PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 7 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She told the Council Members that the staff recommended they uphold the Planning Commission decision on Petition No. 400-500, an appeal of Historical Landmark Case No. 642. She explained that the chain-link fence discussed in the petition was in violation of the Landmark Committee requirements for a historical district. The fence was made of an inappropriate material for the district, was located on City property and exceeded City height requirements. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, told the Council Members that they were only to consider the petition as it related to violations of the guidelines of the Historical Landmark Committee.
Bill Wright, city planner, answered questions Council Members had concerning Petition No. 400-275 by the Calder Brothers, requesting that the City annex a property located at 3130 South Highland Drive. Mr. Wright explained to the Council that there were three residential properties located within the area to be annexed and if one of the residential property owners protested out of the annexation, all three properties must be excluded in order to meet state annexation requirements. The annexation of the residential properties was all or nothing, there could be no variation.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1987, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SUITE 300, CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Palmer Depaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at and Councilmember Hardwick conducted the meeting.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, March 17, 1987, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 87-1)
Special Recognition
1. The Mayor and City Council presented the March Tourism Ambassador of the Month award to Bill Tatman of Delta Airlines. Mayor DePaulis said Mr. Tatman was district sales manager for Delta Airlines and had helped promote Salt Lake City as a destination point and as the gateway to the west and had also promoted southern Utah and the national parks. The Mayor said through Mr. Tatman’s efforts advance flight reservations for the summer and ski seasons had increased. Mr. Tatman thanked the Mayor and Council on behalf of himself and the other employees at Delta who also promoted Salt Lake City.
(G 87-7)
2. The City Council and Mayor adopted a joint resolution declaring support for Arbor Day, April 24, 1987. Councilmember Godfrey read the resolution.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 32 of 1987 declaring support for Arbor Day, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Steve Schwab, urban forester, introduced members of the Urban Forestry Board who were present. He mentioned that the board had worked hard to look at ways to take care of the City’s trees and encourage the planting of more trees to help beautify and improve the environment of the City.
(R 87-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-249 by Janice Turner/William Bennett.
RE: An ordinance repealing Ordinance 85 of 1985 and correcting a technical error that was in the property description of that ordinance which vacated an alley between 700 East and 800 East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Ordinance 19 of 1987 vacating an alley between 700 East and 800 East and Logan Avenue and Bryan Avenue and repealing Ordinance 85 of 1985, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-11)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with the United States Government, National Guard Bureau, for an airport joint use agreement, an agreement to rehabilitate Taxiway D, and a striping contract.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 27 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the United States Government represented by the National Guard Bureau, United States Property and Fiscal Office for the State of Utah approving a) an airport joint use agreement providing the Utah Air National Guard common use of airport flying facilities; b) an agreement to rehabilitate Taxiway D; c) airport striping contract whereby the National Guard Bureau agrees to paint stripe all ramps, runways and taxiways, at their cost, through the year 1991, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Godfrey who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-160, C 87-161, C 87-162)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Section 51-13-1(13) and Section 51-5-10 of the zoning ordinance allowing the Board of Adjustment to permit an accessory structure to be used as a study, a private noncommercial art studio, a hobby shop, an exercise room, a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool, or for other similar uses, subject to conditions.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer this ordinance to the Planning Commission and the City Attorney for recommendation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 87-2)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending Section 51-33-7 relating to condominium conversions, stating that the Planning Director may require certain conditions when converting housing units to condominium status.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer this ordinance to the Planning Commission and the City Attorney for recommendation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 87-4)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Exhibit “A” of the Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation Franchise, Ordinance 8 of 1987, correcting the property description.
ACTION: Without objection this was referred to the consent agenda.
(O 87-3)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The reappointment of William A. Lewis and the appointment of Chris Montague and D’Arcy Ann Dixon to the Salt Lake City Arts Council.
ACTION: Without objection this was referred to the consent agenda.
(I 87-14)
#2. RE: The reappointment of Marvin Tuddenham to the Public Utilities Advisory Board.
ACTION: Without objection this was referred to the consent agenda.
(I 87-9)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for an easement for the City to install Watermain Extension 33-C-1349.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 26 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for an easement agreement for the City to install Watermain Extension 33-C-1349 from Parkview Drive and Olympus Way to Park Terrace Drive, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Godfrey who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-120)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation and three railroads for railroad protective devices and fabricated crossing surfaces.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 25 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Utah Department of Transportation and three railroads to install railroad protective devices and fabricated crossing surfaces on 7200 West near 700 South, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Godfrey who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-121)
#2. RE: Special Improvement District No. 40-R-7 bid opening and bond sale.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 28 of 1987 accepting bids and awarding the sale of $114,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 40-R-7, Downtown and Sherwood Drive, dated April 1, 1987, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 29 of 1987 authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $114,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 of Salt Lake City, Special Improvement District Concrete Replacement No. 40-R-7, Downtown and Sherwood Drive, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, prescribing the form of bond and interest rates, maturity and denomination of said bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund as provided by statute; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 85-3)
#3. RE: Special Improvement District No. 38-685 bid opening and bond sale.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 30 of 1987 accepting bids and awarding the sale of $141 ,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Special Improvement District No. 38-685, 1700 South, West Temple - 700 West, dated April 1, 1987, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 31 of 1987 authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $141 ,000 Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1987 of Salt Lake City, Special Improvement District, Curb and Gutter No. 38-685, 1700 South, West Temple - 700 West, fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, prescribing the form of bond and interest rates, maturity and denomination of said bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund as provided by statute; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 85-1)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-274 Calder Brothers Annexation.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the reconsideration of Petition 400-274 requesting Salt Lake City to annex property located at 3130 South Highland Drive.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the annexation of all property included in Petition 400-274 and direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance subject to the dedication of property for potential right-of-way expansion, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street, and streetscape improvements, zoning the property “C-1” and the submission of an annexation plat, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said the purpose of the public hearing was to reconsider the Council’s action which was taken on July 9, 1985. He said this property was adjoining the present city boundary in the Brickyard area along Highland Drive between Miller and Woodland Avenues. He explained that in 1985 the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended the annexation and the Council approved the annexation excluding one parcel. He said shortly after that the developer could not secure financing and was unable to complete the project and did not complete the annexation.
Since then another developer had acquired the property and was interested in constructing a retail development. He referred to the previous action taken by the Council which approved the annexation excluding one of the properties and said according to the state annexation law this created an unincorporated peninsula. He indicated that if the Council approved the annexation they needed to annex all four properties as was originally requested in the petition or needed to exclude all three of the residential properties fronting on Woodland Avenue.
He also outlined conditions which needed to be a part of the annexation approval such as dedication of property for rights-of-way and curb, gutter sidewalk, street and streetscape improvements. He said it was recommended that the requirements for the dedication of property for increased public right of way and construction of the Street improvements for the three residential properties fronting on Woodland Avenue should be waived until the properties were developed or redeveloped. He said the zoning should be “C-1” and an annexation plat needed to be prepared and submitted to the City. No one from the audience spoke.
(P 85-71)
Petition 400-500 by Bernice Culley and Byron Couch.
RE: A public hearing at 6:35 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the appeal of Historic Landmark Case No. 642 denying the request to retain a fence at 322 North 300 West.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to uphold the decision of the Landmark Committee and of the Planning Commission to deny this appeal. Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to make a substitute motion to table the issue in order to make a determination of any violations of procedure by City staff, which motion failed, Councilmembers Bittner and Stoler voting aye and Councilmembers Mabey, Fonnesbeck, Hardwick, Godfrey, and Kirk voting nay. The original motion was then voted on, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Bittner who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Bil Schwab, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said on November 13, 1986, the Historical Landmark Committee heard the case after a notice for violation was given to the property and they denied the fence; on November 24, 1986, the request was heard by the Board of Adjustment and they denied the height violation; and on January 8, 1987, the Planning Commission denied the appeal. He said no approval permit was issued as required by ordinance, the fence was 8.7 feet on public property and there was no revocable permit, the fence violated height restrictions, and there had been no design or material review of the fence.
He said fence compliance was required by the Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission and said requirements could be made by the Board of Adjustment and the City Council when reviewing projects, therefore it was not uncommon to require fence stipulations to the zone being considered. He said the ordinance was full of fence requirements. He then showed pictures of the area and said property north was also in violation. He mentioned two other properties in the area of 300 West and 600 North which had both replaced illegal fences in order to comply with the ordinance. He said the City was liable for the fence since it was on City property unless the property owner had a revocable permit with insurance.
Henry Whiteside, Historical Landmark Committee, said their standards were reasonable and flexible but they required work done in a historic district to be compatible with the design, material, scale, and character of the neighborhood. He said there were indications that the contractor and owner proceeded with the work when they were well informed of the ordinance and after they were issued a stop-work order. He said chain link was not appropriate for a historic district and said the historic district ordinance was to protect the interests of all the people of Salt Lake, to preserve a historical resource and to offer ground rules and an assurance to home owners in the district that money and time spent restoring a structure would be well spent. He asked the Council to uphold the decision to deny the request. Bruce Shand, attorney on behalf of the petitioner, said this property was on the extreme southwest corner of the Landmark District and was two lots away from West High’s tennis courts which had an 18-foot high chain link fence. He said many properties in this immediate area had chain link fences and he showed a picture.
He said one major problem was that no other action was being taken against other property owners which were not in compliance. He expressed his opinion that the area was appropriate for chain link and said many properties in the area historically had chain link. He mentioned that the fence company told the petitioner a permit was not required and the petitioner had called the City and was told a permit was not needed so they proceeded thinking it was exempt. He said the fence cost about $1,200 and to rebuild it using wrought iron would cost the petitioner $5,000.
He said the building on this property was rented to elderly low-income people who paid $150.00 per month and said if the fence had to be replaced the rents would increase and these renters would probably be unable to afford it. He said this area was a mix of commercial and residential and there was a substantial amount of chain link in the area. He did not think the fence in question affected the aesthetic value of the area and thought they should be granted a variance. He mentioned there were problems in the area and the elderly tenants wanted some security. He said his client was willing to move the fence off City property and asked the Council to overrule the denial.
Councilmember Godfrey said that since the Board of Adjustment turned down the request the only way to appeal their decision was through the court system. Councilmember Fonnesbeck added that regardless of what the Council did they could not override the Board of Adjustment. Mayor DePaulis asked Mr. Shand who in the City told his client they did not need a permit and Mr. Shand said his client did not get a name.
Paul Maxfield, ACME Fence Co., said the City did not require a permit for a fence unless it was in a historic district and at the time of this incident his sales people were not aware that this area was in a historic district. He said they also assumed that people knew where their property line was and said the company could not include the cost of a survey in the cost of the fence. He said the owner wanted the fence to be the same height as the fence to the north even though the fence company told them it would be in violation of the height restriction.
He said he got a letter regarding the stop work order and said the letter was inaccurate; he also got a map outlining the historic district but it was not very well defined. Councilmember Bittner expressed concern about possible misinformation these people received from the City. She also asked if something was being done about other illegal fences. Mr. Schwab indicated yes. He also said the stop work order had been issued on the fence in question and said he had letters to that effect. Councilmember Bittner said she wanted some of the questions cleared up before she made a decision. Councilmember Stoler asked if the owner was notified by the fence company that the fence was in violation. Mr. Maxfield indicated they were notified that the height of the fence was in violation but they wanted it anyway.
Ernest Dixon, 77 “C” Street, said his neighbor was in the same situation and was also appealing the denial of his fence. He told the Council that their decision on this fence would affect other violations. James Allen, 216 5th Avenue, supported the decision to deny the request and said part of the issue was what the Council wanted 3rd West to look like. He said this area was a main entrance into the City. He said the Landmark Committee was sensitive and examined all sides.
Pearl Simmons, property owner immediately north, explained that the workers came on a Saturday to install the fence. She said she called her attorney who came and told them to stop installation because they were in violation of the historical district. She said the workers and her attorney talked to Ms. Culley and she indicated she wanted them to put the fence up. Ms. Simmons said they came back on Sunday to finish the work. She said she felt that Ms. Culley was warned about the violation of this fence.
Councilmember Bittner wanted assurance that City procedure had been properly followed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck was concerned too but felt this matter was a separate issue. She said the historic district had been in place for a number of years and this fence was a clear violation of the law. She didn’t feel that the Council had the authority to override the denial. Councilmember Kirk had a question about the stop work order and Mr. Shand said his client had not been served with a stop work order.
Mr. Schwab said he had letters confirming that the stop work order had been issued and city procedure was followed. Councilmember Bittner requested copies. Councilmember Mabey expressed concern about information given to the owner when she called the City and he thought perhaps enough questions had not been asked before the owner was given an answer. He suggested that the staff should have a list of written questions they need to ask callers. Councilmember Stoler expressed the same concerns and also expressed concern about the cost to the owner.
Larry Livingston, Council Staff, reminded the Council that the issue was whether the decision of the Landmark Committee was proper. He said the law stated that the Landmark Committee and the Planning Commission could decide if fencing material was in character with the historic district. He said the issue of procedure, even though it was important, was not the question before the Council. Roger Cutler, city attorney, explained that if incorrect information was received this would not override the laws and would not stop the City from enforcing the law. Mayor DePaulis said since he did not have the name of an employee who supposedly gave out the misinformation he could not take disciplinary action.
(P 87-48)
City Historical Register - Charles James Mullett Home.
RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the designation of the Charles James Mullett home at 680 Wall Street on the City Historical Register.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 20 of 1987 designating the Charles James Mullett home at 680 Wall Street as a City landmark site, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Bil Schwab, planning and zoning, said this home was in a historic district but the owners wanted it listed site specific. He said the owners had done an excellent job of restoring the home. He showed slides of the home. Sidney Draper, owner, said they loved the history of the community and explained that when they purchased the home he sought architectural advice regarding the restoration and they had received an award of excellence from the Utah Heritage Foundation. He gave a brief history of the house and of Charles James Mullet. He said they had spent a lot of time and money in the house and said they would be honored if it were placed on the register. Councilmember Bittner complimented Mr. Draper.
(L 87-2)
COMMENTS
#1. Kelvin Staker, 1188 South West Temple, complained about a halfway house at 404 Lafayette Avenue. He said it caused problems in the neighborhood and several businesses had been burglarized. He left a petition with the Council from the businesses and residents. Mayor DePaulis said the City would check into this matter.
#2. Alan Bachman, 66 North 100 East in Provo, on behalf of Perry Shepherd who was the previous owner of the Painted Word, addressed the City’s ordinance regarding prohibition of entertainment after 1:00 a.m. He said when the Council made laws they were obligated to follow guidelines as set forth in the Constitution. He referred to the 1st Amendment and said art was free speech and helped to mold society. He said when free speech was going to be regulated there had to be a stated legitimate governmental purpose, it had to be drafted to take care of the legitimate purpose, and there had to be documentation that it would rationally relate to taking care of the purpose. He also said the regulation had to be handled uniformly and not arbitrarily. He expressed concern that Salt Lake City’s law was too broad and did not differentiate between the level of sound, amplification, location, and live entertainment. In his opinion, this law was unconstitutionally over broad since it restricted artistic activities along with undesirable forms of entertainment. He gave examples such as if the opera gave a very long performance extending past the curfew. He said the law needed to be drafted with precision in order to take care of the problem which they wanted to eliminate.
He said the image of the laws had an effect nationwide on tourism and industry in decisions to locate in a new community. He also said the law was selectively enforced and referred to the background music which was allowed to play in all-night restaurants. He said the legislative body needed to respond to changing conditions and said 1,200 people in Salt Lake signed a petition in support of the Painted Word. He asked the Council to define the reason for this law and to draft a law to only take care of the problem.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, indicated that perhaps the ordinance could be narrowed. In reference to the 1st Amendment issue he said the law was not regulating content but regulating certain activities. He said the police department had suggested a number of facts as to why they felt strongly about the current ordinance. He said he could give Mr. Bachman’s memo consideration.
Mr. Bachman referred to a court case in which a similar ordinance was found void. He said in regard to free speech the test was whether there were less drastic means available to accomplish the government’s purpose. He asked if there were less drastic means in this situation to accomplish the purpose. It was his opinion that the court would not allow this ordinance to stand. Councilmember Hardwick suggested that perhaps the City’s ordinance would have to be tested in court and said there weren’t enough votes on the Council to change the ordinance.
Mr. Cutler said he thought the law was defendable and indicated that he could provide an opinion to the Council. He said the question the Council had to discuss was the policy issue and give him some direction. Councilmember Godfrey suggested that the Council should consider the legal issues involved. Councilmember Mabey said he had problems with entertainment in his area for three years.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that the standards could be better defined so the law would go after the specific problems and said the current law just blanketed the entire situation. Mr. Cutler indicated the police concerns involved other violations which could occur in connection with this issue that required additional staffing to monitor, such as liquor violations. Councilmember Godfrey said he would like an opinion from the attorney’s office regarding the question of constitutionality and Councilmember Bittner asked for a memo from Mr. Cutler.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.