PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 1, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Sydney Fonnesbeck Roselyn Kirk Alan Hardman Willie Stoler.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, reviewed the agenda: Concerning item D8, Richmond Park Alley, Ms. Hamilton said that the original ordinance to vacate the alley had an incorrect property description and the new ordinance corrected that error. Concerning item D13, Clissold Investment Company, Inc. hearing, Ms. Hamilton said that the developer wanted to realign the lots in the subdivision to increase their marketability by improving their view, and ease the construction restraints in terms of required road gradings.
Concerning item G1, Petition #400-644, Ms. Hamilton said that the petition, filed by Councilmember Stoler, was a rezoning from R-7 area to R-1. Councilmember Stoler said that the R-7 was in the middle of an R-1 zone and that the down-zoning would bring the area into line with the community master plan. He said the City had made an error in zoning the area R-7 and that this would correct that.
Mr. Stoler said there was a developer in the area who wanted to put in a ten unit development but the down-zoning petition was in the process first. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the property owner was vested in the area. Bruce Baird said he believed that if the case went to court, the City would win because the developer submitted a non-conforming plan and that he would not be judged as having a vested interest in the R-7 zone.
Concerning item G2, 14th Year Community Development Block Grant Budget Amendment, Ms. Hamilton said the public hearing was being held tonight but the issue was scheduled for a Committee of the Whole meeting on November 3, 1988. She asked the Council to relay any questions or concerns they had to her staff as soon as possible so they could research the answers. Rosemary Davis, Capital Planning and Programming, presented a staff briefing document on the Section 108 Loan and the Canterbury Apartments. (see attachment)
The Council then interviewed Mr. Steve Crane prior to consideration of his appointment to the Board of Appeals and Examiners. Mr. Crane said he grew up and attended schools in Salt Lake City and was currently living in District 3 and working as an architect. He said his latest project was the newly completed Ronald McDonald House and that he was eager to serve on the Board. The Council congratulated Mr. Crane on the McDonald House.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 1, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Tom Godfrey Sydney Fonnesbeck Roselyn Kirk Alan Hardman Willie Stoler.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Steven Allred, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present.
Councilmember Godfrey presided at and Councilmember Stoler conducted the meeting.
OPENING CEREMONIES
#1. The invocation was given by Cliff Higbee.
#2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#3. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, October 18, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
#4. The Council, Mayor, and Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, recognized Bruce Baird and Rosemary Davis for their efforts in securing the $2.5 million settlement in the Select Telephone and Technologies case. Mr. Peterson said Mr. Baird and Ms. Davis had gone beyond what would have been expected in helping to recover the money. Mr. Baird showed the Council an enlarged copy of the $2.5 million check. He said the city would also receive another $50,000. Ms. Davis commended Senator Garn’s secretary, Jan Maxfield, and Mike Dorsey, General Council for HUD. She said they were fortunate in being able to convince HUD that the city had projects deserving the money and could handle it in a professional manner. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said Craig Peterson should be commended also.
(G 88-19)
COMMENTS
There were no citizen comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: The appointment of Richard F. Coles to the Central Business Improvement District.
(I 88-9)
#2. RE: The reappointments of Diana Smoot, Rosemary Grim, Russell Allred, Kim Anderson, and Hermoine Jex to the Community Development Advisory Committee.
(I 88-3)
#3. RE: The reappointment of Peter Stevens to the Housing Authority Board.
(I 88-22)
#4. RE: The reappointment of Lois Brown to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board.
(I 88-2)
#5. RE: The appointment of Ron Whitehead to the Mosquito Abatement District Board.
(I 88-12)
#6. RE: The reappointment of Richard J. Howa to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
(I 88-7)
#7. RE: The appointment of Steve H. Crane to the Board of Appeals and Examiners.
(I 88-21)
#8. RE: Adopting Ordinance 71 of 1988 vacating a portion of an alley bordering on the east boundary line of Richmond Park, pursuant to Petition No. 400-490-87 and Repealing Bill No. 50 of 1987.
(P 87-30)
#9. RE: Adopting Resolution 132 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement between the city and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for installation of flashing light signals with gates, concrete surfacing between the rails and the railroad crossing of relocated Indiana Avenue near 900 South and DeLong Street, to be paid for with Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Funds.
(C 88-627)
#10. RE: Adopting Resolution 133 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement amendment between the city and UDOT changing only the expiration date in paragraph 6 from June 30, 1988, to June 30, 1989.
(C 88-59)
#11. RE: Adopting Ordinance 70 of 1988 closing an alley running south from 1700 South at 115 West, pursuant to Petition No. 400-609-88, subject to certain conditions.
(P 88-224)
#12. RE: Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, November 15, 1988, at 6:30 p.m., to obtain public comment concerning an ordinance amending Chapter 2.26 of the Salt Lake City Code, to be entitled “Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Ordinance.”
(O 88-27)
#13. RE: Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, November 15, 1988, at 6:20 p.m., to obtain public comment concerning a proposed amendment to the Dunford’s subdivision plat covering lots 1-6 and 17-22 located on the south side of 12th Avenue between “K” and “L” Streets.
(P 88-363)
NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS
#1. RE: The appointment of Jan Graham to the Central Business Improvement District.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-9)
#2. RE: The appointments of Kathy Kinney and Jan Striefel to the Urban Forestry Board.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-15)
#3. RE: Allocate $12,050 from the Community Development Block Grant 12th Year operating fund contingency to the 12th Year Community Development Block Grant Men’s Shelter Operation project.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to suspend the rules and adopt on first reading, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(T 88-30)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1 RE: A public hearing scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment concerning Petition No. 400-644 submitted by W. M. Stoler requesting that the city rezone the property in the vicinity of 21st South and Foothill Drive from a Residential “R-7” to Residential “R-l” classification; and consider adopting the ordinance relating thereto.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to adopt Ordinance 72 of 1988, rezoning property located west of Benchmark Subdivision at about 2300 South Scenic Drive from Residential “R-7” to “R-l”, pursuant to Petition No. 400-644-88, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, Planning and Zoning, outlined the area on a map and said the Planning Commission had held an informal hearing and heard comments from citizens and property owners. He said the property was owned by Christensen and Kimball Partnership (CKP) and there was a complicated history associated with it. He said the Planning Commission tabled the issue after the hearing and requested additional information regarding the following: site specifics of the land; a chronology of events in regard to master planning; a 1980 agreement between the city and owners of the subdivision; and response from the Attorneys Office to a letter from CKP.
Mr. Wright said the property’s only access was from Scenic Drive, which was oriented to single-family, residential development. He said the East Bench Community Master Plan designated all of the property fronting on Scenic Drive for low-density, residential development allowing four dwelling units per acre. Mr. Wright said the Board of Adjustment reviewed a development proposal on August 1st from CKP for construction of ten residential units in three buildings, which were without full frontage on a dedicated street, and they were also asking to change the grade more than the permitted two feet.
He said an agreement had been enacted between the city and the owners of Benchmark Subdivision in 1980 that placed restrictive covenants on the land so that any development on the land would be subject to approval by the Board of Adjustment. Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned the chronology of the rezoning request and the property owner’s request before the Board of Appeals and asked what had prompted the agreement in 1980. Mr. Wright said that a small strip of Scenic Drive that had been dedicated was not owned by the subdivision but by Ideal National, and during negotiations Ideal wanted to sell them not only the small strip but a rear portion as well.
He said that one of the restrictive covenants placed on the property was that no more than ten units could be built on the property. Robert Steffenson, Benchmark Homeowners Association President, said the neighborhood had been working for four years to prevent multiple housing development in their area. He said in 1980 the original owners had tried to rezone half of the area to “R-2” in order to accommodate twin homes but the community was against the rezoning so it failed. He said CKP had come to their meetings and asked how the neighborhood felt and they were told that the community was against multiple housing, but in spite of their recommendations CKP had proposed several different plans for multiple housing. Mr. Steffenson said the property owners questioned the legality of the 1980 agreement. Mr. Steffenson said the neighborhood felt the property should be used for a park which was greatly needed in the area, and he showed plans drawn by the Parks Department utilizing the land for a park. He explained to the Council how the park could be built.
David Kimball, CKP, said that Mayor Ted Wilson had signed a letter saying that an agreement existed stating that no more than ten units could be built on the property and they felt this agreement should be honored by the city.
The following persons spoke in favor of the rezoning: Mark Bryner, 2550 E 1700 S; Ronald Bruschke, 2340 E 1700 S; Ken Burningham, 2358 Scenic Dr; Joe Sargitakis, 2356 Scenic Dr. Mr. Bryner said it would be an infringement of what was intended in the beginning, to allow multiple units in the neighborhood, and that because of the slope it would be difficult to build single-family dwellings let alone multiple units. Mr. Bruschke said Mayor Wilson would probably never have signed the agreement had he known about a one-foot strip surrounding the property that had been given to the city but for some reason had never been recorded.
Mr. Burningham said he was also in the development business and problems that CKP were encountering were typical in that type of business in regards to zoning. Mr. Sargitakis said that as the father of two young children he was concerned about the added traffic to Scenic Drive if multiple-housing was allowed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned the legality of the agreement, and Mr. Allred said from what he was hearing it did not appear to be an agreement but negotiation discussions, and in his opinion the mayor did not have the authority to make that kind of decision.
Councilmember Kirk said that before the adoption of the East Bench Master Plan there were many hearings and she had attended a lot of them, and the property owners then did not question those issues. She said she felt the neighborhood should be allowed extensive input into the present issue and she felt they had gone through that process. Councilmember Stoler said it had become obvious to him that the area should be a single-family housing area and he didn’t know of any property owners who opposed it. He said he sympathized with CKP because of the hardship to them.
(P 88-263)
#2 RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning a resolution amending the 14th Year Community Development Block Grant Fund (1988-1989) budget to include $1,825,000 from a HUD Section 108 Loan for purchase of the Canterbury Apartments and for park improvements in the forth Redwood Road Community.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred this item to the Committee of the Whole.
DISCUSSION: Rosemary Davis, Director of Capital Planning and Programming, said her office was pursuing a Section 108 loan in the amount of $1.8 million to be paid back over a period of six years, after which the property would be deeded to the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and revenues from the project would help to pay off the total bonded indebtedness of their elderly housing bonds. She said the apartments were in a good area, were well constructed, and were a good buy.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned why the city wouldn’t want to transfer ownership of the apartments to the HDC immediately rather than wait until the loan was paid, and Ms. Davis said that by waiting it would give the city more control over the project and they could properly maintain the project. She said they had the option to have either the HDC or the city maintain the project. She said they had held two meetings, one with the North Redwood Road Community Council Executive Committee and another with the neighborhood, and the neighbors wanted to form a community group to act as advisors to whomever would be maintaining the project.
She said the neighborhood also favored a private management agreement and they were concerned about promises made to them years ago by the city regarding plans for a school and park. She said the request for $1.8 million included $150,000 for a park. Ms. Davis said that 63% of the present clientele of the Canterbury apartments met the moderate-to-low-income requirements and the current guidelines stipulated there had to be at least 60% low-to-moderate-income clientele, so there wouldn’t be any displacement of the present clientele.
She said the rents received would not quite cover the loan payment each month, so they were asking for $300,000 of CDBG funds in each of the six years until the loan was repaid. Councilmember Godfrey questioned whether the city already had land for a park and why funds for a park were being added to the project. Ms. Davis said there was land for the park and that by including the park in this project the improvements could be financed now instead of through the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) process.
She said a very good price had been negotiated on the property allowing them to include the cost of the park without changing the debt service. It also allowed them to respond to the community’s request for the park, which was very important to the neighborhood since the nearest park was over four miles away and across Redwood Road. Councilmembers Godfrey and Fonnesbeck expressed concern because the park was being included in the package. Councilmember Bittner said she wanted the neighborhood people in attendance to know that the Council had not been briefed on the issue at their Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting, so they were holding the hearing now and would have to be briefed on the issue at the next COW meeting. She said they would not be voting on the issue now.
She said the neighborhood was fairly new with homes in the $80,000 range and the people were concerned with having a low-income apartment and the problems it might create in their neighborhood, and one of the conditions in getting them to accept the project was by putting in the park which they had been promised years before. She said if the Council did not accept the package deal the whole project would not go through. Mr. Peterson said the park was desperately needed in the area and they had been trying to find ways to fund it and they felt this was an excellent idea.
The following persons spoke in favor of the issue: Bill Eccleston, 1829 Springfield Ave; Lynnayne Appley, 1876 Morton Dr Dan Sommer, 1869 Springfield Rd. Mr. Eccleston said there was a need to service low-income and elderly in the city and felt the project presented was adequate. He said he could produce a petition with 1000 signatures in favor of the project and that those who attended the neighborhood meeting were all from the immediate vicinity. He said the park was badly needed in the area.
Mr. Sommer said the neighborhood needed a school as well as a park and felt it would raise the quality of the neighborhood. The following persons spoke in opposition to the issue: Jack Ellefsen, 1834 Independence Blvd; Kim Anderson, 768 N Redwood Rd; Ernest Hoff, 227 Browning Ave; Bonnie Hoff, 227 Browning Ave; Dick Moffat, Boyer Company. Mr. Ellefsen said he had lived in the neighborhood for many years and he showed the Council pictures he had taken that day of similar apartments that were maintained by the HDC and said he was concerned about the poor maintenance of these apartments.
He said he felt that city involvement in the rental market was an encroachment of free enterprise. He presented a petition to the Council containing 70 signatures of neighbors opposing the project. Mr. Anderson said other alternatives had not been proposed and he felt there were other ways the money could be raised than through CDBG funding. He felt the money recovered through the STT settlement could be used for this project. He said there should be public hearings to determine how CDBG funds and the STT settlement should be spent. He said he felt they were taking money from the wrong source to settle a political problem.
Mr. Moffat said he felt that city ownership and low-income renting of the apartments would deteriorate the area and he also questioned the enforceability if this did happen. Councilmember Hardman expressed his opposition to the project and said that several years ago the city had lent its bonding credit rating to the HDC and now it was finding itself in the middle of a problem and trying to solve it by becoming landlords. He said he felt they should be retracing their steps rather than plunging forward as they had been asked to do. Councilmember Fonnesbeck wanted to know what other alternatives there might be, and Ms. Davis said it would be to raise taxes, but the problem with the HDC still existed and had to be resolved.
(T 88-29)
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.