PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, December 13, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
The Council interviewed Ms. Jan Striefel, prior to their consideration of her appointment to the Urban Forestry Board. Ms. Striefel said she was a landscape architect who had lived and worked in the Salt Lake area for 12 years. The Council thanked her for her time and her willingness to serve.
The Council then interviewed Ms. Kathy Kinney prior to their consideration of her appointment to the Urban Forestry Board. Ms. Kinney said she had been active in her community and that she wanted to ensure representation for the west side. She said she would bring the layman’s view to the Board and hoped to be able to communicate well with the community.
Ms. Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, reviewed the agenda for the joint meeting between the City Council and the County Commission to be held Wednesday, December 14, 1988. She said the agenda included a discussion of possible tax limitation measures proposed by the State. She said that because of a lack of details about the new tax plan, staff research was difficult but some work had been done and the information would be distributed.
Councilmember Bittner said she had spoken with Mayor DePaulis about having a discussion regarding the Metropolitan Hall of Justice. Ms. Bittner said the Mayor agreed that the discussion would strengthen the City’s position on the issue. Ms. Hamilton then reviewed the agenda for the evening’s meeting. Councilmember Stoler referred to the airport ground transportation ordinance (Item D-7), and asked if this would strengthen the regulations on non-approved transportation services.
He said there had been trouble in the past with unauthorized taxi, limousine and transportation service at the airport. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said this ordinance defined the vehicles and type of business that could operate at the airport and what fees they would pay. He said it also defined the process for getting approval and what type of business solicitation practices were allowed. Mr. Stoler then asked why the annexation of the City Creek property wasn’t considered a standard annexation. Mr. Cutler said that most annexations included a request for city services and amenities, but the City Creek property was already owned by the city and didn’t include the request for services. The Council then discussed Item E2, the “Hunter Place” petition. Mr. Stoler said that the community council in the area had not heard about the name change and he thought it was a good idea to include them in the process. He added that the community council did not object to the name change. Ms. Hamilton said there was a new version of the proposed ordinance on Class A retail licenses in hotels (Item E-3) and distributed copies.
Councilmember Horrocks commented on the Mixed Use Transitional (MUT) Overlay Zone hearing (Item G-2) saying that he had held several meetings in the community and didn’t hear any significant opposition to the proposition. He said he was concerned about protecting the existing residential areas. Ms. Hamilton said part of the area was already zoned commercial. Ms. Bittner said that in previous discussions, the Council had discussed rewriting the ordinance to allow putting the MUT over commercial zones.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she understood that the MUT would only be put over commercial areas that were residential in nature, but would not be put over residential areas. She said that if the city put the MUT on the residential zone then they would be encouraging commercial encroachment on the area. Councilmember Bittner said that the purpose for the MUT was to protect the residential property values in areas that were becoming commercial.
Councilmember Godfrey asked Doug Dansie of planning and zoning for an explanation. Mr. Dansie said that the MUT was designed to be put over residential areas and not over commercial zones. He said if the Council wanted to keep an area residential they should not put the MUT overlay on the area. This would leave the area zoned strictly residential and would stop commercial encroachment. He said that by putting the NUT over a residential zone, the city would allow commercial development in the area while imposing design and use guidelines which would preserve the residential nature of the area as it transitioned to commercial. He said that the MUT helped preserve property values for the residential land owners during that transition.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, December 13, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present.
Councilmember Godfrey presided at and conducted the meeting.
OPENING CEREMONIES
#1. The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Raymond Gunn.
#2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#3. Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, November 15, 1988, and Thursday, November 17, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
#4. The City Council and Mayor Palmer DePaulis presented a joint resolution congratulating the past and present students of the Jackson Elementary School Early Learning Program.
Councilmember Bittner read the resolution honoring the children for all the work they had done with local, state and national agencies to clean up a toxic waste sight. The children thanked the Council and Mayor and sang a song which had been adopted by the National Future Problem Solvers program.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 145 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(R 88-1)
COMMENTS
Judy Wardle presented the City Council and Mayor with a petition concerning neighborhood problems in the area of 800 to 900 West and North Temple. She said their neighborhood had problems with transients because of the homeless shelter, the blood donation center, and the liquor store. She said her son had been assaulted at her home and punched in the stomach by a transient. She asked the Council what they would do about this problem.
Councilmember Bittner said she met with representatives from the blood plasma center and had been trying to arrange a meeting with the State Liquor Commission but they had not returned her calls. She agreed that the liquor store was in a bad location and said she wanted to meet with the Liquor Commission to talk about the situation. She said she and Councilmember Horrocks would pursue this issue and wanted to schedule a meeting with the Liquor Commission and the Mayor’s Office in order to resolve the problems. Councilmember Stoler said he wanted to be involved too since he was starting to have similar problems in his district. Councilmember Horrocks suggested that if the transients entered Ms. Wardle’s yard she should call the police.
(P 88-398)
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: The appointments of Kathy Kinney and Jan Striefel to the Urban Forestry Board.
(I 88-15)
#2. RE: The appointment of Jerry Fenn to the Board of Adjustment.
(I 88-14)
#3. RE: Adopting Resolution 143 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation, Union Pacific, and Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Companies for installation of flashing signal lights and crossings at the intersection of California Avenue and Fortune Road.
(C 88-675)
#4. RE: Adopting Resolution 144 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for a license for the City’s Public Utilities Department to install, maintain, and operate a sewer utility line in State Highway 189.
(C 88-721)
#5. RE: Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, January 17, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning Petition No. 400-660 submitted by Mrs. Fred Bell et. al. requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of an alley located between 1489 - 1515 South 300 East Street.
(P 88-397)
#6. RE: Adopting Ordinance 78 of 1988 closing two alleys located between Logan and Bryan Avenues and 700 East and 800 East in Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to Petitions No. 400-249 and 400-250 and repealing Ordinance 54 of 1985.
(P 85-11 and P 85-13)
#7. RE: Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, January 3, 1989, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 16.60 and Section 5.72.100 Salt Lake City Code relating to Ground Transportation at the Airport.
(O 88-38)
NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS
#1. RE: A resolution accepting Annexation Petition No. 400- 537-87, as amended, for purposes of City Council review; and set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday January 17, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the proposed annexation of City Creek Canyon with the proposed zoning classification of “P-1” Foothill Preservation Zone.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 146 of 1988, and set the date for the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Stoler asked what area of City Creek Canyon would be annexed. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, said the remaining part of the canyon from the county line to Red Butte canyon.
(P 88-395)
#2. RE: A resolution approving the honorary name of “Hunter Place” for 2060 East Street south of 2100 South pursuant to Petition No. 400-661 submitted by Sidney and Myrle Hunter.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution on first reading. Councilmembers Stoler and Hardman withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to table the petition until the Council received guidelines from Planning and Zoning. Councilmembers Hardman and Horrocks withdrew the motion. The Council made no other motions concerning this petition.
DISCUSSION: The Council requested an explanation as to why a street was being named for an individual. Doug Dansie, planning and zoning, said there were several people who lived on the circle with the last name of Hunter. He knew the cost for changing the sign would be paid by the property owner and the sign would have both the name and street number on it. Councilmember Kirk asked if there was an established procedure to rename streets and asked if anyone could petition to change the name of a street. She expressed concern that the Council would be inundated with similar requests.
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Staff, said there was a lengthy procedure for changing street names and making the name change “honorary” would shorten the process. She said the change was consistent with the area since most of the streets had both a number and a name. She indicated that the planning department was in the process of adopting procedures so they would not be flooded with these types of requests.
Councilmember Godfrey said he remembered adopting honorary street name changes for Judge Memorial High and McDonnell Douglas because they were established institutions in the community. Mayor DePaulis said his concern was that if in an emergency people used the honorary name to give directions, the street would not be located. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she did not remember renaming a street after an individual. Councilmember Horrocks expressed the same concern as the Mayor and Councilmember Kirk. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said if this was to really be a name change then it needed to go through the established process rather than be an honorary designation.
(P 88-396)
#3. RE: An ordinance amending Section 6.04.040, 6.08.040, and 6.08.110 pertaining to Class A retail licenses in hotels.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(O 88-3)
#4. RE: An ordinance adding Section 11.04.140 to the Salt Lake City Code, 1988, relating to failure to appear in response to a criminal citation.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Ordinance 79 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Stoler who was absent for the vote.
(O 88-37)
#5. RE: The reappointment of Robert Lewis to the Board of Adjustment.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred this to the consent agenda.
(I 88-14)
#6. RE: The appointment of Sharon D. Alderman, Mark M. Cantor, Marjorie B. Janove, Catherine Dee, Stephen J. Hausknecht, Guy Paul Kroesche, Laurie L. Noda, and Ricklen Nobis to the Salt Lake City Arts Council.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-23)
#7. RE: The appointment of Marion A. Willey to the Community Development Advisory Committee.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-3)
#8. RE: The reappointment of Richard Chong to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Godfrey referred this to the consent agenda.
(I 88-6)
UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS
#1. RE: An ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties in Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Improvement District No. 38-763, Westside Streets and California Avenue Interchange, for the purposes of paying the costs of constructing improvements on certain streets; reaffirming the establishment of a Special Improvement Guaranty Fund; establishing the effective date of this ordinance; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Ordinance 80 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 84-6)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1 RE: A public hearing scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 1988/89 Budgets of Salt Lake City, Utah.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Ordinance 81 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Gordon Hoskins, finance department, outlined the following budget amendments. He explained that budgets from last fiscal year were carried over to pay for encumbered items which were not received until the new fiscal year. He said this affected the enterprise funds and the internal service funds.
Administrative Services
#1. $887,308: a carry over for Fleet of last fiscal year’s appropriations. #2. $102,803: $92,403 in Data Processing for a carry over and $10,400 for emergency backup batteries which failed.
Councilmember Hardman asked the amount remaining in fund balance and Mr. Hoskins said IMS would have about $40,000. He said they tried to keep the fund balances in internal service funds low since there was no reason to have the extra money.
Community/Economic Development
#3. $255,972: loans repaid to the Redevelopment Agency to be reissued. #4. $1,675,000: Section 108 loan which the city requested from HUD to purchase the Canterbury apartments. #5. $27,619: loans repaid from the Capitol Hill revolving loan fund to be reissued. #6. $500,000: discretionary grant received through HUD to purchase the Ben Albert apartment complex.
Finance
#7. $9,424,410: bond proceeds for development of the Airport and Mountain Dell golf courses (Municipal Building Authority).
Parks
#8. $500,000: removing this appropriation which would be appropriated in the Municipal Building Authority fund instead of the Golf Course fund. #9. $150,000: for the North Point Park, adjacent to the Canterbury apartment complex.
Police
#10. $274,411: agreement with the Russian inspection team under the I.N.F. treaty to provide security for their property. Salt Lake City police officers are paid over time to provide security but the cost is reimbursed under the treaty agreement.
Public Utilities
#11. $8,122,400: $3,853,400 or carry over from last fiscal year. $1,217,000 from fund balance to include capital projects, new sewer lines, etc. Mr. Hoskins said $200,000 of this amount was to purchase new radio equipment to upgrade their system; $80,000 of this amount was appropriated to purchase or develop a computerized work order system. He said they either wanted to have IMS develop a system or they wanted to purchase a compatible software package. He said it was not their intent to move away from the city’s data processing service. He said Salt Lake City’s computer system was moving towards a network system to communicate with any kind of equipment. He said data processing had the capability to develop the system but public utilities wanted to research the most cost effective system which would be compatible with the present system.
Councilmember Stoler asked if Salt Lake City’s computer system had advanced to the point that they could use IBM software. Mr. Hoskins indicated that they were gradually moving in that direction. Linda Hamilton, Council Executive Director, said that last year at a budget opening the Council approved some computer upgrades for data processing and one sales point was the fact that Unisys would be technically capable of communicating with other types of computers. She said with the purchase of PC emulation computers such as those in the Council Office, they would be able to run IBM software. Jim Lewis, public utilities, said they wanted the ability to search for the best package. Councilmember Hardman asked if their relationship with IMS would change if public utilities purchased a separate system. Mr. Lewis said possibly they would do more on their own PCs and would down load the information to the main frame but they would still be connected to IMS. Lee King, Council Staff, said he concurred conceptually with automating the manual system. He said their concern was that this idea had not really been approved by IMS and the steering committee. He said if they purchased a standalone system then in theory they could remove themselves from the umbrella of charges, which would have to be distributed somewhere else in the general fund. He said there could be future impacts which had not been fully addressed at this time.
Mr. Hoskins said that the IMS steering committee would have to approve any purchase. Mr. King said the committee supported the idea and would have the final say. Mr. Lewis said they were asking for $80,000 for a system, whether it was developed by IMS or purchased. He said the steering committee would decide which system was best. He said they didn’t want to wait until next budget opening to get approval on the funds. Councilmember Hardman asked if IMS would lose revenue if they purchased a separate system.
Mr. King indicated that there would be no loss for this particular system but he expressed concern about the future since if they had a powerful enough system they could replace some functions currently being done by IMS. Councilmember Godfrey recognized that the staff was alerting the Council to procedural problems and was not opposed to appropriating $80,000. Mr. King said this was correct and said the staff supported the concept.
Mr. Hoskins said most departments were moving towards PCs but data processing was not being reduced because of the necessary support. He said they had found that in-house systems worked better than purchased systems. Councilmember Stoler said he wanted to be informed of the committee’s decision.
Mr. Hoskins finished outlining the amendments to the public utilities budget and said they would pull $252,000 from an escrow account to cover the cost for construction of new lines; $1,300,000 was to cover the cost of additional water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District; $1,500,000 was borrowed from the sewer fund and moved to the water fund to have money available to purchase watershed as property became available.
Public Works
#12. $18,295: $10,500 from a state grant for safer sidewalks along Redwood Road; $7,795 from completed projects to be used in the California Avenue project.
Non-Departmental
#13. $35,946: move from CIP slippage to CDBG operating fund slippage. No one from the audience spoke.
(B 88-5)
#2. RE: A public hearing scheduled for 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning an ordinance applying the Mixed Use Transitional Overlay District “MUT” over the existing Residential “R-6” District within the West Temple Gateway Redevelopment Project Area, subject area located between 800 South and 900 South and between West Temple and 300 West Streets.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 82 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Doug Dansie, planning and zoning, outlined maps showing the areas which would be affected by this proposal. He said in August of 1987 the Planning Commission approved the adoption of a West Temple redevelopment district which was a project in three phases: Phase I primarily dealt with the Rick Warner properties for an auto mall; Phase II was along West Temple; and Phase III was along 300 West. He said the City Council adopted the district in January of 1988 and at that time they requested that the area between 800 and 900 South and West Temple and 300 West be designated Phase IV.
He said the Planning Commission proposed placing the mixed use transitional zone over the R6 zoning. He said the rest of the area was zoned C-1, C-3 or M-1 and said the long-term plan called for commercial development in the area. He said the mixed use transitional zone (MUT) allowed for the transition from residential to commercial and was designed to make the transition as compatible as possible with the existing residential. He said new proposals would be reviewed individually to make sure they were compatible with the existing neighborhood.
He said the overlay also allowed the people who lived there to market their homes as commercial potential. He said the advantage of having this mixed use transitional zone was that each project could be reviewed on a case by case basis to make sure it was compatible with the neighborhood. Councilmember Horrocks asked if the property south of 900 South was already commercial. Mr. Dansie said it was either C-1 or C-3. He said the homes in that area would not be affected by this transitional overlay unless the Council rezoned that area to R-6 and put the transitional overlay over the area.
Jason Yu, owner of property at 879 South 200 West, said it was good for the city to make a change in this area because of the general deteriorated condition. He supported changing the zoning to commercial rather than applying the mixed use transitional overlay. He thought that reviewing everything on a project by project basis would place a lot of restrictions on the development and it may not be compatible in the future to the kind of commercial development in the general area. He said the property owners were willing to work with the city to revitalize the economic activity down town but he said he thought there were too many restrictions. Bernice Cook, 1746 South West Temple, spoke on behalf of a friend and owner of property on 900 South. She said her friend was upset because they didn’t know what would happen to their business. She asked what the city intended to do with 900 South. She also asked about the block across from Rick Warner and asked if they were going to develop this block.
In reference to the Rick Warner property Mr. Dansie said they had been waiting to acquire one more piece of property and then they would develop the block. In reference to 900 South he said the Redevelopment Agency had no plan to take property along 900 South. Councilmember Fonnesbeck clarified for the people in the audience that the city had decided the area in question should eventually become commercial. She said the MUT would encourage the area to go commercial but while doing so the home owners’ rights would be protected.
She said she thought once the area became commercial it would be attractive because of the controls. Mr. Horiuchi, owner of commercial property south of 900 South on 200 West asked if this area would be affected. Councilmember Godfrey said the property south of 900 South would stay commercial and the Council was not considering changes to this property.
(T 88-31)
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.