PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1986
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1986, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director of the Council, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She told them they were considering adopting a resolution authorizing and directing the execution and delivery of the final lease agreement between Salt Lake City and the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City because the needs of the elderly were not being met by the private sector. Councilmember Bittner pointed out that if the Council was going to help provide the housing, they should actually see reports from the Housing Authority in relation to the elderly housing.
The Council discussed adopting an ordinance repealing Section 20-14-11 of the Revised Ordinances relating to entertainment prohibited during certain hours. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why late-night entertainment couldn’t be controlled by business license. She pointed out that the law already required bars and taverns to close early. Restaurants could be allowed to have late-night entertainment without having to grant the same to bars. Councilmember Mabey said the law was presently unenforceable.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned the logic of keeping a law that couldn’t be enforced. Councilmember Stoler commented that if taverns and bars were excluded they would perceive it as discrimination and he pointed out that the problem with allowing entertainment to go all night was that people would be on the streets later and the police would have to keep the traffic patrol on duty for a longer period of time.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that presently it was illegal to play a jukebox in a restaurant at 1:00 a.m. and Roger Cutler, city attorney, told her the law was only enforced against live entertainment. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, retorted that if that’s how the law was enforced then it should be worded that way. Councilmembers Godfrey and Fonnesbeck asked the Council Staff to do more work on the ordinance and come up with possible control mechanisms. The Council discussed the Avenues Master Plan update.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the update was fine as to form and asked the Council to approve it accordingly. Gary Hansen, Fox, Edwards, Gardiner and Brown, briefed the Council on the TEFRA hearing relating to the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,800,000 for the acquisition and renovation of an existing hotel of about 190 rooms at 1659 West North Temple. He explained that the state gave money contingent upon the Council’s decision and the money needed to be approved by Friday or the state bond would lapse. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked who the present owner of the building was and Craig Sweeney, Landmark Hotel Corporation answered that the building was owned by a firm in Iowa.
The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1986, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 201 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at and conducted the meeting.
The prayer was given by Police Chaplain Greg Dodge.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, December 2, 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 86-1)
Special Presentation
The City Council and Mayor DePaulis presented the 1986 Urban Design Awards as selected by the Salt Lake City Arts Council. Mayor DePaulis presented the plaques and read a brief description about each winner: the Peery Hotel, the Herold Building, the LDS Church’s Grounds Crew, the State Capitol Grounds Crew, the Avenues Community Council, and Mr. O.C. Tanner. Mayor DePaulis mentioned that he was honored to present the awards to those who showed such care and concern for the city. Council Chairman Hardwick thanked each winner and said it took people with a real love for Salt Lake City to make it a pretty place to live and he said they did a great job.
(G 86-45)
PETITIONS
Planning Commission Case 628A, Ferry Hall.
RE: An appeal by the Sugar House Community Council of a Planning Commission decision concerning Case No. 628A approving the demolition of Ferry Hall on the Westminster College Campus.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to set a public hearing for Tuesday, January 6, 1987, at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 86-325)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance repealing Section 20-14-11 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to entertainment prohibited during certain hours.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to defer action and asked the Council Staff to prepare analyses and recommendations for an alternative solution, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Hardwick indicated that the dissent among the Councilmembers regarding this ordinance warranted further study and a revised draft. Councilmember Kirk asked that while this issue was being studied, the actual need for a change be considered since only one business had made a request. Councilmember Hardwick suggested that both the arts and business communities have input into this issue. Councilmember Mabey indicated that musicians who brought their own instruments and sound equipment to the establishment created a noise problem when loading the equipment late at night and this needed to be considered.
(O 86-35)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Draper City Fire Department for fire and rescue dispatch services.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 148 of 1986 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Draper City Fire Department amending a previously executed interlocal agreement for providing fire and rescue dispatch services between Salt Lake City and Draper City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 86-650)
HOUSING AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to provide certain personnel services to the Housing Authority.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 149 of 1986 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to provide certain personnel services to the Housing Authority, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 86-651)
#2. RE: The execution and delivery of the final lease agreement, sub-lease agreement and special reserve agreement in regards to the elderly housing bonds.
ACTION: Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt the resolution, Resolution 150 of 1986, authorizing and directing the execution of the final lease agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City and the sub-lease between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt the resolution, Resolution 151 of 1986, authorizing and directing the execution and delivery of the special reserve agreement between Salt Lake City and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, the Housing Development Corporation of Salt Lake City and Moore Trust Co., which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
(C 85-564)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 152 of 1986 authorizing the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Stoler expressed his concern with Article 3 and said the new pay scale would cost new officers $15,000 in their career. He suggested that the Council strike Article 3. He said this issue would be sensitive with new officers and he supported putting them on the same scale as current officers. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said the Council could approve or not approve the agreement but they could not change the negotiated offer. Mr. Cutler explained that the pay scale for officers was restructured and current employees would be indemnified so they would not lose money. He indicated that the pay scale was not downgrading future officers but was negotiated to even out and make a sensible progressive step. He indicated that the old pay scale had been unacceptable to police officers and the new pay plan corrected those problems.
Mayor DePaulis said the negotiations had been long and difficult and the only acceptable plan was to restructure the pay scale which in most cases resulted in a pay increase. He said that future police officers would be hired under a pay scale which was considered to be more uniform and fair. Police Chief Willoughby added that the agreement was ratified by the members after the city and union had bargained in good faith. He said the cost for the restructured pay scale would be paid from the police department’s budget.
(C 86-321)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Avenues Community Master Plan Update.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. concerning the Avenues Community Master Plan Update.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the Avenues Community Master Plan Update, changing the status of 2nd and 3rd Avenues east of I Street from collector to residential streets and asking the Council Staff to send a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking them to consider amending the major street plan with this change; and request a resolution adopting the plan with final approval subject to resolving the additions and modifications as requested by the Avenues Community Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Brent Wilde, planning and zoning, said the city adopted a master plan for the Avenues community in 1979 as part of the original community planning theory and they were now in the process of updating many of the original plans. He said they worked extensively with the Avenues Community Council who endorsed the plan subject to specific additions and modifications regarding traffic and circulation, foothill development, and health services; and said the Planning Commission adopted the plan on September 11, 1986.
He then briefly outlined the plan. He showed the proposed land use map and said the major changes were zoning changes which had occurred since the late l970s. He recommended changing a few “B-3” corners occupied by homes back to residential zones, which was the only area where the proposed map was not consistent with present zoning. He also recommended changing the zoning at Primary Children’s Hospital from “H” to a lower density residential zone. In terms of long-range land use policy, he said the plan indicated that there was ample multiple-family dwelling zoning for the future and plenty of business zoning.
In regards to foothill development he said they attempted to put together a foothill growth management plan which categorized privately-owned undeveloped property into four area: properties to develop, properties for the city to acquire to preclude development, properties controlled by easements to negotiate vegetation preservation easements through the subdivision process, and properties regulated by access and zoning.
He said an amendment to the plan had been prepared regarding density of future foothill developments and he recommended modifying the site development ordinance to enable the Planning Commission to have additional discretion with regards to the size of lots with geologic problems. He addressed the issue of traffic and circulation and said a big issue was the 11th Avenue extension. He said the plan did not have a solution but addressed the issue and said the Planning Commission acknowledged the possibility of extending 11th Avenue as a local two-lane road which would dead end at the University of Utah with assurance from the University that the dead end would be permanent.
He said the Planning Commission also felt strongly that the city needed to push for a commitment from the University regarding traffic circulation, parking problems, and growth issues. In conclusion he addressed the issue of a future use for the old Primary Children’s Hospital site. He recommended changing the zoning to a low-density residential zone and indicated that the hospital committed to develop a less intensive use.
He indicated that they were considering an extended health care facility or low-density elderly housing with a health services component. He recommended a three-step approval process for any specific project: Community Council approval, City Council conceptual approval, and Planning Commission approval. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that when the street map was passed about a year ago the status of 2nd and 3rd Avenues east of I Street was designated as collector streets.
She asked that the Avenues master plan update be amended so 2nd and 3rd Avenues would be designated as residential streets rather than collector streets east of I Street. She said a letter would need to be sent to the Planning Commission asking them to consider changing this on the street map. Jennifer Harrington, 480 F Street, asked Mr. Wilde to outline the additions and modifications requested by the Community Council, which he did (this list is included as part of the minutes). She then thanked the City staff for their willingness to work with the Community Council and she asked that the plan be passed with the option to discuss these additional issues. John Tudor, 1309 Federal Heights Drive, suggested that as the Community Council’s modifications were considered, hearings be held so they could get input from a larger representation of the Avenues area.
Terry Becker, chairman of the Avenues Community Council, thanked the City staff and asked that the plan be approved as written with the provision to discuss the additional items with the Avenues Community Council. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked the Council if they felt any of the Community Council’s modifications needed their input on a decision. She thought most of the changes would be in the wording. The Council did not indicate that they needed to be part of this process.
(T 86-35)
Petition 400-366 by the Capitol Hill Community Council.
RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to discuss the request that the City rezone property located within the Capitol Hill Community: Area A from “M-lA” to “R-5A”; Area B from “R-5A” and R-4” to “R-2” and from “R-5A” to “R-2A”; Area F from “R-5” to “R-5A”, “R-4”, and “R-2”; and Area G from “C-3” to “R-2”. The Planning Commission recommended that the “M-lA” classification be maintained in Area A, Area B be rezoned from “R-SA” to “R-2” and from “R-4” to “R-2”, Area F be rezoned from 11R5 to “R-5A”, and Area G retain its “C-3” classification.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to direct the Council Staff to schedule a field trip to the petition area, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Harvey Boyd, planning and zoning, outlined the areas on a map: Area A, located at 400 North and 400 West, involved the properties located at 357, 363, 367, and 373 West 400 North. He said the petitioners requested that this area be rezoned from “M-lA” to “R-5A” and the Planning Commission recommended leaving the current “M-lA” zoning. Area B, the Wasatch Springs area, currently zoned “R-5A” along with Blocks 32, 31, the west half of 34, and the eastern 165 feet of Block 150, was requested to be rezoned to “R-2”. The Planning Commission agreed with this change.
Included in Area B was the area between 300 North and 500 North from Center to Wall Streets, which was requested to change from “R-5A” and “R-4” to “R-2”; the Planning Commission recommended this change. Block 20 was requested to change from “R-5A to “R-2A” and the Planning Commission recommended that only the properties along the northern area should be rezoned to “R-2 and the rest should remain “R-5A”. In Area F, between State Street and Main Street from North Temple to 200 North, the petitioners requested that Gordon Place be rezoned from “R-5” to “R-5A”, that all but one property along State Street be rezoned from “R-5” to “R-4”, and that the remainder of the “R-5” zoning be changed to “R-2”; the Planning Commission recommended that the entire area be rezoned from “R-5” to “R-5A”. In Area G, between State Street and 2nd Avenue along City Creek Canyon Road, the petitioners requested a change from “C-3” to “R-2”; the Planning Commission recommended no zoning change because the area was adjacent to the commercial core and because it was adjacent to R-4” and “R-2” so it would take on the height restriction of the “R-2” zone. The Planning Commission also recommended that Area G be included within the boundaries of the Capitol Hill Historic District, and all land uses in this area be re-evaluated.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how the zoning requests interfaced with the master plan and if any of the requests violated the master plan. Mr. Boyd said that all the zoning requests fit within the master plan. David Jensen, Zions Securities, said they managed the parking lot on State Street and 2nd Avenue and he supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation to leave Area G zoned “C-3”. He said there were restrictions which would limit the use of the property and they would have to work closely with the City on any development.
Larry Nicolov, 677 North West Capitol, supported the downzoning of Area B from “R-5A” to “R-2”. He indicated that this area was showing a trend of revitalization toward single family homes and an “R-2” zone would make the area more stable. Hermoine Jex, 272 Wall Street, expressed concern about overcrowding on Gordon Place, Area F, and said it needed to be zoned “R-2”. She expressed concern about Area G and the need to keep open spaces so the view of the Capitol would not be disturbed. She said they requested that the area be rezoned to “R-2” in order to preserve it and keep the open space.
Cliff Savage, 341 West 400 North, addressed Block 115 in Area A and said he wanted this to be rezoned to residential because he was concerned that any further expansion of industry in this area would destroy the efforts of the home owners. Robin Webb, 339 West 400 North, expressed concern about Block 115 in Area A because she felt the residences would be forced out by industrialization unless the area was rezoned. Erlinda Davis, 358 West 500 North, addressed Block 115 in Area A and said the neighborhood had improved and the area needed the “R-5A” zone in order to be more compatible with the neighborhood.
Neldon Nielson, Ronald Nielson, and Mary Nielson, owners of the business at 357 West 400 North, addressed Area A and said they started the business in this area when it was zoned “M-l”; it was later downzoned to “M-lA” and now the residences wanted to change the zoning to “R-5A”. They indicated that the area adjacent to the business had been rezoned which prohibited expansion and they were concerned that their property value would diminish if the area was downzoned. Both Ronald Nielson and Mary Nielson mentioned that several of the homes in the area were boarded up. They requested the Council to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation not to change the zoning. Councilmember Fonnesbeck explained that if the area was rezoned and their property was listed as a nonconforming use, they could sell the property for any commercial use that would be allowed in the current zoning. She said that unless the house was torn down or reverted back to residential, the property would maintain the current zoning.
Randall Dixon, 726 Wall Street, supported the Planning Commission recommendation to rezone Area B. He encouraged the Council to put Area G in the historic district if they did not rezone it. Robert King, 711 North 2nd West, supported the downzoning in general and In Area B specifically. Frank Pignanelli, 480 North Wall, said he had contacted many people and they had expressed concern about too much development which would diminish the current value of their homes.
He said the character of the neighborhood needed to be considered and multiple-family developments destroyed that character. He also said that many people had expressed concern that Area G would not be rezoned. He asked the Council to consider the visionary interests of the people living in the area. Peter Atherton, 430 North Main, addressed Block 20 which the Planning Commission recommended be changed to “R-2”. He said there had been several proposed developments for this area but they had all fallen through. He said because of the site and the access this was a difficult parcel and “R-5A” zoning did not work. He said that “R-2” would be a more reasonable zone for this area.
Richard Walton, owner of the business at 373 West 400 North, supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation to not change the zoning in Area A. He said when he bought the property it was zoned “M-l” and he was attracted to the possibility of growing. He said that industry had upgraded this area and the businesses took care of their property. LeRoy Cole also spoke for the business at 373 West 400 North and said that south of the business the area was zoned “M-l” and if the zoning was changed they couldn’t expand. He said that a half block from their business was the main freight yard of the railroad. He supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
John Anderson, owner of property at 118 W. 500 North, 108 West 400 North, and 402 Center Street, indicated that he couldn’t compete with the subsidized low-Income housing and couldn’t keep his places rented. He opposed the downzoning because he said that if he had to sell his property he wouldn’t get as much for it. He wanted to keep the current zoning.
(P 86-312)
Petition 400-471 by the Central Business Improvement District.
RE: A public hearing at 7:00 p.m. concerning the request to change the name of 300 South Street to “Broadway 300 South” between West Temple and Fifth East.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 92 of 1986 changing the name of 300 South between West Temple and 500 East to “Broadway 300 South”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Hermoine Jex, 272 Wall Street, said she thought the name “Broadway” was inappropriate. She said that about 10 years ago she was chosen to be part of a group to study 300 South and propose ideas to revitalize the area. She said the group had decided that 300 South should use the original name of Emigration Road. Councilmember Mabey said many of the businesses along this street used the name “Broadway”.
(P 86-311)
Holiday Inn-Airport IRB.
RE: A public hearing at 7:05 p.m. concerning the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,800,000 for Landmark Hotel, Corp.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Resolution 150 of 1986, contingent upon legal compliance review by the City Attorney, authorizing and inducing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in the amount not to exceed $8,800,000 for the acquisition and renovation of an existing hotel of approximately 190 rooms located at 1659 West North Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, by Landmark Hotel, Corp., a Kansas Corporation, or an entity affiliated therewith, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Godfrey who voted nay and Councilmember Hardwick who abstained from voting.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Hardwick said he was employed by the entity involved and asked if anyone objected to him voting. Councilmember Bittner suggested that he only vote in case of a tie. Councilmember Stoler expressed his opinion that the North Temple corridor was showing signs of blight and this project could act as an anchor for the area. He said anything to boost this area would help.
Councilmember Godfrey expressed his concern that there wouldn’t be a major increase in employees or the tax base and thought the hotel would still be there whether the IRB was given or not. He also expressed concern about the large amount of money to be used for the purchase as compared to the amount which would be used for renovation. Councilmembers Bittner and Fonnesbeck concurred with Councilmember Stoler that this area needed some revitalization. Councilmember Hardwick indicated that the developer had innovative ideas which could turn the property around. Councilmember Bittner encouraged the developer to work with the other businesses in the area regarding marketing. There were no comments from the audience.
(Q 86-18)
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.