PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1984, AT 5:05 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Ms. Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, briefed the Council on the agenda. Setting a date for a Board of Equalization Hearing for Special Improvement District 38-700 was postponed until Thursday, February 16. Mr. Heath questioned the Council concerning the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance to regulate the costuming of professional dancers. Mr. Heath believes that this ordinance would inhibit competition between liquor serving establishments and would serve as a vehicle for police harassment of the dancers in that the vague language of the ordinance allows for various interpretations.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck agreed that this ambiguity could lead to favoritism or harassment and questioned the validity of letting scantily-dressed people dance to classical but not to modern music. Roger Cutler, city attorney, replied that the police needed this ordinance to preserve decorum and maintain proper controls in the city. Ms. von der Esch informed the Council that passage of the ordinance to annex Centennial Park would not be possible until the five-day waiting period has passed after the petition has been approved.
County Commission Chairman Mike Stewart asked the Council to discuss any problems they had encountered concerning the County Health Services programs within the city. Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Stewart about the necessity of the proposed $10,000 allocation of funds requested by the Travelers Aid Society. Mr. Stewart replied that the County determined that private and corporate donations received by the Society were adequate and that additional support was not needed.
Councilmember Mabey stressed that the shelter be maintained on a year-to-year basis and that no permanent measures be taken. Mr. Stewart recommended that this measure be tabled until Chris Segura provided the necessary figures for accurate assessment. Mr. Stewart additionally informed the Council of the necessity of affiliating Salt Lake and Utah Counties with the private canal owners in order to best manage flooding problems. Councilmember Shearer added that the City/County Health Board regulations need to be standardized and coordinated for more efficient operation. Roger Cutler said the City Attorney’s Office would review City/County Health regulations for conversion into city ordinance.
The policy session adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1984, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at this meeting.
Councilmember Edward Parker conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Joel Moriyama.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, February 7, 1984, and Thursday, February 9, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 84-1)
State of the City:
Mayor Wilson addressed the City Council on the state of Salt Lake City. This address, in its entirety, is on file in the Office of the City Recorder. The Mayor commented on the form of government saying that the present form now enhances individual efforts rather then detracting from them as the Commission did. He mentioned some of the accomplishments over the past four years such as preparation of the city’s water and sewer systems for the future, reduction of crime, increase in housing, modernization of the airport, employment of the computerized traffic signals, and development of downtown and Sugar House. Mayor Wilson said that close attention must be paid to the needs of the citizens, beginning with the basic needs: The ability of each family to provide sustenance for its members. This means jobs and a quality infrastructure to support the formation of new jobs in the city. Mayor Wilson said that there are presently not enough jobs provided and the infrastructure quality is falling behind. He said that a Blue Ribbon Committee on Capital Improvements has recommended that the city provide $16 million in catch-up capital projects. He encouraged the Council to review the recommended projects openly and said that he would be proposing a funding option early in March. The Mayor said that a second major capital improvement item is the future of the City and County Building. He felt that it was essential to save the building since it is a community treasure and captures the heart of the city. He pointed out that it is as economical to save the building as it is to build a new one and that one or the other must be done since space is needed for city operations. He said that the capital improvements program and the City-County Building are major cost items which will have to be coordinated with the budget.
Mayor Wilson said that if the challenge of capital improvements can be met this year then the challenge of economic development must also be met. The economic base of the city must be expanded so the on-going and advance costs of growth are mitigated to the taxpayer. International and national business must be attracted to Salt Lake City and the city must do a better job in assisting existing businesses and helping “start-up” businesses produce home-grown jobs. Improvement still needs to be made in ridding the city of undue regulation and red tape being imposed on local business. The Mayor said that he would be announcing a program to deal with the problem.
Mayor Wilson said that emergency preparedness is another challenge to be faced this year. High snowfall in the city will make road repair most difficult as the weather warms. Flood forecasters indicate that spring flooding is highly likely but the city is prepared. The county has worked to repair flood systems and has undertaken new construction which will help. The snow pack and weather reports are being constantly monitored, sandbags are being stockpiled and equipment is being prepared so that it is in the best possible condition.
Mayor Wilson also said that a list of volunteers is being compiled and the local churches are being put on notice that help might be needed. He said that Mountain Dell Reservoir is being drawn down to give it maximum flood use and the Jordan River is being dredged. Support has also been given for the breaching of the causeway. Finally, last year’s performance has been extensively reviewed and a new, more refined emergency plan is now being put together. In conclusion the Mayor felt that the state of the city is excellent. He felt that Salt Lake City is a city with a big heart and strong spirit of concern.
(G 84-5)
PETITIONS
Petition 1200-05 of 1983 by Donald R. LeBaron.
RE: An ordinance changing the name of 2200 West Street to Sperry Way.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 6 of 1984, changing the name of 2200 West Street as it lies between North Temple and 1700 North in Salt Lake City, Utah, to hereinafter be known as Sperry Way upon the official street map of Salt Lake City by amending Section 41-6-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-493)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: An ordinance relating to professional dancers.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 7 of 1984, adding Sections 1 and 2 to Chapter 34 of Title 20; and renumbering and amending Sections 20-34-1, et seq., of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to professional dancers, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 82-40)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: A CDBG appropriation for the installation of a pipe cross drain at Chicago Street and 500 North.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appropriation of $10,000 from the 9th Year Community Development Block Grant Capital Improvement Fund Contingency for the installation of a pipe cross drain at Chicago Street and 500 North, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-1)
#1. RE: An appropriation of $10,000 from 8th Year Community Block Grant Funds Operating Fund to assist the Travelers Aid Society in the renovation of their Shelter Project facilities at 353 and 349 South 300 West.
Councilmember Shearer expressed concern that an audit had been performed, or an inquiry made, regarding the Society’s operation but the Council had not seen this report nor had they seen information regarding funding received this year. She felt that this issue should be postponed until the Council has reviewed this information. Heber Tippets, representing the Travelers Aid Society, indicated that an audit had not been done nor had they been approached by Salt Lake County for a review of their records. In terms of last year’s contract with the county, all documentation requested has been provided. He said that he would provide the Council with whatever information they requested.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to postpone action on this request and refer the item to the Council agenda for February 21, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-2)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: An ordinance relating to solicitations, peddling, etc.
Councilmember Shearer said that there had been concern about the definition of a non-profit corporation as contained in this ordinance. The Attorney’s Office has submitted a definition, which is widely accepted, that if an organization has an IRS tax number and if they are considered by IRS to be tax exempt, and can prove same, then they qualify as a religious or charitable organization.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 8 of 1984, amending Subsections 20-17-33(e)(2)(5) and 20-17-33(g) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to solicitation, peddling, etc., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-9)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Utah Department of Transportation for railroad crossing improvement at 900 South and Redwood Road.
Councilmember Mahey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 19 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Fire Department and Utah Department of Transportation for railroad crossing improvement at 900 South and Redwood Road in Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-30)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County and EMCON Associates for an evaluation of the operation of the City/County Landfill.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 20 of 1984 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, Salt Lake County, and EMCON Associates for obtaining an evaluation on the operation of the City/County Landfill, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-29)
#2. RE: A resolution setting a date for the Board of Equalization and Review to hear and consider any objections to and make corrections of any proposed assessment in connection with Curb and Gutter Special Improvement District 38-700.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer this resolution to the Committee of the Whole for February 16, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-12)
Industra1 Revenue Bond for Associated Specialties Co.
RE: The issuance by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to finance a project for Associated Specialties Co., a Utah Corporation, for the consolidation and expansion of existing operations into one facility at 545 West 700 South, Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this Industrial Revenue Bond. Lance Bateman, finance director, said that the inducement resolution was previously passed without a public hearing. The applicant requested passage of the inducement resolution prior to a public hearing and requested that a public hearing be held prior to the issuance of the bonds. The Industrial Revenue Bond is in the amount of $1,900,000. Councilmember Shearer said that this IRB is for the renovation of the old EIMCO property. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt the enactment resolution, Resolution 18 of 1984, relating to the issuance by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to finance a project for Associated Specialties Co., a Utah Corporation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-24)
Division of Two-Family Dwellings.
RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 5 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new Section 29 thereto relating to division of two-family dwellings.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this ordinance amendment. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that the proposed ordinance makes it legal for people to purchase half of a duplex. Currently this has been accomplished by metes and bounds descriptions, which is questionable legally and will not be accepted by most lenders. The only other way to accomplish this would be to make the duplex into a condominium which causes an undue hardship due to the cumbersome nature of the condominium process and requirements. It was felt that the proper solution would be to amend the zoning ordinances to specifically authorize the division of a two-family home allowing the lot to be divided by metes and bounds. Mr. Jorgensen indicated that there would be no zoning changes and standards would not be changed. He said that the intent of the ordinance is to encourage more owners in duplexes and fewer renters.
Councilmember Mabey expressed concern that the ordinance did not insure protection for owners regarding maintenance of the adjoining unit. Mr. Jorgensen said maintenance would be a matter of negotiation between the two owners; there is not a provision in the ordinance. He said there are provisions that if one side burns it must be repaired and both units must meet the zoning ordinance. Mr. Jorgensen indicated that one advantage with this ordinance is that if a duplex is to be sold as individual units each side must meet the building code as a separate dwelling. There can be no common attic and each unit must be designed with a fire wall which is built to the top of the roof. Mr. Jorgensen felt that this is a step forward and will be a means whereby there will be owner-occupied duplexes on each side. Mr. Jorgensen said that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously supported this ordinance amendment. No one from the audience addressed this ordinance.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Mabey felt that unless there is a provision in the ordinance for each party to maintain their unit, such as a maintenance fee, then the value of an owner’s property could be jeopardized if the attached unit is not maintained. He also felt there was a possibility that the current run-down situation of duplexes would be increased. Councilmember Whitehead felt that if units are purchased the condition of duplexes will be upgraded. He also felt that ownership is better for the stability of an area.
Mr. Whitehead mentioned that the potential exists for decreased property values if neighbors don’t maintain single-family dwellings. Councilmember Mabey felt that the impact would not be as great to single-family home owners as to owners of attached units. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that maintenance is the owner’s responsibility. Councilmember Parker felt that people’s behavior cannot be enforced through legislation. Councilmember Hardwick said that this ordinance provision would cut costs in new projects and would allow for more affordable housing.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 9 of 1984, amending Chapter 5 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding Section 29 thereto relating to division of two-family dwellings, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Mabey who voted nay.
(O 84-5)
Nonconforming Buildings and Uses.
RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 8 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by amending Sections 51-8-3, 51-8-4, and 51-8-5, relating to nonconforming buildings and uses.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this ordinance amendment. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that at the present time the ordinance does not permit a nonconforming building to be reconstructed, or altered, to an extent of more than 50 percent of its assessed valuation. Nor does the ordinance allow a nonconforming building which has deteriorated or been destroyed by fire or explosion to be repaired or rebuilt in the extent of more than 60 percent of its assessed value. These two provisions are excessively strict and have caused serious problems for owners of buildings trying to get adequate insurance and financing.
It has been proposed to change the percentages to 250 percent of the most recent assessed valuation of the structure. This would apply to business and residential nonconforming uses. Mr. Jorgensen explained that the Planning Commission felt that other portions of the nonconforming ordinance should be modified. Specifically, allowing the Board of Adjustment to authorize additions under certain conditions provided they do not increase the capacity or expand the nonconforming use, and also restricting the extension of a nonconforming use throughout an entire existing building, which is presently allowed. No one from the audience addressed this ordinance amendment.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 10 of 1984, amending Chapter 8 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by amending Sections 51-8-3, 51-8-4, and 51-8-5, relating to nonconforming buildings and uses, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-6)
Special Improvement District 38-750.
RE: Protests concerning the proposed creation of Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension 38-750, comprised of numerous residential streets in the southwest and eastern portions of the city.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. to consider the protests to this curb and gutter extension. Max Peterson, city engineer, said that protests received were tabulated and presently there is 18.8% of the abutting property owners who have protested against the project. There have been two streets that have a protest rate greater than 50%, Sunnyside and Andrew Avenues, the remaining streets have lower than 50% protest rate. Councilmember Davis asked about a protest from Ms. Poulsen residing on Connor Street. Ms. Davis said Ms. Poulsen isn’t involved in this project and Ms. Davis asked why her name is on the list of protesters. John Naser, project engineer, said Ms. Poulsen is not in the district. She sent a letter stating her position and it was included on the preliminary tabulation with the other protests but it shouldn’t have been. Mr. Peterson indicated that her footage is not included in the percentage of protests.
Councilmember Shearer asked about the north side of 17th South and said that area has curb and gutter so most of the people are protesting the assessment for curb and gutter. Mr. Peterson said that if people already have curb and gutter they will not be assessed for new curb and gutter. Mr. Naser said that their assessment rate is for the pavement in the front when the street is redone and not for curb and gutter or sidewalk. If the curb and gutter is redone then the city has to bear all costs. Alan Parsons, 1643 West 700 North, asked if more than 50% of a specific block protests the project will that block be left out of the district.
Mr. Peterson said that because the entire district has a protest rate of only 18% then the Council has the prerogative of dropping any particular street which has more than a 50% protest rate. Mr. Parsons said that his neighbors on the north side of the street have questions concerning grading and problems of elevation. For the benefit of those on his street, Mr. Parsons objected to the project. Councilmember Whitehead agreed that there are problems in this area but he felt that the people in the area want the curb and gutter if the problems can be resolved. Dean Manson, 2176 Sunnyside Avenue, asked if he could be assured that their street would be removed since the protest rate is 63%.
Councilmember Davis felt that there was some confusion among the residents about the assessment rate and she requested that the residents be contacted individually so that their assessment can be explained to them. Some residents may then rescind their protest. Councilmember Whitehead said that the Council could not assure Mr. Manson at this time that the street would be removed. Councilmember Parker asked if the hearing is closed can it be reopened to accept changes in the protest rate. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, said that the purpose of this hearing is to provide input. There is a deadline for filing protests, however, protests can be withdrawn but the public hearing would not be reopened.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer the protests to the City Engineer for tabulation and to refer this item to the Committee of the Whole for February 16, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-1)
Special Improvement District 38-728.
RE: Protests concerning the proposed creation of Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-728, Main Street Beautification Extension.
A public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. to consider the protests to this curb and gutter extension. Max Peterson, city engineer, said that there were no protests by the abutting property owners regarding this project. Representative Sam Taylor opposed the proposed modifications to be made to the existing UTA transit facilities in connection with this project. It was his opinion that buses do not belong on Main Street and he opposed the lengthening of the bus bays because he did not feel that the problems would be solved. He also felt that the bus stop shelters are an eyesore and they hide the businesses. Mr. Taylor felt that the Urban Mass Transportation Administration funds would not be spent wisely for this project. He asked the Council to study this project.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer SID 38-728 to the City Engineer for tabulation and to refer this item to the Committee of the Whole for February 16, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-2)
Petition 8 of 1982 by Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation (Upland).
RE: Centennial Park Annexation No. 4, annexation of 650 acres of property located approximately between 1300 South and 2100 South and 4800 West and 5600 West.
A public hearing was held at 7:15 p.m. to consider this issue. Randy Taylor, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map. He said that the Utah Boundary Commission Act requires that a policy declaration be prepared for annexation petitions. This document discusses whether or not the city can service an area intended for annexation and allows other affected entities to discuss and protest the annexation if they desire. Mr. Taylor said that the proposed annexation is in Section 13 which is a one-mile square section to the immediate west of Union Pacific Railroad’s existing industrial park. Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, said that about a year and a half ago the City Council approved the Centennial Park Annexation subject to two conditions: an avigation easement would be signed by the property owner and an annexation agreement would be signed specifying certain street and drainage problems to be solved. After that action occurred there was a change in the law and in city administration policy. Mr. Peterson referred to the recent Northwest Quadrant Annexation and explained that a new approach was taken with this annexation. Rather than an annexation agreement and avigation easement, a holding zone was created and conditions were specified in the ordinance that would have to be met by the Mayor and his staff prior to any development in this area. With this change, the City Council adopted the northwest quadrant annexation.
Mr. Peterson referred to a letter dated February 6, 1984, addressed to Councilmember Whitehead regarding the Centennial Park Annex No. 4 (a copy is on file in the City Recorder’s Office). In that letter he states that it would be inequitable to require the annexation agreement and avigation easement as a condition of annexation in view of the recent northwest quadrant unconditional annexation of largely industrial property. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that none of the property can be developed until it is subdivided as acreage. Under the subdivision ordinances of the city this would be treated the same as the two eastern areas which the petitioner developed.
This would require that all of the streets be dedicated and improved to the standards set forth by the city in the city’s major street plan. Mr. Jorgensen indicated that in land use programs being developed, this area is specified for industrial purposes. All buildings would be subject to the avigation agreement and would have to meet the sound attenuation requirements. Mr. Jorgensen felt that there were adequate safeguards regarding the development of this area. This annexation would be a continuation of an existing industrial development so the Planning Commission recommended that this be adopted, annexed to the city, and zoned “M-lA”.
Dale Hadley, Upland Industries, said that they wanted “M-lA” zoning rather than “A-l” as had been suggested as an alternate. He said that there are problems in developing the property but in previous developments those problems have been solved. Mr. Hadley indicated that sewer and water facilities were extended to reach the existing industrial park and many businesses have been established in that park. The current tax base to the city is in excess of $1 million per year and there are over 5,300 people working in this park. He said that the problems need to be solved as development occurs but Upland needs to know that the city supports the annexation so development can proceed.
Mayor Wilson supported the annexation petition and said that when development occurs there are strong enough ordinances to insure that Upland complies with avigation easements and policy requirements of the city. The Mayor felt that the city would have to be flexible when properties are annexed and rather than annexations having to comply with rigid criteria each would have to be considered individually. He said that this is a good place for an industrial park and he encouraged the Council to approve the petition.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the amendment to the Master Annexation Policy Declaration for the area within the proposed Centennial Park Annexation No. 4 and give tentative approval of the annexation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-171)
Petition 400-116 of 1983 by Annamae Barrus, et al.
RE: The vacation of a 16-foot alley which runs north/south between Downington and Garfield Avenues and between Lake and 800 East Streets.
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. to consider this petition.
No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 11 of 1984, vacating a public alley located within the East Bank Addition Subdivision, said alley being 16 feet wide and running north from Garfield Avenue to Downington Avenue between Lake Street and 8th East Street, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-3)
Petition 400-49 of 1983 by Dennis Peterson, et al.
RE: The vacation of a 16-foot wide alley which runs west 558.8 feet from Navajo Street between Pacific Avenue and 5th South Street.
A public hearing was held at 7:35 p.m. to consider this petition. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mahey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 12 of 1984, vacating a public alley located within the Jordan Place Subdivision, said alley being 16 feet wide and running west for approximately 558.8 feet from Navajo Street between Pacific Avenue and 5th South Street, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-4)
Petition 400-106 of 1983 by Ray Marler, et al.
RE: The vacation of a 13-foot wide alley which runs north/south between Kensington and Bryan Avenues and between 300 and 400 East Streets.
A public hearing was held at 7:40 p.m. to consider this petition. Mr. Ray Marler, petitioner, told the Council that this alley is a public nuisance. No one from the audience opposed this issue.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 13 of 1984, vacating a public alley located within the Waterloo Addition Subdivision, said alley being 13 feet wide and running north from Bryan Avenue to Kensington Avenue between 300 and 400 East Streets, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-5)
Petition 400-48 of 1983 by Mary Lee Pierce, et al.
RE: The vacation of a 13-foot alley located 130 feet south of Kelsey Avenue at approximately 278 East.
A public hearing was held at 7:45 p.m. to consider this petition. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 14 of 1984, vacating a public alley located within the Jackson Square Subdivision, said alley being 13 feet wide and running south 130 feet from Kelsey Avenue at approximately 278 East, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-6)
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.