PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 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
#1. Phil Erickson, Mayor’s Office, briefed the Council on the arrival of the Lord Mayor of London. He told the Council what the Lord Mayor would do while in Salt Lake City and gave the Council some background on the system of government in the City of London.
#2. Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda. She told Council Members that a petition submitted by the Bonneville Hills Neighborhood Council requested that a portion of the former Curtis School property be rezoned from a Business “B-3” to a Residential “R-2” so it could become Foothill Village Park.
Larry Livingston, Council Staff, told the Council that Johansen, Thackeray & MacKenzie, developers of Foothill Village, had submitted a petition requesting that the City rezone another portion of the former Curtis School property, located at 2300 East 1450 South, from an “R-2” to a “B-3” classification. Mr. Livingston explained that the requested rezonings made possible the placement of a City park on 2200 East with the expansion of the Village taking place on the east where a park, belonging to Mountian Bell, was now situated.
Council Member Kirk told Council Members that she was satisfied with the compromise that had been reached and felt that the neighborhood would be too. Council Member Stoler asked if the compromise contained any variation from the original plans. Mr. Livingston said that all building uses would remain as originally intended and that any modification in the actual structure of the buildings was minor.
He added that no time had been allowed on the Council agenda for public comment concerning the petitions. The public hearing process was complete for both petitions, therefore, if constituents wanted to comment on the petitions it was necessary that they do so during comments to the Mayor. Council Member Kirk told the Council that she would briefly outline the history of the Foothill Village Develompent during the Council meeting.
#3. Bill Wright, Planning and Zoning, briefed the Council concerning the proposed Mixed Use Transition Overlay District. He told the Council that if the ordinance was adopted it did not necessarily mean any neighborhoods would be zoned with overlay zones. He indicated that the overlay zone would only be a tool that could be used in neighborhoods which were already deteriorating. He said that use of the overlay zone would enable a base residential zone to be in place while the neighborhood was in transition from residential to industrial thus protecting the residential areas.
The overlay zone would not be used in stable neighborhoods. Council Member Bittner told Council Members that the transition of certain neighborhoods was going to happen regardless of adoption of the ordinance; however, if the Council adopted the ordinance and allowed overlay zones to be used when neighborhoods were in transition, the City would have a mechanism for controlling the development and protecting the residents of the area. Council Member Hardwick disagreed by saying that an overlay zone ordinance would send a signal to citizens that the City was not concerned about protecting neighborhoods.
He saw the ordinance as a mechanism for developers to take over residential areas and stated his opposition to the practice of mixing residential and Industrial zones. He said that while the present City Council did not begin the practice of intertwining the two zones, it was not wise for the present Council to continue to place industrial zones in residential areas. Council Member Bittner replied that an ordinance such as the overlay ordinance would have been helpful during transition periods of residential areas in her district. She restated her approval of the Mixed Use Transition Overlay District.
The briefing session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 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 Fonnesbeck conducted the meeting.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, September 15, 1987, and Thursday, September 17, 1987, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
CM 87-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-348 of 1985 by Bonneville Hills Neighborhood Council.
RE: Rezoning the former Curtis School site from “B-3” to “R-2” to become Foothill Village Park.
ACTION: Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 68 of 1987 amending Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, rezoning a portion of the former Curtis School site from “B-3” to “R-2” to become Foothill Village Park pursuant to Petition 400-348 of 1985 by the Bonneville Hills Neighborhood Council, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Kirk briefly outlined the history of this petition. She explained that when the Bonneville Hills Neighborhood Council was organized, Mary Lou Day who represented them, called the Council Office to find out how to submit a down-zoning proposal in order to protect the neighborhood. Mrs. Kirk said that she and the Council Office worked with Ms. Day in presenting a petition and after that was submitted Ms. Day filed a letter for a moratorium.
Councilmember Kirk said she called a meeting to issue the moratorium and the Council voted unanimously for the moratorium. She said the moratorium gave the Bonneville Hills Neighborhood Council the opportunity to find other uses for the Curtis School building and said they worked on it for six months, however, the City received a letter from Mountain Bell, owners of the property, which stated they would terminate the lease on the park located on 2300 East.
She indicated that Mountain Bell protested the moratorium by terminating the park and said the City did not own that park they only maintained it. She said if this would have happened the neighborhood would have lost the park and since the area of Curtis School was zoned “B-3” there could have been a business on 2200 East. She said in the meantime the Bonneville Hills Council held a number of meetings during which suggestions were made that the park be placed on 2200 East.
She said the Planning Commission held a hearing and voted to rezone the property at 1425 South 2300 East as requested by JTM in Petition 400-370 of 1985, and at the City Council public hearing the following actions took place: Councilmember Kirk moved to support the Bonneville Hills Neighborhood petition but the motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Bittner moved to approve the JTK petition to rezone the property at 2300 East and 1450 South from “R-2” to “B-3” with conditions. This motion passed 6 to 1; Councilmember Kirk cast the opposing vote. Councilmember Kirk moved to rezone from “B-3” to “R-2” only the portion of the Bonneville Hills petition which corresponded to the neighborhood park proposal and the motion passed unanimously. She said the Council was now at the point to pass the ordinance which would give the neighborhood a 1.4 acre park. She said she felt the Council should support this issue since the neighborhood would get a park in the place where they originally proposed.
(P 85-328)
Petition 400-370 of 1985 by Johansen, Thackeray & MacKenzie.
RE: Rezoning the Curtis Park and a portion of the former Curtis School site at 2300 East 1450 South from “R-2” to “8-3”.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 69 of 1987 amending Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, rezoning the Curtis Park and a portion of the former Curtis School site, located at 2300 East 1450 South, from Residential “R-2” to Business “B-3” pursuant to Petition 400-370 of 1985 by Johansen Thackeray & MacKenzie, subject to the conditions outlined therein and not to become effective until those conditions are completed, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 85-329)
Petition 400-451 by Frank Sida/Rainbo Oil.
RE: A request to change the zoning ordinance text by amending Section 51-21-8 which would allow for detached automatic car wash facilities in a “B-3” district.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, November 3, 1987, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 87-297)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration amending a lease agreement for office space for the Flight Standards District Office.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 121 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration amending a lease agreement for office space for the Flight Standards District Office, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-97)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Murray City Fire Department amending the previously executed agreement for fire and rescue dispatch services.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 122 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Murray City Fire Department amending the previously executed Interlocal cooperation agreement for providing fire and rescue dispatch services, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 84-515)
#2. RE: An interlocal agreement with Midvale City Fire Department for providing fire and rescue dispatch services.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 126 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal cooperation agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Midvale City Fire Department for providing fire and rescue dispatch services between Salt Lake City and Midvale City, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 85-25)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointments of Priscilla Mayden and Donna Toland Smart to the Salt Lake City Library Board.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred these appointments to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 87-12)
#2. RE: The reappointments of Frank Moss and Robert Springmeyer, Jr. to the Utah Air Travel Commission.
ACTION: Without objection the Council referred the reappointments to the consent agenda.
(I 87-5)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County and Cornelius Development to dedicate to the County a City-owned water easement In Cornelius Development’s Tree Farm Subdivision.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 124 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County and Cornelius Development to dedicate to the County, under conditions, a City-owned water easement in Cornelius Development’s Tree Farm Subdivision which is located in the County, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-534)
#2. RE: An interlocal agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation for Intersection improvements requiring relocation of the City’s water facilities at 1700 South 1300 East and 900 East 900 South.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 120 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for intersection Improvements, 1700 South at 1300 East and 900 East at 900 South, requiring relocation of the City’s water facilities at State expense, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-531)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Utah Transit Authority setting forth the method by which the location of public transit signs, posts, benches and shelters shall be designated and how these facilities will be utilized, maintained and repaired or replaced.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 123 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority setting forth the method by which the location of public transit signs, posts, benches and shelters shall be designated and how these facilities will be utilized, maintained and repaired or replaced, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-533)
#2. RE: An Interlocal agreement with the Utah State Department of Transportation for rental, by the State, of the City’s Barber Green Roto Mill, with operators.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 125 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah State Department of Transportation for rental, by the State, of the City’s Barber Green Roto Mill, with operators, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 87-535)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mixed Use Transition Overla3 District.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the proposed Mixed Use Transition Overlay District.
ACTION: Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 70 of 1987 amending Title 51 by enacting a new Chapter l2C creating a Mixed Use Transitional Overlay District; and amend Section 51-12C-3(d) of said ordinance to change “applicant should” to “applicant shall” at the beginning of the sentence, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Before the discussion began Councilmember Fonnesbeck told the audience that they were not going to discuss the proposed ordinance in relation to application in a specific area; they were only going to discuss creating the proposed ordinance. Bill Wright, planning and zoning, explained that about a year ago the Council adopted the Euclid Neighborhood Target Area Plan and approved rezoning in that neighborhood as recommended by the Planning Commission.
As a part of that action there was a legislative intent that requested the Planning Commission to prepare an ordinance that would manage the transition of land use in neighborhoods located along the freeway and railroad corridors. He said the proposed ordinance could create an overlay district which would be used in combination with the base zoning of an area. He explained the purpose of the ordinance was to provide standards and review processes to development in selected areas of Salt Lake City designated as mixed use transitional areas.
The overlay district would provide for an orderly transition of land uses from residential to commercial, industrial, or mixed uses in an attempt to implement long-range adopted neighborhood master plans. He said the intent of using the ordinance was only where there had been a planning process and long-range master planning policies established that specific areas were transitional and would be designated so. He said within the ordinance there were use regulations:
permitted uses within the base zoning district, prohibited uses, and conditional uses which the Planning Commission would have the authority to allow. He said the ordinance outlined the requirements to apply for a conditional use and said the filing fee was $500.00. He said they wanted to add the proposed ordinance as a tool to the current ordinances. Councilmember Stoler referred to Section 51-12C-3, Application for Conditional Use, Paragraph (d) which stated that the “applicant should take reasonable steps to review the project with the local Community Council, Neighborhood Council or neighboring residents and receive their comments and recommendations prior to submittal of the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission.” He wanted this to be a requirement and asked that the would “should” be changed to “shall”. Councilmember Mabey agreed.
Russell Jacobsen, 851 Ouray Avenue (Jackson area), spoke in support of the ordinance but expressed concerns. He said the ordinance did not specify which areas would be affected and he thought it should. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said no areas would be affected at this point and if an area was to be affected there would be a separate procedure including a public hearing. He indicated that he liked the prohibited uses and conditional uses specified but could not think of any light industrial use that would be compatible with a residential area.
He thought the wholesale/retail outlets and medical facilities, limited to doctors and dentists offices, with off-street parking would be fine but he did not think controversial facilities, such as planned parenthood or abortion clinics, would be appropriate. He asked who made up the master plan and how he could get a copy. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said he could get a copy from the planning and zoning office and said neighborhoods participated in the master plan. Councilmember Bittner said the neighborhood councils were involved in the Guadalupe/Jackson master plan.
Mr. Jacobsen suggested that the requirement to notify property owners and residents within 600 feet from the property lines of a proposed conditional use should be extended to 1,320 feet in all directions, which would be about two blocks. He also agreed with Councilmember Stoler’s wording change. He thought a spot check by the planning and zoning staff to insure compliance should be included and suggested that both businesses and residents should be able to appeal a Planning Commission decision.
He expressed concern that the ordinance did not address the Issue of property condemnation. Councilmember Mabey said this ordinance did not state that property would be condemned and Councilmember Bittner said there was no legal way to condemn under this ordinance.
The following people spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance: Perry Underwood, 965 West 100 South; Betsy Rogers, 853 Ouray Avenue; Norma Rodriquez, 49 South 800 East; Lois Brown 310 South 300 East; Chuck Whyte, 347 South 400 East; Robert Archuleta, 978 Cheyenne Street; Jim Donnelly, 803 West 100 South.
Perry Underwood said the Euclid area went through the rezoning process in order to keep their neighborhood residential and said the CDBG funds improved their area since they got curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drains, sewers and streets. She expressed concern that if this ordinance was adopted developers would see her neighborhood as an area to gain personal profit which would destroy the residential quality. She thought if the Council adopted this ordinance low-income residents would feel like their homes would be slated for demolition and they couldn’t plan for a life in Salt Lake since there would be no place for them live. Councilmember Fonnesbeck explained that areas currently zoned commercial but maintaining themselves as residential neighborhoods could be rezoned to residential with the proposed ordinance as an overlay so there would be controls as to the type of commercial growth.
She said this ordinance would give protection since developers would have to meet conditions compatible with the neighborhood. She thought it offered more protection and would be a beneficial tool. She said the ordinance would only be applied to neighborhoods where the commercial development was already taking place and the master plan indicated that an area was going commercial. Ms. Underwood asked if they could get CDBG funds under the proposed ordinance and
Councilmember Fonnesbeck explained that an area would be rezoned to residential in order to get the CDBG funds then if a business wanted to come into an area they would have to meet the conditions outlined in the proposed ordinance and they would have to go through a process. Councilmember Bittner reassured the audience that the Council was not changing zoning with this ordinance and she said the overlay zone would not be considered for good residential neighborhoods. She said they were looking at areas where there was no possibility that they would remain residential and where there needed to be controlled development. She said each request for development in a residential area would be approved on a case by case basis.
Betsy Rogers thought the proposed ordinance would make her neighborhood a prime target for mixed-use development since her area was by the freeway and railroad corridors and there was a lot of low-income housing in the area. She said they did not want to lose low-Income housing that could be rehabilitated and was concerned that the neighborhood had not reaped any benefits from the master plan. She said she did not want commercial development in her area and said they should rehabilitate the area.
Councilmember Bittner said the master planning process in this district was long and involved and was very comprehensive. She said one of the off-shoots was the rezoning of a lot of the area from commercial/industrial to residential and another benefit was the Guadalupe Park. She said there were significant changes from the master plan. Norma Rodriquez felt the ordinance was another way to attack neighborhoods and said they had worked hard to improve the area and redevelop the homes.
Lois Brown said she felt the ordinance was a temporary appeasement to the neighborhoods until they turned commercial. She was concerned with wording in the ordinance which stated that certain areas of the City contained remnant residential areas in a location otherwise designated for commercial, industrial or mixed uses. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said this referred to areas that had primarily become residential and industrial on their own. She said the ordinance was for areas where residents were being threatened with commercial use and it was not encouraging commercial development. Mrs. Brown said the Central Business District needed residents and there should be plans to get people back into the area.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred back to the statement in the ordinance that Ms. Brown referred to regarding remnant residential areas, where a majority of the area was moving towards commercial, and said the next statement in the ordinance talked about protecting the quality of life of those who wanted to stay in those areas. She said she saw this as a way of protecting the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Mabey said there were some places in the city that people would not build housing and this ordinance would help development occur in an orderly way. He also said the only way the quality of some residential areas would improve would be if people started to take better care of their property, otherwise the neighborhood would degenerate. Chuck Whyte, representing the Guadalupe/Jackson, Euclid, Central City, and North Central areas, said people felt threatened by the ordinance because they felt a lot of commercial development would encroach on their neighborhoods.
He thought the City should deal with slum lords and improve the residential areas and not worry so much about commercial development. Robert Archuleta said several neighborhoods in the City were building themselves up and imposing this ordinance whereby the Council could discuss changing the neighborhood, did not make the residents feel they were protected. In reference to rehabilitating neighborhoods.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the Redevelopment Agency gave thousands of dollars to areas where banks would not loan money. She also said that some neighborhoods were going commercial and the residents wanted commercial zoning but they wanted protection. She said the proposed ordinance would allow that layer of protection during the transition since currently the Council could only zone an area residential or commercial.
Jim Donnelly was concerned because some of the commercial property was run down and he suggested that the City look at the dirty commercial properties. Councilmember Mabey said the proposed ordinance included landscape requirements that would alleviate this problem with future development. Councilmember Hardwick expressed concern about the ordinance because he did not feel it would protect some of the areas with good residential neighborhoods that would probably fall within this ordinance.
He thought the proposed ordinance was broad and could be applied at random and he was concerned about how future councils would use this ordinance. He said the City Council did not formally adopt master plans and he thought that without the assurances of formalized master plans, the proposed ordinance opened the door to a lot of problems. Councilmember Bittner reminded the audience that the Council had been very supportive of neighborhoods and said they did not intend to do anything to hurt solid, stable residential neighborhoods. She also said the Council always had the power to change zoning and this ordinance did not change that. She viewed the proposed ordinance as a tool and as a protection.
She thought the worst thing for a neighborhood was vacant buildings and weed lots and not well designed, quiet businesses. She said the Council wanted to give protection to people living in a corridor of the City where people were not going to build new houses. She thought the Council had two options: They could adopt the proposed ordinance and try to encourage good land use or they could turn their backs on it and let it stay the same. Councilmember Stoler said there were many safe guards in this ordinance for the neighborhood.
Councilmember Mabey agreed with him and said the threat of a surge of commercial development had not held true in Guadalupe or in the Euclid areas. He also agreed that nice developments would be better for neighborhoods than vacant lots. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she had concerns about the ordinance but reiterated that the Council always had the power to rezone regardless of this ordinance. She reminded the audience that they elected the City officials and needed to make sure the people who represented them cared about the values of the neighborhoods.
She said the City needed people but also needed commercial development which was wisely used. She said if she thought this ordinance was against neighborhoods she would not vote for It since she was sympathetic to neighborhood concerns and had fought to rezone her neighborhood. She said people must never allow any council to apply this in a vibrant neighborhood or one moving into a residential mode. She said she believed that this ordinance was a key that some neighborhoods needed and as neighborhood advocates they always needed to be vigilant.
(O 87-29)
Petition 400-535 by Salt Lake City Public Works Department.
RE: A public hearing at 6:45 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request for Salt Lake City to partially close Riverside Drive north of 1700 South and to trade this property to the Jordan River Parkway in exchange for a site for a main lift station for the City’s new storm drain system.
ACTION: Councilmember Stoler moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 71 of 1987 closing a portion of Riverside Drive north of 1700 South, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, planning and zoning, said there was a 1966 major street plan that called for a “Riverside Drive” along the east side of the river between California and 1700 South. The subdivision called Wenco Acres came through in the late 60s or early 70s and was required to dedicate a 100-foot wide portion of that master planned “Riverside Drive”. Only half of that width was improved and on the east side there is the normal arrangement of curb, parking strip, and sidewalk and then there is 40 feet of pavement but there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk on the other side.
He said this has been the situation for 10 to 15 years. The Parkway Authority put improvements on that portion of the west 50 feet of Riverside Drive on city-owned property. Last year the City decided it needed part of the Parkway property for a storm sewer pump so the request would be a mutually beneficial situation since the City could get rid of unimproved street right of way and trade it for a site for the storm pump. Councilmember Kirk asked if the two parcels were of comparable value and Mr. Wheelwright said yes. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
(P 87-222)
Floodplain Hazard Regulations
RE: A public hearing at 6:55 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the proposed floodplain hazard ordinance technical changes.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 72 of 1987 amending Chapter 8 of Title 47 dealing with floodplain hazard regulations, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Bruce Baird, assistant attorney, explained that there were minor definitional changes which were mandated by the federal government and said the City had to adopt the changes if they wanted to continue to get flood insurance. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
(O 87-30)
COMMENTS
#1. Virginia Silcox, 2253 Roosevelt Avenue, said she lived adjacent to the Curtis School property where Foothill Village would be expanded. She said in the Council meeting held January 14, 1986, it was stated that the developer, JTM, would post a $600,000 bond before they began work on the park. She said she read in the newspaper that they only posted $35,000 and the City gave them permission to change the park from its location on Foothill Drive to 2200 East. She asked for clarification. L.W. McFarland, 2152 St. Mary’s Drive, asked that the minutes of the City Council public hearing where the zoning decision was made, be reviewed because he wanted to know the conditions which were imposed on the developers at that meeting.
Mayor DePaulis said he had a meeting with the residents in the area and he indicated at that time that he was concerned about the administrative part of the conditions. He said he had the Attorney’s Office stipulate those conditions and he said unless all those conditions were met the developers could not proceed. He said the Council could act on the ordinance but until the conditions were met the developers could not proceed.
Bruce Baird, assistant attorney, said he reviewed the record from January 14, 1986, and the discussion regarding the $600,000 bond primarily involved the land acquisition cost. He said in the interim the land had been acquired and the bond, for the improvements and the land, only needed to be for the improvements. He said the City Parks Department reviewed the plans and estimated that the amount necessary to complete the improvements was $35,000 so this was the amount being bonded for.
He said the other conditions were expected to be met within about a week but the ordinance was conditioned upon certification that those conditions were met. He said the plans would be thoroughly reviewed by the Attorney’s Office prior to informing the Mayor that the conditions had been complied with. Councilmember Kirk asked what would happen if the conditions were not met. Mr. Baird said if the conditions were not met within a year the ordinance indicated that they could get an extension for a year but if they weren’t met within that year the ordinance would expire.
Mayor DePaulis said he committed to the residents that he would not sign any of the administrative proceedings unless all the conditions were met. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said his office reviewed the final plans and said the developers had met all the conditions required by the Council. He said he had gone through the plans carefully and they would have to review the plans with the Mayor before he signed them.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.