December 5, 1989

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

REGULAR AND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1989

The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, December 5, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 325, City County Building, 451 South State Street.

The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.

Council Chair Stoler presided at the meeting.

Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director, reviewed the Council’s calendar of upcoming events. The owner of Washington Square Cafe extended an invitation to the Council to be his guest at a reception with refreshments. He suggested 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon preceding either the Tuesday Council session or the Thursday Committee meeting next week. Due to their conflicting schedules, Council Members could not agree on a date. Ms. Gust-Jenson said she would talk more with the owner and let the Council know alternative dates.

Regarding the audit, Ms. Gust-Jenson mentioned that the staff had suggested a change in the scope. Rather than conducting a survey, information would be obtained in personal interviews. She asked the Council to immediately voice any objections about this change to her or to staff member Cam Caldwell. She noted that Hermoine Jex would be present to voice three concerns during the comments portion of the meeting. One in particular related to the North Temple Interchange. She advised that a letter from the Mayor regarding this issue would be copied and distributed during the break and prior to the meeting for the Council’s review and information.

Regarding items F-1, F-2 and F-3, revisions were made to these drafts since sections regarding abatements were not required. The changes were technical and no other changes were made. Regarding items F-4, F-5 and G-2 pertaining to the hospital bonds, the public hearing (G-2) would need to be held before action could be taken on F-4 or F-5, and the Council would need to adopt the resolutions subject to review by the City Attorney since the documents were received in the Council Office late and more time was need by the City Attorney to review them. Jim Matsumori from Smith Capital Markets and Bob Foltz from Chapman and Cutler were present during the briefing for any questions and they would be present during Council session regarding these bonds. The briefing session was concluded to prepare for the regular Council session.

The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, December 5, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State Street.

The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.

Roger Cutler, City Attorney and Acting Mayor, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, were present.

Mayor Palmer DePaulis was absent.

Council Chair Stoler presided at and conducted the meeting.

OPENING CEREMONIES

#1. The invocation was given by Sione Fakahua, Tongan Methodist Church.

#2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.

#3. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, November 21, 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(M 89-1)

COMMENTS

#1. Hermoine Jex thanked the members of the City Council for their many years of service and said she appreciated everything they did for neighborhoods. She then brought up three issues and asked the Council to take them into consideration: 1) On Monday, November 26, the Downtown Business Alliance voted to change the name of the proposed North Temple Interchange to the Central Business District Interchange. She said the name change was a farce and she had expected a strong statement against this from the Mayor and City Council at the public hearing held November 29. She said the neighborhoods and community councils in Salt Lake City, SLACC and councils in the county voted against this interchange.

She requested the Council to write a strong letter to the Salt Lake County Commissioners against the interchange. In regards to the proposed light rail system, she asked if the city had a responsible lobbyist who would work for the community as a whole and she also asked the city to lobby for a bill limiting incinerators. 2) She said the planning implementation process had broken down between the community councils and the planning department. She said in 1973 it was determined that the mountains and hillsides were the city’s prize asset but a month ago the head of the planning staff told the Capital Hill Community Council that position was no longer true and the City Council had not taken that position. Mrs. Jex said a petition was submitted to change the grade of non-developable land from 40% to 30% to prevent further scoring of hillsides but the planning staff refused to refer the petition to the Planning Commission and City Council. 3) Regarding recognition of the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils, she said they had been politically maneuvered against. She said SLACC cared about working as a team, cleaning up the neighborhoods, developing a strong economic base as well as good residential areas. She said the latest draft of the ordinance would not accomplish their goals. In regards to the interchange, Councilmember Bittner said the Council recommended that the Mayor not support the North Temple Interchange and that was all they could do. Regarding the preservation of Ensign Peak, she said she thought the Council might be willing to approve this if the information came before them.

Councilmember Stoler expressed his appreciation to Mrs. Jex for her hard work. She referred to Plat J of Ensign Peak in which the developer had requested an extension into a protected area. She said there was an upcoming land trade between Salt Lake City and the developer and she asked the City Council to review the community councils’ ideas carefully. She said SLACC voted in November to ask Salt Lake City to begin the process to establish a preservation zone for the Ensign Peak nature park. She said they recommended the development of a master plan of the park which would entail the establishment of necessary boundaries to provide an adequate but controlled access and would be determined prior to any Ensign Peak land trades.

CONSENT AGENDA

Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

#1. RE: Adopting Ordinance 71 of 1989 amending Title 18, Chapter 16, Salt Lake City Code-by repealing Section 030 relating to license bond requirements.

(O 89-42)

NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS

#1. RE: A resolution of intent to construct Special Improvement District 38-758 - 400 to 500 South connector.

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 126 of 1989 declaring the City’s intent to construct improvements for 400 to 500 South connector including curb and gutters, sidewalks, asphalt pavement, driveways and miscellaneous work; to create Special Improvement District 38-758 to defray the cost and expenses of a portion of said improvement district by special assessments levied against the property benefited by such improvements; to authorize advertisement of construction bids and related matters; and to set time and place for public hearing of January 16, 1989, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.

(Q 89-9)

UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS

#1. RE: The Board of Equalization and Review for California Avenue Special Improvement District 38-724.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Resolution 127 of 1989 appointing a Board of Equalization and Review for Salt Lake City, Utah, California Avenue Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-724; setting the dates for the Board of Equalization to hear and consider objections and corrections to any proposed assessments; authorizing the City Recorder to publish and mail a notice of meetings of the Board of Equalization and Review, including notice supplementing the notice of intention and related matters, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said adoption of this resolution was with the understanding that the abatement language had been excluded.

(Q 86-14)

#2. RE: The Board of Equalization and Review for California Avenue Special Improvement District 38-808.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 128 of 1989 appointing a Board of Equalization and Review for Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Improvement District No. 38-808; setting the dates for the Board of Equalization to hear and consider objections and corrections to any proposed assessments; authorizing the City Recorder to publish and mail a notice of meetings of the Board of Equalization and Review, including notice supplementing the notice of intention, and related matters, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said adoption of this resolution was with the understanding that the abatement language had been excluded.

(Q 89-2)

#3. RE: The Board of Equalization and Review for West Temple Special Improvement District 38-830.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 129 of 1989 appointing a Board of Equalization and Review for Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Improvement District No. 38-830; setting the dates for the Board of Equalization to hear and consider objections and corrections to any proposed assessments; authorizing the City Recorder to publish and mail a notice of meetings of the Board of Equalization and Review, including notice supplementing the Notice of Intention, and related matters, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said adoption of this resolution was with the understanding that the abatement language had been excluded.

(Q 88-3)

#4. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement regarding hospital bonds (Pooled Hospital Financing Program).

ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 130 of 1989, subject to review and approval by the Salt Lake City Attorney, approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of an interlocal cooperation agreement among Salt Lake City, Utah, and certain other cities and counties in the State of Utah providing for the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Flexible Rate Revenue Bonds, Series 1989 (Pooled Hospital Financing Program) for the purpose of financing and refinancing certain health care facilities located throughout the State of Utah, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said voting for this issue did not imply that the Council was giving away zoning stipulations regarding purchased equipment.

(C 89-653)

#5. RE: A resolution regarding a hospital financing program (Pooled Hospital Financing Program)

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 131 of 1989, subject to review and approval by the Salt Lake City Attorney, authorizing the issuance and sale by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Flexible Rate Revenue Bonds, Series 1989 (Pooled Hospital Financing Program) for the purpose of financing and refinancing certain health care facilities located throughout the State of Utah, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck said voting for this issue did not imply that the Council was giving away zoning stipulations regarding purchased equipment.

(Q 89-7)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

#1. RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to receive comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting Section 18.48.170 of the Salt Lake City Code providing a general appeal process for decisions of the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Ordinance 72 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Ed Snow, Council Staff, said the current Housing Advisory and Appeals Board ordinance was unclear regarding the appeals process, except in the area of demolitions. He said this amendment would clarify the route of appeal which would first go to the Mayor who would have 30 days to give a written response. After that the affected party could appeal to the 3rd District Court.

No one from the audience spoke.

(O 89-41)

#2. RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to receive comment on the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Flexible Rate Revenue Bonds, Series 1989 (Pooled Hospital Financing Program) and consider adopting a resolution approving the issuance of such bonds.

ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Resolution 132 of 1989, subject to review and approval by the Salt Lake City attorney, approving the issuance of the bonds, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Jim Matsumori, Smith Capital Markets, financial advisor, said this issue dealt with pooled financing by Intermountain Health Care, Holy Cross and St. Benedict’s hospitals. He said there were 18 hospitals throughout the state that needed financing for hospital improvements and equipment. He said one option for financing was to go to each municipality and county but many rural areas didn’t have the money to do this. Plus it was more economical to eliminate duplication and find one issuer which in turn helped keep health care costs economical. He said in past years Salt Lake City had agreed to do this so they approached Salt Lake City again. He said most of the funds would be used for hospitals within Salt Lake City and said any other participants in the future who wanted to join could do so with Salt Lake City’s approval.

Councilmember Fonnesbeck said apparently there had been a controversy at LDS Hospital regarding the use of equipment in an auxiliary trailer or building and she said the neighborhood was told that the equipment couldn’t be housed in the main building so it needed to be put in the auxiliary building. She asked if this equipment was associated with this bond issue. Mr. Matsumori said he didn’t know but could check into this question. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said this was more of a zoning issue than equipment question. She said voting for this issue did not imply that the Council was giving away zoning stipulations regarding purchased equipment. No one from the audience spoke.

(Q 89-7)

#3. RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to receive comment concerning and consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 62 of Title 21 dealing with the conditional C-3A district and creating a conditional use for temporary outdoor garden centers.

ACTION: Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Ordinance 73 of 1989, which motion carried, all members voted aye.

DISCUSSION: Everett Joyce, planning and zoning staff, explained that in the C-3A zoning district outdoor storage uses were not allowed. He said several retail stores had a seasonal influx of garden requirements and requiring a permanent structure for a seasonal use was an extreme demand. The ordinance would allow a temporary garden center in a C3A zone as a conditional use with the following conditions: 1) The temporary garden center operation shall be conducted only on a hard surface area. 2) The temporary garden center use shall not interfere with access to, or diminish, any required off-street parking.

3) The temporary garden center use must be set back at least 30 feet from any property line abutting a public right of way. 4) Exterior signage shall be limited to one flat, non-illuminated identity or name plate sign on each face of the garden center structure not exceeding nine square feet per sign. No other exterior signage shall be allowed and any other informational or sales signs in excess of one square foot shall be located within the temporary garden center and screened from exterior view, 5) No storage of items, other than those available for immediate sale, shall be permitted within the area of the temporary garden center. Items available for sale within the area which are on pallets or other similar bulk arrangements shall be screened by a minimum five foot high semi-opaque fence of a neutral color.

6) The temporary garden center operation shall be used no more than six months during any year. Any temporary structures for such use shall be removed during the remaining time each year and the area on which such use was conducted shall be restored to its original use. 7) A building permit for the temporary garden center must be obtained for the first year of operation at any location. In each succeeding year for which the identical size and location are used for the temporary garden center the permittee shall notify in writing, the Department of Community and Economic Development of the permittee’s intent to use the temporary garden center area at the same size and location and of the beginning and ending dates of the temporary garden center operation. Any change in the location or size of the temporary garden center shall require a new building permit. Mr. Joyce said the Planning Commission recommended Council approval.

Councilmember Kirk referred to a garden center issue on 1300 South and asked how this ordinance would apply. Bill Wright, planning and zoning staff, said that garden center was located in a B-3 zone and was determined to be either a nonconforming or illegal use. He said the ordinance would not apply to any other zone but the C-3A zone. No one from the audience spoke.

(O 89-44)

The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.