PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR AND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, February 9, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City
Hall, 324 South State.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Alan Hardman Willie Stoler.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck was absent.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
The City Council interviewed Sylvia Bennion prior to her appointment to the Recreation Advisory Board. Ms. Bennion told the Council that she had previously served on the Provo City Parks and Recreation Board as well as the Provo Metropolitan Water Board. She added that she enjoyed being involved in community activities. Ms. Bennion asked the Council what it expected of Recreation Board Members. Councilmember Tom Godfrey stated that since the Recreation Advisory Board is a new board, the board members would have to formulate guidelines under which to operate and thereby outline expectations. Councilmember Wayne Horrocks added that the Board needed to consider projects which are often time controversial, such as the conversion of the Police Athletic League to a recreation center which would be operated by the Parks Department.
Brian Wilkinson, Council Staff, told Ms. Bennion that at the Board’s first meeting, expectations of Board members would be discussed. Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She told the Council that a change was made in the Council minutes from the February 2, 1988, meeting which necessitated the adoption of revised minutes. Ms. Hamilton told Council Members that they should adopt a resolution conditionally accepting bid for construction work and, subject to approval of the City Engineer, authorizing execution of improvements of Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-757, providing for construction of curb and gutter, side walks, driveway approaches, storm drainage, utility relocations, traffic lanes, street trees, sod and topsoil and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements for issuance of interim warrants and for the addition of the interest thereon to assessable costs.
She added that Special Improvement District No. 38-757 was located in Council District Two. The Council discussed on ordinance amending Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City by adding Chapter 36 dealing with zoning requirements and signage for “Sexually Oriented Businesses” and repealing other conflicting provisions of Title 51. Ms. Hamilton told the Council that, although an ordinance amending Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City by adding a new Chapter 40 dealing with licensing Sexually Oriented Businesses and Employees and repealing or amending other ordinances to conform with the new license ordinance including Sections 19-3-15; 19-4-12, 20-20-1, et. seq., 20-34-01, et seq., and 20-37-1, et seq., was scheduled for public comment, the Council could not adopt the ordinance because it had not been finalized by the City Attorney’s Office.
Councilmember Tom Godfrey asked Roger Cutler, City Attorney, if there were negative consequences to adopting the zoning ordinance without adopting the licensing ordinance. Mr. Cutler stated that he didn’t feel that anything negative would occur because, even though the zoning would be changed, businesses would still have to conform with current licensing standards. Mayor DePaulis added that the current licensing standards were very strict. Mr. Cutler stated that the recommendation of the City Attorney’s Office was that the zoning ordinance be adopted immediately.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 9, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Alan Hardman Willie Stoler.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck was absent.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, S. R. Kivett, deputy city recorder, and LaNita Brown, deputy city recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at and conducted the meeting.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, February 19, 1988, Thursday, February 4, 1988, and September 10, 1987, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(M 88-1)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: General housing and community development needs for consideration by CDBG staff and the Mayor prior to submission of the Mayor’s annual CDBG recommendations to the Council.
ACTION: Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, February 16, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(T 88-1)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Agreement Amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County amending the agreement of October 5, 1982, raising the Health Department charge to a violator for a citation for violation of noise ordinances.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Resolution 14 of 1988, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(C 88-4)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for relocation of the City’s culinary watermains to facilitate construction on I-215 from 2000 East to 3900 South, mainly at the State’s expense.
ACTION: Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to adopt Resolution 13 of 1988, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(C 88-35)
#2. RE: Consider adopting a resolution conditionally accepting a bid for construction work and, subject to approval of the City Engineer, authorizing execution of a construction contract with the certified low bidder for construction of improvements of Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-757, providing for construction of curb and gutter, sidewalks, driveway approaches, storm drainage, utility relocations, traffic lanes, street trees, sod and topsoil, and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements, for issuance of interim warrants and for the addition of the interest thereon to assessable costs.
ACTION: Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 15 of 1988, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: John Naser, Engineering Division, addressed the Council saying that the following bids had been received: McNiel Construction, $2,505,349; Geneva Rock Products, $2,536,821.95; and Gibbons & Reed, $2,943,661.65. He said the Engineers estimate had been $3,018,390.
(O 87-2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-557 by Calvin Burningham.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to consider vacating a 6 foot alley located between 1500 West and Catherine Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to request the Planning and Zoning Division to aid Mr. Burningham in negotiations with Salt Lake City School District and Community Council to develop a viable solution and return to the City Council with a proposal by March 15, 1988, at which time action would be taken, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, Planning and Zoning presented a diagram showing the property to be vacated and said that it was actually a walkway that had been required at the time the subdivision was dedicated, to provide a more convenient access to the school. She said that since that time, the residents whose property abutted the walkway were experiencing verbal abuse as well as vandalism to their property. She said they had received letters from Newman Elementary School, Salt Lake City School Board, Northwest Intermediate School, and the Community Council strongly opposing the petition, so she suggested that the Council obtain public comment before making a decision.
Calvin Burningham, 1231 Catherine Street addressed the Council saying that when he first moved into his home he didn’t even need a fence as the only children who used the walkway were young neighborhood children, but now older children who lived west of Redwood Road used it and they would yell at him using vulgar words, throw rocks at his house, or hit the fence. He said he had been staying home for the last few years, just to protect his property. He said he had put up with a lot of abuse from the children who used the walkway. He said very little had been done to maintain it since he had lived there, with the exception of asphalt being put down. He said it would not be a hardship on the children to have to walk a little farther to school.
Carl R. Child, 440 East 100 South, addressed the Council and said he represented Salt Lake City School District and that last November, they had received a notice from the Planning Division telling them of the proposed vacation. He said they responded to the Planning Division at that time stating their opposition to the proposal. He said they felt the city had done the right thing when they constructed the walkway when the subdivision was first built, that it encouraged the children not to trespass on other people’s property. Councilmember Kirk asked if the school was willing to take any responsibility for the behavior of the children, and Mr. Burningham said the Board had not addressed this problem.
Arthur Elizondo, 1232 North 1500 West, addressed the Council and said that recently children were playing on the fence abutting his property and the walkway, and he asked them not to play on the fence as they might get hurt. He said they picked up rocks and began throwing them at him. He said from then on he was awakened every morning by the children jumping on the fence and shouting “Old man, old man, dirty old man!” He said he went to the principal at that time and it slowed the action a little but it had not stopped. He said he didn’t know what else to do. He said another time children were playing on the fence and he asked them politely not to. He said they came back about three days later and threw rotten eggs at his house. He said children often used the walkway to sluff school and smoke. Pat Toone, 1535 Haslam Circle, said she represented the Northwest Community Council and recently they had walked the area to check it out, as the school received calls frequently from Mr. Burning- ham complaining of the situation. She said it was not the small children who used the walkway, but the older children and the calls to the school were because of children in the walkway during school hours smoking and sluffing school. She said there was a house which abutted the walkway that remained unsold probably because of the vandalism that occurred there from children in the walkway. She said they talked with the neighbors at this time and listened to their stories of abuse from the children. She said they also noticed broken windows, graffiti on the fence, and the closeness of the bedroom window of the one home to the fence. She said they felt it should be closed for the good of the community, as it was not being used as much for the purpose it was intended and was only being used now for vandalism and irritating the neighbors.
Councilmember Bittner said she had received a number of calls from the school and from residents who felt it was important to keep the walkway open, but she felt it was best to vacate it rather than subject the neighbors to the things that had been happening there. She said she felt that before the Council took action, the schools and Board of Education should be given the opportunity to negotiate the matter. She said any kind of commitment should be between the schools and the neighborhood and not involve policing by the city. She suggested they be given until March 15, 1988 to develop a proposal, and if no agreement could be arrived at, then they should vacate it.
(P 88-7)
Petition 400-568 by Sidney S. J. Dotson.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the request that Salt Lake City vacate a 7.5 foot alley located behind his property at 1477 California Avenue.
ACTION: Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Horrocks moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 14 of 1988 vacating an alley behind 1477 California Avenue, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Janice Jardine, Planning and Zoning presented a diagram showing the property to be vacated and said that it was intended for this alley to be vacated in March 1965 at which time several other alleys in the area were vacated. She said for some reason it was left out at that time. She said Mr. Dotson had paid taxes on the alley for 2 years and agreed to give the city 10 feet of his front property in exchange for 7.5 feet of the alley behind his property. She said all the appropriate city departments had reviewed the petition and had no problems with the vacation. She said she had looked at the site and it appeared it had not been used as an alley. Sidney S. J. Dotson, 5460 Sanford Drive, addressed the Council and said he owned the property at 1477 California Avenue. He said his parents bought the home 45 years ago and the property behind had never been used for an alley. He said he had approached the city every year for the last 7 years to vacate the property. He said he had paid property taxes on the alley in 1979 and 1980, then in 1981 it was not on his property tax notice so he approached the city and was informed that it should be vacated and they would do it next year. He said next year he again approached the city and they said it would be straightened out next year. He said he had talked with everyone but the City Council and hadn’t been able to get anything done. He said the property owners on both sides of his property had received their 7.5 feet of this 15 foot alley but he had not received his share. Councilmember Godfrey said he felt Mr. Dotson had been very patient regarding this matter.
(P 88-6)
Sexually Oriented Businesses
RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City by adding Chapter 36 dealing with zoning requirements and signage for Sexually Oriented Businesses and repealing other conflicting provisions in Title 51; and an ordinance amending Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City by adding a new Chapter 40 dealing with licensing Sexually Oriented Businesses and Employees and repealing or amending other ordinances to conform with the new license ordinance including Sections 19-3-15, 19-4-12, 20-20-1, et seq., 20-34-1, et seq., and 20-37-1, et seq.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to close the public hearing regarding the zoning ordinance, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to continue the public hearing regarding the licensing ordinance until March 15, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Ordinance 15 of 1988 amending Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City by adding Chapter 36 dealing with zoning requirements and signage for “Sexually Oriented Businesses” and repealing other conflicting provisions in Title 51, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney addressed the Council saying there had been minor changes made to the draft ordinance because of not being able to meet the original time schedule of having both the licensing and zoning ordinances ready at the same time. He said because of this they had reworked the definitional section to include adult businesses as currently defined by the ordinance and sexually oriented businesses as they may be licensed in the future. He said they hoped to include the licensing ordinance by March 15, 1988. He said the ordinance did not have any effect on the current obscenity ordinance. He said when the licensing ordinance was adopted the city would have one of the strongest set of ordinances in the United States regarding these types of businesses. He said the current existing ordinance was about 10 years old and did not allow sexually oriented businesses to be established within three blocks of any church, school, or park and they had to be in a C-3 zone, or less restrictive than the industrial or commercial type businesses. He said the ordinance did not provide any support or protection for residential zoning.
He made reference to the two large maps which had been set up in the Council Chambers and pointed out the areas in dark red and said these were the only areas where sexually oriented businesses could be located. He said the ordinance also provided that no sexually oriented business could be located within 1000 feet of another. He said the city had been sued by Allusions, a sexually oriented business, after being denied their business license on the grounds that the map and the standards did not allow sufficient space for sexually oriented businesses. He said the courts recognized that these were commercial businesses, at least at the beginning, and they must be allowed an opportunity to prove that they could conduct lawful business.
He said that in two recent United States Supreme Court cases, the court held that you could not simply zone them out of town, that you must give them space to operate. He said in another case in Renton, Washington, the court gave some guidance and said that cities didn’t have to wait until they had the problems, they can rely on the experiences of other cities to regulate zoning. He said the courts had also upheld cases where there was a 1000 foot limitation from residential zoning, churches, schools, and parks, because of the obvious impact that these businesses could have on places where families and youth congregated. He told the Council his office and the Planning Division held three meetings with the Planning Commission and prepared the map which they had before them and the Planning Commission had voted 9 - 0 to recommend it to the Council as an ordinance.
He said the Planning Commission had also suggested some thoughtful ways to protect historical buildings, recognizing the public and private investment that had gone into them, and the need to preserve the character and history of the city. He said the Planning Commission had designated gateways for entry into the city and these gateways would be protected by a 165 foot setback. He said those affected by the map were the Beck Street Gateway, from I-15 to where Beck Street becomes 300 West and continuing to 900 South; the North-South Gateways, West Temple, from North Temple to 900 South, State Street and Main Street, North Temple to the freeway at 600 South; the East-West Gateways, from the freeway entrance/exit on 500 and 600 South to State Street. Mr. Baird said the ordinance also contained an extremely tight signage restriction which would limit the business to one 3 x 5 sign with no flashing lights, simple copy, no wall painted signs, and no other outdoor building associated advertising. He said it was the most strict signage requirement for these types of businesses that he could find. He said that at the Planning Commission public hearing, virtually everyone testified in support of the ordinance while not supporting the businesses. He said they had taken steps to obtain input from all sides regarding the ordinance. Mr. Baird asked the Council to incorporate as part of their deliberation the evidence of testimony presented to the Planning Commission. He said they would keep a file of all the studies and reports provided to the Planning Commission and staff which would have taken months for the Councilmembers to read and digest. He said they were incorporating these by reference.
Bill Shultz, Planning and Zoning, addressed the Council to review some of the secondary negative effects from sexually oriented businesses. He said the City Attorney’s Office had asked them to do a study of cities comparable to Salt Lake City and see how they had approached this problem. He said his department had done extensive research on what other cities had done and their study showed convincing evidence that sexually oriented businesses had a negative effect on both the businesses around them and the surrounding residential areas, as well as causing increased crime and degrading of property values. He said they found that sexually oriented businesses were incompatible with the residential land uses and residential neighborhoods, especially with children in the neighborhoods.
He said they felt that areas zoned for residential uses should be protected from sexually oriented businesses, and they could accomplish that protection by providing a 1000 foot buffer from any residential zone. He said that the public should be allowed to walk around a sexually oriented business without being exposed to the adverse effects and that this requirement would be met by prohibiting these businesses from locating within 1000 feet from a public park, school, or religious institution. He said they felt that restricting sexually oriented businesses from locating no closer that 1000 feet from each other would also minimize the problem of concentration which would lead to increased crime, sexual offenses, criminal behavior, and narcotics and drug intensity.
He said the city had a legitimate interest in protecting its gateway corridors from influences that would be detrimental to the commercial viability of its businesses and to provide a point of identity for visitors and residents as they entered the city. He said they also wanted to protect historic buildings, sites, and districts, to preserve the cultural and historic character of the city and the substantial public and private investment by the city and private landowners. He said they had an interest in regulating the signage and on/off-premise advertising of sexually oriented businesses to preserve the visual and aesthetic elements of the city and to preclude inappropriate exposure to the city such as had occurred in other cities. Sargeant Shelton, Police Department, addressed the Council regarding the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses on crime. He said since the early 1900’s the city had experienced secondary effects from the 500 West 2nd South area. He said it was a known meeting place for prostitutes and their customers, and that support businesses such as bars and hotels had built up in that area, catering to the prostitutes and their customers. He said the criminal support system continued to exist there now and was the effects of bringing in the stockade in the early 1900’s. He said when the Studio Theater, an adult movie theater, was here, there was disorderly conduct occurring in the bathrooms and heterosexual and homosexual prostitution going on.
He said he had seen entire areas deteriorate with a sexually oriented business being in existence. He said one business would spring up, be in an area for a short time then other businesses would lose their clientele and move away and another sexually oriented business would move in, for instance, a book store next door to a massage parlor next door to an adult theater. He said he had seen this in a number of other cities. He said that unfortunately sometimes sexually oriented businesses were illegal fronts for criminal activities such as prostitution, laundering of money for types of organized crime, disorderly conduct, and drug distribution.
He said that certain other cities had allowed this type of activity in a specific sector then had a situation where they had to allow criminality in those places. He said whenever you allowed sexually oriented businesses you had to be careful of the secondary effects as there was always the possibility of other criminal elements moving in and being associated with the businesses either directly or indirectly.
Lloyd Poelman, representing Citizens for Positive Community Values addressed the Council saying that he was an attorney by profession, a father of nine by choice, and a concerned citizen by necessity. He said his organization was seeking to help define and represent the prevailing values of the communities in which they lived. He presented a brochure explaining that Citizens for Positive Community Values was a non-profit, nondenominational, non-political organization founded by several leaders in Utah communities to give voice to the standards Utahns wanted to live by, and to work against influences that threatened those standards. He said their Board of Directors, chaired by B.
Z. Kastler, prominent civic leader and immediate past president and chairman of the board of Mountain Fuel Supply Company, included membership of prominent business and civic leaders from major Utah communities and several different denominations. He said he was also supported by Utah Citizens for Decency and a large number of Salt Lake City residents. He said they supported the proposed zoning revisions relating to location of sexually oriented businesses in Salt Lake City. He said they believed the proposed zoning changes to be reasonable, prudent, necessary, and fair and accommodated the rights of those who chose to engage in sexually oriented businesses or to patronize them, while still reflecting what they perceived to be the prevailing values in the community. He said one value they wanted to see preserved was freedom of expression. He said they believed that freedom was anchored in a respect for law and for the rights of others, so individual rights always had to be balanced against community rights. He said they were most concerned about the impact on children. He said that children should be shielded from certain influences because of their vulnerability and they deserved some protection. He said they favored dispersing these businesses rather than concentrating them, as experience had shown the negative aspects, one of which would be the accentuated problems of law enforcement.
He said that residential areas should be freed from the impact of sexually oriented businesses. He said they would be concerned with the enforcing of obscenity laws within the areas that would be permitted to have sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Poelman said he felt his committee represented prevailing community standards. Julie Lolohea, 232 Ramona Avenue, addressed the Council saying she was a concerned citizen, mother of four children and was in support of the ordinance. She said she had also talked with many of her neighbors and they were also in support. Tom Cantrell, owner of Angel’s Escorts, addressed the Council and said he saw no direct reference to escort services in the ordinance. Mr. Baird said the ordinance as written would have no effect on escort agencies. Mr. Cantrell asked Mr. Baird about his statement of receiving input from all sources and asked if he had contacted any of the owners of sexually oriented businesses.
Mr. Baird said they had contacted the American Civil Liberties Union regarding the licensing ordinance, and they had not endorsed it but had not opposed it and that they had not specifically contacted owners of any businesses yet but planned to contact attorneys of some of the businesses when they got to the final stages of drafting the ordinance and at that time they would be willing to listen to any comments. Mr. Cantrell said he would recommend to the Council that people be contacted when laws being made or changed might affect them, so they could have input into those decisions. Mr. Godfrey said the city already did this. Mr. Shultz added that the two meetings held by the Planning Commission had been advertised in the newspaper.
Councilmember Stoler said he and his staff had been involved in drawing up this ordinance ten years ago and at that time many cities were having the same kinds of problems with these types of businesses. He said they would adopt ordinances and hope that the Supreme Court would make a decision. He commended the Attorney’s Office, Planning and Zoning, Planning Commission on the fine work they had done on this ordinance. Councilmember Kirk said she was aware of the meaning of prior restraint having taught journalism for many years. She said an example was, principal could not say that a newspaper was pornographic before it was printed. She said we could not zone businesses out of town by using prior restraint. She said her concern was that community standards might enter into this, but she was convinced that the community felt that this was an appropriate thing to do, or else they would be at the meeting to tell the Council differently. She said she felt confident regarding the voting.
(O 88-3)
Regulation of Massage Parlors
RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of Title 20 dealing with licensing of massage parlors by adding a new Section 10 dealing with clothing standards.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Ordinance 16 of 1988 amending Chapter 12 of Title 20 dealing with licensing of massage parlors by adding a new Section 10 dealing with clothing and operating standards, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Baird, Assistant City Attorney, addressed the Council and explained that he had made two minor changes to the ordinance; 1) adding ‘operating’ to the title, and 2) correcting a typing error in the word ‘public’. He said the city’s current ordinance regarding massage parlors was outdated and had no clothing standards or requirements for masseurs. He said South Salt Lake had passed an ordinance a few years ago that was recently upheld by the United States Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado. He said the primary challenge to the ordinance was its requirement that a person be fully clothed from the base of the neck to the top of the knees, which meant that arms had to be covered. He said they felt there was no reasonable basis for this so the court held that a person could have slightly bare arms if they wanted to. Mr. Baird said they incorporated the standards adopted by South Salt Lake as they had been upheld by the courts. Mr. Horrocks questioned Mr. Baird about a possible error in the ordinance and Mr. Baird agreed that he would double check it and ensure its correctness.
(O 88-4)
In the regularly scheduled council meeting of January 12, 1988, John Bielefeldt, alias the “Nut Man” addressed the Council regarding Section 20-17-17 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, concerning solicitations, sales, promotion, and peddling. He had problems with certain sections of the ordinance in relation to his business. Mayor DePaulis said the problems in regards to Mr. Bielefeldt’s license had been worked out but at that time the Council felt they wanted to look at the entire ordinance and possibly hold a public hearing to get comment. He indicated that if the Council still wanted to go through the entire process necessary to amend an ordinance they could do so.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.