PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 7 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1987, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Council Member Godfrey moved and Council Member Fonnesbeck seconded a motion for members of the City Council to enter into Executive Session to discuss recent negotiations with the Salt Lake City Firefighters Union. All Council Members voted aye except Councilmember Stoler who voted nay. Following the discussion Council Member Kirk made and Council Member Bittner seconded a motion to end Executive Session. All Council Members voted aye.
Council Member Mabey and Mike Chitwood, Executive Director of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, briefed the City Council concerning the Redevelopment Agency building, located at 285 West North Temple. They reported to the Council the latest progress in the negotiations for lease with a banking institution.
Louis Miller, Director of the Salt Lake City Airport, briefed the Council on the current status of the Delta Airline Bonds. Mayor Palmer DePaulis introduced Nancy Boscoff to the Council. Ms. Boscoff was recently appointed as director of the Salt Lake City Arts Council. She said that she was committed to excellence in the arts and she was pleased that the City had been a constant supporter of the arts in Salt Lake City.
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She told the Council that during the Council meeting, Mr. Bill Brown would address the Mayor and the Council concerning licensing requirements of auctioneers. Ms. Hamilton told the Council that they should direct staff to study Mr. Brown’s concerns.
Larry Livingston, Council Staff, briefed the Council on Petition 400-495 by the Garden Centre, requesting that the City rezone property located at 2091 East 1300 South from “R-2” to “B-3” on the northwest corner of 13th South and 21st East streets in order to allow the Centre to utilize an area approximately 20’ x 27’ for the seasonal display and sale of garden materials. Mr. Livingston recommended denial of the petition because rezoning conditional use parking lots to business uses would set a undesirable precedent. Mr. Livingston briefed the Council on Petition 400-493 by Banj Investment Company requesting Salt Lake City to close Lemon Place and Brazier Court and a private easement known as Trinidad Street located in Blocks 14 and 15. He read a recommended motion to the Council and explained that two of the streets were within a UDAG project area and should be vacated, but the third street was not within the area and the City should receive compensation for the street in accordance with established City Council policy.
Council Member Fonnesbeck briefed the Council on Petition 400-515 by Eugene Farley requesting the City Council to adopt an ordinance rescinding Section 51-l4-l.(3) of the zoning ordinance which allows dormitories, fraternity or sorority houses, and boarding houses as a permitted use in a Residential “R-2” zone, within 600 feet of the boundaries of the University of Utah and of Westminster College. Rescission of the ordinance would make such existing facilities nonconforming uses, and would prohibit future additional such uses within the 600 foot boundaries. Council Member Fonnesbeck reviewed 5 maps showing different boundary options as proposed by the petitioner, the Greek System, the planning and zoning staff, and the Council Staff. The Council discussed the issue of whether or not to codify rules describing supervision at the fraternity and sorority houses and discussed the possibility of requiring fraternities and sororities to be licensed by the city.
The briefing session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1987, 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 M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy city recorder were present.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at and Councilmember Stoler conducted the meeting.
The prayer was given by Police Chaplain Ted Fields.
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 meeting held Tuesday, June 9, 1987, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 87-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-277 by the Sugar House Community Council and Petition 400-344 by Dan Miller.
RE: Requests made in Petition 400-277 to rezone property between 9th East and 11th East in the center of the block between Hollywood Avenue and the rear of commercial properties fronting on 2100 South from “C-3” to “R-5t1 and the request in Petition 400-344 that the “C-3” zoning remain in place.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve Petition 400-277 by the Sugar House Community Council rezoning the subject properties from C-3” to “R-5” and deny Petition 400-344 by Dan Miller with the following exception: As to the southern boundary of this rezoning, modify it to follow the boundary of the established Sugar House Redevelopment Project Area with respect to the Mills Publishing Company property at 2010 South 1000 East, and the Barrus Piano Property and Associated Enterprises at 2007 McClelland Street, so that these two parcels remain zoned Commercial “C-3” In harmony with the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Area; and instruct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance to implement these changes, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 85-239 and P 85-240)
Petition 400-479 by Kathryn Diamant.
RE: The request that a portion of an alley located between Edith Avenue and 1300 South and 300 and 400 East Streets be vacated.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to schedule a non-advertised public hearing for Tuesday, July 14, 1987, at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 87-32)
Petition 400-501 by Farrell Wankier.
RE: The request that Salt Lake City sell a portion of the 5th Avenue right-of-way located off Spencer Court which is being used as a private parking 1st.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, August 11, 1987, at 6:50 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 87-176)
Petition 400-510 by James Ritchie.
RE: Requesting permission to construct a skywalk across First South connecting ZCMI with the parking structure on Regent Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, August 4, 1987, at 6:30 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 87-177)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with UDOT and the Utah Civil Air Patrol for construction of hangar and office space.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 84 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, the Utah Department of Transportation, and the Utah Civil Air Patrol for construction of hangar and office space for lease to UDOT and the CAP, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-339)
#2. RE: Delta Air Lines, Inc. Airport Facility Bonds.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 77 of 1987 fixing the principal amount and sale price of $22,000,000 of private activity bonds to finance airport facilities for use by Delta Air Lines, Inc., approving the execution of certain related documents, and related matters, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 87-5)
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The notification procedure for hearings involving aerial walkways across public property.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Resolution 86 of 1987 amending the notification procedure for hearings involving aerial walkways across public property, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(R 85-5)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: The appointment of C. Ross Anderson to the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors to replace Adrian Pembroke for a term of six years expiring May 15, 1993.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred this appointment to the consent agenda.
(I 87-19)
#2. RE: An ordinance establishing the wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment, including fringe benefits for members of the firefighters’ bargaining unit.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Ordinance 39 of 1987 enacting Section 25-1-1.3 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to compensation and benefits for Salt Lake City Corporation 400 Series employees (firefighters), which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Charles Quick, President of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1645, said the firefighters had been involved in a lengthy negotiation process with the city’s negotiating team and were unable to come to an agreement acceptable to both sides. He said this was not uncommon when dealing with language and emotional issues such as working conditions. He said they were told that they were at an impasse with the city and they had asked for mediation but their request was denied.
He said the City Council was empowered to make adjustments and establish wages, hours and working conditions for city employees not under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. He said the firefighters had acted honorably, had provided information to the citizens of Salt Lake and had not impeded or attempted to disrupt the operations of Salt Lake City. He asked that as the Council considered the ordinance they be aware that it affected the firefighters and their future. He asked the Council to establish within the ordinance some type of dispute resolution language to make errors easier to correct.
He said there was no intent at this time to create any confusion regarding the employment of Salt Lake City and said the firefighters understood the budget restraints and would respect them. He said they were confident that the Council would do what they could to see that a just and equitable situation was arrived at. On behalf of the firefighters he thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them and said he thought they understood the importance of this issue.
Mayor DePaulis said that at this point, while they were at impasse with the contract itself, he was putting the pay issues before the Council so the employees could continue to get paid for services they were performing. He said he would not make any attempt to talk about un-resolvable issues. He recommended a pay plan which had been suggested by the Fire Chief and said he thought it was fair and equitable and said it was within the budget. He said the pay plan represented the salary and benefit package only and did not include any contractual language issues or legislative issues. He said he appreciated the firefighters during this time who had acted well and met the demands of the citizens. Councilmember Stoler commended the firefighters for continuing to perform their jobs in a professional manner during this time and said he appreciated their attitudes.
(O 87-5)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: An agreement with the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development regarding a historic district survey.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 78 of 1987 authorizing the execution of a contract agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development providing funds for: a) reconnaissance level survey; b) intensive level survey; c) preparation of historic district master plan; and d) preparation of historic survey publication, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-334)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for disbursement of funds for E.M.S. training, testing, certification, and equipment purchase.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 79 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for disbursement of funds from Salt Lake County to Salt Lake City Corporation for E.M.S. training, testing, and certification program and for purchase of E.M.S. equipment, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-340)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointment of G. Garth Campbell and George Judd Jackson to the Golf Advisory Board.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred these appointments to the consent agenda.
(I 87-18)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Utah Department of Transportation providing for relocation of city sewer facilities at UDOT expense.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 80 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation providing for relocation of city sewer facilities at UDOT expense, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-338)
#2. RE: An interlocal agreement with Utah Department of Transportation for city’s relocation of culinary water facilities in connection with construction at 2300 East crossing I-215 and 5800 South crossing I-215.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 81 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for city’s relocation of city culinary water facilities in connection with UDOT’s construction at 2300 East crossing I-215 and 5800 South crossing I-215, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-335)
#3. RE: An interlocal agreement with the City of South Salt Lake allowing Salt Lake City to install a water main extension.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 82 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the City of South Salt Lake allowing Salt Lake City to install a water main extension in a South Salt Lake City Street, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-336)
#4. RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for a fire sprinkler agreement for a county building.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 83 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for a fire sprinkler agreement with Salt Lake County for a county building, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-337)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Construction bid award for Special Improvement District No. 40-R-13.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to adopt Resolution 85 of 1987 accepting bids for construction of and authorizing the execution of a construction contract with the certified low bidder for Salt Lake City Special Improvement District No. 40-R-13, State and Main Streets from 900 South to 2100 South along with the connecting streets between them and an area in the Avenues from “A” Street to “E” Street between 4th Avenue and 7th Avenue, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: John Naser, engineering department, said the bids were opened at 2:00 p.m. and the apparent low bidder was G & R Contractors who bid $1,249,696. He said the engineer’s estimate was $1,357,000. He recommended that the Council award the bid to G & R Contractors and said they had done the last three SID projects for the city.
(Q 87-3)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-495 by the Garden Centre.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the request that Salt Lake City rezone property located at 2091 East 1300 South from “R-2” to “B-3” on the northwest corner of 13th South and 21st East In order to allow the Centre to utilize an area approximately 30 feet by 50 feet for the seasonal display and sale of garden materials.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to deny the petition, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said the four corners at 1300 South and 2100 East were zoned for business. He said the business zoning for the corner in question started at 2100 East and ran 115 feet west. On this corner was a service station and west of that was a two-story building which was utilized by several different businesses with the main tenant being the Garden Centre.
He said west of this building was a parking lot which was constructed several years ago under a conditional use for a parking lot in a residential district and said no business activity could take place on the parking lot. He said in the zoning ordinance if the parking 1t was appropriately zoned and it contained more than the required parking, the extra portion could be utilized during certain seasons for the display of plants. He said the Garden Centre wanted to utilize a portion of the parking lot to display and sell garden materials in the spring and Christmas trees in the winter.
He said this could not be done on a conditional use parking lot so the petitioner requested Salt Lake City to extend the zoning 25 feet. At the Planning Commission public hearing there was serious objection raised by the neighbors who were concerned that enlarging the zoning would open up the possibility of eventually a larger commercial establishment being built. He said the Planning Commission recommended that only a 20 foot by 27 foot area be rezoned which would take the three extra parking spaces. He said currently the property in question was for sale but the current owner had authorized the Garden Centre to make this request.
Keith Frederickson, petitioner, said during the year and a half that the Garden Centre had been operating, they had generated many thousands of dollars in sales tax revenue, established a customer mailing list of over 1,100 people, and had serviced the neighborhood community with the best knowledge, product and service that they could. He said they were asking for three parking stalls to use as a seasonal flower display and they needed the space to remain a viable business in the community. He said the three stalls were excess parking as defined by the zoning ordinances.
Contrary to information which some people believed about the Garden Centre, he said the Garden Centre was not bankrupt; not all of the community councils were opposed to their request; employees and customers had not had to park anywhere else but their parking lot; a large commercial development encompassing the neighboring gas station and their location was not planned; and the unfortunate pedestrian/auto accident was not related to the Garden Centre. He said they were in competition with the neighbor across the street who sold poinsettias out of his residentially-zoned home at Christmas. He said the zoning change did not represent expansion for a new or large development.
Councilmember Kirk said that over two years ago, before Mr. Frederickson leased this space, she told him that he would not be able to use his parking to display seasonal plants and had indicated that it could be a zoning problem for him. She asked Mr. Frederickson if he remembered this and he said he did.
The following people opposed the zoning change: Gary Streadbeck, 2010 Sheridan Road; Larry White, 2037 Royal Circle; Sherman Martin, 2065 Harvard Oaks Circle; Stephen Behunin, 1318 Yuma Street; Zella Harries, 2055 East 13th South; LaMar Orika, 2050 East 13th South; B. R. Alto, 2033 East 13th South; Connie Christensen, 2034 East 13th South.
Concern was expressed about increased traffic, on-street parking, large trucks making deliveries which caused parking problems, the adverse effect the rezoning could potentially have on the residential neighborhood, the encroachment on the neighborhood, and the question of property ownership at this time. Mr. Streadbeck pointed out that there was a school crossing in this area. Mr. White said that Mr. Frederickson appeared before the Board of Adjustment on March 17, 1986, and at that time indicated it would not be a hardship if he could not display plants in front of his store. Mr. White said according to the Utah Code, in order for a variance to be granted an unnecessary hardship would have to result if It wasn’t and he did not think an unnecessary hardship would be imposed. 1-fe said Mr. Frederickson knew when he rented the property that the zoning was not proper for his request. Mr. Behunin showed a map of the immediate neighbors who opposed the zoning change. Ms. Christensen did not think that the neighborhood could endure more commercial zoning and was afraid commercial zoning would chip away at the residential zoning. She said the Garden Centre did not have a vested interest in the neighborhood like the home owners.
The following people supported the zoning change: Jim Byrne, 912 Foothill Drive, Co-Chair of the Foothill-Sunnyside Neighborhood Council; Anne Story, 1637 Browning Avenue; Philip Story, 1637 Browning Avenue; Kimball Young, 2049 Herbert Avenue; Denise Boren, 1668 Harrison Avenue.
Mr. Byrne said if the Council could assure that this rezoning would only be used for seasonal plant displays he could support it. Ms. Story said she did not appreciate past businesses which had been at this location and wanted to see the Garden Centre stay. She said Albertsons displayed plants but no one complained about that. She also said there were large trucks in the area to make deliveries to other places. She thought the small businesses needed to be protected.
Mr. Story said he thought this was a small change which would benefit the neighborhood since it would improve the appearance of the area. Mr. Young was concerned about the vitality of the neighborhood and said the Garden Centre was a positive benefit. He thought it was in the public interest to facilitate this
small change to help the business succeed. Ms. Boren said she was impressed with the upkeep at the Garden Centre and said even if the plants were kept inside the traffic situation would not change.
There were 30 people who submitted public hearing registration cards indicating support for the zoning change but not wishing to speak.
Councilmember Kirk said most of the people supporting the zoning change lived further away from the Garden Centre. She did not think Mr. Frederickson was being discriminated against since she told him before he rented the space that rezoning would be difficult. She felt it was most important to listen to the neighbors and was concerned about precedent and what would happen to the property over time. She said she was concerned with the immediate neighborhood. Councilmember Mabey asked about Albertsons displaying plants in front of their store. Mr. Jorgensen said the sidewalk in front of Albertsons at the Foothill Center was not public and Albertsons complied with the ordinance. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she couldn’t imagine that the use of three parking spaces would have a big impact on the neighborhood but she was concerned about the precedent which would be set by moving into a conditional use and meeting the zoning of the building. Council- member Hardwick felt that several years ago a bad precedent was set with spot zoning and he thought this zoning request would impose on the neighborhood. Councilmember Godfrey said that once the property was rezoned to “B-3” anything allowed in that zoning could happen if the property was sold. He said they had to look to the future and agreed that a dangerous precedent could be set. He also reiterated that Mr. Frederickson was just leasing the property. Mr. Stoler expressed concern because the property was for sale and he also felt that the “B-3” zoning was outdated.
(P 87-93)
Petition 400-493 by Banj Investment.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request that Salt Lake City close Lemon Place and Brazier Court and a private easement known as Trinidad Street located in Blocks 14 and 15.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to vacate Lemon Place and vacate the private right-of-way known as Trinidad Court; and close Brazier Court and sell the property to the petitioner for market value and that the compensation may be in the form of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements to be installed on Blocks 15 and 22 the extent and nature of all said improvements to be determined by the Planning Director. Said compensation shall be in addition to any redevelopment funds and said improvements shall be in addition to the ones required by the building permit process; and direct the City Attorney to prepare the paperwork to effectuate this intent, and that the ordinance vacating Lemon and Trinidad Court not be recorded until appropriate guarantees for receipt of market value for Brazier Court are received subject to approval of the City Attorney, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said that Trinidad was a private street which the city had acquired rights of way through use of the public. He said Lemon place was a public street which ran into the center of the block east from West Temple. He said these were part of the Warner redevelopment and said there was a UDAG which covered a portion of the property in the block. He also said Brazier Court was part of the redevelopment area. He said the Planning Commission recommended the request. Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway, supported the request and recommended that the Council close the streets since there was nothing there. No one spoke in opposition.
(P 87-129)
Petition 400-496 by Robert Copier.
RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request that Salt Lake City change the name of Stephenson Way to Mohawk Circle.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 40 of 1987 renaming Stephenson Way to Mohawk Circle, subject to the petitioners paying the cost of the new street signs, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that Stephenson Way was a circle off of Mohawk Way which had caused confusion. He said the people living on Stephenson Way had requested that the name be changed to Mohawk Circle which would make it easier to find and more in keeping with the area. He said the various departments had recommended the change. Robert Copier, petitioner, said he asked to have the name changed to Mohawk Circle since the street ran off of Mohawk Way. No one opposed the request.
(P 87-123)
Petition 400-515 by Eugene Farley.
RE: A public hearing at 6:50 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request that the City Council adopt an ordinance rescinding Section 5l-14-l.(3) of the zoning ordinance which allows dormitories, fraternity or sorority houses, and boarding houses as a permitted use In the Residential “R-2” zone, within 600 feet of the boundaries of the University of Utah and of Westminster College. Rescission of the ordinance would make such existing facilities non-conforming uses, and would prohibit future additional such uses within the 600 foot boundaries.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to codify the rules as written in the draft ordinance, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Kirk who voted nay.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Sections 1 and 2 of the draft ordinance and direct the City Attorney to change the language from “assure full” to “monitoring” and to review the alcohol issue later, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Kirk who voted nay.
Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to request that the City Attorney draft an ordinance licensing the Greek houses, and include restrictions on alcohol consumption, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Kirk who voted nay.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt plan D-2 for permitting use boundaries, which does not include a buffer, which motion carried, all members voted aye. A copy of the map outlining plan D-2 is attached as part of the minutes.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said the effect of the original petition would be to prevent any new fraternities or sororities from expanding into the area and would make existing fraternities and sororities non-conforming uses. He said there had been a series of meetings held with the University and fraternities to try and arrive at a solution to the problem. He said several different boundaries had been proposed and most people agreed that a change needed to be made in the existing 600-foot clause.
He outlined the various boundary lines which had been suggested (the maps of the proposed boundaries are attached as part of the minutes). He said staff recommended having a two tier system with the area north of the fraternities on First South having special restrictions placed on them, basically no liquor being served, which would be a buffer zone so no one would be directly next door to the fraternities that allowed the consumption of liquor. He said another suggestion was not to have the two-tiered system but have the entire area subject to the restrictions.
He also said some people felt that although the ordinance said the houses had to be supervised, it did not define supervision. He said three different sets of rules had been suggested, one from the petitioners, one from the staff, and one from the fraternal groups, which all basically agreed about the rules which should be suggested. He said the debate was whether or not they should be codified.
John Schuman, chairman of the Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission denied the original petition because they felt the short time frame placed upon them because of scheduling by the Council left them with no option but to deny the petition. He indicated that the Planning Commission considered boundary changes, the codification of rules, the kinds of rules which would govern, and how the rules would be enforced.
He said they felt that codification would cause additional enforcement problems and the Planning Commission asked the Council to deny the petition and present it back to them for 60 days so they could establish a definitive set of rules as to how this should be handled in the four areas mentioned. He said the Planning Commission felt that a definitive set of rules could be established in a workable situation with the University, the fraternities, and the neighborhood. He said the University of Utah had agreed to add two additional police patrol officers on Friday and Saturday nights, to be paid by the University and also wanted to discuss the banning of alcohol to be served in the fraternity houses. He thought this showed the willingness of everyone involved to try and work this out. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, recommended that the Council approve option C for a boundary line if they decided to create a buffer zone and said if they decided not to create the buffer zone he suggested option D-2.
In reference to the idea behind the buffer zone, he said that over a long period of time there might be location changes for fraternities and sororities and if the buffer zone banned alcohol and had closer supervision then possibly those fraternities which didn’t meet the standard would relocate in an area that had less impact on the neighborhood. In reference to codification, he recommended that the rules be codified since currently there was no definition of supervision.
Michael Zimmerman, 1408 Federal Way, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood. He explained the compromise proposal that they submitted in lieu of the original petition. He said the residents were willing to permit expansion of the fraternity and sorority system with the following provisions: 1) That they be required to locate within fairly narrow geographic boundaries; 2) That the Greek houses where activities occur that were most incompatible with the residential character of an “R-2” neighborhood be separated from the permanent residents to minimize their impact; and 3) That the words “University supervision” now contained in the zoning ordinance be defined in order to describe the minimum level of supervision that the University must provide for all Greek houses.
In regards to the boundaries, he said the real problem with the present boundary was that it allowed Greek houses to be located in the middle of residential areas which devastated the adjacent houses and made them un-saleable and un-rentable. He said the Greeks and the residents needed to be separated to the degree possible. He said their proposed boundaries preserved Butler, and in a large part preserved Federal Way, and a portion of Wolcott from further intrusion yet gave the Greeks plenty of other places to expand.
He said they wanted to have a buffer zone next to the “R-2” residential uses with the following requirements: A live-in responsible adult to supervise the activities, full meal service, a restriction on the number of parties, and a ban on alcohol. He said they agreed to the codification on the rules since the University and the Greeks had no real incentive to adopt and enforce, on a consistent basis over a long period, strict standards of conduct for those in the houses. He also said that over time fashions changed in University administration and the standard should be consistent over time. He asked the Council to act now and not delay.
Dr. Chase Peterson, President of the University of Utah, said that the sororities and fraternities made a large contribution, especially at a large commuter university like the University of Utah. He said everyone who wanted to belong was given the opportunity and he was concerned that the proposals would threaten this openness. He said the issue was balance of community and neighborhood rights vs. individual rights. He said in the l94Os and 1950s there was a no alcohol program but in 1964 the Civil Rights Act presumed to prohibit the treal3nent of students in any manner that was different than comparable other adults and so the alcohol ban was removed for those over 21. He said there were problems with this because of underage drinking and misbehavior towards neighbors. He said in the last four years the University had undertaken more vigorous supervision and said conditions were improving.
He said the judicial council had been strengthened and had established “dry” rush. He said that “dry” rush had been instituted with the cooperation of the organizations who adopted this and enforced it. He said this had worked and was not forced by an ordinance. He said the University wanted to initiate a no-alcohol policy in the Greek houses and they wanted to do this with the cooperation of the organizations. He said they had encouragement from the alumni leadership and much of the undergraduate leadership for this proposal but said this would take 3 to 4 months to initiate and would have to go before the Institutional Council.
He said the goal would be understanding and cooperation and not just enforcement. He said they had suggested that the fraternity alumni council play a larger role in the supervision since they owned the houses and he said they had showed a willingness to do so. He said they also suggested a uniformed patrol from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 am, on Friday and Saturday nights and special guards for any event over 100 people. He said they would continue to exercise their University responsibility and asked the Council to re-affirm the 48-year old zoning boundary.
He said these changes would take time and he supported the Planning Commission’s request for more study time. He asked the Council to consider deferring the codification ordinance to allow the University to test their new system of enforcement of no alcohol. He said it was better if the students and alumni leadership were involved in making the rules rather than having them ordered. He said as he read the ordinance it would ask the University to certify compliance and he thought this might be impossible. In conclusion he said he felt strongly that a commuter university needed to increase opportunities for people to find ways to interact.
Councilmember Kirk said there was one house which was a former alumni house at the University and she asked if there was a possibility that they could guarantee the intended use of this house. She said the neighborhood was concerned that this might be used as a fraternity or sorority at some point. Mr. Peterson said it was a house on Wolcott and said he was willing to negotiate a deal. He also said that he was not aware of any plans to convert this to a fraternity or sorority. Former Mayor Ted Wilson supported reasonable boundaries to allow for expansion while preserving neighborhood sanctity. However he said he was concerned with the codification issue and was afraid that it would penalize those who didn’t deserve the penalty. He didn’t think this issue could be approached in a totally legalistic way. He thought that the University could be trusted to do what they promised to do and suggested that good will and peer pressure would be more beneficial. He thought a positive approach would be better than a negative one. He didn’t think the codification would guarantee success. Bob Springmeyer, chairman of the Ronald McDonald House Board, commented that the Sigma Chis had recently donated $15,000 to the Ronald McDonald House organization. He said he wanted to point out the good things that the fraternities and sororities did in the community.
The following people supported the petition: Klancy DeNevers, 1416 Butler Avenue; Eugene Loh, 1399 Butler Avenue; Gale Dick, 1377 Butler Avenue; Shauna Q’Neil, 1409 Federal Way; Wally Sandack, 26 North Wolcott Street; Frances Farley, 1418 Federal Way; Terry Becker, 1500 Tomahawk; Noel DeNevers, 1416 Butler Avenue; Grant Bagley, 1430 Federal Way; Kathryn Fitzgerald, 1385 Butler Avenue; Floyd O’Neil, 1409 Federal Way; Julia Weston, 1441 East South Temple; Bob Sanders, 1419 Federal Way; Jack Sprunt, 1442 Federal Way; Lisa Gellet, 1403 Butler Avenue; Bill Ryan, 19 South Wolcott; Thomas Uriona, 1414 Federal Way; Bill Murray, 1436 Federal Way; Roy Irwin, Sandy, Utah; Peter Harmon, 74 South Wolcott; Ken Johnsen, 3567 Brighton Point Drive; Richard Erdmann, 1383 East South Temple; Marvin Heileson, 1441 East South Temple; Ed Spurgiesz, 1355 East South Temple; Lois Sprunt, 1442 Federal Way.
Individuals expressed support for the removal of alcohol from the fraternities and sororities and said they weren’t against the Greek houses but were concerned with the bad behavior, traffic, negative impact to the neighborhood, crowded houses, vandalism, and enforcement of the rules. They felt supervision needed to be defined and they wanted stricter rules. Individuals expressed concern about further intrusion of fraternities and sororities in the neighborhood and showed pictures of the run-down condition of some of the Greek houses. Individuals expressed support for the idea of a buffer zone and the idea of licensing the houses.
Eugene Loh said the residents and Greeks needed to exist peacefully and the friction needed to be minimized. He felt that increased policing would not work and the money could be better spent. Terry Becker said the community council endorsed the petition and they wanted to be involved. Several people were concerned that the Greek Judiciary Council was slow and ineffective and told about personal incidences. Julia Weston said the “R-l” zoned area on south Temple was impacted by these Greek houses. Ken Johnson said the codification would not require the University to guarantee that there were no infractions but would only require them to say that they were doing their job to supervise the situation. Kathryn Fitzgerald did not want the boundary line to split Butler Avenue and Ed Spurgiesz suggested giving 10 acres on campus to the fraternities and sororities for their houses.
The following people opposed the petition: Scott Clark, 400 Deseret Building; Harris Creveling, 1247 East 1300 South; Rosalie Livingston, 1934 East 7090 South; Dr. Terry Berner, 2486 Emerson Avenue; Lisa Adams, 123 U Street; Scott Mietchen, 518 East 600 South; Jim Larkin, 260 East South Temple; David Gillette, 1094 Mercedes Way; Dave Robinson, 799 Northpoint Court; Kim Hassibe, 85 South Wolcott Avenue; Geoffrey Panos, 1382 Emerson Avenue; Jeffrey Lend, 3040 Cruise Way; Eric Wride, 3636 East Mekin Mt. Circle; Kathryn Brandon, 61 University Street; Lee Hollaar, 1367 East 100 South; Heidi Dunn, 2462 Nantucket Drive; Cary Dunn, 2462 Nantucket Drive; Laurie Hofmann, 2427 Lynwood; William Evans, 236 State Capitol; Marilyn Hicks, 2181 Pheasent Way; Garn Hatch, 2011 East Bryan Avenue; Steven Badger, 2641 Stringham Avenue; Brad Gunnell, 1400 Beacon Drive; Brent Burnham, 1435 Federal Way.
Individuals expressed opposition towards codifying the rules and felt that the University and Greek Judicial Council could better enforce them. Scott Clark said the fraternities and sororities needed to be protected as institutions and said that historically Wolcott, First Avenue, and the entrances to Butler had been occupied by fraternities and sororities. Harris Creveling proposed blocking off the streets and making cul-de-sacs to separate the neighborhood from the Greek houses and suggested that landscaping could be used as buffers.
Rosalie Livingston said one of the Greek organizations had recently purchased a house in good faith and she asked the Council to take this into consideration. Individuals suggested that current laws could deal with problems such as noise and traffic. Lisa Adams suggested that the problems with noise and traffic would be aggravated if fraternities and sororities were forced into a smaller area. She urged the Council to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Scott Mietchen asked that the University and the alumni be given a chance to solve the problems. Jim Larkin and Dave Gillette agreed. Geoffrey Panos said traditionally this was a campus neighborhood and they wanted to work with the neighbors to solve the problems. Jeffery Lenci, Chapter Advisor for the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, said they purchased their home at 1436 Federal Way.
He said they had searched for housing for the past three years and at the start went to planning and zoning to get a map showing the locations that would be within the appropriate zoning. He said they went through the neighborhoods looking at various houses and represented themselves as Sigma Phi Epsilon. He said if they lost the home they purchased they would suffer a terrible financial responsibility and would be forced to go into litigation. He said they purchased this house in good faith and he urged the City Council to make a provision to protect their rights. Bill Murray asked the Council to let the fraternities and sororities strive to be good neighbors. Kathryn Brandon expressed her opinion that the fraternities and sororities had been good neighbors. Lee Hollaar thought that many of the houses available in the area for fraternities and sororities were not big enough and Heidi Dunn agreed. Cary Dunn agreed that the neighborhood should be protected but said this area had an identity as being a Greek neighborhood and he asked the Council to let the neighbors solve the problems.
Laurie Hofmann said she had served on the Greek Judiciary Council and they had levied stiff penalties, in the way of service hours, against Greek houses that didn’t comply with the rules. She named several worthwhile projects performed because of these service hours which had benefited the community. There were 12 public meeting registration forms submitted by people who supported the petition but did not wish to speak and there were 66 forms submitted by people who opposed the petition but did not wish to speak.
Councilmember Godfrey pointed out that the rules the Council was proposing to codify were almost exactly the same as the rules that the fraternities and sororities had proposed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Lenci who had advised him to move into his house illegally (referring to the time of the moratorium). He said they sought the advice of legal counsel and moved three members of the fraternity into the home to reside there.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if they had had any fraternity parties and Mr. Lend said they had some very limited activity but no social functions. Those had all been held away from the premises. He said they did initiate their members there and held their business meetings there until the conclusion of the school year, but the social functions and organizational meetings were held in the Student Union building and the social functions were held in the county outside the city limits.
Mrs. Fonnesbeck said that on three or four nights she had been called by the neighbors saying that there were social functions being held in that building. She said she had driven by the home one night and had seen a party going on. She said she supposed that one could say that it was a private party being held by three people who lived there, but it was indeed a social function, and there was drinking going on from what she could tell from the outside.
Mr. Lenci said that they were renting the home to three individuals and they certainly had the right to have company or a right to have gatherings and a right to have their friends, but there had been no official fraternity social functions at that home. Councilmember Fonnesbeck also expressed her concern because several of the houses were not maintained.
Councilmember Kirk expressed concern with codifying the rules and suggested that a trial period might be possible since President Peterson had said that the ruling of no alcohol in fraternities and sororities would be taken to the Institutional Council. She also had talked to Scott Meitchen and he explained that the Fraternity Alumni Council had been organized within the last month and she thought this would make a difference if they were meeting frequently and dealing with issues. She also thought the Planning Commission had concerns about the immediate codification of the rules. She said a win/win situation would work best and agreed that boundary lines needed to be drawn but thought the young people should have a trial period to show what they could do. She said then if it didn’t work they could codify the rules.
Councilmember Bittner said it seemed that they were not coping with the basic problem and were not getting to a basic structure which would eliminate the problem. She said the problem was that the people who enforced the rules changed periodically and the problem started over. She proposed that the Council consider licensing the houses. She said they needed long-term solutions. Councilmember Godfrey said that the neighborhood had a legitimate concern because of the students’ behavior and he was concerned whether or not the Institutional Council would approve the proposed changes.
He said the Council was against the behavior that the neighbors had lived with and questioned if the Greek houses could be considered neighbors. He said neighbors took care of their yards and took pride in their homes. He didn’t think that the neighborhood should have to continue to live with this and when people bought a home in the area they expected to be treated like decent human beings. He told the young people when they got out on their own they would want the same right. He didn’t think there would be any changes unless the rules were codified.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she had been living with this problem for at least 8 years and said as a Councilmember this was the third time she had gone through a major or minor crisis of this type. She said as long as the people involved in this experience were at the fraternity or sorority there would be improvements but when new students joined, conditions would get just as bad. She said the same types of promises had been made in the past and the situation improved for about four years and then the situation worsened again.
She said the problem was that as much as the fraternity and sorority members cared about their houses, it was not the same as how they would feel when they dedicated themselves to their own home like the people In this neighborhood had. She didn’t understand why the University couldn’t make room for its sororities and fraternities on its own campus. Councilmember Staler was concerned that the problems would still continue unless the rules were codified.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, referred to subsection C on page 4 of the proposed ordinance codifying the rules and asked the Council if they would be willing to change it to read that the University would be responsible for compliance and wouldn’t require that they guarantee compliance. He said the words “assuring full” needed to be changed to “monitor”. Councilmember Bittner suggested that the attorney’s office review this codification ordinance and that they include the issue of licensing which would address the issue of alcohol. She suggested that they submit a zoning proposal and a licensing proposal to the Council. Mr. Cutler said if they pursued the licensing they would probably be taking the responsibility and putting it on the city through its licensing mechanism and revocation but if it was adopted as a condition of the zoning the University would continue supervising these houses.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck was not sure that the buffer would have the impact that the neighborhood wanted and was concerned that it would be an enforcement nightmare. She said she would like to make the Kappa Gamma and the Kappa Sigma houses conforming but she was afraid of what would happen to the corner if these were included in the boundary. Councilmember Stoler opposed a buffer zone because of the enforcement problems and the police not knowing where the boundary line was. He said the boundary needed to be clean.
(P 87-122)
COMMENTS
#1. Councilmember Godfrey said that on the 4th of July he received a special presentation from the Commander of the U.S.S. Salt Lake City of the Pacific Fleet. He said the navy unit was presented with a flag of commendation which stood for superior operations and no one in the Pacific Fleet had been presented this award for a number of years. He said that the crew decided to have the flag framed and present it to Salt Lake City. Councilmember Godfrey presented this award to Mayor DePaulis.
#2. Bill Brown was scheduled on the agenda to address the City Council concerning licensing requirements for auctioneers but when he was called on to speak he was not present.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight.