PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, July 5, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Tom Godfrey Wayne Horrocks Roselyn Kirk Sydney Fonnesbeck Willie Stoler Alan Hardman. Mayor Palmer DePaulis and Roger Cutler, were present.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Marianne Hodges, Mayor’s Office, introduced Sonar Technician First Class Timothy J. Hella to the Council and said that he was the U.S.S. Salt Lake City’s Sailor of the Year for 1988. Tom Godfrey, Chairperson, presented the Council with a letter of thanks to Representative Wayne Owens, indicating that Mr. Owens had recently voted in favor of maintaining UDAG funding to cities and none of the other members of the Utah delegation to Congress had voted in favor. He asked for the Council’s approval to sign the letter, as Chairperson of the Council. Councilmembers Stoler, Hardman, and Horrocks approved the letter.
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. Councilmember Hardman indicated that he and Chairperson Godfrey would be giving a favorable report for the funding of the Calvary Towers elderly housing project. Councilmember Stoler asked for a clarification on the appointment procedures for the newly formed Salt Palace/Fine Arts Board. Mr. Cutler said the Council had consent authority on the Mayor’s choices for those positions and the Mayor had authority to propose names to serve on boards, but those individuals could not serve until the Council voted to approve their appointment.
Ms. Hamilton said that Item Number E-4 should be pulled from the agenda as HUD would not have Section 202 funding available until later in the year and the project needed more review. Jim Huppi, Planning and Zoning, briefed the Council on the Lund rezoning petition to be heard later and indicated that the rezoning would accommodate a Planned Unit Development on the site allowing the city to ensure that lot size, neighborhood, and environmental concerns were addressed by the developer.
Lou Lynes, Director of Animal Control, briefed the Council on the vicious dog ordinance and indicated that he had worked with Council staff member Cindy Gust-Jenson and had made some modifications to the proposed ordinance to accommodate Councilmember’s concerns. The Council interviewed Ralph Becker prior to his appointment to the Planning Commission and Mr. Becker said he was interested in being appointed because of his background in planning and his profession as an attorney. Councilmember Hardman asked if Mr. Becker anticipated any conflicts because of his contracts for planning and lobbying services with the city and Mr. Becker said that his contract was finished and he planned to withdraw from bidding on planning contracts in the future.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 5, 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; Tom Godfrey; Wayne Horrocks; Roselyn Kirk; Sydney Fonnesbeck; Willie Stoler; and Alan Hardman.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and LaNita Brown, deputy city recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting and Councilmember Fonnesbeck conducted the meeting.
Margaret Mead, Unification Church, gave the invocation.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Thursday, June 9, Sunday, June 12, Monday, June 13, and Tuesday, June 14, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
SPECIAL RECOGNITION
The City Council and Mayor presented Sonar Technician First Class Timothy Jay Hella with the U.S.S. Salt Lake City 1988 Sailor of the Year award. He was presented a plaque by Councilmember Godfrey who introduced Mr. Hella and said he had been selected by the ship’s commander, Thomas Fargo, to accept the plaque on behalf of the U.S.S. Salt Lake City. Councilmember Godfrey read the plaque which stated, “the citizens of Salt Lake City gratefully acknowledge the distinguished service of Sonar Technician First Class Timothy J. Hella, Sailor of the Year of the U.S.S. Salt Lake City, presented July 5, 1988 by the Mayor and the City Council” Mayor DePaulis said he had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Hella and his family who were here from Tecumseh, Michigan, and was most impressed with Mr. Hella. He said the city was proud of its relationship with the U.S.S. Salt Lake City and by presenting the award, the city was helping to foster the relationship between the two.
(G 88-11)
Petition 400-594
Brasher Family Ltd.
RE: Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, August 2, 1988, at 6:15 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the request to rezone property at 700 South and 5600 West from “A-1” to “M1- A”.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to set the date for a public hearing for Tuesday, August 2, 1988, at 6:15 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 88-192)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between the city and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for testing of bituminous materials to be used at the Airport.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 79 of 1988, authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement with UDOT for testing of bituminous materials, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-350)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Consider adopting a motion allocating $33,000 of additional funds from a previous year’s Community Development Block Grant slippage funds to the Calvary Towers Land Write Down project.
ACTION: Councilmember Hardman moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to suspend the rules and adopt on a first reading, the motion allocating $33,000 to the Calvary Towers Land Write Down project, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Reverend France Davis said the project location was on the southeast corner of 500 East and 700 South where they would be demolishing four buildings and building a 30 unit complex.
(T 88-13)
#2. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the city to receive $10,000 under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 78 of 1988 authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement with HUD wherein the city would receive $10,000 under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-341)
FINANCE
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between the city and UDOT for the rental by UD0T of city equipment and equipment operator services for the purpose of planing road asphalt for road and street improvements for a total budget of $50,000 for Fiscal Year 1988/89.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 75 of 1988 authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement with UDOT wherein UDOT would rent city equipment and equipment operator services, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-349)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between the city, Salt Lake County, and the State of Utah to fund the Fine Arts facilities and manage the Salt Palace and Fine Arts facilities.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to suspend the rules and adopt on a first reading, Resolution 81 of 1988 authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement between the city, Salt Lake County, and the State of Utah to fund the Fine Arts facilities and manage the Salt Palace and Fine Arts Facilities, contingent upon review and approval of the city attorney, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-361)
#2. RE: Consider approving the appointment of Ralph Becker to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to approve the appointment of Ralph Becker to the Planning Commission, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(I 88-7)
#3. RE: Consider adopting a joint resolution of support for a 51-unit elderly low-income housing project to be constructed by the Salvation Army and funded through Section 202 funds.
ACTION: The Council pulled this item from the agenda.
(R 88-5)
PARKS
#1. RE: Consider adopting an ordinance enacting Chapter 28 of Title 15, Salt Lake City Code, relating to the creation of a Parks Capital Projects Fund to be used for capital developments, improvement and repairs, renovation, and creation of new facilities.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to suspend the rules and adopt on a first reading, Ordinance 49 of 1988, enacting Chapter 28 of Title 15 relating to the creation of a Parks Capital Projects Fund with the following change: Section 15.28.8.010A of the ordinance be amended to read, “with the exception of Oak Hills Tennis Center” at the conclusion of the paragraph, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 88-15)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement between the city and the United States of America for connection to the Central Utah Project at 2100 South and 3700 West to provide culinary water and fire protection to the Northwest Quadrant and the west side of Salt Lake City.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 80 of 1988, authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement with the USA for connection to the Central Utah Project at 2100 South and 3700 West to provide culinary water and fire protection to the Northwest Quadrant and the west side of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-351)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement between the city and UDOT for traffic signal pole painting in the Central Business District which will result in uniform maintenance and color theme in the downtown area.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 74 of 1988, authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement with UDOT for traffic signal pole painting in the Central Business District, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-342)
#2. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement between the city and UDOT to provide for a bridge replacement over the Surplus Canal at Indiana Avenue to be paid 80% by UDOT and 20% by the city and thereafter to be maintained by the city.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 77 of 1988, authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement with UDOT to provide for a bridge replacement over the Surplus Canal at Indiana Avenue to be paid 80% by UDOT and 20% by the city and thereafter to be maintained by the city, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 88-242)
#3. RE: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement amendment between the city and UDOT for rental of city equipment and use of city personnel by increasing UDOT’s total budget amount from $25,000 to $35,000 for Fiscal Year 1987/88.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 76 of 1988, authorizing execution of an interlocal agreement with UDOT for rental of city equipment and use of city personnel by increasing UDOT’s total budget amount from $25,000 to $35,000 for Fiscal Year 1987/88, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-535)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-574, Howard Lund
RE: A hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the request to rezone 4.5 acres of property at 2315 and 2337 East 1300 South from Residential “R-1” to Residential “R1-A” to develop a 2.2 acre parcel as a single-family planned unit development (PUD); and consider adopting the related ordinance.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the hearing and reconvene on the subject on August 9, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Jim Huppi, Planning and Zoning, briefed the Council regarding the proposed rezoning and said the property was located east of Foothill Drive, north of Larkin Mortuary, south of Bonneville Golf Course and west of Wasatch Drive. He said Planning staff had reviewed the environmental and site conditions of the property and felt that the classification of “R1-A” was more appropriate for the property as it would provide additional design solutions that were not available under the “R-l” zone. He said Mr. Lund owned 2.2 acres which was less than the required amount to facilitate a PUD. He said the primary concern of the neighbors was that neighborhood character be maintained and protected, and vegetation remain dense in that area so it would screen the development from surrounding areas. He said the Planning Commission recommended the following: 1) the property be rezoned; 2) that the rezoning include .3 acres belonging to Dr. Cohen; 3) that prior to the rezoning, Mr. Lund either receive approval from the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the acreage requirement of the PUD ordinance, or acquire additional property to meet the 2.5 acre requirement; 4) that Mr. Lund receive preliminary approval from the Planning Commission for a single-family detached PUD, and in doing so work with the neighborhood and the staff to ensure that the development was in character with the neighborhood and protected the environmental conditions of the site. Mr. Huppi explained that the “R1-A” zoning would allow Mr. Lund to construct a 25 foot wide private road into the development, thus saving some of the vegetation and giving him 25 feet more to use for development, whereas the “R-i” zoning would require a 50 foot public road into the development. He said if the private road was allowed, the property owners would have to maintain the right-of-way, their own garbage collection, and the water, sewer, and storm drain lines on the property.
Howard Lund, petitioner, addressed the Council and said he had been advised by the developers and real estate people not to go with the “R1-A” zoning as it would not be financially beneficial, but he wanted to do what would be beneficial for the neighborhood and the neighbors in protecting the environment. He said he had gone to Mr. Richards at the time the Planning staff told him he needed 25 acres in order to qualify for rezoning, and Mr. Richards said he didn’t want to be an ‘initiator’ but he was not opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Lund said if there was to be a restriction on the number of lots he was permitted to have with the “R1-A” zoning he would withdraw the petition and go with the “R-1” zoning, however, he wanted to know how the neighbors felt about it.
Lamont Richards, 2315 East 1300 South, said he owned the 2.5 acres that were a part of the petition request for rezoning and he was opposed to Mr. Lund’s proposed development and his acreage being made a part of the rezoning. He said he wished Mr. Lund would sell the property to someone who would build one residence on it so it would compare with the neighborhood.
Whitfield Lee, 2355 East 1300 South, said that as a neighbor, he cared about the neighborhood and felt Mr. Lund should not be allowed to build a lot of homes on the property as it would downgrade the rest of the homes in the area. He said at first the neighbors had gone along with the “R1-A” zoning and felt it would be more beneficial, but now they weren’t sure. He said they felt Mr. Lund should make a decision of which zoning he wanted and stick with it.
Mendel Cohen, 2321 East 1300 South, said he owned the .3 acre that was included in the rezoning and he preferred the PUD rather than a subdivision, but would be happiest if Mr. Lund didn’t do anything with the property.
Jon Lear, 2373 East 1300 South, said there were issues that needed to be addressed in their neighborhood dilemma caused by the way city ordinances were constructed. He said it seemed impossible that they had to agree to a rezoning that should provide them the same level of protection they should receive under the existing zoning. He said there should be a standard in the ordinances that covered considerations regarding the size of lots, the nature and character of the area, foliage, etc. He said the neighbors were faced with having to agree to let Mr. Lund proceed with the “R-l” zone which would allow him to develop ten lots in an area where the average density of homes was one per acre, or an “Ri-A” zone which would allow five lots. He said the neighbors were willing to enter into a discussion with the developer to decide what would be the most sensible plan for the property. Mr. Lear said the neighbors were also concerned with safety, as the entrance to the development would be in the middle of a “5” curve on 1300 South and traffic was heavy there. He said other issues that needed to be discussed were slope cuts of roads, drainage, foliage, level of building site, soil removal and design.
Jim Webster, 938 Military Drive, said he had been hired by the neighbors to study the proposed rezoning and he had done a slope analysis of the property and had looked at other alternatives and he endorsed the “R1-A” zoning as it would allow the property to be developed in a sensible and realistic manner, however, he endorsed it under the condition that the site development regulations be followed in regards to the unique vegetation habitat, the 40% slope that could not be traversed by normal roads whether they were 25 feet or 50 feet, and the remnant parcels of land. He said they also felt a traffic report should be conducted, and that seismic, geotechnical, and geohydrological issues should be addressed. He said the area was the old Spring Canyon drainage and wondered if there was an absolute fail-safe mechanism on the reservoir above the property that would preclude drainage from going down through the area. He said whether the zoning went “R-l” or “R1-A” didn’t matter, they needed to decide what would be in the best interests of the neighborhood.
David Horn, 2229 Laird Way, said the forest in that area was the only one anywhere in the vicinity. He said he thought the canyon waters fed down onto Laird Way, but after going over the property with Mr. Lear he found that the canyon water was blocked by the roadway that Mr. Richards had built some 40 years ago so the problem of water collecting in the area didn’t exist now. He said he did see a problem of water washing away topsoil such as it had done in Mr. Lee’s case, but he felt it could be avoided if curb and gutter were installed on Wasatch Drive and along 1300 South on the north side above Laird Way. He said school children had trouble crossing the road on 13th South and Laird Way because it was difficult to see the traffic coming up or down because of the curve. He said he felt that safety was a major issue in the zoning, whether it was “R1-A” or “R-l”, and engineers needed to study the issue carefully, as he felt that constructing a sidewalk up the north side of the street was essential.
Claire McCue, 2186 East Laird Way, said people should not be deprived of the value of their land because there were buyers who wanted estate type property. She questioned whether those who lived on one acre lots would be permitted to subdivide in the future, thus making it even more dense in homes.
Mr. Lund said he felt there was a lot of misapprehension and he would be happy to continue the hearing, otherwise he would withdraw his petition. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she was feeling uneasy about the zoning because she felt they didn’t have enough information and that they should close the hearing and let the Council have time to get some questions answered for Mr. Lund and the rest of the neighborhood. Councilmember Kirk said that one of the recommendations of the Planning Commission was that the developer work with the staff and neighborhood and she felt if they did they could work out some kind of compromise.
(P 88-147)
REGULATION AND CONTROL OF VICIOUS DOGS
RE: Consider adopting an ordinance amending Title 8 of the Salt Lake City Code, by renumbering Section 8.04.010 Definitions, and adding new definitions in 8.04.010.12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 27, 28 and 29; and adding a new Chapter 8.05 thereto relating to the regulation and control of vicious dogs.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing on the regulation and control of vicious dogs, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 48 of 1988, amending Sections 8.04.010 and 8.05, regarding the regulation and control of vicious dogs, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Lou Lynes, Director of Animal Control, addressed the Council and said the matter was of great concern to his department because of the increasing problem of dog bites and their severity. He said in 1987 they had issued 105 citations for dogs attacking persons and this year in only six months they had 91 cases; and in 1987, formal complaints for destruction of an animal were 64, and already this year there were 74. He said in creating the new ordinance they had tried to address the broad sector of the kenneling areas and no specific breed would be singled out as being vicious. Mr. Stoler asked if the increase in citations was because of calls for service or from laxity, and pointed out that their ratio of requests for destruction were already above last year’s. Mr. Lynes said that calls for service had increased and that through their Public Relations Program they had made the public better aware. He said there was also a better reporting systems through the local medical community. He said the court system had gained respect for the liaison officer who presented their cases and they were finding it a lot easier to prosecute cases now, where in the past ‘doggie cases’ hadn’t been given much priority. Councilmember Hardman asked how the ordinance would affect property owners and their animals that bit intruders with criminal intent, and Mr. Lynes said that if a dog was on its property and someone trespassed with intent to steal or harm, the dog could not be blamed for doing its job. He said there had been some concern that all dog owners would have to have a $25,000 insurance policy and that wasn’t true.
Joe Burford, 1653 North Beck Street, said he operated a dog groomery and many of his customers had questioned him about the proposed ordinance. He said he and others had made telephone calls and were told that if a dog was considered to be a vicious dog, no insurance company would provide insurance for it. He said he agreed with the ordinance except for minor details, such as if a dog repeatedly bit someone it should not be given a second chance, but should be put to death. Mr. Godfrey assured Mr. Burford that most of his concerns had already been covered in the ordinance.
Myrna Feyh, 1991 South 800 East, said that in the last month there were three vicious attacks on her street. She said a vicious dog had attacked another dog and had to be beaten off as it almost killed the other dog; then an 84 year old deaf man was attacked in his back yard and bitten three times on the leg. She said dog owners needed to be responsible for their own dogs, and she said she was in favor of the ordinance.
Wendy Williams, 627 South 600 East #2, said she lived in an apartment complex and was afraid her dog would be considered a vicious dog because he had been beaten by her exhusband and would bite if provoked. Councilmember Godfrey said there was a statement in the ordinance that said a dog could not be provoked. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she had a dog that was blind and it would snap at people, but the ordinance stated, “any dog which, in a vicious or terrorizing manner approaches any person in an apparent attitude of attack...”, so if a dog just snapped at someone because it felt threatened, it could not be considered vicious. She also read the definition of ‘provoke’ in the ordinance, and said it would also be a defense that Ms. Williams could use.
Denoma Madsen, 1168 Turquoise Way, said she was concerned that if the city passed the ordinance the county would also pass it and she was very much against it. She said she and her mother had guard dogs trained to protect their property, and she resented having them wear an orange collar and having signs put in her yard. She said she had called 25 insurance companies and only found one that would insure her guard dogs through her property insurance, and she had to pay triple what anyone else paid for insurance. She said if the ordinance was passed it would give an open-door to the criminal element to go into any household. Councilmember Godfrey said Ms. Madsen had some confusion as to what was a guard dog and what was a vicious dog, that they were not necessarily one and the same.
(O 88-7)
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.