PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, August 9 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
#1. The Council interviewed Marcia Poulsen Price prior to consideration of her proposed appointment to the Salt Palace/Fine Arts Board. Ms. Price reviewed her job history, experience in the private and public sectors and expressed her desire to see a strong and self-sufficient arts community.
#2. Executive Director Linda Hamilton reviewed the agenda with the Council. Sydney Fonnesbeck asked if there would be a public hearing on the sexually oriented business ordinance. Ms. Hamilton said there would be no hearing but Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney, would be at the meeting to answer questions.
#3. Bill Wright of Planning and Zoning briefed the Council on the Howard Lund petition, No. 400-574. Mr. Wright said that because a parcel of land was sold to the developers, the land now qualified for a planned unit development but there were still some questions as to how the development should proceed. He said that they needed more information on slope analysis, environmental impacts, transportation and on the character of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why the planned unit development couldn’t go through. Mr. Wright said that the new property had not gone through the zoning process. He said that Mr. Lund had asked for a reconsideration which would allow more information to be gathered on the new property. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the delay would increase the risk of losing the whole project. Mr. Wright said that by rezoning the area as R-1A, more options ware left open to the City and Mr. Lund.
#4. The Council then discussed the Robert Miller petition, No. 400-518-87, the Mixed Use Transitional Overlay District (MUT). Councilmember Wayne Horrocks said that the MUT would allow for greater control over new development and protect the neighborhood as the area changed. Mr. Wright said that a zoning request for M-1 was denied but that they re-petitioned for the MUT. He said that many of the homes bordering the area were in good shape and most of them were owner occupied. He said that the MUT gave the city the control it needed to protect the residential/industrial interface.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 9, 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.
Mike Zuhl, chief of staff, Steven Allred, assistant city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy city recorder, were present. Mayor Palmer DePaulis and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were absent.
Councilmember Godfrey presided at and Councilmember Hardman conducted the meeting.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, August 2, 1988, and Thursday, August 4, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-574 by Howard Lund.
RE: An ordinance rezoning 4.5 acres of property located at 2315 East and 2337 East 1300 South from Residential “R-1” to Residential “R-1A” to develop a 2.2 acre parcel as a single-family planned unit development.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to: 1) remand this petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their reconsideration, 2) request the petitioner to provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with a new PUD development plan for the entire site, 3) ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold another informal hearing on the new proposal and determine the definition of “neighborhood character”, which Councilmember Kirk recommended be based on those lots fronting on the golf course, 4) ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to submit its recommendation on the new proposal to the Council, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Kirk said Mr. Lund had acquired additional property which would be included in the development and she thought it was necessary to have both the Parks Department and the Planning Commission do master planning of the area around Bonneville Golf Course. She said she thought the neighborhood character was a significant issue and said the petitioner suggested that the “neighborhood” should include a larger area to the east and the planning staff recommendation was that it should include some additional property to the south.
Councilmember Kirk recommended that the area being considered should include the lots fronting on the golf course. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Councilmember Kirk if she thought the definition of neighborhood should be limited to the properties fronting on the golf course or include those properties. Councilmember Kirk said she thought it should be limited to those properties. Councilmember Fonnesbeck didn’t know if legally they could limit the definition.
Bill Wright, planning department, said they could take this issue back to the Planning Commission and discuss in detail what could compose this neighborhood. He said there were three different subdivisions in this area and the staffs’ point of view was to determine the neighborhood by the area that was rezoned from “R-2” to “R-l”.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she was nervous about setting a precedent that a neighborhood was a small selective group. She cited the example of LDS hospital in the Avenues and said developers had considered LDS hospital the “neighborhood” and wanted to build according to that development. Councilmember Kirk said she was only making a recommendation and the Planning Commission would make the determination. Mr. Wright said they would seek legal advice about the issue.
Councilmember Bittner requested a report from the administration regarding the sale of the property to Mr. Lund because of the long-standing policy of not selling land adjacent to parks. Councilmember Horrocks said he felt that when a neighborhood council made a recommendation about an issue, the recommendation should be strongly adhered to. Councilmember Stoler said that on hole number one at Bonneville, golfers hooked the ball into the neighboring houses and he was concerned that the same problem would occur with hole number fourteen if Mr. Lund’s development infringed on this hole.
He suggested that this needed to be considered because of the possibility of civil suits. Councilmember Kirk said hole number fourteen would be a problem. Councilmember Fonnesbeck was concerned about voting on Councilmember Kirk’s recommendation that the definition of neighborhood be based on the property fronting the golf course. Councilmember Godfrey indicated that it would be like telling the Planning Commission what their decision should be. Councilmember Stoler asked what impact Mrs. Kirk’s recommendation would have if it was included in the motion and Mr. Wright said in his opinion her recommendation would give direction to the Planning Commission but it was in the form of a recommendation and not stating what the character would be.
(P 88-147)
Petition 400-644 by Councilmember Stoler.
RE: A request that Salt Lake City rezone the property in the vicinity of 21st South and Foothill Drive from Residential “R-7” to Residential “R-l”.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, November 1, 1988, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 88-263)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
#1. RE: An ordinance amending certain sections of the ordinance relating to the regulation of sexually oriented businesses.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Ordinance 53 of 1988 amending Chapter 61 of Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code dealing with licensing sexually oriented businesses and employees, amending Bills 21 and 36 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Bruce Baird, assistant city attorney, said Judge Russon declared minor sections of the ordinance unconstitutional. He said that in regards to the definition of adult bookstore, adult video store, or adult motion picture theatre, the Judge did not find the sentence “holds itself out to be such a business” clear, so Mr. Baird said they took this out. In regards to requiring disclosure of arrests, he said the Judge wanted it limited to convictions so this was changed.
He said the ordinance asked the applicant to provide such other additional information that the police may determine reasonably necessary to determine the truth of the rest of the information. He said this provision had been upheld before but Judge Russon didn’t agree so this wording was stricken. He said they clarified the age restrictions in the portion of the ordinance that prohibited minors, or those under 21 if liquor was available, on licensed premises.
He said the ordinance had a provision that prohibited escorts from touching customers in private rooms but the Judge said they could touch except in specified anatomical areas. He also said the Judge objected to the time restrictions on out-call nudity; the provision was 36 hours and they modified the time to 24 hours. In regards to the provision about dancers being clothed after performances, the Judge thought this was excessive so the ordinance was changed. He said the ordinance required that out-call employees who dealt directly with the public or nude entertainment employees who dealt directly with the customers had to have a test for sexually transmitted diseases and he said they clarified this section, in consultation with attorney’s for the affected businesses. Finally he said the definition of escort, which was from the old ordinance, was challenged because the Judge thought it was too broad, so they changed the definition. Mr. Baird said the ordinance would take effect upon first publication.
(O 88-26)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: A grant agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development providing the 1988-89 Rental Rehabilitation Program entitlement of $295,000 to Salt Lake City Corporation.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 101 of 1988 approving the grant, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-436)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointments of Marcia Poulsen Price, Anthony Rampton and John Dunlop to the Salt Palace/Fine Arts Advisory Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment of Marcia Poulsen Price, which motion failed, Councilmembers Bittner, Horrocks, Hardman and Stoler voted nay and Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, Godfrey and Kirk voted aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the appointment of Anthony Rampton, which motion failed, Councilmembers Bittner, Horrocks, Hardman and Stoler voted nay and Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, Godfrey and Kirk voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment of John Dunlop, which motion failed, Councilmembers Bittner, Horrocks, Hardman and Stoler voted nay and Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, Godfrey and Kirk voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Stoler said he thought the individuals selected were very well qualified but he believed there should be broad representation from throughout the city. He said this board affected the city, state, and county and he understood that the board would make policy for the Salt Palace Arena and Convention Center, Symphony Hall, Capitol Theatre, and Fine Arts Center. He said the board would prepare budgets and explore alternative methods for funding. He said he would support any one of the three for appointment but thought the members should be selected from the various Council districts. Councilmember Kirk said the Council needed to appoint the city’s three members in order to get the committee functioning. She said the Salt Palace Task Force had been organized and they set up a board to begin making management decisions. She said the city approved $335,000 for the board and she was concerned that the board would start making decisions and the city wouldn’t have input. She urged the Council to approve these three appointments and then consider the issue of making appointments based on geographical representation.
Councilmember Bittner said the issue on geographical representation was important in regards to the Salt Palace since the west side of the city was impacted as high as any part of the valley because of access. She said if the expansion was approved then the west side would be more isolated. She said she felt there were economic considerations which were vital and she wanted the various income elements represented. She said she would like to see Mrs. Price’s name resubmitted but the issue of geographic representation on this board was important. She said the city only had three members on this nine-member board and she felt it was essential to have the west side and central city area represented.
Councilmember Godfrey referred to previous appointments which had not been consistent with the City Council’s policy. He referred to the Hueffner report (done at the time when the form of government changed) which stated that it was essential that appointments to the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment be based solely on capability and integrity without regard to political affiliation or geographic considerations, otherwise the boards would degenerate into special interest tribunals with neighborhoods pitted against each other and the interests of Salt Lake City not being served.
He agreed that geography needed to be considered but he thought the point made in the Hueffner report was more important, which was the capability, integrity and skills of the people appointed. He said the Mayor had made a determined effort to make sure there was good representation from all the Council districts on the boards and commissions. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said this board consisted of nine members, only three from Salt Lake City, so the board would have a wide geographic representation because the members would come from many areas. Mike Zuhl, chief of staff, said this was an advisory committee and the ultimate decisions rested with Salt Lake County that owned those facilities.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said there were qualified people throughout the city but there were not people more qualified than those who the Mayor recommended. Councilmember Stoler said he believed this board impacted the total city, particularly the west and central city areas. He said there was a definite need for broad representation. Councilmember Horrocks recommended that the Mayor resubmit Mrs. Price’s name for consideration. Councilmember Hardman said in February the Council’s unanimous decision was to strictly adhere to their policy which they drafted in a letter and sent to the Mayor. Specifically the policy stated that board members wouldn’t be appointed to more than two consecutive terms, that members would come from different geographic areas of the city, and that no hoard member would serve on more than one board at a time. He said the administration had known of the Council’s policy for several months and he said he was firmly committed to the policy of equal representation on the boards and commissions. He said one district had as few as 10 people serving on boards and another district had as many as 48 people serving. He thought the Mayor and Council needed to work towards parity.
(I 88-18)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for improvement of 1300 South Street (California Avenue) from Redwood Road to Pioneer Road to be paid for partially by federal funds and partially by city funds
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 99 of 1988 authorizing the execution of the interlocal agreement, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-434)
#2 RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation and Union Pacific and Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Companies for installation of flashing signal lights and crossings at the intersection of California Avenue and Fortune Road.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 100 of 1988 authorizing the execution of the interlocal agreement, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-435)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-518 by Robert Miller.
RE: A public hearing scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment concerning the request that Salt Lake City rezone property located at approximately 1320 South between 700 and 800 West as a Mixed Use Transitional Overlay District.
ACTION: Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Ordinance 54 of 1988 applying the Mixed Use Transitional Overlay District (MU-T) to certain property located at about 1320 South between 700 West and 800 West, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said the property was on the interior of the block between 1300 South and 1355 South and between 700 West and 800 West. He said the parcel was currently zoned Residential “R-4” and a master plan done in 1974 acknowledged that the property should be zoned and used for residential. He said since that time there had not been any development on the property and in updating the West Side Community Master Plan this area was noted as an area of transition between Industrial “M-1A” zoning to the south and the residential property zoned on the frontage of 1300 South and north to 900 South.
Originally the petitioner requested that the property be rezoned to Industrial “M-1A” but the planning staff recommended denial because this was at the time the mixed use ordinance was being prepared and the staff noted to the petitioner that this might be an appropriate alternative. The petitioner asked that his petition be held until the ordinance was available. Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission supported the mixed use transitional overlay zone, which would cause the Residential “R-4” zoning to remain intact as the base zone and then they would overlay the property with the mixed use transitional overlay which would allow property owners to make proposals to the Planning Commission for the development of the property.
He said both the planning staff and Planning Commission recommended denial of the “M-1A” zoning because they wouldn’t have the controls to assure that the interface and compatibility issues would be addressed. He said this was the first place where the ordinance was recommended to be applied in the city and the planning staff thought this was a good place for it. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the people interfacing this area had been notified of the change. Mr. Wright said they had and most of them were at the Planning Commission hearing. He said they were notified again of the Council hearing.
Mrs. Fonnesbeck asked what was currently on the property zoned “M-1A” across from this area. Mr. Wright said the land use was mixed industrial and a few residential; properties that had been going through a transition. He said there were two properties still being used for residential. Councilmember Horrocks said the residential use was almost nil and the area was run down.
Robert Miller, petitioner and professional planner working for the property owners, said the transition in the area was almost complete and he said the mixed use overlay zone would allow for a public forum regarding development and area concerns. He said he thought the mixed use overlay zone enabled the neighborhood to be heard. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the property owners were fully aware of the restrictions under the zoning and asked if they would cooperate with the neighborhood. Mr. Miller said the people who owned the property would not be adverse to having a neighborhood and planning staff review of the plan. Councilmember Horrocks said he had been concerned about changing this area from a blighted condition to an attractive area. He said he felt they had an opportunity to do something positive with this area. Ray Hedberg, owner of four lots on 1355 South, supported the petitioner’s request since this change would be more supportive of his request to the Board of Adjustment to grant an exception to the side yard requirement. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said this was significant since it was the first overlay in the city and she said she hoped the property owners adjacent to this zone would feel they had been adequately protected.
(P 87-366)
Hunting in City Creek Canyon.
RE: A public hearing scheduled for 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment concerning a proposed ordinance dealing with hunting restrictions and discharge of firearms in City Creek Canyon.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Ordinance 55 of 1988 amending Sections 17.08.100 and 11.48.060 and repealing Section 17.08.110 of the Salt Lake City Code dealing with firearms and hunting restrictions in City Creek Canyon and discharge of firearms in City Creek Canyon, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: LeRoy Hooton, director of public utilities, said the ordinance to be repealed was the one which authorized the public utilities director to allow hunting within City Creek Canyon. He said hunting had always been permitted, however, since the 1983 flood and City Creek Master Plan the uses in the canyon had changed and there were now many bicyclists and joggers in the canyon. He said prior to this time the canyon was closed.
He said the city attorney’s office reviewed the existing ordinance and found it was in conflict with state code since the State Division of Wildlife Resources had the authority to set up regulations regarding hunting. He said the second ordinance to be adopted, would adopt the language in the State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources and Salt Lake County Safety Zone for big game hunting. He said this would prohibit hunting within one mile of a structure or building occupied by people. He said hunting would be prohibited from the mouth of the canyon up to the entrance of Rotary Park.
He said under the state regulations they could ask to include other areas and they proposed to go up to the ridge lines both on the Davis County and City Creek sides of the canyon so this area would be under the safety zone where hunting would not be permitted. He said hunting would be permitted above this point up to the head waters of City Creek. He said they would limit the number of hunters in the canyon and during hunting season they would post a sign for bicyclists and joggers recommending that they not go into the upper canyon for safety reasons. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if cars would be allowed in the canyon every day during hunting season and Mr. Hooton said yes, however, it would be limited, controlled and well posted.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why they would allow hunters to use the canyon on days designated for only joggers and bicyclists. Mr. Hooton said this was a compromise over a conflict regarding the various uses and he recommended that for the 11-day hunting period they allow hunting. He said the bikers and hikers would have the canyon for the remaining part of the year. Mr. Hooton said to get into the canyon the hunters would have to have a big game license from the Division of Wildlife Resources as well as the Salt Lake County big game hunting permit.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the old ordinance allowed the public utilities director to prohibit hunting in the canyon and the new ordinance gave up this right. Mr. Hooton reiterated that the current ordinance was in conflict with state code and he thought it would be prudent to change the ordinance. He said he thought they had struck a Compromise and balanced use of the canyon where all parties had access. He said the rules and regulations would be the same as those that applied to other canyons within Salt Lake County.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said in the introduction to the county land use master plan it specifically said that City Creek would be affected by the county’s master plan and she asked for clarification. Mr. Hooton said they would essentially adopt Salt Lake City’s master plan for City Creek, the current plan for Red Butte, and would incorporate Salt Lake City’s master plan for watershed management.
The following people supported the ordinance: Bill Christensen, 1334 South 2100 East, Utah Hunters Federation, said this ordinance was a concession and he said they were concerned with wildlife management which allowed legal hunting because of the loss of large predators.
Michael Spence, representing Sportsmen for City Creek Canyon, said he thought this ordinance was a fair compromise between the people who supported multiple uses in the canyon. He said the compromise was developed by many different factions and to his knowledge the only group that opposed this was the group that opposed hunting any where. He said the City Creek master plan called for the type of hunting supported by this ordinance and recommended hunting for wise and proper game and watershed management.
He said they only wanted to use the canyon 11 days out of the year. Gale Folsom, secretary of the Salt Lake County Fish and Game Association, supported Michael Spence’s statements. He said most of the hunting was way above where the joggers and hikers went. Randy Nielsen, 160 West Layton Avenue, member of Mountain Men of the Wasatch, said they voted to support this compromise. He said there were many places in the sate where people couldn’t hunt such as national parks and there were many areas set aside as preserves. He said if there was no control on the herd it would endanger the water quality.
The following people opposed the ordinance: Scott Williams, 319 L Street, said that City Creek was a nature preserve and hunting was incompatible with a nature preserve. He thought this was more of a convenience for hunters and thought this ordinance would create a hunting preserve. He also said good herd control would involve weeding out the weak members of the herd and hunters wanted the biggest and strongest members of the herd. He said this herd wandered all over the Wasatch Mountains not just in City Creek.
Chuck Spence, Sugar House resident, quoted Grant Jentz, Big Game Program Coordinator of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, who had told him that there were literally thousands of places to hunt. Mr. Spence did not think it was unrealistic to prohibit hunting in City Creek. Red Smith, Holiday resident, said he was concerned about opening a nature preserve for hunting because this was incongruent. He said not all places were appropriate for hunting.
Larry Young, 718 6th Avenue, said he applauded the use of City Creek as a nature preserve and did not think there was a problem with herd management since the herd traveled to other areas. Roger Miller, 1494 West 800 South, said people needed one refuge during the fall where they could go and not hear rifles. He said bullets could travel more that one mile and he wanted City Creek to be a refuge for people.
Christen Fonnesbeck, 215 A Street, said the close proximity of this nature preserve to the downtown area was unique and he wanted City Creek to be protected as a nature preserve. He thought the City Creek Canyon nature preserve was analogous to the national parks. Councilmember Bittner said that comments she got continually were about the restrictions placed on City Creek because people who didn’t live close to the canyon thought it was difficult to use it.
She said traditionally the people in her area had used the canyon for many years and now felt they couldn’t do this because of the restrictive use placed on the canyon. She said hunting would only be a few days out of the year on a restricted and controlled basis. She thought this was a reasonable compromise and didn’t think this would would destroy the nature preserve. Councilmember Godfrey said he agreed with the speakers in opposition to hunting in City Creek but was concerned about the conflict with state law.
Councilmember Kirk said she opposed hunting but said hunting was one of the multiple uses for the canyon. She said after all the time and work spent on negotiating this ordinance they should put personal preference aside and consider this the best solution since the city’s legal opinion was that the current ordinance conflicted with state law. Councilmember Stoler said he didn’t understand the opposition to this ordinance since it imposed a safety measure. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that hunting impacted the wildlife in the canyon for months. She said before hunting season you could see a great deal of wildlife but for months after hunting season ended there was no wildlife visible. She said the hunters would shoot the deer where they happened to be and said there were complaints every year about dead carcasses left as far down as Memory Grove.
She didn’t think the canyon could be safely used with hunters and she thought the use of the canyon was as great as the use of city parks. She said several hundred people a day used the canyon when it was closed to cars. She said she were only asking for one canyon to be preserved from hunting and viewed the proposed ordinance as giving up the city’s rights to make decisions about this canyon.
(O 88-24)
COMMENTS
#1. LaMont Richards referred to the petition submitted by Howard Lund who requested that property located at 2315 East and 2337 East 1300 South be rezoned from “R-1” to “R-1A”. He said Mr. Lund, his neighbor, had purchased property which adjoined Bonneville Golf Course and said when he, Mr. Richards, had inquired about purchasing property next to the golf course he was informed that the policy was to not sell property next to the golf course because of liability.
Mike Zuhl, chief of staff, said he understood that Mr. Lund had pursued acquisition of this property for about two years. He said his request to acquire the property was reviewed by all city departments and there were no problems expressed so it was recommended to dispose of the property for the appraised price. He said the transaction came before the City Council who had the opportunity to conduct a public hearing prior to the disposition of the surplus property but the Council did not conduct the hearing so the transaction was completed.
Councilmember Kirk said at this time the Council did not have a land use analyst and indicated that a mistake was made in the Council Office because this went through without a problem. Councilmember Fonnesbeck clarified that the Council did not have the right to stop the land sale; they only had the right to call for a hearing. She said property decisions rested with the administration. Mr. Richards indicated that Mr. Lund acquired the property primarily because he, Mr. Richards, voiced opposition of adding his 2.5 acres to Mr. Lund’s property for the development.
He said he expressed clearly that he wanted the property utilized as an estate, which would conform with the homes already in the area. Howard Lund said his original plans had not changed and he purchased the additional property because Mr. Richards decided not to include his property. He said he planned to develop four or five homes and not a multi-family PUD. Whit Lee said he lived on the east side of Mr. Lund and said at the neighborhood meeting two months ago all the neighbors expressed concern about the property by Bonneville being sold without a recreational master plan. And he said the neighborhood was assured by the parks department that no public property would be sold without public notice and until a master plan had been developed. He thought the Council needed to look into the circumstances surrounding the sale of this property.
He said he understood that if the property was rezoned to “R-1A” the key considerations would be the definition of the character of the neighborhood and the site topology. He said he didn’t have enough facts to support the “R-1A” and said he hadn’t ever seen a sight development plan. He agreed that this should be remanded to the planning department so the neighborhood character could be defined. He also agreed that the developer should submit specific plans.
Councilmember Godfrey said this seemed like a large parcel of land and he asked if there was a process to sell large parcels at competitive bid. Mike Zuhl said he spoke with Eric Thorpe, property management, about this question and said the city’s policy was to obtain the highest and best use for the property. He said when a parcel was adjacent to an owner-occupied property normally that property owner was given the first opportunity to acquire it. When property was independent they put it out for public bid.
Bruce Baird, assistant city attorney, said the property in question touched Mr. Lee’s property but technically did not border it. Councilmember Kirk said at a meeting with the chairpersons of the area community councils, it was their understanding that the city was going to begin the master planning for the recreational area. She said she would pursue the master planning for this area. Councilmember Bittner said she was concerned about this because she understood the policy had been that the city did not sell property adjacent to parks without a lengthy public process. She asked for answers from the administration and thought there had been a break down in communication.
Jim Webster, land planning consultant to the home owners in this area, said he thought the policy had been very firm as he had seen it administered throughout the city. He said they had seen little engineering information to respond to so the neighborhood didn’t know if they supported Mr. Lund’s request. He said they would like to see substantial consideration given to the site development ordinances in terms of slope, vegetation, and drainage.
#2. Tom Cantrell, 122 N Street, addressed the issue of the amendment to the ordinance regarding sexually oriented businesses. He said he was disappointed because he felt the Council took a particular industry and passed an unconstitutional law to regulate it. He said this ordinance significantly affected his business and he didn’t feel that he had been given enough notice to respond to the changes. He said the city didn’t have the right to govern beyond the state constitution and the United States Constitution. He said he had wanted to be involved in the process and thought the people in these businesses could have given input on the ordinance. He thought the ordinance deserved a public hearing. Bruce Baird, assistant city attorney, said he had discussed this ordinance several times with Mr. Cantrell’s legal counsel, and said they had agreed on all but one or two issues which they couldn’t resolve. Mr. Cantrell reiterated his concern that the public be made aware of the issues and a public hearing be held so people knew what was going to be discussed before action was taken.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.