24-C 24-C 400 West - 800 South 4-A 4-A 4-A 4-'1 • • • • • j -15- Prot,.,sed North Temple Interchar,6e Eight of the twelve improvement alternatives proposed an urban :. interchange on 1-15 at North Temple . There are primarily twc reasons for the proposal : 1 . The -present and future largest traffic demand is to get to and from the CBD from I -15 . An interchange at North Temple will offer the most direct route to the CBD . The traffic projection commuter model shows most of the traffic using a North Temple interchange would turn into the CBD before reaching State Street , with daily traffic on Second Avenue increasing only 7%. Traffic through Capitol Hills would decrease on Beck Street /Victory Road if an interchange was available at North Temple to allow CBD access . 2 . Without a North Temple interchange , the 500/600 South interchange would suffer gridlock during the extended rush hour traffic periods on a daily basis . With the North Temple interchange , 500/ 600 South would operate at or under capacity . 600 North will operate under capacity under either condition , but will have a higher level of service with the North Temple interchange . Several locations were investigated for a possible interchange between 600 North and 500 South . North Temple is the only one that meets Federal Highway Administration interchange requirements for spacing between . existing interchanges and full interchange design . Partial interchanges ( lacking any -on or off ramps ) are no longer approved . 200 South was investigated , but is not an alternative because of its proximity to the 500 /600 South interchange and the diffieulty in creating a full interchange there . The proposed interchange design is known as an urban interchange which minimizes the space needed for ramps and allows traffic to use it efficiently because only one signalized intersection is needed . The two on ramps and two off ramps meet under the interstate overpass of North Temple to form a typical four legged signalized intersection . In the proposed design all ramping can be accomplished on existing right -of-way . It will be necessary to narrow 700 West between North Temple and 200 North to allow for the southbound off ramp , thus necessitating this one block section of 700 West be made one-way southbound . . Besides alleviating the overuse of the .500/ 600 South interchange the benefits of a North Temple interchange would be to : 1 . reduce congestion on several CBD streets by helping spread out the traffic on more CBD streets , 2 . reduce conuiiuter traffic impact in Capitol Hill on Victory Road/State Street , 3 . enhance access and hopefully the positive development of the west downtown (Triad) area . The disadvantage is a 7% increase in traffic on Second Avenue which equates to approximately 1000 vehicles per day with 100 vehicles in the rush hour . Overall , the advantages appear to outweigh the disadvantages . It is also possible to construct a landscaped traffic island on the Second Avenue leg of the State and North Temple intersection that would prohibit eastbound traffic beyond State Street . • From a transportation planning standpoint , it makes a lot of sense to add _ - this interchange . The affect is mostly positive with the capability of • ". mitigating the negative . Several exhibits have- been. prepared to illustrate the pertinent facts and impacts described above : • Map 1 - Existing daily traffic (1988 ) Map 2 - Projected daily demand without North Temple interchange ( 2010 ) Map 3 - projected daily demand with North Temple interchange ( 2010 ) • Mao_ 4 - Peak hour traffic at North Temple/State/Second Avenue in 2010 with and without interchange Map 5 - Existing traffic lane use at North Temple/State/Second Avenue Map 6 - Possible future traffic lane use at North Temple/State/Second Avenue if desired or necessary to mitigate Avenues area concerns . `.tom 1-15 Corridor Study Committee Recommendations • Mitigate the aesthetic and environmental issues associated with the freeway construction. (Unanimous) Noise wall design should have a pleasant visual appearance as well as being functional. A planting scheme should be part of the improvement project to eliminate weeds and provide groundcover, shrubbery and trees where safely possible. These mitigating measures should be included in the total funding. North Temple Interchan e There was no committee consensus on this issue. The committee spent considerable time and effort discussing the advantages and disadvantages of an interchange at North Temple Street. In general,the residential community council representatives,save one, are opposed to an interchange. The downtown organization and university representatives are in favor of an interchange. In favor of constructing the North Temple interchange: Kent Money Central Business Improvement District Bret Cunningham Downtown Retail Merchants Association • Gary Hansen Salt I-tke Area Chamber of Commerce Jim McGuire Sugar House Chamber of Commerce • Joe Harman University of Utah. ToddMabey Westside Community Council Those in favor of construction of an interchange at North Temple feel it is needed for aririitional access into downtown Salt I nice City. The modeling projections show that without an interchange at North Temple,gridlock will result at the 500 South and 600 South interchanges. It is important for the continued vitality of the downtown that the interchange be constructed. It is also important • to minimise the impact of the interchange on the adjacent residential areas. There are ways of mitigating the impact of a North Temple interchange to make it acceptable. • Traffic should be required to turn off of North Temple into the downtown area by the use of signal timing and lane drops to reduce the traffic volumes on the east end of North Temple and thereby reduce the impact to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Traffic should be encouraged to use 400 West,300 West, and 200 West as access into the Central Business District and discouraged from traveling east of State Street. • North Temple should not be widened except immediately adjacent to the interchange as required by the proposed interchange design. • Signs denoting an acceptable route to the University of Utah should be regularly placed to direct traffic away from the adjacent neighborhoods. • • • - I-IS Corridor Study Committee Recommendarions • Mitigating measures should be funded in the Guadalupe/Jackson area and traffic limitation measures should be implemented on residential streets adjacent to North Temple Street. Funding for appropriate mitigation measures should come from and be included as part of the entire recommenrdPA improvement funding package,not separate funding mnriP the responsibility of Salt Lake City. th posed to the construction of allorth Tie interchange: Willy T irrig Greater Avenues Community Council lvfichael Stransky Capitol Kill Community Council Carlern Jimenez Northwest Community Council Fae Nichols People's Freeway Community Council Rawlins Young Salt Lake Association of Community Councils - Those opposed to the interchange feel that it is not possible to successfully mitigate negative impac5 to the adjacent neighborhoods: increased traffic on North Temple,pressure to rezone land adjacent to North Temple for more intense business land use, increased air and noise pollution. • As residents as well as members of the downtown business community, those opposed to the North Temple interchange are concerned about the vitality of the downtown businesses but do not believe that it will successfully promote the vitality of the entire downtown community. • An interchange would bring an unacceptably high volume of traffic to North Temple. • There is concern that the weave area through the North Temple/I-80 section on I-15 would be too short to make the desired lane changes although it barely meets the federal interstate design standards. • Further study should be made of the 600 North interchange to determine why it is under-utilized and ways to encourage fuller use of the existing capacity without adversely impacting the Capitol Hill neighborhood. • The air quality and environmental impact statement was not available. It needs • to specifically address the impacts to the residential neighborhoods. • Further study should be made of the carrying capacity of the North Temple viaduct. • Further study should be made of the impact that an interchange and new traffic patterns would have on West High School community. • 1-15 Corridor Study • Committee Recommendations • • • Funding • No new forms of taxation should be created for funding the improvements. (Unanimous) • Only raise as much money as is needed to make the improvements. (Unanimous) • The tax increases for funding the improvements should expire after the improvements have been paid for. (Unanimous) • All areas benefiting from the improvements should be taxed for the improvements. (Unanimous) These improvements will benefit the entire Salt T akE.Metropolitan area. The costs of the improvements should be borne by the residents of the area, namely Salt Take County, and portions of Davis and Utah counties. • A local option gas tax is appropriate for funding the freeway and transit improvements. The local option sales tax should be increased to help cover transit funding. (Unanimous) User taxes are considered the most equitable means, although not necessarily the only means,of funding the recommended improvements. Use of a gas tax to partially fund the transit improvements and to mitigate the negative impacts of automobile useae is considered an equitable _ method of requiring individuals to pay a premium to drive inste.id of using transit. If a gas tax increase is used, all of the increase should be used for the improvements and mitigation measures. Timing • Light rail transit construction should begin as soon as possible. (Unanimous) Based on the understanding that the light rail transit system is presently the most economical and feasible transit system for the corridor. • Interstate improvements that will not interfere with the carrying ability of I-15 should be done concurrent with the light rail transit construction. (Unanimous) • Interstate improvements that will require traffic lane disruption during construction should only be done after the light rail transit is in operation. • • (Unanimous) This will allow interstate users to switch to light rail transit during construction and hopefully encourage use of light rail transit on a permanent basis. • • • J • • 1-rs Corridor Study Committee Recommendations • Tim Harpst, Ch ' W. Ls g Salt I nice City Transportation Engineer G ter Avenues ommunity Council • Michlel Stransky/ t Money Capitol Hill Community Council C tral Bu ess provernent District ` ris-z Fae Nichols North ty ommunity 4 • •cil People's Freeway Community Council / :ret Cunningh.r• Rawlins Young Downtown Retail Merchants Association Salt T Ace Associa on of Co unity Councils • '°44-€--f ���isen J' Salt I-Ike Area Chamber of Commerce Sugar Ho e Chamber of Commerce ik) X pU,L., • Mabey 'versity of Utah Westside Community Counccil PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH ,, WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Wednesday, May 25, 1988, at 6 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 324 South State Street. The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Tom Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman Mayor Palmer DePaulis, S. R. Kivett, duputy city recorder, and LaNita Brown, deputy city recorder, were present. Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at and conducted the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING I-15 North Temple Interchange RE: A public hearing at 6 :00 p.m. to obtain comment concern- ing the possible construction of an Interstate 15 interchange at North Temple Street in Salt Lake City prior to formulating the city' s recom- mendation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council I-15 Steering Committee. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnes- beck seconded to continue the hearing to Tuesday, August 2, 1988, at 6:20 p.m. , which motion carried, all members voted aye. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she had received numerous calls concerning the widening of 2nd and 3rd Avenues, and she had obtained a copy of the Wasatch Front Regional Council' s report that stated the intent was not to widen 2nd and 3rd Avenues at this time. She said it called for making Virginia Street and I Street four-lane streets, but she cautioned that if the interchange was built there might be a great deal of pressure to widen 2nd and 3rd Avenues in the future. Mayor DePaulis said the hearing was for public comment and they would not be making any decisions now. He indicated that he had to leave at 7 p.m. for another commitment but would return. Mick Crandall, representing the Wasatch Front Regional Coun- cil, said that a few years ago the WFRC realized they were developinc 'big city' problems and they needed to look at more substantial solu- tions for the transportation problems. He said the most critical prob- lem was the growing traffic congestion in the city and the associated problems of parking and air pollution. He said 5th South and 6th South were rapidly becoming congested and didn't provide adequate access to the Central Business District (CBD) and he said growing west side devel- opment would further aggravate the condition. He - said after looking at 88-183 • PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 several plans the only one that would have a significant impact was the North Temple interchange, and both the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT ) and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) indicated their support, so the three agencies, (WFRC, UDOT, and UTA) began a study, hiring the consulting team of Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas for the tech- nical analysis. He said the study offered different alternatives, in- cludinc a light-rail transit system and freeway expansion, along with the North Temple interchange. He said the federal highway administra- tion had established criteria for placement and separation of inter- changes and on and off ramps had to be certain distances apart. He said the only place in the city that fit that criteria was North Temple. re said there were approximately 50, 000 employees in the CBD and projec- tions were for 80, 000 by 2010, and travel demand would grow in a like manner. He said they were nearing the completion of the study and would be preparing a formal draft of an environmental impact statement, then hearings would be held and reports given to UDOT and UTA so they would know how to proceed. He said how the city felt about the inter- change would be important to both groups as they faced the decisions that existed. Gerry Blair, representing Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas Consultants, said the interchange was an attempt to provide additional access into the CBD without destroying the area around He showed the Council a large drawing of the area saying it was an urban interchange design, and he pointed out how the traffic would enter and leave the freeway. He said the only widening associated with the inter- change would be between 6th and 7th West, that 7th West between North Temple and 2nd North would be a one-way street and 4th West would be- come the main entrance into the CBD. He said they had discussed in- stalling an island on North Temple and State Street that would prohibit eastbound traffic from going through, which would alleviate traffic conditions on 2nd Avenue. Bret Cunningham, representing the Mayor' s I-15 Committee and the Downtown Retail Merchants Association (DRMA) , said they had met many times as the Mayor ' s Committee to study the proposed interchange and said the committee could not reach a consensus since six members favored the interchange and five members opposed it. He said the DRMA stronc_-: favored improved access to the downtown area from the freeway system and although the North Temple interchange was not the most ideal location it was the only one that federal approval and funds would be available for. He said some of the impacts they had identified regarding the inter- change were: 1 ) it should be a CBD traffic issue, ideally to improve access to downtown without creating a negative impact on the neighbor- ing residential area; 2 ) it would provide the most direct route int: the CBD helping to lower transit time and pollution (traffic would te traveling at higher speeds approaching the downtown area and it was the stop and go traffic from other exits that increased pollution) ; 3 ) it would improve access to the Triad area; 4 ) access to the freeway would be improved to residents of the avenues, Capitol Hill, and the west side areas; 5 ) pressure from gridlocked 5th and 6th South interchanges would be reduced; 6 ) it would help reduce traffic pressure on the Capitol 88-184 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 Hill area created by Beck Street and Victory Road; 7) it would allow alteration of current traffic pattern problems created by University of Utah students and faculty; and 8 ) signal timings and lane drops would force traffic into the CBD and off North Temple. He said they felt a responsibility to improve access to the CBD and solve some of the traf- fic problems or the city would become congested and more businesses would leave downtown for the suburbs, setting the stage for deteriora- tion. He said the interchange had become the focal point for a whole list of problems such as quality of life objections, social welfare objections, pollution objections, traffic congestion objections, safety objections and proposals for more studies. He said he hoped the free- way interchange proposal would not become a focal point for general traffic complaints that already plagued the city, for social problems that would remain unresolved, or for personal crusades. William Littig, representing the Mayor ' s 1-15 Committee, said the freeway separated the Jackson neighborhood into the Jack- son/Guadalupe neighborhood 25 years ago, isolating it and creating many problems . He said the number of cars pouring into downtown weren' t necessarily reflective of shoppers because someone who worked downtown would probably drive home and shop in his own neighborhood. He said the Mayor' s Committee had been given information to read that was narrow in scope and it was hard to make intelligent decisions based on that infor- mation. He said they didn' t feel that the interchange would rel4e7e pressure on the Capitol Hills area as people preferred routes without traffic lights, such as the Beck Street, Victory Road route. He said the design of the interchange was not adequate for those living in the northwest quadrant of the city. Roger Borgenicht, representing the Neighborhood Alliance, said there was a need to develop long-range plans for balanced transpor- tation systems for autos, pedestrians, bicyclists, buses, and rapid transit to insure clean .air and an uncongested city for future genera- tions . He said traffic projections for the year 2010 would be quadru- pled and he felt they would be asking for trouble if the interchange �:as allowed. Mr. Borgenicht made reference to a large drawing that showed the flow of traffic in and out of the city on the existing 5th and 6th South collector routes and the proposed flow with the addition of the North Temple interchange. He said the 6th North interchange was under- utilized and he suggested that improvements be made to it rather than create a new one. He said if traffic was directed southbound off the 6th North off ramp instead of east it would reduce the impetus of traf- fic wanting to flow through the Capitol Hill neighborhoods. He said they should not overlook the possibility of developing the 9th South freeway entrance/exit, also, but he felt the problems would never be solved if people continued to rely on the individual automobile to trav- el to and from the CBD. Stan Penfold, representing the Neighborhood Transportation Alliance, said that Salt Lake City had something that many other major cities longed for: residential neighborhoods within walking distance. He said the people living in these neighborhoods worked, shopped, ate, 88-185 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 and entertained downtown and were the CBD' s best retail customer. He said the past few years had seen an exodus of the city population to the suburbs and if it continued the city would become a collection of glass office buildings surrounded by boarded up empty neighborhoods. He said they could not allow that to happen, and dumping freeways into residen- tial neighborhoods did not facilitate the rehabilitation of these neighborhoods. Mr. Penfold read from an addendum to the study consultants report entitled 'Result Report, Evaluation of Traffic Impacts ' which stated, 1 ) the construction of a North Temple interchange would have an impact cn_ three adjacent neighborhoods, Jackson, Euclid, and Guadalupe; 2) traffic patterns through the three neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed interchange would change significantly; 3 ) the construction of an interchange might cause pressure for development in its proximity; 4) traffic along 3rd North, 9th West, and 6th West could expect increas- es; 5 ) the Jackson School could be indirectly impacted by increase,' traffic cn 3rd North and 9th West streets; 6 ) there would be some im- pact on traffic in neighborhoods to the east; 7 ) all three of the resi- dential neighborhoods most impacted by this interchange have been, or are now, target areas for city CDEG monies; 8 ) over the past 5 years, SLC had invested over 4 million dollars in these residential areas; 9 ) those neighborhoods would not survive as residential if an interchange was built; 10 ) it was financially foolish to disregard a 4 million dollar investment; and 11 ) it was a complete reversal of city policy to allow an interchange and subsequent business development in those residential neighborhoods . He said one of the justifications for the proposal was that it might reduce freeway congestion and related pollu- tion, but there was conflict to that theory. He said pollution micht be reduced along the freeway for a short period of time, but within a couple of years it would be at or above the level it was before con- struction. He said the interchange would create back-up and standing cars at every intersection from State Street to the freeway, creatinc pollution for the prime pedestrian and tourist neighborhoods of the central city area. He said last year 10, 000 people visited temple square then walked across a street to one of the malls, the genealogi- cal building, the LDS Church office building, the symphony, Salt Palace, etc. He said it would create a serious conflict between the pedestrian and the auto if the interchange was built, as the two did not mix well . He said the best way to improve downtown vitality, to increase shoppinc and reduce visitor frustration, was to get people out of their cars and onto their feet. He said the North Temple interchange would become the busiest freeway interchange in the state and North Temple could not handle the additional traffic so cars would spill out into the adjacent neighborhoods, which would require substantial improvements in order to carry the additional capacity. He said this was not a neighborhood issue but a Salt Lake City issue, and the Neighborhood Transportation Alliance was determined to see the city survive as an environment for people, not as a home for everyone else' s car. 88-186 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 Hermoine Jex, representing the Capitol Hill Community Coun- cil, said she first heard of the North Temple interchange some years ago and thought it was just an idea, but found it to be a set plan of opera- tion. She said in a recent Planning Commission meeting the future of downtown Salt Lake City was being discussed to the effect that the area was no longer the city for people, homes, neighborhoods, schools, churches, stores, gardens, etc. , but would be a regional center and people and neighborhoods were of lesser or no importance. She said it was time that everyone took a long look at what was happening and study carefully the road system, trying to visualize what would happen if the I-15 interchange was allowed. She said there were already many accesses to downtown and with the interchange there would be destruction of neighborhoods and schools, removal of buildings, parking strips, and trees caused by widening. She said that traffic would increase in vol- ume all by itself without the interchange, and asked the Council to ad- dress a light rail system and critically needed land use planning. The following people spoke in favor of the interchange: Gary Hansen, Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce Julie Connary, 427 Oakley Street Bob Yocom, 794 Oakley Street Wesley Sine, 640 West North Temple Thomas H. Carn, 819 West North Temple Stan Knoles, 916 West Temple Those who favored the interchange said that it: 1 ) was cru- cial to the vitality of the downtown business district; 2 ) should have been built at the outset of the freeway system; 3 ) would revitalize those businesses located on North Temple near or west of the freeway that had been slowly deteriorating; and 4) would provide access to the freeway from the west side where there was no access for 19 blocks. Mr. Hansen, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said their overall objec- tive was to solve the growing problem of traffic congestion and their focus was on a light rail transit system which they felt should be im- plemented as soon as possible. Ms. Connary said that young adults need- ed the jobs that would be created by fast-food businesses that would locate near the interchange. Mr. Yokom said if an interchange was built it should be a full cloverleaf interchange. The following people spoke in opposition to the interchange: Wilford Kirton, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Dick Groen, 1028 Learned Avenue Rosemarie Rendon, 356 North 600 West John Adamson, 537 West 500 North Jerry Miller, 969 Bryan Avenue Mary Morris, 733 West 300 North Boyd Ware, Retail Merchants Association Michael Vetere, 217 2nd Avenue Dave Kranendonk, 373 North 200 West Barry Esham, 502 North 1300 West 88-187 vLr� 11; PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH ' WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 Bernard Simbari, 111 0 Street Mike Hardison, 111 0 Street Derin C. Wester, 820 2nd Avenue Chuck Clark, 828 2nd Avenue Ben Fonnesbeck, 215 A Street Joyce Marder, 780 East Scott Avenue Neil O'Connor, 89 C Street Keith Widdison, 521 Arctic Court Ernest Dixon, 77 C Street Russ Jacobsen, 851 Ouray Avenue B. W. Dille, 368 7th Avenue Deanne Keddington, 827 2nd Avenue Frank Pignanelli, 480 North Wall Street, ##B103 Roly Pearson, 730 West 400 North Angela Deneris, 881 2nd Avenue Diana Peterson, 888 3rd Avenue Qita Woolley, 867 3rd Avenue Jane Stromquist, 33 C Street Jennifer Harrington, 480 F Street Carleen Jiminez, 730 West 400 North Steve McCardell, 1225 East 2nd Avenue David Mason, 780 3rd Avenue Chuck Richardson, 815 4th Avenue David Stanley, 1059 3rd Avenue Stephen A. Stroud, 318 3rd Avenue Larry Livingston, 175 A Street Frances Farley,. 1418 Federal Way William Burt, 1283 East South Temple Jerry Erkelens, 524 3rd Avenue Ranae Pierce, 191 Canyon Road Robert E. Gallegos, 576 West 3rd Avenue Blake Ingram, 1504 Federal Heights Drive Cyndie Hyde, 1010 3rd Avenue Robert K. Reeve, 314 Quince Street Dean Jolley, 1166 2nd Avenue Terry Becker, 1500 Tomahawk Carrie Jolley, 1166 2nd Avenue Tom DeVroom, 216 B Street Steve Tatum, 198 Q Street Antje F. Curry, 1187 3rd Avenue Farrell Wankier, 461 2nd Avenue William Matt Clark, 715 2nd Avenue Rod Olsen, 739 West 200 North Mike McCarthy, 557 2nd Avenue Matthew Barton, 1115 2nd Avenue David Stillman, 711 2nd Avenue Of those opposing the interchange, the majority were avenues residents who were concerned about the problems that would be created in the avenues by increased traffic. They were concerned about the already heavy traffic on 2nd and 3rd Avenues from commuters to the university and hospitals in the area. They voiced concern that these two streets 88-188 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 would eventually have to be widened to accommodate the increased traf- fic and that trees along those streets would have to be cut down. They were concerned about the safety of school children and other pedestri- ans who had to cross the busy avenues streets. Those from the areas west of the freeway said they would be further cut off from the city i_ the interchange was built and their neighborhoods would become ghettos . Many people were concerned that the project had not been thorough' studied and felt that an environmental impact study should be done and other solutions looked at. Several people suggested that the 6th North interchange be modified and traffic be diverted southward after leavinc the freeway, to alleviate traffic heading towards the Capitol Hills ar- ea. Others suggesed modifying the 9th South entrance/exit to alleviate some of the problems, and others suggested looking at 2nd South for an interchance. Many people expressed concern about the heightened traffic that would be created on North Temple making it hazardous for pedestri- ans and bicyclists. Many people expressed concern over the financial burden that would be put on the city in widening streets and making changes to accommodate the additional traffic. Most people felt that the interchange would impact the cuality of life in Salt Lake City. Mr. Kirton, representing the LDS Church, said that the state had presented a similar plan 10 years ago to the church for comment and after careful study by the church and the planners it was found to ce flawed. He said it would be a detriment to the city. Mr. Esham asked the Council to consider the CDBG money that had already been spent in the neighborhoods as it would be wasted if the interchange was allowed . Mr. Simbari said it would change the tenure of the avenues, that streets would be thoroughfares to the university and the neighborhoods would deteriorate. Mr. Jacobsen said Mr. Blair had made the statement that because of the urban interchange design it would not be necessary to acquire surrounding right-of-way, that existing buildings would remain intact; He read from a city pamphlet that stated cost estimate for to North Temple interchange would be $6 . 6 million, including right-of-way purchases . He questioned which statement was correct. Ms . Keddington said the interchange would be an economic drain on the city during the reconstruction and it was focusing on the needs of commuters living outside the city and not the residents who were the tax payers. Mr. Stanley said a lot of the reasons given in support of the interchange, having to do with the revitalization of downtown, were based on a series of assumptions that were faulty, such as bringing more cars into the downtown area would mean more shoppers, thus a revitalized downtown. He said building interchanges and new freeways did not help revitalize downtown, and there were plenty of examples littered across the country to prove it; instead you had to develop culture, business, entertainment facilities, and alternate means of transit. Mr. Livingston said a great deal of the argument in favor of the interchange hinged on economic development . He felt the off-ramp was a bad design solution that tied into the problems already existing on North Temple and suggested usinc the 6th North off-ramp, along with connecting North Temple to 2nd East. He said by doing so you could get around the CBD and onto 2nd East head- ing south and it would only take 12 seconds. Ms . Farley said there should be a concerted effort to encourage commuters to car pool which 88-189 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 would reduce congestion, pollution, and expense; and some things that could help would be an express lane for car poolers, reduced license fees for car poolers, and a campaign headed by the Mayor and Governor urging good citizenship from everyone. Mr. Barton said the cities with a booming downtown were not those with many arteries of traffic entering them, but those that had good public transportation systems so people could get to town and walk around. Registration cards were received from 204 people who did not wish to speak but wished to express their support or opposition. Of those received, 190 were opposed and 14 were in favor of the inter- change. (G 88-6) The meeting adjourned at 9 : 40 p.m. • Council Chairperson City Recorder • 88-190 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1988 received an amended petition requesting that only 7 acres be rezoned. Councilmember Horrocks said this property was in the Northwest Quadrant where they were hoping to develop a residential area on the west side o= 5600 West, but because the Master Plan was not in place they needed to zone carefully to protect residences that would be built there in the future. Councilmember Bittner said they should request the Planning Commission to continue negotiations with Brasher Auto Auctions to ensure that they get the setbacks they were asking for in zoning the balance of the property. Sharon Snow, representing the Brashers, said they had built a new facility and needed more parking and they were committed to working closely with the Planning Committee and the Council. (P 88-192) North Temple Interchange, I-15 RE: A public hearing at 6 : 20 p.m. to obtain comment concern- ing the possible construction of an I-15 interchange at North Temple prior to the formulation of the city' s recommendation to the Wasatch Front Regional Council ' s I-15 Steering Committee. ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner secon_de to refer the matter to the Committee of the Whole for future information regarding the Environmental Impact Study and for technical information, which motion carried, all members voted aye. DISCUSSION: The following people spoke in opposition to the interchange: Russell Jacobsen, 851 Ouray Avenue Senator Rex Black, 826 North 1300 West Carlene Jiminez, 720 West 400 North Roly Pearson, 730 West 400 North Willy Littig, 121 D Street Rod Julander, 1467 Penrose Drive Marilyn Sharine, 1565 South Park Street Bernice Cook, 1746 South West Temple Fae Nichols, 120 MacArthur Avenue Qita Woolley, 867 3rd Avenue Chuck Richardson, 815 4th Avenue Farrell Wankier, 461 2nd Avenue Gary Cunningham, 175 North 700 West Francis Hoopes, 1006 3rd Avenue Kim Anderson, 768 North Redwood Road Keith Widdison, 521 Arctic Court Steve Erickson, 1064 3rd Avenue Neil O ' Connor, 89 C Street Roger Borgenicht, 20 South 1200 East 88-282 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1988 Erlinda Davis, 358 West 500 North Larry Kilpatrick, 809 3rd Avenue Jane Stromquist, 33 C Street Stan Penfold, 715 2nd Avenue Michael Salamon, 136 U Street Randy Dixon, 726 Wall Street Gerald Miller, 969 Bryan Avenue Joyce Marder, 780 East Scott Avenue Javier Romero, 621 West 400 North Doug Burton, 1115 2nd Avenue David Stillman, 711 2nd Avenue Vincent Shepherd, 1261 2nd Avenue Mr. Jacobsen said when the freeway system was proposed some 30 years ago, it was intended to eliminate congestion from the city and put it on the freeway, and now they were trying to take it back off the freeway and put it in the city. He said putting more interchanges on the freeway would not eliminate congestion but would add to it, and also, it would not be conducive to pedestrians and would be a safet- hazard for the Jackson School children. He said the Jackson, Guadalupe, and Euclid Neighborhoods were promised that when the present freeway was built it would be landscaped beautifully and maintained, but this prom- ise had gone unfulfilled. He said the responsibility was to the cit- residents not the commuters. Senator Black said North Temple was a' - ready impacted with traffic and he felt the interchange would create more problems than it would cure. Mr. Littig said he had heard that the city wouldn' t have much say in whether the interchange went thrcuch, that if the Utah Department of Transportation wanted it, the city would have it thrust upon them, and he asked the Council to speak stroncl7 against it. Ms . Sharine said she had seen the abuse freeways had caused in cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. and had moved to Salt Lake C' ty because of it ' s well laid out streets and other attractions and she said it would be foolish to allow the interchange. Ms. Cook said the freeway exits should be placed farther apart and they already had enough of them now, and she felt the interchange would further divide the residents. Ms. Nichols said her community had been disrupted by the present freeway since they no longer had a school, only one church, and homes had been destroyed, and she hated to see that happen to the Jackson area. She said it was a beautiful area and it would be too big a price to pay to allow the interchange when there might be another alternative. tits Richardson said they needed long-range planning in considering the in- terchange and he felt it was a quick-fix to a solution that was not part of the coordinated plan for the 1-15 corridor. Mr. Wankier said he was a 2nd Avenue resident and it was already crowded with traffic and would be worse if the interchange was allowed. He said they should be firdnc ways to alleviate traffic, not make it worse. Ms. Hoopes said the in- terchange would ruin the historical avenues with the 40,000 additional cars that would be thrust on them. Mr. Anderson said he was opposed to the interchange because of the following reasons: 1 ) the report was incomplete, did not include all options, and was very narrow; 2 ) the destruction of neighborhoods where CDBG funds had been spent would be eminent; 3 ) the west North Temple businesses would not be helped; 4 ) 88-283 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1988 the cost would be prohibitive to city taxpayers; 5 ) it would make downtown streets a parking lot during four hours of the day and inhibi tourist travel to downtown; 6 ) the residents of downtown neighboncccds supported businesses downtown and if these neighborhoods failed, down- town and the businesses would also fail; 7 ) the voter citizens of Salt Lake City did not want it; 8 ) the Neighborhood Transportation Alliance (NTA) and the Salt Lake Area Community Councils (SLACC) were opposed for geed reasons; 9 ) the R/UDAT study made interesting proposals that should be studied and not passed over; 10) the LDS Church was opposed; 11 ) there was no environmental impact study yet; and 12) there was a definite need for a housing policy, and neighborhoods should not be destroyed before a policy was set. Mr. Widdison suggested using other alternatives such as synchronization of lights, a freeway express lane, and using the 600 North exit. Mr. Borgenicht expressed interest in to impact of the interchange on the downtown area and said the R/UDAT study had stressed the importance of pedestrians downtown, and he said the quadrupling of traffic by the interchange would be a detriment to the city. Mr. Kilpatrick said he felt they should hold a third public hear- ing on the subject because the environmental impact statement had not been completed. Mr. Penfold said they had been asked to accept a clan that would seriously impact the residential and downtown neighborhood., but they had not been given adequate information to assess the entire impact to the city' s livability, nor had they been given other alterna- tives. He requested that copies of all documents, including maps, draw- ings, surveys, neighborhood impact studies, land acquisition require- ments, project costs, mitigation measures, and traffic counts be made available to the NTA, the Council, and city residents. Mr. Dixon, a Capitol Hills resident, said they were already divided into sections by thruways and he felt the 600 North alternative would impact this fur- ther. Mr. Romero said the only people he had heard speak favorably cf the interchange were business owners who planned on selling their prop- erty to accommodate the interchange. Mr. Burton asked why those in favor weren' t expressing their views at the meeting. Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned whether they needed to wait for the Environmental Impact Study before making a decision because most cf the people knew what the impact was going to be since they lived there, and she said the study had been in limbo for so long she felt someone was trying to wear them down. Councilmember Godfrey said that until UDOT had the impact study they would not be able to approach the legislature for funding. Councilmember Bittner said there were a lot of questions she needed to have answered before she could make a decision. She said she received a lot of telephone calls from constituents who were in favor of the interchange but she felt they were too intimidated to come forth in the hearing and express their views . She said the cost for the I-15 corridor study was nearing a billion dollars, and they had spent a lot of money for the traffic consultant ' s study and she felt it was foolish to ignore it. She said she wasn' t sure the neighborhoods would be as impacted as they thought they would and said she knew there were other alternatives and she would be talking to a lot of experts analyzing the figures, and walking the area and looking at it before 88-284 _ PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1988 making a decision. Councilmember Godfrey said that he could very easi- ly vote on the issue now but he felt they should wait for the impact study because they would have more information to help sway the Wasatch Regional Council . Councilmember Fonnesbeck said one of the frustra- tions they were dealing with was that when the interchange plan was originally set up, the limitations that those studying it were given were far too narrow, and maybe they should be addressing the fact that the interchange might not happen and they should be looking at other alternatives in the meantime. She said if they delayed the decision for six months or a year it would mean they were delaying their ability to find better solutions. Councilmember Stoler said he had heard from Parsons/Brinkerhoff that the impact study was done, but other parameters were added to it and they had to start from scratch again, and he felt they should wait for the study. Councilmember Kirk said she was not ready to vote on the subject now as she felt she needed more informa- tion. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested they schedule the item again for the second week in January, hoping they would have all the informa- tion they needed by then. Registration cards were received from people who did not wish to speak but wished to express their support or opposition to the pro- posed interchange. Of those received, 59 were opposed and 3 were in favor. (G 88-6) • Commercial "C-3A" Amendment RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to obtain comment and to consider adopting an ordinance amending the existing Commercial "C-3A" zoning text, Chapter 62 of Title 21, to include a conditional use for outdoor sales and leasing of new and used automobiles and light trucks. ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to refer the item to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendations, which motion carried, all members voted aye. DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, Planning and Zoning, said the issue had arisen in 1987 when the planning staff and city adopted the West Temple Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Plan and a component of the plan included an auto mall concept and three blocks were designated to that land use. He said a portion of the property was zoned "C3 " , which included a prohibition against any business that required open storage of any merchandise, vehicles, or equipment to be sold, rented, or stored, so the auto mall concept was in conflict with the zoning provision. He said the Planning Commission recommended that they amend the text of the "C3-A" zone to allow as a conditional use, the sale or leasing of new or used automobiles or light trucks. He said this would 88-285