PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR SESSION
THURSDAY, MAY 21 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1987, AT 8:15 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SUITE 300, CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK THOMAS M. GODFREY EARL F. HARDWICK ROSELYN N. KIRK WILLIE STOLER.
Councilmembers Bittner and Mabey and Mayor DePaulis were absent.
Mike Zuhl, Mayor’s chief of staff, and Bruce R. Baird, assistant city attorney, were also present.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at and Councilmember Godfrey conducted the meeting.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-515 by Eugene W. Farley
RE: An ordinance imposing a moratorium on accepting applications, processing or issuing building or other permits for dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, and boarding houses in a Residential “R-2” zoning district, for six months, or until such sooner time when the City Council shall have taken action upon pending Petition No. 400-515 submitted by Eugene Farley. Said Moratorium would affect all properties zoned Residential “R-2” which are within 600 feet of the campus boundaries of the University of Utah and or Westminster College. Said Petition No. 400-515 requests that the City Council rescind Section 51-14-1.(3) of the zoning ordinances, which allows dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, and boarding houses as a permitted use in a Residential “R-2” district within this 600 foot boundary limit.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 26 of 1987, which imposes a moratorium on fraternity houses, changing the wording of Sec. 51-14-1(4), to “No building permit, plans or application for the purposes of construction, purchasing, occupying which in any way converts the use....” , which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
DISCUSSION: Larry Livingston, Council Staff, said that the ordinance would mean no building permit, plans or application for the purposes of constructing, purchasing occupying or in any other way converting the use of a facility to a dormitory or fraternity or boarding house use. He said that the key phrase was “converting the use” because in an R-2 zone you may have a single family home or a duplex. The way the zoning ordinance was written, within 600 feet of the boundaries of the University of Utah or Westminster College there also existed as a permitted use the right to have a fraternity or sorority home. This moratorium states that no building permits would be issued for the purpose of “converting” the use of a building from single-family or duplex to a fraternity, sorority, boarding house or dormitory. He said this was not a prohibition against the issuance of any building permit - just issuance for purposes of converting use to a dormitory. He said that if an existing fraternity wanted to take out a building permit, they may do so for remodeling or perhaps additions, but it would fall under non-conforming use.
Mr. Livingston said that he was aware of 2 fraternity or sorority houses in question, the Chi Omega House and the Alpha Delta Pi House. He said that the Chi Omega had been in the process for a long time to do an addition and their case would not be covered under this moratorium. The Alpha Delta Pi had been vacant for several years. The rights of that house under this moratorium were unclear. He said that if they were not using that building they could lose their continued non-conforming use and may be required to bring parking up to standard. He said that the status would be an administrative function and the building department would have to determine this.
David Gillette, representing the Chi Omega Sorority and the fraternity system as a whole, said that they applied for a building permit 9 months ago and had spent a lot of money on the remodeling of the Chi Omega and they would not want this stopped. He said that the moratorium read “no building permit for constructing or in any other way converting the use”. He suggested that it be worded “which” converts the use, because the remodeling was constructing.
Bruce Baird, assistant city attorney, said that when the ordinance was drafted their office was unaware of the 2 operations in progress. He said that he was under the impression it was to apply to 2 houses in conversion only. He said that the language may need to be changed to reflect the result of the Council’s deliberations.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that they fully intended not to stop the normal processes. The Council didn’t see any problem changing the word “or” to “which” Michael Zimmerman, 1408 Federal Way, said that he understood the ordinance to say it would prohibit the issuance of a permit or a plan for the purpose of occupying or in any way converting a facility to be used as a dormitory occupied only by faculty or students of a college or university. He understood this to mean the Alpha Delta P1 would be prohibited from converting the use of that structure since it had not been occupied for 7 years.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that how this moratorium would apply to that structure could only be determined after an administrative decision had been made as to whether or not it had lost its nonconforming status. She said that if it has not lost non-conforming status then the moratorium would not affect it. Scott Clark, Trustee Alpha Delta Pi house, said that they had a pending building permit application and said they were willing to comply with today’s parking regulations. He asked if they would be able to obtain the building permit if they updated their parking. Mr. Livingston said that the ordinances regarding non-conforming uses indicated that they may not extend more than 50% of the value of the property, and if they intended to do so, they had to bring the property In conformity with the ordinances via the Board of Adjustment. He said that they would look at parking and the 50% rule. Mr. Clark said that they might be 3 parking spaces short.
Mr. Baird said that by definition, these were not non-conforming uses, they were permissible uses. He said that the question was if they lost a parking right due to a subsequent ordinance change and then a vacation, would they lose the right as a permitted use and could they then be down zoned without affecting the property. He said this issue was not clear and that it would be a decision for the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Clark said that he felt this was an ambush and extremely unfair. He said that he felt the ordinance was directed primarily at himself. He said that this house had always been a sorority house and had never been occupied by a single family. He said it had a single use for which it was constructed. He said they purchased the house in September and borrowed $252,000 with commitments for another $200,000.
He said they had applied for building permits, plans and a $60,000 premium for the house, and now without notice, and quite unfairly, all the money and plans were for naught. He said that their plans were to move the Beta Beta Phi house off of Butler and to move it to Wolcott with the rest of the fraternities in a house that was always designed for this purpose. He said that the moratorium proposal was drafted in such a fashion as to prevent this from happening.
Mr. Zimmerman said that he supported the moratorium and that it was not directed at Mr. Clark. He said that the purchase transaction was concealed from the neighbors, but what prompted the request for the down zoning was the discovery of the purchase and that the house at 1436, two doors down, had been purchased by the Sigma Phi Epsilons. He said this was not just fraternities, there was a private residence to the other side of this house and one behind (Sprunt home) which would be sandwiched between fraternities. He said that he thought things should be kept status quo pending the July 7th hearing and therefore the moratorium should be adopted.
Lois Sprunt, 1442 Federal Way, said that their home was sandwiched between the two homes that had been purchased for fraternity use. She said they were very upset and devastated and felt they had to move. She said that they had owned the home for 55 years and decided to stay. She said that the fraternity members were noisy, partied all night, didn’t have respect for their own or the neighbors property, they trespassed, used neighbors’ driveways, etc. She said that would be an intolerable situation and they were asking for the Council’s help. Bill Ryan, 19 South Wolcott, said he was the chairman of the committee trying to ameliorate the difficulties between the neighbors and the “Greeks”. He said that they had met approximately once a month. He said that some fraternities had made considerable efforts at trying to behave and limit the drunkenness, littering and pollution. He said he thought it really was a zoning problem, because if a fraternity house moved in next to a resident, it was devastating for the resident, but it was also very difficult for the fraternity, because the residents when wakened in the night would call the police.
The fraternity was going to be under siege by complaints. He said that he had seen both sides and he thought it was very logical to stop everything and figure out how to solve the problem in a zoning manner to resolve it once and for all rather than have make shift leap frogging that was presently going on. Bob Sanders, 1419 Federal Way, said he was a graduate of the University and 2/3 of the residents on Federal Way were fraternity or sorority people, University graduates and supported the system. He said that they had an elusive goal - the quiet enjoyment of their property. He said that the moratorium would give everyone a chance to settle down and narrow differences.
Scott Mecham, chairman of the Inter-fraternity Alumni Association and representative of the House Corporation, owner of the property at 85 South Wolcott. He said the House Corporations fully opposed the moratorium. They had only received notice of one of the meetings held and that was through word of mouth. He said that two weeks ago they formed a corporation of the house corporations and had a committee that met with the neighbors and the University. He said that they had six people working on the negotiations.
He said that they had a proposal regarding where fraternities could move, which they were going to discuss at their June 1st meeting. He said he supported the Beta’s in that they had invested a lot of money, time and effort. He said they were prepared to move ahead and if they were delayed until July, they had lost half the summer construction season. They would like to move out of the neighborhood where they were now causing problems to fraternity row.
Mr. Clark said that the 600 foot portion of the zoning ordinance had been in place since 1949, and most of the people living in the area were aware of this and knew they would be or had the possibility of living next to a fraternity or sorority. He said that to put the moratorium in place now would prohibit the Beta’s and perhaps others from having remodeling done and so it wouldn’t be ready for “rush”.
Mr. Zimmerman said that with respect to the long standing usage, the Planning Staff report said that “intensive uses and abuses described above have pushed the concept of residential use to the limit of this neighborhood. The fraternities have taken on the profile of some commercial type use with an intensive traffic/parking component, noise pollution, substance abuse problems (alcohol), vandalism, and the rest of the a-social behavior associated with house parties. The changes in use over the decades since this part of the ordinance was adopted are significant enough to justify changing the section in question”. He again asked that the Council adopt the moratorium. Councilmember Godfrey said that by law notice was not required for the meeting on the moratorium and under normal circumstances no one would have spoken to the issue because it was not a public hearing. He said it was through the generosity of the Council that people were being heard. Mr. Baird said that the requirements of the ordinance and posting of the agenda had been complied with.
Mr. Clark said that they were going to sustain $100,000 worth of damages and this had been unfair the way this was happening and that they could not proceed. Mr. Livingston said that the determination had not been made that they could not proceed or as to their status. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the decision tonight was regarding the moratorium and said that the Council could not decide on the issue of the one house and must be decided by a separate body. She said the many sides of the issue would be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on May 28, and before the Council and July 7, 1987.
She said therefor they were guaranteeing due process. She said that the question of a moratorium was not unusual, and that moratoriums were used by the Council when it appeared that the due process would be interfered with. She said that there had been moratoriums on the lower Avenues, Foothill Village, the entire foothill development - East Bench and higher Avenues, and Sugar House. She said that action had been used many times and was used for very controversial issues.
She said they had never felt that by imposing moratoriums that they were taking away the rights of anyone because all they were doing was maintaining the status quo. She said that if they did not maintain the status quo there would probably be nothing to argue on July 7th, and she recommended proceeding with the moratorium and that in all good faith go through the entire process of getting a recommendation from Planning and Zoning and then a full hearing on July 7, 1987.
Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. Clark to explain why he was going to lose money. He said that the money to buy the house ($252,000) was borrowed money and had accrued interest since September. He said they had hired an architect who had drawn plans as well as contractors and other consultants who had gone through the house. He said the investment in the house was near $300,000. He said that if they had known the house was not what they always thought it was, a sorority, then they never would have bought it.
He said that it had been a sorority since it was built. He said that their investment continued to tick away and if the idea that a sorority house that ceased to be a sorority house was correct, then they would have invested $100,000 more than the appraisal. He also said that it would be worth less as a single family residence. Mr. Livingston said that the building official would first have to make an administrative determination and then his decision could be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Councilmember Godfrey said that there was a similar situation in his district and it was the responsibility of the purchaser to find out this type of information.
(P 87-122)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
Finance Department
#1. RE: An ordinance increasing Salt Lake City parking meter rates from $.3O/hour to $.60/ hour.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 27 of 1987, increasing Salt Lake City parking meter rates from $.30/hour to $.50/hour rather than $.60/hour, which motion carried all members present voting aye except Councilmembers Godfrey and Stoler who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said that they delayed action on this item Tuesday.
Tim Harpst, transportation engineer, said that as far as purchasing the mechanisms there would be no difference in the $.50/hour rate or the $.60/hour rate. He also said it would make no difference in the time to get the mechanisms. He said it would be totally a decision on the financial return on the service. He said that the items that would cost more money would be the mechanisms that only add time if $.25 or more coinage is inserted at one time. He said that he did not recommend this. He said if they did not have to bid for the mechanisms they could save 30 days.
Buzz Hunt, city treasurer, said that saving 30 days on delivery and implementation, would mean $120,000 revenue. Mr. Harpst said that it took 10 to 12 weeks for the manufacturer to ship them and 1 to 2 weeks for installation. Mr. Harpst explained the time limits on the meters and said that for the most part the merchants made that determination. He said that Transportation looked at the turn-over required for the land-use and if an area needed a faster turn over for the businesses or the land use.
Linda Hamilton, City Council Executive Director, recommended that the Council approve the $.50/hour rather than $.60/hour and recommended against the meters that take only quarters. She said that Council staff would work with the administration and within a week identify the revenue to off-set the difference of $285,000 that would be lost as a result of the $.1O/hour. She said that they could find the revenue and this would mean the downtown merchants would receive a significant part of what they asked.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the downtown merchants appeared at the public hearing and were very supportive of most everything else, and she thought this should be done to appease them. Councilmember Fonnesbeck thought that since there was a way to make up the $285,000, the $.50/hour should be implemented. Councilmember Stoler felt that the $150,000 to change the meters would need to be changed again in the near future. Mr. Harpst said that the last time the rates were changed was five years ago. Councilmember Stoler thought a penny per minute was better. Councilmember Kirk felt this would be support of business.
(O 87-12)
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.