PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1983, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items on the agenda. Andrew Rabeneck, Gary Knobloch, and Dean L. Gustavson presented the process and timetable they will use in developing a plan for the restoration of the City and County Building.
The policy session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1983, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted Wilson, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at this meeting. Councilmember Ione Davis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Geoffrey Garlick.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, April 5, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 83-1)
Resolution of Appreciation: Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to give a plaque in honor and appreciation of service to the City to Estella E3lewett. Mrs. Blewett was not present for the award.
(G 83-14)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: Issuance by Salt Lake City of its hospital revenue refunding bonds, series 1983 (I.H.C. Hospitals, Inc.).
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to set a date for a special City Council meeting on Thursday, April 14, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. in room 211 City and County Building, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-20)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: Proposal for amending the solicitation, peddling, transient merchant ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 17 of Title 20 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by amending Section 20-17-33, 20-17-34, 20-17-35, 20-17-36, 20-17-37, 20-17-38, and 20-17-39 and by adding thereto new Sections 20-17-40, 20-17-41 and 20-17-42, relating to solicitations, peddling and transient merchants, etc.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to refer this item to the consent agenda for April 19, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-9)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Community Development (CDBG) construction financing for the Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) owner-built housing project.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve CDBG construction financing of up to $700,000 for the NHS owner-built housing project contingent on the development of a mechanism that guarantees repayment of the CDBG loan.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: All 8th year CDBG funds are currently budgeted for ongoing projects (except for contingency balances). However, a CDBG loan is possible from unexpended funds the City does not anticipate drawing down from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the term of the proposed loan. All funds loaned to NHS must be returned to the City with interest before the existing 8th year projects require HUD draw-downs.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake NHS is in the midst of planning an innovative owner-built housing project. Based on a successful model in Oakland, California, the project will provide an opportunity for 18 families to work cooperatively on the construction of their own homes. Selected owner-builders must commit a substantial number of hours of labor per family per week and be able to qualify for a $35,000 (approximately) mortgage loan. NHS is in the process of designing the single family dwellings which are to be constructed on property purchased at 1000 Navajo street by the redevelopment agency with 7th year CDBG land write-down funds. NHS will serve as the sponsor and developer of the project, and will act on behalf of the owner-builders in buying materials, obtaining building permits and hiring necessary sub-contractors.
A construction loan interest rate of 7 percent was used in calculating total costs; however, the Council may adjust the loan rate at their discretion. The construction cost figures are estimates, so the liberal loan figure of $700,000 will likely be adjusted when cost estimates are refined. Conventional lenders have informed NHS that construction funds can be borrowed at the current prime rate (11 1/2 percent) plus 2 percent, plus a 2 percent loan origination fee. These costs, of course are passed on to the buyer. NHS’s basis for requesting CDBG construction financing is that the loan savings of approximately 7 1/2 percent will be passed on to the buyer, making it easier for moderate income families to qualify for a mortgage loan.
The development services department strongly recommends that the Council only approve this request conditional upon the development of a mechanism that guarantees the loan or removes all risk from the City. As mentioned above all CDBG funds are currently budgeted for ongoing projects, if NHS failed to repay the loan, existing CDBG projects would have to be terminated. Construction loan interest earned by the City must be considered CDBG program income and can be appropriated by the Council for eligible CDBG projects or activities.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve Resolution 25 of 1983, authorizing CDBG construction financing for Neighborhood Housing Services owner-built housing project, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 83-6)
#2. RE: Interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for jointly funded CDBG projects.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for jointly funded CDBG projects.
DISCUSSION: The agreement is necessary for Salt Lake County to reimburse the City for its share of agreed upon expenses relating to five CDBG projects. 1. Northwest Multi-Purpose Center Expansion (4th Year CDBG) 2. Hansen Planetarium Elevator (5th year CDBG) 3. Central City Community Center Expansion (5th year CDBG) 4. Northwest Multi-Purpose Center Expansion (6th year CDBG) 5. Tenth East Senior Citizens Center (7th year CDBG) The projects mentioned above have been administered by the City and are now complete. Upon passage of the proposed resolution and execution of the interlocal cooperation agreement by the Mayor, a billing will be submitted to the Salt Lake County Community Development Division for reimbursement.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 26 of 1983 authorizing the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for jointly funded CDBG projects, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 83-103)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Amendment to Salt Lake City Council District Map No. 24871.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the proposed resolution authorizing a correction of the Salt Lake City Council District boundaries.
DISCUSSION: The City Recorder has found a discrepancy on Salt Lake City Council District Map No. 24871, adopted by Council action on May 11, 1982. Two changes are proposed. The first change is in an area between 16th and 17th South on Roosevelt Avenue. The second change is on Military Drive. Both of these changes are required in order to provide clarity in defining voting districts and, therefore, accurately describe Council districts. The City Attorney has reviewed these proposed changes and has prepared the proposed resolution.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 27 of 1983 authorizing a correction of the Salt Lake City Council District boundaries, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 82-12)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Art Design Board.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and approve the appointment of Kazuo Matsubayashi to the Art Design Board.
DISCUSSION: There is presently a vacancy on the Art Design Board caused by the resignation of Ronald Clayton. It is the Mayor’s recommendation that Kazuo Matsubayashi be appointed to fill this vacancy. Mr. Matsubayashi’s resume and financial disclosure statement have been presented to the Council for consideration.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the appointment of Kazuo Matsubayashi to the Art Design Board, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 83-9)
#2. RE: Board of Adjustment.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and approve the reappointment of Robert Lewis to the Board of Adjustment.
DISCUSSION: The term of Robert Lewis has expired on the Board of Adjustment. He was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Herman Hogensen. It is the Mayor’s recommendation that Mr. Lewis be reappointed for another five-year term. Mr. Lewis’ financial disclosure statement is on file in the recorder’s office.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the reappointment of Robert Lewis to the Board of Adjustment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 83-10)
#3. RE: Metropolitan Water District.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council reappoint Charles W. Wilson as Director of the Board of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Wilson was appointed in July of 1980 to fill the unexpired term of Walker Kennedy. That term now terminates on May 15, 1983. The statute provides that he shall continue as a director until reappointed or replaced. During Mr. Wilson’s three years on the Water District Board he has made an outstanding unselfish contribution to this District’s excellent operation. The new term of office should be for a six year period or until May 15, 1989.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the reappointment of Charles W. Wilson as Director of the Board of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(I 83-11)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Amendment to parking ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve the proposed ordinance amending Article 8, Section 130(1)(r) of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: The recommendation represents a clarification of the parking ordinance pertaining to traffic medians. This will allow the City to improve enforcement of streets where wide traffic medians are used for parking vehicles, such as 600 East Street.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 18 of 1983 amending Article 8 of the Traffic Code, by adding a new section 130(1)(r) relating to prohibition of parking on median, island or dividing sections, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(0 83-14)
#2. RE: Special Improvement District No. 40-R-5.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and approve a resolution creating SID 40-R-5 and authorizing the City to proceed with advertising of the construction bids.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 28 of 1983, creating concrete replacement Special Improvement District No. 40-R-5 and authorizing the City to proceed with advertising of the construction bids, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-4)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Industrial Revenue Bond Select Telephone Technologies.
RE: Proposed Industrial Revenue Bonds for Select Telephone Technologies in the amount of $10 million for acquisition of the existing GTE building in Centennial Industrial Park and establishment of that facility as a plant for manufacturing a new line of mobile radio equipment and for refurbishing telephones. Also adoption of an inducement resolution relating thereto and discussion of the Urban Development Action Grant application for Select Telephone Technologies in the amount of $4.5 million.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this issue. Don Allen, bond council for proposed IRB, said that the project involves acquisition by Select Telephone Technologies of an existing facility currently owned and operated by GTE in the Centennial Industrial Park. The property is currently under option agreement which would be exercised upon approval of the bonds and after approval of a proposed UDAG grant. The total cost of the project is approximately $16 million, which involves $10 million in IRB, $4.2 million in a UDAG which is being sought from HUD.
A further hearing relative to the UDAG application will be held on April 19, 1983 in the City Council Chambers. In addition to the Bonds and UDAG money the company will have $5 million of equity capital, of which $2.5 million is working capital and $2.5 million will be acquisition cost. The facility will be partly used for telephone refurbishing and also the manufacturing of cellular mobile radio equipment which is a new technology in the mobile radio world. Acquisition of property will be complete by September of 1983, hiring will begin in the fall of 1983 with an expected initial hiring of 700 employees by March of 1984. The number of employees would gradually increase so that by the end of 1986 approximately 2500 people would be employed. The number of employee positions available is one reason the company feels very favorable about obtaining the UDAG grant. By the end of 1986 there will be a large number of skilled and semi-skilled personnel filling these positions who are currently out of work.
Mr. Allen said the UDAG grant would be repaid to the City with interest from the company to which it is lent. Therefore the City would benefit not only from the project itself but from the employment and the taxes relevant to that. City would benefit from additional funding thru repayment of the grant to the City which would be over a period of ten years. Mr. Allen urged the Council to adopt the inducement resolution connected with the proposed Industrial Revenue Bonding, the issuance of which would be conditional upon the ultimate receipt of the grant. Councilmember Davis called for questions or comments from the public, no one came forward to speak.
Councilmember DePaulis asked Roger Cutler, city attorney, if the combination of the UDAG makes this resolution a contingency; if the UDAG does not go thru is the project cancelled. Mr. Cutler said that the “whereas” clause is contingent upon approval of the UDAG. Councilmember Davis asked Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, if this public hearing on Select Telephone was published in the newspaper. Ms. Davis said she knew the one on April 19, 1983 had been published but had not seen a notice on the April 12, 1983 hearing. Kathryn Marshall stated that the April 12, 1983 hearing was published 14 days prior. Roger Cutler said that he had reviewed the proposal but Lance Bateman, city controller, was concerned about whether there was any venture capital being put in by the developer.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded that the public hearing be closed, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded that this issue be placed on the agenda for April 19, 1983 in conjunction with the UDAG hearing for final action, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-8) & (T 83-7)
Petition 400-14 of 1982 submitted by Richard and Margarett Carlson.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that property located at 243 Glendale Street be rezoned from a Residential “R-6” to a Commercial “C-1” classification.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this issue. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning department, presented the proposal to the Council and outlined the property in question on a map. Mr. Hafey stated that the property is 45.83 feet wide, and that the area is presently zoned “C-1” on the west side of Glendale street, which is in the area of the old bottling plant. Also the south part of the east side of Glendale street is also zoned “C-1”. The request was considered by the planning committee, which held an informal public with the neighborhood. After the hearing they recommended that the area not be rezoned and the petition be denied because it would be spot zoning, and would not be in keeping with the master plan. The remaining area of the two blocks is zoned residential.
Councilmember Davis asked what the petitioners wanted to use the property for. Mark Hafey stated he was not sure but the “C-1” zoning would allow retail, warehousing, wholesaling, etc., and would require extensive improvements such as landscaping and parking areas. Councilmember Mabey said they wanted to sell diamonds. Bill Evans, resident of the area, said he does not know anything about the petitioners or the business they propose to run and is against the petition as the property is small, and it would be spot zoning. Councilmember Shearer asked what was currently on the old bottling company property. Mr. Evans said that an air conditioning and heating firm was located there.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the petitioners had been notified of the public hearing and why they were not at the hearing. Lynda Domino, deputy recorder, presented the Council a copy of the letter notifying the petitioners of the hearing. The letter was mailed to them on March 8, 1983 and no indication has been received that the letter was not delivered. Councilmember Davis directed the attention to Mr. Carlson’s Letter, dated December 15, 1982, which states that there are lots zoned “C-1” on the block and the other owners have not objection as far as she knows. Councilmember Whitehead said that this was still spot zoning and if the petitioner wanted to request rezoning of the whole block they could come back with another request, but at this point the Council was discussing only one piece of property.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to uphold the planning and zoning committee recommendation to deny the petition and rezoning, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-168)
Petition 331 of 1982 Submitted by Richard D. Young.
RE: Vacation of an alley running between Herbert Avenue and Michigan Avenue parallel to 1100 East Street.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this issue. Mark Hafey indicated the property on a map and said that the reason for the hearing was because one of the property owners abutting the alley did not sign the petition to vacate the alley, all the other owners did sign. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Hafey if there were any utility easements since the proposed ordinance stated “subject to maintaining utilities.” Mr. Hafey said he did not know, but that could be added to the ordinance or a survey of the area made. Richard D. Young and Shelly Osterloh Young, petitioners, said they had requested closure of the alley due to poor upkeep, criminal problems, and the safety problems involved. The alley has not been paved for many years, it is a narrow alley due to hedges growing over the fences because of surrounding property owners have not maintained the hedges. There has been quite a bit of vandalism and theft.
Ms. Young said that they have had a car stereo and a bicycle taken, and gasoline siphoned three times. Also in January of this year there was a hostage incident in the area and the police searched the alley extensively as they thought it was a major area for the suspect to hide in. The safety aspect is of large concern as the children who play there are in danger of the vehicles which drive the alley at excessive speeds. Ms. Young said that she could see no reason to keep the alley open. A few people do use it to walk to church, but by using the streets it is only a few steps farther.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if any of the property owners were using the alley as an entrance to their property. Ms. Young said that they are the only ones who use it as an entrance. They wanted to have the alley paved and used as a driveway. Geraldine Wood, 1009 South 1100 East, said they have lived in the area for 25 years and have used the alley continuously. They have made plans to build a new double garage and use the alley as an entrance to it as the Youngs do. Ms. Wood said there were never any problems with the alley until the Youngs moved in. The Youngs have parked their cars in the alley and people have had to ask them to move them so other cars could pass.
The Woods said the Youngs have left trash in the alley and generally have disrupted the traffic flow in the alley. If the alley is closed, five feet of pavement would go to the property owners, and she does not want pavement in her back yard. Councilmember Shearer asked Ms. Wood if they have a driveway entering their property from 1100 East. Ms. Wood said they did but it was very narrow, and if the new garage was built it would be easier to enter from the alley. David Wood, son of Geraldine Wood, said that the Youngs have a garage and a carport with a gate in the fence which they never use. If they are worried about crime they could park in their yard, lock the gate and no one could bother their vehicles.
They also have a six foot wooden fence surrounding their property which is very secure, still they park in the alley. Councilmember Whitehead asked Mr. Wood if the alley were closed at one end and left open at the other if this would cause a problem. Mr. Wood said that they would then have to back out of the alley because there is no room to turn around. Councilmember Davis said that it was the recommendation of the planning committee that if the petition was granted that the City would retain the easement rights for any utility lines in the area. Sandra Price, 1025 South 1100 East, said that originally the alley was used for garbage collection and deliveries. Since that practice has ceased the City has built up the alley four feet above the original grade, thereby making use by high profile vehicles impossible. Ms. Price said that she purposely lets her rose bushes grow over the fence into the alley to help discourage use of the alley. They have had numerous cases of people breaking glass in the garage and starting fires in the alley.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Ms. Price if the alley were closed if she would be willing to maintain the land that it would add to her yard. Ms. Price said that she had maintained it in the past and would be willing to in the future. Councilmember DePaulis asked Roger Cutler if the alley is vacated then the general public could not use it. Mr. Cutler said that was correct, and that the problem did not like closing the alley but in the fact that closing it may cause or create neighborhood conflict. Shelley Young said that the public’s use of the alley was generally for a few hours on Sunday for residents to walk to church. There are property owners whose property abuts the alley, all of those people want it closed except one owner.
Fred Price, a resident in the area, said that they have had many problems with prowlers at night and people speeding through it during the day causing a safety hazard to the children who play in or next to the alley. He wants to see it closed so that people could not get in. He said neighbors had previously tried to get the alley closed. Gregg Smith, 1015 South 1100 East, spoke for closing the alley using the same concerns as other residents. Mr. Smith said that he has had his back window shot out of his house from the alley.
Councilmember Parker asked Mark Hafey if any neighborhood meetings had taken place to discuss the problems raised, because similar problems have existed in other alley closures and the owners have negotiated and worked out the problems. Mr. Hafey said that to his knowledge no such meetings had taken place. Councilmember DePaulis said that the issue is whether the public is causing a problem by using the alley. He said it seems that the Council should address this specific issue and not how the neighbors will deal with the situation of vacating the City and the general public’s right to use the alley.
Councilmember Parker asked Larry Livingston about the possibility of setting up a study group to look at the situation. Mr. Livingston said he agreed with Councilmember DePaulis’ comment on the issue and that it is not always the City’s responsibility to address the private owners problems. Councilmember Mabey said that at the present time there is no need for a major access to the area. If a garage was already there that access would be required, but no garage exists.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to direct the attorneys office to prepare an ordinance vacating the alley subject to maintaining any utility easements that may exist, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-169)
Petition 201 of 1982 Submitted by Joseph Cabibi, et al.
RE: Vacation of an alley running north and south between 8th West and Grant Street north of 5th North to the freeway ramp at 6th North.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this issue. Mark Hafey outlined the area on a map and explained that the situation had been brought to the attention of the planning committee when one of the property owners complained that another property owner had fenced off the alley illegally; the petition is a result of that action. Mr. Hafey said that eight of the abutting property owners had not signed the petition. Recommendation of the planning committee is to close the whole alley. Mr. Hafey outlined an alternative which would close only one end, leaving a 200 foot dead end alley which is not acceptable.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if access would be totally denied if the alley was closed. Mr. Hafey said he did not think so, possibly only one property owner would be denied access and that owner has not signed the petition. Joseph Cabibi, petitioner and owner of an apartment building in the area, said that he fenced off the alley at the request of some of his tenants who wanted to plant gardens in the alley. Mr. Cabihi said he had asked the property owners on the other side of the alley and they had no objection. Prior to fencing the alley needed to be cleaned, and four truck loads of large concrete blocks, tree trunks, rotted lumber, etc, were hauled out.
It would have been impossible to drive down the alley. Before the closing of the alley there was a lot of problems with vandalism and theft in the parking area of the apartments, with the rate being one incident every three months. Since fencing there has been one incident in the past six months. To discourage the vandalism a yard light has been installed. Elimination of the problem could be accomplished by totally closing the alley. Chuck Riley, property owner, said he was the one who complained to planning and zoning about the fence across the alley. If the alley is vacated most of the property owners or renters will probably never reset the fences back to the center of the alley due to the lack of funds, therefore not eliminating the problems of the alleys mis-use. If the fences were moved, utility companies would have easement rights and have to enter private property to reach their equipment. Property owners do not need a tax increase by the amount of land added to their property. The petitioner only had four property owners on his petition, some have changed their minds. Pictures of the alley were presented to the Council. Mr. Riley submitted a list of names not wanting vacation of the alley. (The list is on file in the office of the City Recorder.) Ms. Kenmilly, owner of two pieces of property at the north end of the alley close to the freeway, said she and her family have always kept their portion of the alley clean. She said that Mr. Riley and most of the owners keep the alley clean. Closing the alley without permission has caused frustration and contention. Ms. Kenmilly said she does not want to see the alley closed.
Ms. Kenmilly said that only the day before a Mt. Bell worker had to cross her property to get to a pole in the rear of her property because the alley was blocked off. William Skuppin, property owner on the west side of Cabibis’ property, said he had no objection to the garden in the alley because they do keep the alley clean. Mr. Skuppin suggested that the garden be moved to the street at 6th North which is State property. The alley is used to haul trash away from his yard five or six time per year and he recommended that the alley remain open. Brent Hodgson, a resident of the area, said that although the petitioner is a property owner he does not live in the area and does not have to put up with the situation.
The petitioner has done many improvements on his property but it is felt that he is not concerned with the neighborhood or the welfare of the neighborhood. It has been said that the area is high in crime which is the reason for the neighbors instituting a crime watch in the neighborhood, keeping the alley open would facilitate police patrol in the area. Mr. Hodgson recommended either closing the alley completely or keeping it completely open. Councilmember Shearer asked if vehicle traffic could get to the apartment parking lot prior to and after fencing of the alley. Mr. Hodgson said that there was considerable traffic to the parking lot prior to fencing and that now traffic was blocked.
Councilmember Depaulis asked Mr. Hodgson if the public’s use of the alley was causing a problem to him as an abutting property owner. Mr. Hodgson said that was not a problem and in fact the garbage that is being thrown in his yard comes from the alley being closed off. Keith VanSickle, area property owner, said that they eventually want to add on and put a garage in the rear of their property thereby using the alley as an entrance the front driveways are very narrow beside the houses and owners must put a detached garage in the rear. He recommended that the alley remain open.
Councilmember Parker said that generally the City Council is in favor of closing alleys but not at the expense of those who have an interest in it. Councilmember Whitehead said that he did not think the petitioner closed the alley to aggravate the neighborhood and went through a procedure to talk to the neighbors and although closing it has caused some problems this was not his intention.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilniember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Depaulis moved Councilmember Whitehead seconded that the petition be denied and the alley not be closed, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-266)
Petition 329 of 1982 Submitted by Joey Montrone, et al.
RE: Vacating of the alley running north and south between Richards Street and West Temple and starting one lot north of 2100 South running to one lot south of Hartwell Avenue.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this issue. Mark Hafey outlined the area to the Council and said that seven property owners have not signed the petition. The alley has been fenced partway in and the City received complaints about the closure. The City informed the petitioner they either had to remove the fence or formally request vacation of the alley. Planning and zoning prefers to see the entire alley vacated.
Joey Montrone, petitioner, said the alley has always been closed off by property owners and has never officially been closed by the City. He wanted to see the entire alley closed with easements at either end for entrance to property. The three lots on the north and two lots on the south have no entrance to their property from the street. Darwin Curtis, 2021 South West Temple, said he agreed with vacating the “center” part of the alley but the property owners on both ends need access to their property through the alley. The alley is the only possible entrance to their property. Mr. Curtis has signed the petition to vacate only that part of the alley described in the petition.
Kim Snyder, 1998 Richards Street, said he agreed with the petition to vacate the middle portion of the alley. Mildred Park, 1964 Richard Street, said the only problem she sees with the alley as it is, is the home at 1968 Richards Street has taken part of the alley needed for others to get into their lots. People who have the alley have maintained and taken care of it. Ms. Park feels that the alley should be vacated. Bernice Cook of the People’s Freeway, said that the center portion of the alley was illegally taken 30 years ago and is now planted with trees and should be vacated legally so the people would get their share of the property and pay the proper taxes on it. She recommended that the center portion be closed leaving both ends open as petitioned.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mark Hafey if the recommendation of leaving 100 feet on the north end and 125 feet on the south end would be sufficient for the property owners concerned. Mr. Hafey said that he did not measure the distance but his office would go to the area to verify the distance when the description was verified.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to vacate the alley with the exception of those areas on either end of the alley needed for access, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-221)
Reservation and Dedication by Sub-dividers of Land for Park and Recreation Purposes.
RE: Proposed ordinance amending subsection 10 of Section 47-3-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to reservation and dedication by subdividers of land for park and recreation purposes.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this issue. Mark Hafey said that the present ordinance allows the City to only reserve property in proposed subdivisions for two years and if the City does not purchase the land for public purposes it reverts back to the developer and he can subdivide it. As a result of feedback from the Council during annexation proposals and as a result of a Utah State Supreme Court case called the “Banberry Case,” the Supreme Court ruled that cities had the right to require developers to dedicate land for parks based on a formula depending on the number of lots in a subdivision, and/or provide money to acquire park property at a future date.
The new ordinance reflects those items and provides an appeal mechanism to the planning commission if the developer does not agree with the dedication formula. The ordinance was heard by the planning commission in May of 1982 and the planning commission recommended to adopt the draft and refer it to the city attorney’s office for preparation and submission to the Council. Phil Halstrom, City housing advisory committee, said that this was an amazing piece of legislation as no one is pushing it but it keeps popping up. The housing committee has been trying to obtain a copy to no avail. The housing committee appointed an ad hoc committee to study the proposed ordinance. Mr. Moffitt was selected to be chairman of that committee and was present to explain the committee position on the proposed ordinance.
Ron Moffitt said the committee’s first question was where the ordinance came from, and after checking around no one seemed to know except the planning and zoning office. Which brought up another question of why such an ordinance was needed. A third question arose as why the housing committee did not know about the proposal until after the public hearing had been announced and why it was not presented to the housing committee for a hearing. Mr. Moffitt said that as the committee reviewed the ordinance they found that there were some impacts that affected future residential growth. The first concern in the ordinance as proposed is that there are areas of ambiguity as to what land qualifies to the mandated 5% dedicated land, i.e. if the developer owns land in the development and wants to keep it in its natural state does that qualify as whole or part of the 5% even though the ground may not be dedicated to a park but remain in its natural state. Another question was whether other amenities such as tennis courts, swimming pools would count toward the 5% park requirement.
The second concern is that most of the new housing will take place in the northwest quadrant in terms of quantity. This housing will consist primarily of first time homes or starter, low-income homes. The developer will have to donate 5% of their land or pay cash in lieu there-of, which would be passed on to the new homebuyer, thereby raising the cost of the housing. That cost along with the new hookup fee could price the home out of the market for the people who the City is trying to attract into that area.
The third concern is that many of the non-City residents use the City parks, yet the developers and ultimately the homebuyers are being asked to subsidize the land for new parks. Some alternatives that were mentioned by the committee for obtaining parks were Community Development Block Grants, City backed bonds rather than individual mortgages provided by the homeowner, matching funds or private donations.
A fourth concern was if the ordinance would lead to more small parks rather than the more needed larger regional parks which would receive more use. The housing committee recommends that the ordinance be remanded back to planning and zoning and the housing development committee will work with them to determine if such an ordinance is needed and how it would affect development’s growth. Councilmember Davis suggested that the home building committee review the concerns further. She felt with the limited resources that acquisition of land contiguous with schools was a good way to acquire the land for parks.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer this item to the land use committee for further consideration, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-13)
Uniform Construction Code.
RE: Proposed modifications to Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, which are necessary to adopt the 1982 edition of the uniform construction code.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:45 p.m. to consider this issue. Al Blair, building and housing services, presented the proposed 1982 uniform construction code to the Council. Mr. Blair said that the code has not been updated since 1976. His staff has been working on the changes for over six months, and the code does incorporate some major changes. No one from the audience spoke.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to move the item to the public improvements committee and place it on the consent agenda for April 19. 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-12)
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.