PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1985
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1985, AT 5:15 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD WHITEHEAD THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Sydney Fonnesbeck presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
#1. Carole Stokes, council executive director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda.
#2. Mr. Craig Peterson, director of development services, briefed the Council on developments in the Northwest Quadrant annexation proceedings. He indicated that the recent county protest stemmed not from any objection to the annexation itself but from certain matters which the county felt should be dealt with before the annexation is finalized. The county wanted an interlocal agreement with the City to clarify a number of issues. Mr. Peterson indicated that the county had seven concerns. They are: 1. That the City assume responsibility for the West Valley Highway. 2. That the City maintain federal secondary road requirements. 3. That the City maintain the West Valley Highway as a federal secondary road. 4. That the City assume full financial responsibility for the landfill road signal. 5. That the City give landfill zoning protection. 6. That the county receive compensation for the $80,000 right-of-way they purchased recently in the area. 7. That the City and county reach an agreement on the financial responsibility of the City to build and maintain the 7200 West railroad crossing bridge.
Mr. Peterson recommended that the City Council close the hearing and send the annexation to the City Attorney’s office for preparation in ordinance form while indicating their intention to negotiate a separate interlocal agreement with the county in order to resolve the county’s grievances. He also indicated that if the Council proceeds on his recommendation the county will file a protest with the Boundary Commission within five days protesting the annexation.
The briefing session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1985, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, Judy Lever, assistant city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck presided at the meeting and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting.
The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Roger Bastian.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, April 2, 1985, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 85-1)
Special Recognition
#1. The Council and Mayor recognized Samuel Atkinson, former Salt Lake City fire fighter, on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Councilmember Fonnesbeck presented the proclamation. Mr. Atkinson thanked the Council and Mayor for this recognition.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 32 of 1985, recognizing Samuel Atkinson, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 85-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-195 of 1984 by Bertha Schmidt, et al.
RE: The vacation of a 16 foot wide alley which runs between 400 North and Clark Street and between Oakley and 1300 West.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 14, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this petition, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-63)
Petition 400-199 of 1984 by the Utah Department of Transportation.
RE: The vacation of portions of two unimproved streets at 600 South 700 West.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, May 14, 1985, at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this petition, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-62)
Petition 400-255 of 1984 by Cora Vigil.
RE: The vacation of two alleys located in the area of 548 Dexter Street.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for June 11, 1985, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this petition, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-61)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: A resolution adopting an Aerial Walkway Over Public Rights-of-Way policy statement.
Without objection, Councilmember Godfrey referred this resolution to the Committee of the Whole.
(R 85-5)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: West Downtown Master Plan.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 33 of 1985 adopting the West Downtown Master Plan supplementing the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-32)
#2. RE: East Central Neighborhood Plan.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 34 of 1985 adopting the East Central Neighborhood Plan supplementing the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-27)
#3. RE: Sugar House Neighborhood Plan.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 35 of 1985 adopting the Sugar House Neighborhood Plan supplementing the 1967 Master Plan of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-22)
#4. RE: The appropriation of $15,000 from 10th Year (1984-1985) Community Development Block Grant contingency to hire a consultant to assist the City and a blue ribbon committee in coordinating development programs for Sugar House.
Without objection, Councilmember Godfrey referred this issue to the consent agenda for April 16, 1985.
(T 85-8)
MAYORS OFFICE
#1. RE: The reappointment of Don A. Mackey to the Airport Authority Board.
Without objection, Councilmember Godfrey referred this reappointment to the consent agenda for April 16, 1985.
(I 85-9)
#2. RE: Reclassifications of two airport employees from 309 to 314, one airport employee from 309 to 315, four airport employees from 117 to 118, one police employee from 314 to 315, six police employees from 212 to 214, and one parks employee from 309 to 312. The Council noted that they had reviewed these reclassifications. No action was required on this issue.
(B 85-3)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Wasatch-Cache National Forest, USDA Forest Service for the city to provide funds for the cost of backcountry water quality monitoring and public education on Salt Lake watersheds.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 36 of 1985 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Wasatch-Cache National Forest, USDA Forest Service, whereby the city shall provide funds to the USDA Forest Service for the cost of backcountry water quality monitoring and public education on Salt Lake watersheds located on the Salt Lake Ranger District, in conjunction with the Memorandum of Understanding dated January 14, 1982, passed by the City Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 85-114)
#2. RE: Public Utilities Project 50-1296, 12-inch main sewer pipeline.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 37 of 1985 declaring the intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, to construct improvements on certain streets within said municipality consisting of the construction of a 12-inch main sewer pipeline, and all other improvements in a proper workmanlike manner; to create Salt Lake City, Utah, Public Utilities Project 50-1296; to defray the cost and expenses of said Improvement District by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements; and to provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements or the creation of said district; to authorize advertisement of construction bids; and to induce the owners of the commercial properties abutting on the street being improved to develop the proposed improvements, and set a date for a public hearing on May 14, 1985 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss issuance by the city of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds and to hear protests concerning creation of said district, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 85-4)
#3. RE: A resolution accepting the recommendations of the Salt Lake City Director of Public Utilities pertaining to the Waste Water 201 Facilities Plan relative to wetlands treatment sludge disposal and the site for the proposed waste water treatment plant.
Without objection, Councilmember Godfrey referred this issue to the consent agenda for April 16, 1985.
(R 85-6)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. A resolution of the Board of Trustees of Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Service District No. 3-W-2 for operations, maintenance, repair and replacement of sub-drain improvements within the district; imposing an annual service charge for furnishing such services; providing for the collection and enforcement of the said service charge and providing for other matters relating thereto.
Without objection, Councilmember Godfrey referred this issue to the consent agenda for April 16, 1985.
(Q 83-12)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-202 of 1984 by Northwest Community Council.
RE: The vacation of an alley located at approximately 1200 West and 470 North.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this petition. Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the alley is 15 feet wide and runs east/west for about 500 feet. He said that there were no objections from various City departments contacted about this request. Johnson said that the alley is overgrown with weeds and appears not to have been used recently for access, although there are some abutting property owners who have used the alley for storage. He said the Planning Commission recommended that the alley be vacated with three conditions: 1. Retention of easements for any utilities located in or above the property. 2. Access to the utility gas house, approximately 105 feet east of 1200 West, be provided. 3. The concrete alley approach between the street and sidewalk be removed and be replaced with high back curb and gutter, the cost of which is to be borne by the abutters to the alley. Mr. Johnson mentioned that not all of the abutting property owners signed the petition.
Barry Esham, Northwest Community Council, supported the vacation of the alley and the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Ms. Kirkland suggested that it would be convenient to leave the alley approach as it is now because she may be interested in constructing a garage and would need this portion of the alley for an entrance. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked the reason for requiring curb and gutter. Mr. Johnson explained that the present situation constitutes an illegal curb cut under the zoning ordinance.
Margaret Hunter, 1128 Ouray Avenue, asked who was responsible for closing off the alley. The Council informed her that once the alley is vacated by the City it becomes the responsibility of the property owners and in order to determine where the boundary lines are, they would have to have the alley surveyed.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 24 of 1985, vacating the alley located at approximately 1200 West and 470 North, and requiring certain conditions; and direct the planning staff to review with the Planning Commission the vacation of the north/south running leg of this alley system so that an advertised hearing can be held on May 14, 1985, at 6:15 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-15)
Petition 400-281 of 1985 by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Filtrol Corp., and Union Pacific Land Resources Corp.
RE: The annexation of property located between North Temple and 2100 South Streets and between 2650 West and 7400 West Streets, known as the “Northwest Quadrant Annexation, Phase 2”; and zoning the property Agricultural “A-1” and Manufacturing “M-lA”.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this petition. Randy Taylor, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the annexation is for 5,733.77 acres of property or 8.9 square miles. He explained that state law requires signatures from over 50% of the owners of record and the signatories must represent at least 1/3 of the assessed value. He said that these requirements have been met. Mr. Taylor said that this annexation is part of the overall northwest quadrant annexation and is within the city’s master annexation area. He said that the Planning Commission feels this request is logical and the Commission supports the annexation because it will correct a boundary problem and will allow logical development through City controlled public service extensions. Mr. Taylor mentioned that about 140 acres of property at 7200 West will overlap with the Magna Water/Sewer Improvement District but such overlaps are not unprecedented. He explained that the property owners would be obligated by law to the improvement district even if annexed but Salt Lake City’s water and sewer department policy is that property owners would not be forced to use city services although these services could be provided if requested. Mr. Taylor said that the Planning Commission recommends M-1A and A-1 zoning. He said the M-lA zoning is in harmony with Centennial Park and the International Center and the A-1 zone would be a holding zoning, at the request of the property owners, since they do not have immediate development plans.
Craig Peterson, director of development services, said that a meeting was held with several Salt Lake County representatives and they discussed four major issues and a 7-point proposal for an interlocal agreement. The four issues discussed were the West Valley Highway, 1300 South 5600 West intersection improvements, 7200 West, and the Salt Lake City County Landfill; the seven points discussed were: 1. That the City assume responsibility for the West Valley Highway. 2. That the City maintain federal secondary road requirements. 3. That the City maintain the West Valley Highway as a federal secondary road. 4. That the City assume full financial responsibility for the landfill road signal. 5. That the City give landfill zoning protection. 6. That the county receive compensation for the $80,000 right-of-way they purchased recently in the area. 7. That the City and county reach an agreement on the financial responsibility of the City to build and maintain the 7200 West railroad crossing bridge.
Mr. Peterson said that an interlocal agreement would be appropriate. Don Spencer, public works director for Salt Lake County, said that the county is desirous of preserving the funding for road systems in this area. He said that these are federal funds which are appropriated under federal law to only county jurisdiction and there is no provision under state law for the continuation of the allocation of those funds to local government except under current guidelines which do not recognize the change of jurisdiction.
Mr. Spencer said that in order to protect this funding an interlocal agreement would be necessary to set forth guidelines. He mentioned that failure to comply with federal regulations has the potential of requiring refunding, so it is the countys position that every appropriate step be taken to formally set forth conditions so the funds will not be jeopardized. Mr. Spencer indicated that the annexation should not proceed to its final stages until agreements are completed but if the Council acts on the annexation at this meeting the County Commission has given its approval to file a protest. He added that they do not desire to file a protest in an adversary relationship but only want to preserve their funding. Ed Sweeney, legal council for Magna Water Company, wanted the point clear in the annexation ordinance that the property owners in the Magna Water/Sewer Improvement District would still be obligated to the district. Judy Lever, assistant city attorney, said that the language in the annexation ordinance generally does not deal with improvement districts and she indicated that there is a process to follow if a property owner wants to withdraw from an improvement district.
Jeannine Rokich, property owner in the area, did not object to the annexation but was concerned that she would lose the intended use of her property since the area will be down zoned if annexed into the City. She was also concerned that if the Ccity imposes a general obligation tax for water/sewer improvements then she would pay double because her property is in the Magna improvement district. In regards to Ms. Rokich’s concern about zoning, Mr. Taylor said that they didn not want to predetermine the land use at this time because the land use patterns are not definite or well planned yet. He indicated that the M-lA is a type of holding zone at this point and he also indicated that there will be requests for rezoning as the area is developed.
In reference to Ms. Rokich’s question regarding double taxation, Judy Lever explained that when land is annexed into an existing improvement district, the bond holders can require the property owners to continue paying the improvement district portion of the property tax. She reiterated that there is a process for property owners to follow in order to withdraw from an improvement district and there would be an adjustment of the debt for them to bear their fair share. She explained that the possibility exists that property owners could be subject to City bonding, as well as the Magna improvement district, if the city bonds for a sewer/ water district by general obligation bonds and finances it through a mill levy.
Mr. James Jenkins, owner of 30 acres at 5600 West 700 South, also expressed concern that the zoning change would affect the development possibilities of his property. He asked for assurance that there would not be a problem rezoning the property. Ms. Lever said that the Council cannot bind future legislative action. George Morris, property owner at about 5600 West 700 South, mentioned that there are drainage problems in the area. He also suggested that the road network should be carefully considered. It was Mr. Morris’s opinion that annexation would raise taxes without any additional benefit to the property owners and he did not think that industry would move into the area until the area is further developed (until the sewer project progresses).
Elliot Christensen, representing the L.D.S. Church, supported the annexation and said that they have reviewed the concerns which have been raised and he said that an extension of 700 South is planned, there is some excess sewer capacity available, and the drainage problems are manageable. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the city has given consideration to the various concerns which have been raised. Mr. Taylor said that extensive consideration had been given to these problems. Don Wolkins, a director of Upland Industries Corporation, supported the annexation. He said that they are doing a major marketing study and will follow up with a master land plan which will fit in with the city’s plan.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to refer this issue to the consent agenda for April 16, 1985, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-20, R 85-3)
Petition 400-225 of 1984 by S. N. Sharma.
RE: The vacation of an alley located north of 2700 South between Elizabeth Street and Highland Drive.
A public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this petition. Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, said that based upon the information contained in the petition the Planning Commission recommended the vacation of the alley. He said he understood that some of the information may be in question at this time. McCoy McMurray represented property owners opposed to this petition. He said that he discussed this issue with Mr. Sharma and Mr. Sharma had agreed to withdraw his petition. Mr. McMurray said that Mr. Matthes signed the petition but wishes to withdraw his name, Ms. Fox opposes the petition because she uses the alley, and Mr. Caldwell opposes the petition.
Mr. Matthes and Ms. Fox were present at the meeting and verified Mr. McMurray’s statements about their opposition to the petition; Mr. Caldwell had to leave the meeting prior to the public hearing. Mr. McMurray said that Darlene Nelson, on behalf of Mountain Bell, had no objection to the vacation and a consent letter to that effect had been submitted.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to deny the petition, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 85-19)
Urban Compatibility Review Overlay Zone.
RE: An ordinance amending Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, by adding a new Chapter 36 providing for the establishment of an Urban Compatibility Review Overlay Zone and the creation of Urban Design Districts to implement the zone, providing for a process of certification review for compatibility; providing standards for certification review, providing general enforcement provisions; and providing a procedure for creating Urban Design Districts.
A public hearing was held at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this proposed ordinance. Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, said that this is a tool to be added to the City’s zoning ordinance. He said that the CR overlay has two basic objectives. First, under certain circumstances a person could apply to exceed the residential base zoning for an apartment house, which is a mechanism to encourage in-fill development. The process is designed to elicit neighborhood comment in the design of the structure and subject the development to a review by a subcommittee. Secondly, this ordinance gives the City the opportunity to bring to a public forum the design of developments that exist within the base zone.
Mr. Johnson said that this ordinance establishes the process and criteria with which developers and the City have to comply. He also said that Salt Lake City has to have an urban design element which allows the planning department to work with the community to determine what type of exceptions should be allowed and uses which should be required to have special consideration. He said the urban design element could be part of a neighborhood plan, a community plan, a district plan, or it could be an urban design element by itself. Mr. Johnson said that presently the City has the East Central Neighborhood plan, the West Downtown plan, the Sugar House Community master plan, and the West Side Neighborhood plan. He said that these plans have been approved by the Council and they contain urban design elements which discuss the criteria that a development will have to meet, from a planning standpoint.
In conjunction with the first two components, the ordinance and the urban design element, Mr. Johnson said that the Council would have to approve an urban design district ordinance which is an ordinance for a specific area and relates to that plan. He explained that this would give the City the authority to grant exceptions or impose the review process on certain base uses. Harvey Boyd, planning and zoning, said the purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that development will be sensitive to the neighborhood and carried out in a fashion resulting in the enhancement of the City, and the ordinance provides a mechanism to exceed the base zoning for residential uses only.
He said that the CR overlay is not intended to change the character of the underlying zoning district but to allow for review of compatibility issues. He said that the scope of the CR overlay allows for a number of waivers to the compatibility review and these are basically addressed in the individual plans. He added that the Planning Director may also administratively declare that a project is of a minor incidental nature. Mr. Boyd said that the urban design district may also exempt certain use classifications or use intensities. He said that the urban design district identifies the issues and the issues are illustrated in the urban design element section of the neighborhood or sector plan. He said that the CR overlay may subject an application to additional conditions as identified in the plan. Mr. Boyd said that the underlying zone will continue to establish and allow for all allowable uses and conditional uses subject to the Board of Adjustment process, and in addition the CR overlay can establish special exemption use permits for residential use. Mr. Boyd outlined the procedure for creating an urban design district and he outlined the compatibility review and certification process (detailed charts of these procedures are on file in the Office of the City Recorder).
Judy Lever, assistant city attorney, added that when a plan is adopted, a provision will have to be adopted to determine what types of projects must be reviewed. She explained that design review will be a function of the Planning Commission and some of the work will be delegated to a subcommittee. Ms. Lever said that this ordinance is a flexible tool which establishes a process and general criteria but the site specific issues will be a function of the plan when the district is adopted.
Councilmember Kirk asked if this ordinance would create more red tape. Mr. Johnson said this was a fear but they thought it would be offset by the increased flexibility that a property owner receives. He added that a developer can build what the base zoning will permit and does not have to try to get an exception. Councilmember Parker asked if this ordinance had been discussed with developers. Mr. Johnson said that there have been both positive and negative comments from developers. He indicated that they were concerned with the delay factor.
Councilmember Whitehead supported the concept but he thought that it ought to be the same for the entire City. Mr. Johnson said that the urban design issues need to be addressed on a small geographic basis because of the diversity throughout the city. Ms. Stephanie Churchill, director of the Utah Heritage Foundation, said that the concept is excellent. It was Ms. Churchill’s opinion that this ordinance is important for the development of the City and she considered the ordinance to be enabling legislation which allows each district to set site specific guidelines.
Hermoine Jex, SLACC, supported the concept of the ordinance. She suggested that there ought to be an art design consultant team which could be used upon request. She said that the public needs to be involved with a master plan from the beginning. Phil Halstrom, Housing Development Committee, said that except for himself, the Committee opposed the ordinance and he indicated that one reason may be because the language in the ordinance is complex. He said the Committee is in favor of the present process and they do not favor having “mini” planning commissions. He suggested that there needs to be more dialogue regarding this ordinance. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that if an area is zoned for a particular type of project then a developer should be able to proceed without having the project reviewed by a special committee. Jim McGuire, Clark Financial, said they would be concerned if there is another level of approval required when a developer is proposing a project which is allowed under the existing zone. He said that they were not concerned about the concept. Councilmember Fonnesbeck reiterated that this ordinance is general, and the details regarding development will be specific to areas and will be part of an area plan.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer this proposed ordinance to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(0 85-10)
Petition 400-260 of 1984 by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Robert Dyer.
RE: Closure of an alley system located between Herbert Avenue and Williams Avenue and between 200 East and 300 East.
A public hearing was held at 8:00 p.m. to discuss this petition. Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the petitioner intends to construct a parking lot. He said that all abutting property owners signed the petition and the City departments which reviewed the request concurred with the recommendation that the alleys be closed. The finance department suggested that the alleys adjacent to the L.D.S. Church property be closed and sold to the church. No one from the audience opposed this request.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 25 of 1985, closing an alley system located between Herbert Avenue and Williams Avenue and 200 East and 300 East, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-57)
Petition 400-295 of 1985 by Robert Lord.
RE: Closure of an alley which runs north from North Temple to Gertie Avenue just west of Redwood Road.
A public hearing was held at 8:15 p.m. to discuss this petition. Mr. Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that all abutting property owners agreed with this request. He said that the city departments have reviewed this request and no objections have been raised. Mr. Robert Lord, petitioner, urged approval of this petition. No one from the audience opposed this request.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 26 of 1985, closing an alley which runs north from North Temple to Gertie Avenue just west of Redwood Road, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 85-58)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Mr. Wayne Horrocks, director of the Salt Lake City Community Crime Prevention Unit, presented the Council and Mayor with information regarding the Crime Prevention 5K Run which will be held on July 13, 1985, in Liberty Park. He said that the funds generated will be used to print new posters and brochures regarding crime prevention.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.