PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1986
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1986, AT 4:30 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
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 Hardwick presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
Carole Stokes, council executive director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. Cheryl Cook, city treasurer, briefed the Council on Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes for 1986-87 and she briefed the Council on the City and County Building General Obligation Bond issue.
The briefing session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1986, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
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 recorder, were present.
Council Chairperson Hardwick presided at and Councilmember Mabey conducted the meeting.
The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Bruce Jenkins.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, May 6, 1986, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 86-1)
Special Presentation
#1. The Council and Mayor were scheduled to present LeRoy Hooton and the Public Utilities Department with the Outstanding Achievement Award for Region Eight from the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Hooton was unable to attend the meeting so the Council referred this item to the agenda for May 20.
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: A resolution supporting the recommendations made by the Sugar House Blue Ribbon Committee regarding the revival of the Sugar House commercial district. Councilmember Stole,’ read the resolution.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 57 of 1986 supporting the recommendations made by the Sugar House Blue Ribbon Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 86-1)
#2. RE: General Obligation Building Bonds for the renovation of the City and County Building.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 56 of 1986 authorizing the Issuance and sale of up to $34,500,000 in General Obligation Building Bonds for the renovation of the City and County Building; to approve the preliminary official statement and an official Notice of Bond Sale and authorize the publication of the Notice of Bonds to be Issued and Notice of a Bond Sale, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 86-7)
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $29,500,000 of Tax and Revenue Anticipation notes.
ACTION: The Council pulled this item and referred it to the agenda for May 20.
(Q 86-11)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointment of Willy Price to the Planning Commission.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to approve the appointment of Willy Price, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 86-10)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-405 of 1986 by Intermountain Health Care Hospitals.
RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to discuss the rezoning of property located immediately northwest of the University of Utah Hospital from Residential “R-2” to a Hospital HM classification to permit the relocation of the Primary Children’s Medical Center.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to continue the public hearing to June 3, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. to allow for the legal advertisement to occur, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the area involved a 12.46 acre site adjacent to Medical Drive in the area of the University Hospital. He said that this property was on the campus of the University and if the University built the project it would not require a zoning change but since IHC had acquired the property they were subject to the city’s zoning ordinance. Mr. Hafey said the project would consolidate the Primary Children’s Hospital facility from “C” Street to the property in question. He said the Planning Commission recommended that the request be approved.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if a traffic study had been done. Larry Livingston, council office, indicated that a traffic study of the University area had been done which included the scenario of the hospital being moved to the campus. He said that when the study was done an assumption was made about the location of the hospital and this did not change. Thomas Ellison from Van Cott and Bagley, representing the petitioner, showed a rendering of the proposed project and said that the relocation process started last December when the Council approved revenue bonds for the project. He said the University would retain ownership of the property and the project would be constructed on a long-term ground lease.
Since the University would retain ownership of the property, Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the rezoning was a courtesy rather than a requirement. Mr. Ellison said that he did not view the hearing to be immaterial and said they did not want to get into a jurisdictional Issue as to whether there was a difference between property owned and operated by the State of Utah versus a project operated by another entity. He indicated that this had been discussed with the University and they consented to IHC’s application as long as University rights were not waived to raise the jurisdictional issue on subsequent projects.
Mr. Ellison said that the land was owned by the University of Utah and it was leased to IHC Hospitals for a term as long as 99 years. He said that IHC Hospitals, subject to University approval, would construct and own the improvements and at the end of the lease the Improvements would revert to the University of Utah. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the project met city requirements such as setback and drainage. Mr. Ellison said the drainage issue was tied into the University of Utah drainage problem and the University had received partial funding to construct a detention pond and some storm drainage facilities. He said that as part of this project storm drainage facilities would be constructed. Mr. Hafey said the petitioner was seeking a grade-change variance and indicated that the project met the setback and parking requirements. In reference to the jurisdictional Issue, Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that even though the property was owned by the University the project was to be operated by a private party which changed the state exemption. He said the petitioner was before the Council in order to avoid a dispute.
Mr. Ellison addressed the traffic situation and said that Medical Drive would be relocated. He said the road situation appeared to have been adequately contemplated in the University of Utah traffic study and said the study estimated that traffic would increase between 6% and 8% because of the hospital relocation. He mentioned that there appeared to be a potential Increased impact on Federal Heights Drive but said that with the Mayor’s approval certain changes would be made to the traffic flow along Federal Heights Drive and Federal Way, as recommended by the traffic study committee, to evaluate the impact of changes on existing traffic loads. Mr. Ellison said the volume of traffic would drop significantly in the Avenues except for the areas in the immediate vicinity of the University of Utah but he said with control mechanisms that traffic could be redirected.
Councilmember Kirk asked how construction equipment would access the site during construction of the project. Mr. Ellison said there had been discussion about offering this as a contractor’s option subject to University approval. He said there was a dirt road in the area which followed the Chevron pipeline easement. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked to see the access option being considered. John Tudor, 1309 Federal Heights Drive, gave additional information about the traffic impact which would be caused by this project. He said that Medical Drive would enter North Campus Drive across from the Fort Douglas Club tennis courts; a left turn at that point would put people on Federal Heights Drive and the Impact may be significant.
He also said that the Increased traffic Impact was estimated to be 6% to 8% overall but traffic volumes on residential streets intersecting North Campus Drive were estimated to increase by about 20%. He asked the Council to keep this under consideration for future traffic restraints. James Richards, 1555 Federal Heights Drive, expressed concern about traffic and felt the current traffic studies were inadequate. He suggested that left turns not be allowed at the end of Medical Drive onto North Campus Drive. He expressed concern that traffic unrelated to the use of the facilities would use Federal Heights Drive. He Indicated that the neighborhood’s primary concern was the projected increase in traffic on Federal Heights Drive and he suggested that a study be done to determine the effects of having no left turns at the end of Medical Drive as well as the effects of prohibiting traffic from coming along Wasatch Drive, turning up North Campus and then using Federal Heights Drive. He suggested that an alternative exit out of the parking lot also be considered. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that some of the traffic committee’s recommendations were already in place and she said the intention was to try the turning restrictions. She indicated that these restrictions would probably be put in during the summer and then would continue after school started in order to get the impact of that traffic. She also said that public input would be necessary to determine if the options worked.
Jim Woolley, member of the parking committee at the University, said that they recently approved the 850-car parking structure which would be part of this project. He expressed concern about the construction traffic using Federal Heights Drive and the safety of the children in that area. He suggested that there be some limitation so this traffic did not use Federal Heights Drive. Frank Child, IHC, said the parking structure would accommodate the cars that have been parking on the site of the proposed project. He said the structure would be 600 feet long and three stories high and would be used by University staff and hospital patients; this would be east of the new hospital facility.
He said that traffic would be re-routed from Upper Medical Drive to the present exit from the on-grade parking which is north of the existing medical center and this would be both ingress and egress to the front entrance of the University Hospital. He said the parking structure would obstruct Upper Medical Drive and the traffic would stop, as it comes from the south, at a connecting corridor between the two hospitals. He said most of the patient and staff parking would take place at the north parking lot. Mr. Child said when all of the facilities were completed there would be a net increase of about 2500 parking stalls. Mr. Woolley was concerned that the proposed Ingress and egress would complicate the traffic problem on Federal Heights Drive. He suggested that the Council seriously review the proposals.
Neil Bennett, traffic committee, expressed concern about the traffic exiting from the parking structure at peak hours and using Federal Heights Drive. He said another problem was the relocation of Medical Drive. He indicated that the traffic committee had suggested interrupting Medical Drive by narrowing the street and making it for emergency vehicles only. He suggested efforts which could be taken to slow traffic on Federal Heights Drive such as extending the curbs and narrowing the street at the entry point In order to change the angle. He suggested that possibly dips could be constructed in the road and a stop sign installed at Federal Heights Circle. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that Mr. Bennett petition for the stop sign.
Mayor DePaulis said he was advised that the best time to implement the trial traffic circulation patterns would be between spring and summer quarters. The traffic would then be monitored through the summer and into the fall. He also made the Council aware that North Campus Drive and Medical Drive were state roads.
(P 86-61)
Petition 400-196 of 1984 by SGE Associates.
RE: A public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the vacation of a portion of the Capital Heights Addition Subdivision and to discuss the Planning Commission’s recommendation to vacate the entire forty-acre subdivision subject to the preservation of the public’s Interest in the existing dirt-road system.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to continue the public hearing without a date certain, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the Capital Heights Subdivision was a 40-acre subdivision in the south half of a parcel consisting of 80 acres. He said the subdivision was platted many years ago and was platted contrary to the contours of the terrain of the land and, therefore, was never developed. He said that the existing streets did not tie into the platted streets so any future subdivision development would require the existing subdivision to be vacated and re-platted.
Mr. Hafey outlined the portion of the subdivision which the petitioner requested be vacated and said the Planning Commission recommended that the entire area be vacated. He said that there were three owners who did not sign the petition. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if a precedent would be set if the Council Ignored the law which required all property owners to sign the petition. Judy Lever, assistant city attorney, said that the law was ambiguous and was silent as to what happens if all the property owners have not signed. She indicated that the law states that if the governing body was satisfied that neither the public nor any person would be materially Injured, it could order the plat or a portion thereof to be amended.
Mr. Hafey said that as the properties were located the land was too steep to be developed under the present plat and If the streets were vacated each property owner would get one half of the vacated street thereby increasing the size of the lot. He then showed an overlay of trails and dirt roads developed in the area and said that the roads had been used as fire breaks and for access into the interior of the area for fire fighting purposes. Mr. Hafey said that the Planning Commission recommended that the easements be preserved.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she understood that there was one property owner contesting the vacation. Mrs. Lever said that the property owner believed they had frontage on a dedicated road and that they wouldn’t have access on a dedicated road if this street was vacated. She explained that this plat predated the law of 1890 regarding subdivisions and there was a statute stating that If the roads were not improved or accepted (acceptance being indicated by improvements) then any area set aside for a public road which was not used for a period of five years, was considered not to have been accepted by the jurisdiction and therefore would have reverted to the property owners. She said the city had an interest in the plat but did not have a proprietary interest in the street layout because the city didn’t have any factual analysis to claim that the platted streets were ever accepted. Mrs. Lever said that was why the Planning Commission indicated that the public street system was the dirt roads. Robert Poulson, attorney representing the petitioner, said that this matter was heard before the Planning Commission but their minutes regarding this issue had not yet been approved. He also said that on April 28, 1986, the petitioner withdrew the request for the hearing. It was his opinion that because of these two reasons the hearing was being held prematurely.
Mr. Poulson added that the petitioner requested a partial vacation of the subdivision and not the entire area. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the Council had the right to vacate a subdivision and Mrs. Lever said that the Planning Commission recommended the vacation of the entire subdivision. She reiterated that even though not all the property owners had signed the petition the Council could decide whether amending the plat was appropriate and if it would materially damage the public or any private party. She indicated that the Council could vacate part but they were not limited to that and she added that as long as the property owners had an opportunity to be involved then this was within the appropriate standard.
Mr. Poulson said that an 18-lot subdivision to be constructed in this area was in the process of being approved but if this ultimately could not be constructed then the petitioner did not want the area vacated because, in his opinion, by doing so there would be some property rights damaged. He suggested that there were some rights with pre-existing lots under the city ordinances that would not exist after the area was vacated. He asked the Council to continue the hearing until the Planning Commission minutes were approved and until minor concerns about the proposed subdivision were resolved. Mel Fletcher, owner of 5 lots In this area, said that when the property was originally purchased by his family it was with the understanding that the lots were on a city street. He expressed his concern about being able to build on these lots.
(P 86-89)
COMMENTS
The Council and Mayor discussed the special session of the Legislature which was underway regarding the flooding of the Great Salt Lake. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said they wanted the Council’s position to be clear to the Legislature so there weren’t misunderstandings which would lead legislators to believe that the city would consider taking responsibility for this problem. He indicated that the Council’s position needed to be unified and coordinated in order to avoid any confusion and so that the same message was forcefully and consistently conveyed. Mr. Cutler indicated that it presented a difficult situation when several people were speaking for the city. He suggested that the Council let the city lobbyists deal with the Legislature and Councilmembers could coordinate their efforts with the lobbyists before they talked to the Legislature. Mayor DePaulis raised a potential problem about discussing the issue of greater local control In connection with the flooding issue. He did not want legislators to misunderstand that if the city wanted greater local control then they would take responsibility for the lake. He said that the lake was a state problem and the issue of greater local control was separate from that problem. The Mayor said the city supported the option of pip1nq the lake and the Council indicated that they agreed with this position.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.