PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1985
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1985, AT 5:15 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD EARL F. HARDWICK GRANT MABEY THOMAS GODFREY SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Mimi Charles and Troy D’Ambrosio were present from the Mayor’s Office. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, Roger Cutler, city attorney, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy recorder, were also present.
Mayor Wilson, Councilmember Davis and Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, were absent from the meeting.
Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck presided at the meeting and Councilmember Parker conducted the meeting.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-273 of 1985 by Tate/Brubaker
RE: Closure of Volney Court at 700 South and 200 West.
Without objection, a non-advertised public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, March 5, 1985, at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this petition.
(P 85-18)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: A moratorium on demolition of housing in Salt Lake City. Without objection, a public hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, March 5, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. to consider an ordinance or resolution declaring a moratorium on demolition of housing.
(O 85-6)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by adding Sections 51-2-13.1 and 51-2-15.6 relating to definitions; and an ordinance amending Chapter l2A of Title 51 by amending Sections 51-l2A-1 and 51-12A-2 and adding Sections 51-l2A-3 and 5l-l2A-4, relating to the foothill development overlay zone.
Larry Livingston, council legislative analyst, referred to a question which had been asked in a previous discussion about how the regulation of views can philosophically be justified. He indicated that all areas of zoning regulate property rights and try to achieve a balance between individual property rights. When addressing height regulation, he indicated that consideration has to be given to what is reasonable in protecting mutual property rights. Mr. Livingston referred to a seminar he attended where an expert involved in issues regarding aesthetics in zoning law said that the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have defended the right of regulating land use by justifying protection of aesthetic values. Mr. Livingston referred to how the height of a structure will be measured. He said that all faces will be measured from the lowest point to the highest point and the highest elevation will be the height of the building, usually this will be the downhill side. He mentioned that if the building is terraced then each segment is measured independently. He said that they want architects to conform with the topography of the lot.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred to a portion of the proposed ordinance which gives the Board of Adjustment the right to determine whether or not a structure will fit into the character of a neighborhood. She was concerned because there would not be a means to appeal their decision except through court. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, indicated that the Board of Adjustment needs some leeway when considering a design scheme of a structure and he explained that the board would consider such things as whether or not the structure is designed to fit the lot and if it is intrusive to other views.
Mr. Hafey said that once the height requirement is established then the Board of Adjustment is the authority which can approve a deviation. Mr. Livingston said that a certain height will be permitted without a review and then any height above what is permitted will require a review before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Livingston pointed out that because there is a typographical error and the Attorney’s Office needs to approve the ordinances as to form, the ordinances should be referred to the consent agenda for the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve the ordinances in concept and refer them to the consent agenda for March 5, 1985, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 84-32)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Amendments to the 1984-85 Fiscal Year budget.
Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, mentioned that the Council had questioned why a large amount of the contingency fund is being used when the building and housing permit fees are so high. Mr. Haines, chief administrative officer, said that they did not recommend that the permit fees be realized as revenue for two reasons: First, historically the Council and Mayor have not considered new revenue at mid year except for those revenues that could clearly be established to be used for the purposes for which they are being spent, such as grants. Second, the increase in revenues to building permits was estimated to be at about $150,000 above the amount identified to offset the costs for the building inspectors. Mr. Haines indicated that $150,000 is not very much compared to the total fund balance. He said that they prefer to continue the practice of not identifying revenues where they have not been needed to offset expenditure items on budget openings. Mr. Haines mentioned that unanticipated revenues are automatically added to fund balance and cannot be spent unless they are appropriated, except in the case of special revenues such as grants. Mr. Haines said that the funds from the building permits have not been totally realized and will not be until the end of the fiscal year. Ms. von der Esch said that the resolution amending the budget had not been received so she suggested that this item be referred to the consent agenda.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer the resolution amending the Fiscal Year 1984-85 budget to the consent agenda for March 5, 1985, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(B 84-5)
The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.