PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1988
BRIEFING SESSION
Linda Hamilton, executive director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. Council Member Stoler asked what the financial impact was for Salt Lake City to enter into an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County allowing the city to provide fire and rescue dispatch services to the county. Ms. Hamilton told the Council that the city was fairly compensated for the services provided. Council Member Bittner said she felt the city lost money when entering into such agreements because the overhead costs were not taken into account.
Council Member Godfrey suggested that the Council request a briefing on the financial impact of interlocal cooperation agreements, specifically agreements which allowed the city to provide fire and rescue dispatch services. Council Member Stoler questioned the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement which allowed Salt Lake City to receive funds from Sandy City and West Valley City for the purchase of a homeless shelter. He asked why West Valley City was contributing $10,000 while Sandy City was contributing $30,000.
Emilie Charles, executive assistant to the Mayor, told Council Member Stoler that each city gave a set percentage of Community Development Block Grant Funds to the homeless shelter. Sandy City received more CDBG money than West Valley City and therefore Sandy City’s contribution was larger than West Valley City’s contribution. Council Member Bittner asked why the franchise agreement with Evans and Sutherland Corporation did not contain a date of expiration. She said that it was her understanding that the Council no longer granted franchise agreements in perpetuity. She said that the Council should add an expiration date to the agreement.
Council Member Kirk said that the city had been trying to finalize the agreement with Evans and Sutherland Corporation for over a year. She added that the Council had already passed the franchise agreement with Evans and Sutherland Corporation and was only being asked to adopt an amendment to Exhibit “A” of the agreement. Ms. Hamilton said that the Council should not add an expiration date to the agreement because Evans and Sutherland Corporation had already made initial capital expenditures based on the agreement passed which contained no expiration date. Council Member Godfrey suggested that the Council request a briefing on the legal implications of adding an expiration date to the franchise agreement.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 5, 1988, at 6:00 P.m. in the City Council Chambers, Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Thomas Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy city recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson-Elect 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 meeting held Tuesday, December 8, 1987, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
Special Recognition
Mayor DePaulis presented the 1987 Urban Design Awards. He said this was the third year for these awards and said it had been a tremendous opportunity for Salt Lake City as an element of recognition in terms of urban landscape and design. He thanked all those who were associated with this program and said this year’s urban design awards focused on green space, open space, and the people who were helping to create and preserve these spaces. He presented awards to Hermoine Jex, the Salt Lake International Airport, the Urban Forestry Board, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, Garden Park Ward, and Temple Square and the LDS Church Office Building grounds.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-467 RBD/Rex Dahlberg.
RE: An ordinance closing the east-west portion of Pioneer Road extending west of Pioneer Road at 2300 West to the west line of the Utah Power and Light Company right-of-way.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 1 of 1988 closing the east-west portion of Pioneer Road pursuant to Petition 400-467, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(P 87-229)
Petition 400-548 E. C. Shaw.
RE: A request that Salt Lake City vacate an alley located behind the property at 1015-1035 South 200 West.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a non-advertised public hearing to be held Tuesday, January 12, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(P 88-5)
Petition 400-565 University of Utah/Charles Evans.
RE: A request that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of the Colorow Drive right-of-way which was dedicated in 1986.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a non-advertised public hearing to be held Tuesday, January 12, 1988, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(P 88-3)
Petition 400-568 Sidney Dotson.
RE: A request that Salt Lake City vacate a 7.5 foot alley located behind the property at 1477 California Avenue.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, February 9, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(P 88-6)
Petition 400-570 Kim Jensen.
RE: A request that Salt Lake City vacate an alley located at 924 South Glendale through to 924 Emery Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a non-advertised public hearing to be held Tuesday, January 12, 1988, at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(P 88-4)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
#1. RE: An ordinance regulating, licensing, zoning and defining sexually oriented businesses.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, February 9, 1988, at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(O 88-3)
#2. RE: An ordinance amending the city’s massage parlor regulations.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, February 9, 1988, at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(O 88-4)
#3. RE: An ordinance enacting Sections 25-llB-l through 25-llB-l7 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to collective bargaining between Salt Lake City Corporation and its employees.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to table this ordinance until January 12, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Stoler said he noticed there was a lot of language being cleaned up and asked if the unions had agreed to this. Roger Cutler, city attorney, explained that this was being tabled because the fire fighter union hired counsel and wanted their attorney to read this ordinance. He said basically the proposal was merely clean up and did not make any substantive changes over the existing collective bargaining resolution. He said basically this was changing the form from a resolution into an ordinance. He said all unions had ample time to comment.
Councilmember Stoler mentioned the situation with the fire fighters and their opinion that captains should be in the union. Mr. Cutler briefly explained that the Department of Labor had ruled that the captains were managers and were not covered by the FLSA or entitled to overtime. He said he thought this position would be sustained by the courts based on the captains’ supervisory function and salary.
(O 88-2)
#4. RE: A resolution rescinding the Third Amended Bargaining Resolution, Resolution No. 41 of 1984, dated April 10, 1984.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to table this resolution until January 12, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(R 88-2)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: The election of Tom Godfrey as Chairperson and W. M. “Willie” Stoler as Vice-Chairperson of the Salt Lake City Council for calendar year 1988.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt a motion ratifying the election of Tom Godfrey and Willie Stoler, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(G 88-1)
#2. RE: An ordinance adopting the West Temple Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan entitled “West Temple Gateway Neighborhood Development Plan”, dated August 1, 1987.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Ordinance 4 of 1988 adopting this plan, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(T 87-18)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: An interlocal cooperation agreement with Sandy City and West Valley City to receive funding for the purchase of a homeless shelter.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 4 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Sandy City and West Valley City for receiving funding for the purchase of a homeless shelter, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(C 88-3)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Exhibit “A” of the Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation Franchise Ordinance No. 43 of 1987 to reflect the “as built” placement of the communication duct.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved to suspend the rules and adopt the ordinance on first reading, which motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to refer this ordinance to the Committee of the Whole in order to change the wording from perpetuity to a negotiated period of time, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Kirk who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Bittner said she did not have a problem with the franchise but questioned the part of the ordinance which stated that the franchise would be in perpetuity. She recommended that this be referred to the Committee of the Whole and the language be amended to reflect a certain time period.
(O 87-18)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An amendment to an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for fire and rescue dispatch services.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 3 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for fire and rescue dispatch services, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(C 84-75)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointments of Harold Christensen and Linda Edeiken to the Historical Landmarks Committee.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointments, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(I 87-21)
#2. RE: The appointment of Norton Parker to the Housing Authority Board of Directors.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(I 87-7)
#3. RE: The appointment of Orville Carnahan to the Utah Air Travel Commission.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-1)
#4. RE: The appointment of Ron Rowley to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-2)
#5. RE: The appointment of Larry Redding to the Community Development Advisory Committee.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-3)
#6. RE: The reappointment of Rex Kennedy to the Tracy Aviary Board.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred this to the consent agenda.
(I 88-4)
#7. RE: A resolution approving the plans, specifications and estimated costs of the projects to be financed with the proceeds of sale of not-to-exceed $20,000,000 of Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1988, of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, and providing for related matters.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(Q 87-11)
#8. RE: Municipal Building Authority Board of Trustees action regarding a notice of annual meeting schedule, new officers, and forms of certain documents to be executed.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adjourn as the Salt Lake City Council and convene as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to refer to the Salt Lake City Council Committee of the Whole the notice of an annual meeting schedule for said Board, election of new officers of said Board, approval of the forms of certain documents to be executed on behalf of said Board in connection with the proposed issuance of its Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adjourn as the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority and reconvene as the Salt Lake City Council, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 87-11)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County Recreation and Parks Division for water for a county park at 2700 South 300 East.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 1 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Recreation and Parks Division for water for a county park at 2700 South 300 East in Salt Lake County, Watermain Extension 33-C-1377, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(C 88-1)
#2. RE: An interlocal agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation for the city to install and maintain a water main on UDOT property.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 2 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for a license for the city to install and maintain a water main on UDOT property, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Horrocks and Hardman who were absent for the vote.
(C 88-2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-576 Kahier Corporation University Park Hotel.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning a change in the “R-D” zoning district, the business license ordinance, and City Map No. 19372 to include Wakara Way as a major Street in District “C”, to allow a Class “B” Private Club and Class “C” Tavern license in the University Park Hotel.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 2 of 1988 amending Section 19-2-19(e) to allow Class “C” beer and Class “B” private clubs in an “R-D” district and amending official City Map No. 19372 to include Wakara Way as a major street in District “C”; and adopt Ordinance 3 of 1988 amending Section 5l-19A-l(5)allowing Class “C” beer and/or Class “B” private club licenses as an attendant use to a permitted conference center in an “R-D” district, which motion carried, Councilmembers Fonnesbeck, Hardman, Godfrey and Kirk voted aye and Councilmembers Bittner, Horrocks and Stoler voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Allen Johnson, acting planning director, said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the changes for the following reasons:
1. The conference center finds it impossible to operate fully supporting the Research Park and University of Utah with proper conference facilities without the private club as an attendant use. 2. The private club will be an attendant use within the Research Park’s conference center serving center guests and Research Park residents and would not be particularly open to the general public. 3. The location of the private club within the center will not jeopardize the stability of any residential neighborhood, is not obtrusive, and is in a proper location within the Research Park.
4. The private club, as an attendant use, is consistent with uses provided in research and educational parks throughout the nation. 5. Permitting a private club as an attendant use in the conference facility in the “R-D” district will not obligate the city to permit private clubs in less restrictive business and commercial zones throughout the city. 6. Wakara Way is a collector street within the Research Park and is of appropriate size to be considered a major street for the purposes of the city’s license ordinance. 7. The owners of the proposed facility have indicated their willingness to work with the city to insure advertising for the facility will focus on the community the facility will primarily serve.
Councilmember Godfrey asked about the planning staff’s recommendation. Mr. Johnson said the staff recommended denial for several reasons. He said a number of hotels and restaurants in less restrictive commercial zones would be excluded from the same operating process and the staff felt it would only be fair to give them the same competitive opportunity. He said they also thought the zoning ordinance was being used to get around the state liquor law which would dilute pressure on the liquor control agency to update the liquor laws.
Lastly he said they had an operational problem with the hotel since there were zoning ordinance violations existing on the property. Councilmember Godfrey referred to item two above and asked if anyone defined “not particularly open to the general public”. Mr. Johnson said it was his impression that through the Research Park Advisory Committee the marketing program would be primarily directed to users of the University, Research Park, and sports arena. Councilmember Kirk pointed out that the Research Park Hotel Committee was discussing the issue of advertising in general for the hotel with the hotel owners in order to make advertising more appropriate to what the neighbors agreed was proper. She thought they would come back with recommendations and the Council could deal with the hotel. She didn’t think this advertising issue should influence the Council in making the decision regarding the private club. Councilmember Stoler asked what liquor licenses the hotel could have under the present zoning. Mr. Johnson said they could have a license to permit consumption of alcoholic beverages, mini bottles and bottled beer, on the property with food. He said the new proposal would allow consumption of alcoholic beverages without food.
Councilmember Stoler asked if they could currently have live entertainment. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said presently they were limited to those activities related to running a hotel and a private club license would include all the other licenses which would include entertainment. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if allowing this kind of “fast track” procedure could create a dangerous precedent. Mr. Johnson said from a Planning Commission perspective he didn’t think there was a risk of an additional “R-D” zone and said this type of zoning change had been done before to authorize private clubs in other areas of the city such as the Brickyard.
Councilmember Stoler asked who owned the hotel property and if a private club would violate state law in regards to allowing a club within 600 feet of a school, church, or park. Mr. Johnson said the State of Utah owned the land and said the Research Park was probably a separate entity from the school. He said their concern was whether or not the tennis courts in the area were considered a park but they received verification from the parks department that the courts were not considered a city park.
John Heaton from the law firm of Prince, Yeates and Geldzahler, representing the petitioner, said they were seeking the use only as an attendant use in a conference center and said it would be totally within the conference center. He said the hotel was located on state- owned property which was leased to Kahler Corporation under a commercial lease and this was not a subsidized conference center. He explained that they had gone through the necessary application process with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and were fully qualified in accordance with all the state statutes.
He also explained that Kahler Corporation took over the project after the original developer could not complete it and was unaware of special needs to receive specific approval for the facilities that go along with a conference center such as a restaurant, banquet facilities, and eating and drinking facilities. He said they came into the deal after seeing appropriate leases and licenses and had no idea of the “unwritten” issues. He said they were assured of the need for the conference center and that all proper approvals were given.
He also said they received local consent for the private club from Salt Lake City, which was later rescinded because of an error by Salt Lake City. He said it was not their desire to seek a facility for University students but was their desire to have the facility available primarily for the hotel guests, those who worked in Research Park and those who worked at the University. He said the hotel found it impossible to operate fully without the proper facilities and attendant uses. He said they believed the city was required to issue the license under the doctrine of law called “estoppel” which would prevent the city from later attempting to stop issuance of the license since approvals were already given. However he said they felt the better reason to approve their request was that such a facility was essential to operate properly.
Councilmember Godfrey expressed concern that when the project was proposed it was presented as a conference center and not a hotel. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said they were concerned because this facility was being publically advertised as a hotel. Mr. Heaton said other conference centers, outside of Utah, had the equivalent of a private club. Mr. Cutler said the Council’s decision needed to be based on legislative policy matters and not legal arguments regarding estoppel. He added that he disagreed as to whether or not estoppel applied.
Steve Alder, 852 South 2700 East, president of the Sunnyside East Neighborhood Council, said the general neighborhood attitude was concern with the creeping disparity between what was originally represented with this project and what had actually happened. He said they wanted thorough procedural compliance with the zoning requirements and said they objected to the advertising since it was in violation of prior representations. He said if there was any question in the Council’s mind they should allow a thorough review by the communities.
He said they wanted violations taken care of before approval and wanted the advertising problems remedied. He said they were concerned with the limited amount of city control at Research Park. Leon Stanley, 129 F Street, director at large for the Greater Avenues Community Council, said they had no objections and felt the private club would be a contained use in the facility. Hermoine Jex said if the Council approved this request the Association of Community Councils Land Use Committee strongly requested that Research Park make some concessions to the city. She said the city needed a strategy in this area and if they were going to give on issues then they needed to get something in return.
Councilmember Kirk said the neighborhoods she talked to were more concerned with the advertising of the hotel and not with the liquor issue. Mr. Heaton said they were aware of problems with advertising and had endeavored to enter into discussions about the problem. He said they met with the Research Park Advisory Committee and had contacted the Planning Commission, Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Downtown Business Association, the Hotel and Motel Association, and the Utah Travel Council. Harold Milner, president of Kahler Corporation, said they recognized that they had restrictions on their advertising and they intended to fully adhere to the restrictions. He said they would work with the city to make sure they did. Bernice Cook said she objected to the request and said when this project started the developer promised they would not compete with the downtown area. Jeff Polocronis, Gateway Partners, supported the project and said the city was lucky to have a strong and vibrant community at Research Park. He said it was an asset to the community. Juanita Reed, Northwest Pipeline, supported the project and said there was a need for a conference center with overnight lodging.
Guy Deihard, Evans and Sutherland, supported the project and didn’t think it competed with the downtown hotels since many of their out-of-state employees stayed downtown. Susan Mikelson, Evans and Sutherland, said the hotel was a benefit and didn’t want to see it crippled. Peter Cole, Gateway Partners, said the private club would be beneficial for an informal atmosphere where many discussions and ideas could grow.
Councilmember Kirk said she was a member of the Mayor’s Salt Lake City Tomorrow committee and said they saw Research Park as vital to the development of Salt Lake City and felt strongly that the hotel was vital to Research Park. She also said it was an important neighborhood issue to deal with the advertising problem.
Councilmember Stoler said he thought the proposal violated the spirit of the state statute and was concerned with further requests from the hotel. He also said along Foothill Drive there were businesses which were denied the same opportunity and he wondered if the Council wanted to set a precedent. He said the hotel already had a mini-bottle license and thought the only thing a private club would allow in addition would be live entertainment.
Councilmember Bittner thought this request was a way to get around the state’s liquor laws and said if this was a conference center then she didn’t know why they needed a private club. She felt business at a conference center could be conducted without a private club. She was concerned that the Council would be put in a position on this issue of being pro or con Research Park.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that this was an economic development issue since in the past large conference groups had objected to Salt Lake City because of the liquor laws. She thought the only way to provide liquor-by-the drink to people from out of town was by having private clubs. She didn’t think if the Council allowed this private club then they needed to allow it in every hotel and restaurant. She thought this hotel wanted to provide for guests who didn’t know the liquor laws.
She didn’t think the Council could talk about pro economic development, tourism, and business growth and deny a service which was important to a large segment of the population whether it was personally important to the Council. She added that the majority of people staying at hotels did not have cars so they wouldn’t be driving. Mayor DePaulis agreed that this was a economic issue and a private club was the only way to get liquor by the drink. Councilmember Kirk thought it was important to consider this as an economic issue and wanted the developers to understand that the private club should be sponsored for people coming to the hotel and not people from the downtown area.
Councilmember Godfrey expressed his concern with this being presented to the Council as a conference center and different from a hotel. He also expressed concern about the signage and advertising but he said people in his district did not have a problem with allowing a private club and he didn’t have a problem with it either.
(P 87-347)
West Valley Boundary Adjustment.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment and consider adopting a proposed boundary adjustment policy declaration and agreement with West Valley City. This would contemplate the annexation, by Salt Lake City, of a portion of property in West Valley City at approximately 2100 South 1800 West and the disconnection of a portion of property in Salt Lake City at approximately 2100 South 2901 West, to be annexed into West Valley City.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to amend the Master Annexation Policy Declaration and put the ordinance on the consent agenda for January 12, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Randy Taylor, planning and zoning, said they had been working on this issue with West Valley for about four years. He said Salt Lake City’s Master Annexation Policy Declaration anticipated that this boundary situation should be corrected. He said both Salt Lake City and West Valley City Planning Commissions reviewed the matter and recommended the change. He said this matter had to go through the entire process in both cities. He referred to a map and showed the Council the area involved. He said the boundary line ran along a section line rather than the natural barrier which was the 2100 South freeway.
He said this created a remnant of West Valley City property on the north and a remnant of Salt Lake City property on the south. He said both cities agreed that the freeway would be the logical boundary. He said the Utah Department of Transportation also wanted to convey the frontage roads to the appropriate jurisdictions. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what the total land area was. Mr. Taylor said Salt Lake City would get about 45 acres and this area had a mobile home park and business and commercial interests. He also said there were sewer problems and fire and dispatch confusion because of the current boundary. In regards to taxes he said that for West Valley City the approximate net revenue loss as a result of this would be $2,258 and the net revenue gain for Salt Lake City would be $5,986. He said there was a 5-day protest period before the Council could adopt an ordinance. He said this was just a land exchange and did not involve money.
Howard Norton, vice president of Norton Enterprises, supported the change and said his business was in the area which would be annexed to Salt Lake City. He said there had been great confusion with services and non-emergency calls to the police because of the current boundary. He also said they had problems with their septic tank and indicated that he wanted to hook up to the city sewer.
(T 86-1)
Historical Landmark Case No. 710/Nephi Clayton House.
RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning designating the Nephi Clayton House at 140 East 2nd Avenue as a Salt Lake City Historical Landmark site.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardman who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 5 of 1988 designating the Nephi Clayton House as a historical landmark, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardman who was absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Hardman said his architectural firm had done preliminary drawings for this project and in order to avoid a conflict of interest he did not want to participate in the discussion so he left the dais. Bil Schwab, planning and zoning, said the house was located at 140 East 2nd Avenue and was built in 1890. He then showed slides of the house while Evelyn Wessal, nominator, briefly described it. She said the house was a 2.5 story Queen Anne style mansion with a carriage house in back.
She said the house was a significant part of the original Brigham Young farm. Councilmember Stoler asked what they would use the house for and Ms. Wessal said they wanted a conditional use for a bed and breakfast inn. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said there was no opposition to this in the neighborhood. After the votes were taken Councilmember Hardman returned to the dais.
(L 87-3)
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.