PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1982, 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 Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Report of the Executive Director: Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items listed on the agenda for the Council meeting. Albert Haines introduced members of his staff to brief the Council on policies, priorities, etc., of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services. Lance Bateman discussed items relating to Finance, John Wheat discussed items relating to Licensing, and Phil Erickson discussed items relating to Administrative Services.
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to begin the Council meeting in room 301.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1982, 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 L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Royal Ewing.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, April 6, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
435 of 1981 submitted by Jerald V. Sarafolean.
RE: An appeal by Jerald Sarafolean of the decision of the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission to refuse to extend the City’s District “A” liquor area one block west from 300 West to 400 West. Mr. Sarafolean is requesting the issuance of a class “C” beer license at 348 West 500 South, Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for May 11, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the Planning Commission’s decision not to extend District “A” liquor area one block west from 300 West to 400 West, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-48
537 of 1981 submitted by David Bywater, et al.
RE: Requesting that an east/west alley running between 1000 West and Post Street at approximately 675 South Street be vacated. Mr. Bywater has further requested that the ordinance take effect immediately instead of the usual 30 days after publication.
DISCUSSION: The petitioner has obtained the necessary consent of 100% of the abutting property owners and therefore, a public hearing is not required. This petition has been reviewed by Fixed Assets, Engineering, Transportation, Fire, Public Utilities, Planning Commission and the Law Department. They have recommended that the alley be vacated subject to retaining any and all existing rights of way or easements. The City Attorney’s Office has prepared the necessary ordinance.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 26 of 1982, regarding the vacation of a l0-foot alley running east/west between 1000 West and Post Street at approximately 675 South in Salt Lake City, Utah, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-62
8 of 1982 submitted by Upland Industries Corporation.
RE: The annexation of Centennial Park #4.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution accepting Petition No. 8 submitted by Upland Industries for the purpose of reviewing their request that 650 acres located approximately between 1300 - 2100 South and 4800 West and 5600 West be annexed to Salt Lake City. It is further recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for May 11, 1982 to consider said annexation.
DISCUSSION: This petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Airport Authority, Fire Department, Water Department, Transportation, the City Engineer and the Law Department. All Departments have recommended that the petition be granted subject to a number of conditions (these responses are attached to the petition). These conditions generally relate to development constraints and commitments that can be handled in an annexation agreement, aviation agreement and avigation easement or by dedication of the plat if the annexation is granted. The notice of the hearing should be published in the newspaper and notices mailed to the petitioner and affected entities as least 20 days before the hearing.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 37 of 1982, accepting Petition No. 8 for the purpose of reviewing the request to annex 650 acres located approximately between 1300 2100 South and 4800 West and 5600 West, and schedule a public hearing for May 11, 1982 at 6:15 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-171
56 of 1982 submitted by Spence Clark.
RE: Requesting that property located at 2025 South 1200 East be rezoned from its present “R-6” classification to a Commercial “C-3” classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on May 11, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this request.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $50 advertising fee to the City Recorder.
DISCUSSION: The petitioner has requested the rezoning to allow for the relocation of a doctors’ clinic presently located on Wilmington Avenue to the new location. The clinic is being acquired by Tai Biesinger to make way for an office building which is part of his Sugarhouse development program.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for May 11, 1982 at 6:45 p.m. to consider Petition 56 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-68
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
RE: Memorandum of understanding and an agreement providing for mutual exchange of fire protection and rescue services between Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve this agreement so that the two cities will be able to mutually help each other in case of emergency.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department and the City of South Salt Lake have worked out a mutually agreeable contract and it has been signed by the Mayor of South Salt Lake. It has been approved by the city legal department.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 38 of 1982 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and South Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
C 82-172
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Award of bid on the sale of $17,000,000 of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds.
RECOMMENDATION: That Salt Lake City award the bid for the purchase of $17,000,000 of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds to Salomon Brothers Inc., Bear, Stearns and Co.., Lazard Freres and Co., at an interest rate of 11.6836%. This interest is determined to be the best available presented to the Council on the 13th day of April 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Provided for out of Water and Sewer revenues.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has offered for sale $17,000,000 of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. It is recommended that Salomon Brothers be awarded the bid. Albert Haines addressed the Council and reiterated his cover letter indicating that the bid should be awarded to Salomon Brothers Inc., Bear, Stearns and Co., Lazard Freres and Co.; Mr. Haines also referred the Council’s attention to the tally sheet indicating the results of the sale. Mr. Haines outlined a letter submitted by Richard Christensen, Executive Vice President of Burrows, Smith and Company, wherein Mr. Christensen reviewed the results of the bidding.
The difference between the low bid and the next low bid amounted to an actual interest rate of 49/l00ths of one percent; the amount of interest cost between the bids was $246,000. The difference between the low bid and the high bid was nearly $1.2 million dollars in interest cost. Mr. Haines stated that this bid was competitive and referred the Council1s attention to a list of comparative bond issues with Salt Lake City and five general obligation bond issues, which generally generate a more favorable rate of interest. Mr. Haines stated that Salt Lake City’s revenue bonds were at least as competitive as AAA bond ratings out of New Jersey, and AA out of Tennessee, Illinois, and Oregon. Mr. Christensen explained that this list was a representative re-offering yield on those bonds; a representative sample of the yield on the City’s bonds as compared with the yield on the other issues.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to award the bid for the purchase of $17,000,000 of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds to Salomon Brothers Inc., Bear, Stearns and Co., Lazard Freres and Co., at an interest rate of 11.6836%; adopt Resolution 39 of 1982 supplemental and amendatory resolution and Resolution 40 of 1982 authorizing the publication of the notice of bonds and providing for the running of a contest period), which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Q 82-16
PUBLIC HEARINGS
State Retail Liquor Stores
RE: A proposed ordinance allowing State Retail Liquor stores in any business or commercial districts as a conditional use.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this proposed ordinance. Vernon Jorgensen addressed the Council. He stated that a few years ago, in an effort to control the location of adult bookstores, the city amended the zoning ordinances of Salt Lake City prohibiting any business in a “B-3” or a “C-l” District if any portion of the business catered exclusively to adult persons and excluded persons under the age of 18.
Similar restrictions were placed upon the location of any premises that catered to adults only in the other commercial and industrial districts of Salt Lake City if they were located within a three-block radius of any school, church, or park. Provisions were made excluding theaters (so they could show “R” movies), licensed restaurants and premises licensed to sell beer; however, no provision was made for liquor stores. This action has made it impossible to locate any state owned or operated liquor store in any of the city’s business, commercial or industrial districts, except for a very few isolated locations.
Mr. Jorgensen further stated that in an effort to correct this, an ordinance has been prepared by the Law Department and has been presented to and approved by the planning Commission which will allow the state’s retail liquor stores in any business or commercial district as a conditional use. By adopting this ordinance, it will be necessary to review all proposed stores and their individual locations. In this respect there will be more control over location than there was prior to the present ordinance, but the proposed ordinance will not have the effect of nearly prohibiting them completely which is the present case.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that the stores would have to be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, not bring undue traffic into or through an area, and not interfere with the use of adjoining properties; design requirements could also be imposed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that this proposed ordinance would not change the zoning, but it would establish a conditional use for the liquor stores. Mr. Jorgensen stated that prior to the ordinance controlling adult book stores, the stores could locate in any business area as long as they met the provisions of that zone. Mr. Jorgensen stated that in the proposed ordinance a store would have to be 600 feet from a school, church, or park instead of three blocks (2000 feet). The Council was concerned that liquor stores could locate in B-3 districts; Mr. Jorgensen said that they would have to go through the conditional use route which would require two hearings (recommendation of the Planning Commission and a public hearing with the Board of Adjustment), and also meet basic broad criteria as outlined in the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Shearer stated that this was a sensitive issue and with this proposed ordinance the location of future stores would not come before the Council for review. Councilmember Fonnesheck stated that the Council’s concern was that B-3 districts are scattered throughout several neighborhoods where land is standing vacant waiting for development; she felt that the Council did not want these areas used as liquor stores. Mr. Jorgensen stated that if the Council wanted to exclude liquor stores completely from any B-3 or C-1 zone then they could adopt the latter provision of the proposed ordinance instead of adopting the whole ordinance; the latter part of the ordinance allows stores as conditional use in commercial and industrial zones.
Kenneth Wynn, Director of the Utah Liquor Control Commission, addressed the Council. He stated that the Commission owns property on 9th West and 17th South where the liquor warehouse is located (approximately 9 acres). Long range plans for the property include establishing a retail outlet in that area. A zoning change was submitted to Planning and Zoning requesting that the zoning be changed from residential to commercial; however, the existing three-block stipulation would prohibit a liquor store from being built in the area so the request was withdrawn pending this amendment. The present state statutes require the Commission to meet with local officials and locate liquor stores only in those areas that conform with local zoning ordinances; it has been a practice to contact local officials to receive input on locations of liquor stores.
There was general discussion about why there were complaints against some of the stores and not others; the problem with the 4th South 200 West store was mentioned. Mr. Wynn felt part of the problem was with the clientele that frequents the locations. He also stated that when the 4th South store was built the Commission did not know there would be so many problems and the passage of this ordinance would allow this problem to be solved. Councilmember Davis stated that she thought parking was a real problem for the 4th South store and something needed to be done about it.
Councilmember Mabey stated that many businesses want to move away from the area and he felt that the same thing would happen if a liquor store was located in the 9th West area. Mr. Wynn stated that a store in the 9th West location would have plenty of parking and would be adequately policed, so there would not be the same problem as there is with 4th South. Councilmember Fonnesheck asked Mr. Wynn who was asking for additional liquor stores. Mr. Wynn replied that the Liquor Commission is looking at a volume problem; they are trying to distribute the sales volume to better serve the public. Councilmember Whitehead stated that part of the problem is the trash that accumulates. He stated that in the 9th West location there are boxes along the fence and broken bottles. Mr. Whitehead posed the question of having more stores and creating more of the same problems. Mr. Wynn stated that he was aware of the trash problem but he thought it had been solved in the 9th West location.
Councilmember Mabey stated that some of the people who buy liquor go one or two blocks from the store to drink and then leave their trash. Mr. Wynn stated again that he realizes there is a trash problem, especially on 4th South, but about 80% of the trash is beer bottles which is merchandise not handled by the liquor store. Kent Thomas addressed the Council and asked if the change is made allowing conditional use and reducing the restriction from three blocks to 600 feet, how many additional locations in the city would be allowed for liquor stores that currently are not allowed.
Mr. Wynn stated that it is not the Commission’s desire to locate a liquor store in every block of the city. The 600-foot limitation is imposed by state law and it is felt that the same should be sufficient for the city. Mr. Wynn stated that a survey is going to be conducted on liquor store locations. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the intent behind this ordinance change was to permit the stores in various areas but try to upgrade them and control the location.
Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway, addressed the Council in objection to this proposed ordinance. She stated that the store in the 9th West location would be within one and one half blocks of her area and people would have to go through that area to get to the store. She also said that there are two sets of railroad tracks in the area and there would be a greater risk of accidents because of the drunks that would be in the area. Ms. Cook stated that she felt there were enough liquor stores.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing and refer this proposed ordinance to the Land Use Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-12
Petition 6 of 1982 submitted by Jeff McComas, BMS Realty, Inc.
RE: Requesting an “M-1A” classification on the property pending annexation under Petition No. 25 of 1980 known as the Meikle/Gubler Annexation located at approximately 3rd South to South Temple at about 50th West (about 75 acres of property). A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this request. Vernon Jorgensen addressed the City Council. He indicated on a map the property location. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the annexation of the area was approved subject to the petitioner meeting all provisions of the city and that the zoning be “C-3A”. All conditions for annexation have been met but an “M-lA” zoning is requested instead of “C-3A”; the surrounding area is zoned “M-lA”. Mr. Jorgensen stated that both zones require a 15-foot landscape setback, neither area permits junk yards or auto wrecking, the “M-lA” zone permits open storage which the “C-3A” does not. A portion of the property is underneath the major power lines of Utah Power & Light Company and construction of major permanent buildings is prevented so it would be desirable to utilize this area for some type of open storage.
This area will have to be fenced and construction equipment will probably be stored in the area. This request is not a change in zoning but a request to have an “M-lA” classification in the ordinance of annexation. Councilmember Mabey was concerned about bricks and similar construction debris being dumped in the area. Mr. Jorgensen stated that construction debris would be classified as junk material and such material is prohibited. The major concern of the petitioner was that their property be zoned the same as the surrounding area.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve Petition 6 of 1982 requesting “M-lA” classification on property pending annexation under the Meikie/Gubler Annexation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-49
Petition 626 of 1982 submitted by Emanuel Floor, Salt Lake International Center.
RE: Requesting the closure of Deseret and Learned Avenues. A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this request. Vernon Jorgensen addressed the City Council. On a map, he indicated the location of the two avenues. These two blocks in addition to the block east have been acquired by the Triad company which is preparing a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the area. This also involves the UDAG program around the Devereaux House. This matter has been recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the developer paying for the property and they also must maintain or change any utilities that may be in the area.
There had also been discussion about maintaining some view and pedestrian accesses to the east. The ordinance which has been prepared establishes the procedure with the safe guards of acquisition of the property, maintaining or changing utilities, and also maintaining some of the view and pedestrian way. Mr. Jorgensen stated that there is some objection by the petitioner about keeping the view of Learned Avenue; however, they have a proposal for a pedestrian way through the Triad development instead. In the present plans, the north/south vehicular access is included in the block to the south. These avenues do not serve any special purpose and they make the development around the Devereaux House impossible. Peter Grundfossen addressed the Council and stated that he is an Attorney under contract with the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development in order to negotiate the state’s position relative to the Devereaux property. The appropriate state officials signed a consent to closure of Learned Avenue with the understanding that there would be a pedestrian access and clear view through the Learned Avenue way. Subsequent to the signing of the closure it was learned that Triad intended to put a building directly across Learned Avenue on the east side of the block.
The state does not object to the building but they are concerned about the adequate service and fire access to the Devereaux House from the rear of the house; if a building is constructed then there needs to be access from another direction. In the future, receptions will be catered at the Devereaux House and this will require catering vehicles; these vehicles will need to use the rear of the building. Mr. Grundfossen stated that if the east access is closed, the south access will not be considered as an option.
Councilmember Mabey asked why two fire hydrants could not be considered, one on the northeast corner and one on the southwest corner. Mr. Grundfossen stated that the location of the hydrants did not matter but the access by service and safety vehicles. Richard Nordland, Triad Utah, addressed the Council and stated that they have talked with the Fire Department and the Fire Department indicated that fire fighting could occur in the middle of the block or on the perimeter. Service locations into the Devereaux House will be placed either underground or from the west end.
Mr. Grundfossen stated that the front entrance to the mansion will have a stately appearance and it will detract from the appearance if the south end becomes a regularly used service road. Original access of regular tradesmen was from the rear of the house. Howard Marsh, Attorney representing Triad Utah, addressed the Council. He stated that the petition had two parts; the first part was the closure of Deseret and Learned Avenues and the second part was the transfer of the underlying property to the developers for a fair consideration. Mr. Marsh stated that the implementation of the first phase is before the Council, that is the closure of Deseret and Learned Avenues.
Mr. Marsh proposed that the Council conceptually approve the passage of an ordinance that would authorize the closure of Deseret and Learned Avenues and the subsequent transfer to the developer for a consideration that is agreed upon between the city and the developer; and that it be a condition that in this transfer document there be attached a schematic or preliminary plan of the total project with the condition that any building permits that are requested would then be reviewed in light of the preliminary plan submitted.
Mr. Marsh indicated that a formal ordinance would then be drafted. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she was concerned that the design criteria intended for the area is not yet in place and the Council wanted to see more detail in their plan. Mr. Marsh stated that the company is facing some strict time problems; the conditions of the UDAG must be met by May 1, which means the land transfer will have to be accomplished - title has to be vested in the developer by May 1 - and the company is not sure that they could have all the design criteria before the Council within that timeframe. Councilmember Fonnesheck stated that the Council did not want to hold up transfer of the ownership; the Council wants a commitment that prior to the time that the actual permits are issued the Council has an opportunity to review the plans.
Councilmember Shearer stated that the review of the plans could be a function of the Redevelopment Agency. Judy Lever addressed the Council and stated that when the ordinance was submitted, three areas were dealt with, 1) utility relocation process, 2) traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians, 3) the design and overall site layout; Ms. Lever stated that she understood that the Council had seen these plans on a conceptual basis. The developer has agreed to reproduce the exhibits which the Council has seen and this will be a conceptual master plan to which the building permit applications will be reviewed; this conceptual master plan will be attached to the agreement.
The Planning Department feels that changing the emphasis for control from the transfer stage to the building-permit stage will still accomplish their purpose but will also allow the developer to meet their time frames. Mr. Marsh indicated that there is a strip of land which is 1-foot wide by 165 feet (which is vested in Salt Lake City) and the petitioner is requesting that this land also be conveyed to the developer.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that his company has done some business dealings with Triad but he will vote on this issue because there is not a conflict of interest. Councilmember Shearer asked what the process would be once this issue was approved conceptually. Ms. Lever stated that she will prepare a final ordinance which will basically do two things, 1) approve the closure, retaining the city’s interest, authorizing transfer of the property for appropriate value, 2) there will be conditions that any transfer agreement will make the developer responsible for utility relocation, a master plan will be attached to the agreement and the applications for building permits will be required to be reviewed against the master plan by the city and if they are not in keeping with that agreement then the city can request modifications. Ms. Lever stated that by voting in favor of this closure the Council would be saying that they are accepting the schematic drawings of the plans, in terms of the overall project design, which they have seen.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded conceptual closure of Deseret and Learned Avenues conditioned on a final draft of the ordinance being brought back before the Council which incorporates the conditions of the agreement dealing with utility relocation, and includes a master plan against which plans will be evaluated for a building permit; also included in the property transfer is the 1-foot by 165-foot strip of land, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-28
Compatibility Review Overlay Ordinance.
RE: The proposed compatibility review overlay ordinance and the establishment of the first compatibility review district in the West Downtown Gateway Area. A continued public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:00 p.m. No one from the audience addressed this issue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the ordinance was not quite ready and a meeting has been scheduled with the Land Use Committee to discuss this matter further; she stated that the public hearing should be continued.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to continue the public hearing to May 11, 1982, 7:30 p.m. or soon thereafter, and refer this ordinance back to the Land Use Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
O 82-6
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ferrin Saeger addressed the Council about Petition 598 of 1981 submitted by Robert Trujillo wherein Mr. Trujillo requested that a portion of Ashton Avenue adjoining his property be vacated. In a previous meeting, the Council consented to allow Mr. Trujillo to construct a fence which would reduce the width of the alley from 10 feet to 7 feet. Mr. Saeger stated that Mr. Trujillo had constructed a fence but it was improperly installed.
Councilmember Mabey stated that he had mentioned to Mr. Trujillo that he needed to wait until he received the proper document before he constructed the fence. Mr. Trujillo received a letter from the city and he contacted the Building and Housing Department and was told about the type of fence that he needed to install; apparently Mr. Trujillo had the fence installed. However, he has since received the proper document and will meet with Judy Lever so she can tell him what needs to be done; Mr. Trujillo is willing to move the fence.
COMMENTS TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, addressed the Council to apprise them of the change in the county voting districts which affects the present Council district boundaries as they relate to Resolution 48 of 1981.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.