PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 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
The City Council interviewed Barbara Jean Ray prior to her appointment to the Urban Forestry Board. Council Member Fonnesbeck asked Ms. Ray why she was interested in serving on the Urban Forestry Board and Ms. Ray told the Council that a tree was recently cut down from her property without her knowledge or consent and she did not want to see the trees in the city destroyed since trees were aesthetically pleasing.
She told the Council that she was not a tree expert, however, she was a financial expert and felt her financial background would be helpful to the Urban Forestry Board. Council Member Godfrey told Ms. Ray that he was supportive of her appointment to represent Council District 5 on the Urban Forestry Board. Linda Hamilton, Executive Director, briefed the Council on the evening’s agenda.
Council Member Stoler suggested that the Council consider notifying contractors who would be affected by an amendment to Title 15 of the Revised Ordinances, by adding a new Chapter 4 known as controlling blasting in Salt Lake City, instituting fees, and bonding and insurance requirements. The Council would hold a public hearing on September 15, 1987, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning the change. Council Member Stoler wanted to ensure that contractors were aware of the public hearing.
Council Member Fonnesbeck told the Council that an ordinance amending Chapter 5 of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances, enhancing enforcement of the ordinance by clarifying the intent of keeping the streets of Salt Lake City clean was not necessary. She told the Council that the ordinance was not being enforced now and that it was senseless to adopt a stricter ordinance if it would not be enforced.
Council Member Mabey added that when the ordinance was not enforced, debris accumulated on the streets which led to destruction of asphalt finish. Council Member Godfrey said that the revision of the ordinance would make enforcement easier for the city. Council Member Mabey told the Council that he was opposed to an ordinance amending Chapter 33 of Title 18 of the Revised Ordinances relating to noise control by amending Section 18-33-3 relating to prohibition of garbage collection between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when the following day was a holiday or Sunday. Council Member Mabey said that if the Council changed the ordinance to allow city garbage trucks to pick up garbage at 7:00 a.m. on holidays then the private sector trucks would start early as well.
Christine Richman, Council Staff, explained that the ordinance contained a provision for decibel levels acceptable for early trash collection. She told the Council that the new city trucks operating the mechanized garbage program were below the restricted decibel level. She added that garbage trucks owned by private companies did not comply with the regulatory decibel level. Council Member Mabey told the Council that it was not feasible to assume that a decibel reading would be taken when a complaint was called in.
Ms. Richman suggested that garbage trucks were rated according to their decibel level. She said that a decibel reading would not be necessary as enforcement officers could rely on the rating of the truck. Council Member Hardwick told the Council that the decibel level should not be for the noise the truck makes, but rather noise created when the truck dumps the trash into its bin. He suggested that even the quieter city trucks could break the decibel level when actually dumping the trash into the bin.
Council Member Mabey asked Roger Cutler, city attorney if the ordinance could be rewritten to include only city garbage trucks. Mr. Cutler explained that serious legal problems were created by specifically discriminating against private sector agencies. He added that the decibel clarification indirectly discriminated and achieved desired goals. However, if a private sector trash collection agency obtained trucks which met required decibel levels, they too would be allowed to collect trash at earlier hours. The Council agree to further discuss the ordinance during the regular Council meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 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, Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, and Lynda Domino, chief deputy city recorder, were present. Roger Cutler, city attorney, was absent.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at and Councilmember Mabey conducted the meeting.
The prayer was given by police chaplain Howard Cox.
The Council led the 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, August 11, 1987, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(M 87-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-535 by Salt Lake City Public Works Department.
RE: A request to partially close Riverside Drive north of 1700 South and to trade this property to the Jordan River Parkway in exchange for a site to construct a main lift station for the city’s new storm drain system.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a public hearing for Tuesday, October 6, 1987, at 6:45 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(P 87-222)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with Salt Lake Community College to lease space at the airport for aviation instructional services.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 113 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake Community College for the lease of space at the airport for the college to provide airframe, power plant and related aviation instructional services at the airport, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-475)
#2. RE: An interlocal agreement amendment with the Utah Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Control, increasing leased space at the airport.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 111 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Control, to amend Contract No. 87-2493 with the state, increasing leased space at the Salt Lake International Airport, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-80)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: A proposed ordinance amending Title 51 by enacting a new Chapter 12C creating a mixed-use transitional overlay district to allow the Planning Commission a method to approve commercial uses within areas located in an overlay district.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a public hearing for Tuesday, October 6, 1987, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(O 87-29)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: The appointment of Jeanne Le Ber to the Tracy Aviary Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointment, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Council- member Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-13)
#2. RE: The appointments of Barbara Jean Ray and Esther Truitt to the Urban Forestry Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the appointments, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-15)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation for construction of an urban system improvement project at 1700 South and 1300 East, 900 South and 900 East, 1300 South at 1500 East and 1415 West.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 112 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Department of Transportation for construction of an urban system improvement project for route 1040, 1042, and 1043, (Intersections: 1700 South and 1300 East and 900 South and 900 East; school turnouts: 1300 South at 1500 East and 1415 West), to be financed in part from federal highway funds, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-476)
#2. RE: A proposed ordinance amending Title 15 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new Chapter 4 known as controlling blasting in Salt Lake City which will institute fees, and bonding and insurance requirements.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a date for a public hearing for Tuesday, September 15, 1987, at 6:20 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(O 87-26)
#3. RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 5 of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, enhancing enforcement of the ordinance by clarifying the intent of keeping the streets of Salt Lake City clean.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Mabey referred this ordinance to the consent agenda.
(O 87-27)
#4. RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 33 of Title 18 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to noise control, by amending Section 18-33-3 relating to prohibition of garbage collection between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when the following day is a holiday or Sunday.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to refer this ordinance to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 87-28)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Uses in Accessory Buildings.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance amending Sections 51-13-1(13) and 51-5-10 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to conditional uses in accessory buildings.
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 Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 62 of 1987 amending Sections 51-13-1(13) and 51-5-10 to provide for conditional uses in accessory buildings; and refer the ordinance to the attorney’s office to amend Section 1 by adding subparagraph 7 specifying that the Board of Adjustment may deny any application not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; and in Section 51-13-1(13), first paragraph, delete the word “special” in reference to wiring or plumbing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said the proposed ordinance was an amendment giving some additional powers to the Board of Adjustment in granting conditional uses in accessory buildings. He said the Board of Adjustment only had the authority given to them by state law or by specific ordinances. He outlined acceptable accessory uses which would be specified in the ordinance, such as a study, hobby shop, exercise room, or dressing rooms adjacent to a swimming pool, and said they could be considered on an individual basis.
He said the ordinance would not permit permanent living areas or commercial activities, and the ordinance would limit the size and location of the accessory buildings. He said this would give the Board of Adjustment the authority to consider some of these uses. Councilmember Godfrey said the ordinance would not allow living areas but he suggested that a study could possibly be used as a guest room. Mr. Jorgensen said this was one of the problems but could be considered on an individual basis and the Board of Adjustment could put conditions on the variance if necessary.
He said at the present time the Board of Adjustment had been authorizing uses such as a dressing room for a pool but there was no real authority given for them to do this. He thought this ordinance was workable. Councilmember Bittner asked if people would be allowed to install plumbing. Mr. Jorgensen said the ordinance would allow plumbing but it could be limited to such uses as a dressing room by a pool. Mrs. Bittner expressed her concern about accessory buildings being used as guest houses or beauty shops. Mr. Jorgensen agreed that this was a concern.
Councilmember Bittner suggested that the ordinance not permit plumbing. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, said, in reference to plumbing, the current ordinance stated that accessory buildings could contain no special wiring or plumbing or other facilities making possible conversion to living or commercials use. He said this language would not be modified and by specifying allowed uses, the Board could, on a case by case basis, consider the requests. He said by specifying the conditional uses, the Board of Adjustment would avoid having to make decisions without guidance as to whether or not a use was accessory or a main use.
He said this would apply to all zones. Mr. Jorgensen said the Board of Adjustment could only grant a variance when there was a special condition which deprived the owner the use of their property and the Board of Adjustment only had the authority specifically given to them under the ordinance. He explained that the Board did not have the explicit authority to grant any conditional use not specified in the ordinance and also said the Board would not have to grant the requests in every case but they would have the right to grant the uses. Councilmember Godfrey asked how the Board could distinguish between an accessory building and an addition to a home. Mr. Jorgensen said the Board could consider each on an individual case and attach conditions which would be recorded so future owners would be aware of the conditions.
Mr. Livingston said that all the suggested conditional uses specified in the proposed ordinance had been granted except for a study. He said the Board felt uncomfortable making determinations without any guidance and said probably the best solution would be to create uses which would be conditional. He said the proposed ordinance would add one additional use to those that the Board had already granted at some point in the past. Mr. Jorgensen said the requests for the uses which had been granted were relatively few and he said one of the dangers was that accessory uses could become businesses, especially in hobby shops. He suggested this could be stopped by not permitting 220 wiring.
He thought there were possibilities for abuse but he said based upon what he thought were the Council’s desires, he would not mind trying the ordinance and suggested that the Board specifically be given the right to deny a variance. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that if a use was granted, such as an art studio, the Board could specify conditions of the use such as using the building only for a studio and not to sell art. She also indicated that neighbors may help with enforcement by complaining if the granted use was being abused.
Councilmember Bittner thought the problem was being transferred from the Board of Adjustment to the enforcement arm. She was concerned about how future owners would use the variance and thought there would be a lot of nuisance problems. Councilmember Stoler was concerned about accessory buildings becoming living quarters by allowing heating and plumbing and he agreed that future owners may cause the problem. Councilmember Godfrey said there were currently enforcement problems and the Board needed to deal with legitimate requests so he thought if the Board set enough limitations this would help with the problems.
Mr. Livingston said the Board had granted several cases in the past and he thought this had set a precedent so people would be able to get a permit from building and housing without having to go through the Board of Adjustment. He said the proposed ordinance would at least specify the conditional uses and people would have to go before the Board. He thought the amendment would tighten the current ordinance. Mr. Jorgensen did not feel a precedent had been set since some of the uses had been granted several years ago and the actions of one Board were not binding to another. He said there hadn’t been a case where the interpretation of the ordinance had been ruled upon.
Mayor DePaulis asked if the proposed ordinance created certain uses as conditional uses so all categories would be tightened. Mr. Jorgensen said certain uses would be created as conditional uses although he didn’t think this would tighten the ordinance but would clarify what the Board could do and requests would have to go before the Board. He said he did not object to the ordinance as long as there was a provision that the Board had the right to deny a conditional use if in their opinion it was not in keeping with the neighborhood or would expand problems.
Councilmember Stoler was concerned that future owners would convert the accessory building to anything they wanted. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the proposed ordinance would give the Board the power to grant the requests or not grant the requests since currently they didn’t really have the power to grant these requests. Councilmember Mabey asked if the current ordinance allowed plumbing and Mr. Jorgensen said the only cases he could remember where plumbing was granted was in conjunction with swimming pools. Councilmember Mabey suggested that they eliminate plumbing.
Mr. Livingston reiterated the language in the current ordinance which states, “... containing no special wiring or plumbing or other facilities making possible conversion to living or commercial use.” Mr. Mabey asked what was meant by special wiring and Mr. Livingston indicated that 220 was generally not allowed. He said sometimes requests for 220 wiring were granted and sometimes not but were usually granted in conjunction with a hobby shop, like wood working. Mr. Jorgensen said that in the past, places had been granted 220 power and ended up being a welding shop or auto repair shop.
Paul Dalrymple, 656 South 1200 East, explained that his home was an older house which he wanted to revitalize and said he was committed to the neighborhood. He said he had an old barn in his back yard that he wanted to use as a study and mentioned the other uses that had been granted, such as hobby shops and exercise rooms, and said he didn’t understand why his request for a study had become a big issue. He said without a clear definition of the ordinance people could create problems. He said it seemed that requests were granted on a piecemeal basis with no real controls.
He thought the current ordinance was unclear as to what people could and couldn’t do and said it didn’t seem fair to people who wanted to revitalize neighborhoods. Councilmember Godfrey asked that language be added to the ordinance specifically stating that the Board had the right to deny requests. Councilmember Bittner asked that in reference to the wiring and plumbing, the word “special” be removed from the ordinance. Mrs. Bittner asked Craig Peterson, director of development services, if he saw enforcement problems with the proposed ordinance, and Mr. Peterson said not any more than they already had.
(O 87-23)
Industrial Development Revenue Bond, Huish Chemical.
RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain public comment about the proposed increase from $2 million to $3.5 million of the authorized maximum size of the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Huish Chemical Company.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 114 of 1987 authorizing and inducing the execution of an amended and restated Memorandum of Agreement with Huish Chemical Company regarding the issuance of an additional $1,500,000 of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds resulting in a total authorization of not to exceed $3,500,000 for a commercial project, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Stoler mentioned that increasing the size of this project would result in additional employees and he asked if there was a mechanism in place to check on projects like this to see if in reality they actually produced the number of jobs promised. Craig Peterson, director of development services, said he would discuss this with Rosemary Davis in capital planning and programming so this type of information could be included in reports. No one from the audience spoke about this issue.
(Q 87-8)
COMMENTS
#1. Bernice Cook complained because the annual garbage collection had been poor this year. She said many people were angry because trash had been put out and not collected and had killed their lawn. She said people were also complaining about the trash being out on the street. She suggested that the trash pickup schedule not be published so far in advance. Mayor DePaulis said they had been behind schedule but thought they were back on schedule.
Councilmember Mabey suggested that the schedule be published differently and he indicated that part of the problem was county residents putting their trash in areas for city collection. Mayor DePaulis said they got behind because they were implementing the mechanized weekly collection at the same time. Mrs. Cook also complimented the Mayor on the way he handled a problem with the Housing Authority and asked that when the people involved submitted their resignations the Council and Mayor accept them.
#2. Hermoine Jex, 272 Wall Street, said the Association of Community Councils was affected by Planning Commission decisions and she asked if the city was going to revise their policy about the term of office and representation on the Commission so the process would be improved. She mentioned that some members had been on the Commission for about 22 years and she thought there was a policy about the length of terms on the Planning Commission. Mayor DePaulis said he had to talk to the long-time members and also said he tried to make appointments to represent a mix of interests. He said the policy decision needed to be reviewed.
#3. Morris Told, 1665 East Laird Avenue, asked if he could have input on choosing members for the Board of Adjustment. He asked how difficult it would be for members of the community to recommend or nominate people through the community councils. Councilmember Mabey said the Council asked the various neighborhood councils and Councilmember Kirk said he could give her recommendations since he was in her district.
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.