The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Regular Session on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Stuart Reid Joanne Milner Sam Souvall
Deeda Seed Tom Godfrey Bryce Jolley
Keith Christensen
Mayor Deedee Corradini; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder were present.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and Councilmember Souvall conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council meetings held April 2, 1996 and April 9, 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
CITIZEN COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL
Lillian Beck, 1061 South Concord, said there was a lot of trash in some areas which the railroad owned. She said there were yellow bags full of leaves which had been there since last fall. She said she made some phone calls to see about getting the bags picked up. She said both the Board of Health and the City told her they could not do it. She asked where she could get help. Councilmember Reid asked where the bags were located. Ms. Beck said at Emery (1100 West) and Hayes (1000 South). Mayor Corradini asked Ms. Beck to contact Marge Harvey, Community Relations Coordinator.
#3. Adopting a joint resolution with the Mayor declaring April 27, 1996 as Christmas in April Day for Salt Lake City.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Resolution 21 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Milner and Mayor Deedee Corradini presented the resolution to Jim Walton and Carlton Christensen. Mr. Walton said he was the President of Christmas in April. He introduced Board Members in attendance: Gary Bingham, Stephanie Harpst, John Godfrey, and Marilee Welsh. He said they had worked over the past two years and last year 15 homes were rehabilitated. He said this year they were trying to do 25 homes, 16 of which were located in Salt Lake City. He said Salt Lake County and West Valley City had also declared a Christmas in April Day. He said it was a unique opportunity for businesses and volunteers to come together.
(R 96-1)
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Adopting Resolution 22 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County regarding funding for an expanded animal facility.
(C 96-160)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Sydney Reed Fonnesbeck to the Board of Adjustment for a term extending through December 31, 2000.
Approving the appointment of Barbara A. Davis Hines to the Board of Adjustment for a term extending through December 31, 1996.
(I 96-9)
#3. RE: Adopting a motion approving the following decisions by the Planning Director.
a. Petition No. 400-96-13, a plat amendment to the Midland Acre Addition Plat, located at 2220 North Redwood Road. Planning Director's decision: approve.
(P 96-36)
b. Petition No. 400-96-21, a plat amendment in the St. Mary Hills Subdivision, located at 1513 East Canterbury Drive. Planning Director's decision: approve.
(P 96-37)
c. Petition No. 400-96-25, a plat amendment in the Burlington 3rd Addition Subdivision, located at 1575 West 900 South. Planning Director's decision: approve.
(P 96-38)
d. Center Street Condominium conversion, a four unit building located at 251/253 Center Street. Planning Director's decision: approve.
(P 96-39)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting motions regarding the 22nd Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) one year final action plan and budget.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to approve the 22nd year Community Development Block Grant one year final action plan and budget as recommended by the Mayor with the exception of the changes outlined in the staff report, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Resolution 23 of 1996, authorizing the Mayor to enter into the interlocal cooperation agreements necessary to implement the 22nd year Community Development Block Grant program and HOME program, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to maintain policy directives adopted during the 21st year Community Development Block Grant process, but amend one statement as follows: Due to the proposed limitations of future Community Development Block Grant funds by the federal government, it is the intent of the City Council that administrative and operational support not be increased for existing programs and not be provided to new programs absent extenuating circumstances, which motion carried, all members voted aye, except Councilmember Godfrey who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said the changes included a decrease of $30,000 from Camp Kostopulos, an increase of $22,400 for the Utah Food Bank, and an increase of $7,600 for the West Salt Lake Street Lighting.
(T 96-4)
#2. RE: Adopting an ordinance regarding the proposed Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 19 of 1996, approving the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, subject to removal of Funding Direction Statement 10.4 which discusses earmarking funds generated by transportation fees and strategies to be spent solely on transportation related improvements; and include Land Use Direction Statement 2.5 which states that Salt Lake City will explore the feasibility of establishing an intermodal transportation center. He further moved that the Council request the Administration to explore the feasibility of establishing a Citizen Transportation Advisory Board and provide a report to the Council by September 30, 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 96-7)
#3. RE: Adopting a resolution creating Salt Lake City, Utah Lighting District No. 1, as described in the Notice of Intention concerning the District; authorizing the City officials to proceed to make improvements as set forth in the Notice of Intention to create and operate the District; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to adopt Resolution 19 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 96-1)
#4. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing the City officials to proceed to operate and maintain lighting facilities as set forth in the Notice of Intention to create and operate the Salt Lake City Lighting District No. 1; authorizing execution of a contract with Utah Power and Light Company for operating, patrolling and maintaining street lighting within the District; appointing a Board of Equalization and review and setting the dates for the Board of Equalization to hear and consider objections and corrections to any proposed assessments; and authorizing the City Recorder to publish and mail a notice of meetings of the Board of Equalization and review; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt Resolution 20 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 96-1)
#5. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and State of Utah Department of Transportation for a feasibility study for the consolidation and relocation of railroads in Salt Lake City.
ACTION: Councilmember Milner moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to adopt Resolution 24 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 96-178)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting a motion amending Lot 2, Arlington Hills Plat "H" pursuant to Petition No. 400-94-9.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to refer this item to May 2, 1996 Executive Session and to the May 7, 1996 Council meeting, which motion carried, all members voted aye, except for Council Members Christensen and Reid, who voted nay.
Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to adopt the petition subject to staff's recommendations: 1) require the buildable area be moved to the east, 2) require landscaping behind Lots 1 and 2 as a buffer, and 3) limit the size of the lot to 30 acres precluding further development or division of the remaining real estate with the request or the obligation of the owner to donate the balance to the City's Open Space Trust, which motion failed, all members voted nay, except Council Members Christensen and Reid, who voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Reid said he felt nothing would change in three weeks. He said this issue had been reviewed for the past two years. He said the City was in a situation where the Brockbanks had a claim to the property. He said the City did not do what could have been done to prevent this. He said he had voted against further development along the benches. He said he wanted to maintain that policy in this case, but did not think the Council could legally, or in fairness to the process the Brockbanks and others had gone through. He said it was time to vote on the issue and was against any further delays.
Councilmember Christensen said he felt much like Councilmember Reid. He said he had reviewed the issue, read the legal opinions, and looked at both sides of the issue. He said to send this back to Executive and Regular Sessions was a duplication of time. He said he did not think the facts would change.
Councilmember Milner said there were three new members on the Council who had little time to study this complex issue. She said she had a number of questions which she needed to consult with the City's legal counsel. She said by delaying this issue to the May 7, 1996 meeting she would have time to follow up on those questions. She said the Council needed to take the time necessary to thoroughly look at the issue.
Councilmember Souvall said with all due respect, other than the petitioner's legally defensible rights, he could not find any reason to approve this zoning. He said he had three reasons not to approve it: 1) it was in opposition to the 1987 Avenues Master Plan which clearly called for that property to stay open. He said master plans were a vision for what citizens wanted their neighborhoods to look like in the future, 2) impact to the Lime Kiln site. He said the area had historic significance and needed to be protected, and 3) it was unfortunate that the site was vested, which meant the permit was taken out prior to the Foothill development changes which called for restriction of site sensitive development. He said the Administration had started a good process with the open space trust fund. He said it was currently before the citizens review and when fully developed would provide a funding source to deal with these types of issues. He said he wanted to take the time between now and May 7, 1996 to explore other options. He said the Avenues Community Council had not had a chance to review the latest proposal.
Councilmember Jolley felt the Council should take more time with the issue and involve the community in the process. He said it might be that legally the Council was bound to approve the issue but he wanted to have a representative speak with Mr. Brockbank and look at other options such as a land trade.
Councilmember Seed said as a new Councilmember she wanted to look at the issue more carefully. She said she was unprepared to make a decision at this time. She said this was the first time she had heard from community members concerning this issue and wanted to hear more of the communities concerns. She said she was disturbed by the City's willingness to erode the foothills with development. She said the issue needed to be thought about in the context of open space issues in general.
Councilmember Reid said he had not heard anyone on the Council say they were willing or open to more development on the benches. He said an issue of fairness was involved in the process. He said his entire district was downzoned so no multi-family housing could be built. He said there would still be over a dozen buildings constructed with numerous individuals and families living in those buildings because those property owners were vested before the Council passed the ordinance. He said he did not want to be misinterpreted as being one who encouraged or permitted the development of areas which had been determined previously to be kept from development and left open for view and public access. He said this had gone on over a year and a half and there had been several opportunities, in several different forums, for citizens and Council Members to make comments and ask questions. He said he wanted the Council to vote tonight to move forward and approve the motion.
Joel Paterson, Avenues Planner/Subdivisions, presented the staff report. Mr. Paterson said the petition was submitted to the City in February 1994. He said that was prior to the May 10, 1994 adoption by the City Council of a moratorium for development of the "P-1" zone. He said the project was vested under the old site development ordinance in the "P-1" zone and allowed the property to be developed with the 40% slope requirement instead of the current requirement of 30%. He said the Brockbank family developed Arlington Hill Plat "H" in the mid seventies. He said the Brockbanks deeded approximately 240 acres of the Lime Kiln gulch area to the University of Utah. He said that left the Brockbanks with approximately an eight acre parcel. He said the Brockbanks repurchased Lot 2.
Mr. Paterson said the original petition included approximately eight acres. He said the property was zoned "P-1" which required 16 acres for a single family home. He said a rezoning petition was also submitted. He said subsequent to a review by the Planning Commission, the Brockbanks purchased an additional 80 acres to the north of the eight acre parcel. He said this eliminated the need for rezoning. He said the current proposal was to develop a single lot consisting of approximately 46 acres and donating 40 acres to the City. He said this was first considered by the Planning Commission on February 17, 1994 in an issues only format.
Mr. Paterson said these petitions were given to the Planning Commission as soon as possible to obtain public input prior to final consideration. He said some changes were made to the proposal by the Brockbanks, including the addition of the 80 acres and moving the proposed buildable area to its present location. He said this went to Planning for decision on October 20, 1994. He said staff originally recommended approval of the proposal. He said staff was also working on the shoreline trail alignments along the Bonneville Bench. He said staff envisioned the trail coming along Tomahawk to Lime Kiln and then going up through Lime Kiln Canyon to provide access to the foothills. He said the Planning Division originally thought an easement which was owned by the University of Utah and crossed Lot 2, was a general easement which allowed public access to the Lime Kiln gulch area. He said with further review of the ordinance, they found the ordinance was not an easement for the general public but was an easement to allow the University to access and maintain the Lime Kiln.
Mr. Paterson said they felt approval of this proposal would allow them to formalize the trail easement for the Shoreline Trail through Lot 2 and allow an easement higher up the mountain for another section of the Shoreline Trail which would cross into Lime Kiln from Dry Creek Gulch to the south of the Block U. He said Lot 2, although approved, was a marginal lot which would be difficult to build on. He said it was located in the bottom of the Lime Kiln gully. He said the Avenues Community Master Plan update from 1987 recommended Lot 2 and the Brockbank's eight acre parcel, be purchased by the City to provide access into the foothills. He said there were five sites in the Master Plan and Lot 2 was prioritized as No. 3. He said as the Planning Commission considered this petition, they recommended the City Council deny the petition and not allow the amendment of Lot 2. He said this petition came to the City Council in late 1994 and into March of 1995. He said on March 7, 1995 the Council, on advise from the City Attorney, referred this petition back to the Planning staff for an extensive review process to insure a driveway could be built through Lot 2 to access the proposed buildable area up in the bench and Lime Kiln. He said staff went through a lengthy process with the developer which required more detailed information.
Mr. Paterson said staff was satisfied the petitioner could access the proposed buildable area keeping a driveway at or under the 16% maximum zoning requirement. He said the driveway would avoid existing 40% slopes and the maximum depths for cut and fill could be met. He said in the event Council chose to approve the project, staff recommended several mitigation features: 1) move the buildable area farther to the east to provide a greater buffer area for the existing homes, 2) require additional landscaping between the buildable area of Lots 1 and 2, and 3) limit the size of Lot 2 to 16 acres which was the minimum lot size allowed by existing zoning. He said the remainder of the acreage would be designated as an alpha lot and unbuildable with open space and vegetation preservation easements.
Steven Erickson said he represented Roger Brockbank. He said this was an opportunity to resolve the trail issue. He said hard cut fills would be approximately ten feet across the gully and the cuts on center line would be approximately four to six feet, which were within the rating ordinance. He said the size of the property was approximately 46 acres. He said Mr. Brockbank would not object to cutting the acreage back to 30 acres. He said he spoke to Bill Boren about a ten foot setback. He said Mr. Brockbank would be willing to increase the setback. He said they might consider a solid fence or screen.
Councilmember Jolley asked if there had been any discussion regarding the possibility of exchanging this lot for a similar lot in the area. Mr. Erickson said he met with Mr. Scovel approximately a year and a half ago to discuss a purchase price. Councilmember Jolley asked Mr. Brockbank if he was interested in exchanging property. Mr. Brockbank said he was not aware of any buildable property in the area available for trade but he was not opposed to a trade. He said he had been working on this issue for approximately two years and wanted to see it resolved in some way.
Mayor Corradini said this was her neighborhood and wanted the record to show, because of potential conflict, she had avoided any contact with staff on this issue.
Beckie Penman, 1565 Tomahawk Drive, said her only concern was for the environmental issues in the area such as wildlife preservation, trees, and foliage. She said it was a lovely area and did not want to see it spoiled.
Tom Rogan, 1112 3rd Avenue, said he was the Chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council. He said this matter had not formally come before the Community Council. He said the Avenues Community Council through the Foothills Committee, which was Chaired by Richard Dunlop, had been involved in this particular issue and others like it. He said based on the involvement of that Committee, on behalf of the Community Council, they wanted the petition to be denied. He said he hoped a trade would be possible. He said this issue had been identified in the 1987 Master Plan. He said he wanted the Council and the Administration to use the master plan, with its attached action plan, to resolve issues like this in a timely manner.
Cindy Cromer, 816 East 100 South, said she was a resident of the East Central Neighborhood. She said she was concerned the public would lose the amenity of the trailhead. She said this was a graceful entrance to a hiking area and the importance of the trailhead should not be minimized. She said this was an important trailhead from a historical and topographical standpoint. She said it provided easy access and asked the Council to look at the issue again.
Bob Marquarpt, 1589 Tomahawk Drive, said he was purchasing the four alpha lots to be designated. He said these were formally the proposed Bonneville Drive. He said he wanted the ability to subdivide this property and have this issue resolved as soon as possible. He said the entrance to the Lime Kiln area would be improved by the proposal and wanted the Council to approve the request.
William Boren, 1553 Tomahawk Drive, said in 1976 George Hatch sponsored a drive to collect approximately $23,000 in order to purchase Lot 2 so there would be a permanent entrance to Lime Kiln. He said he did not know what happened to the money but the lot was never purchased. He said he was concerned because Lot 2, as it currently existed, was a buildable lot located in an approved subdivision. He said if the Council approved adding additional property to the lot, it would impinge on the "P-1" zone and significantly devalue Lots 1, 3, and 15. He said he hoped the Council would not approve the proposal. He said there were subdivision tree height restrictions and wanted to know what would happen to his trees if someone built behind him. He said when he purchased the lot from Mr. Brockbank, he was told no one would ever be able to build behind him.
Richard Grow, 1547 Tomahawk Drive, said his property was in front of the proposed development. He said he met with Planning and Zoning approximately a year and a half ago. He said the proposal was for a long strip of land which extended all the way over the mountain. He said now there was a square parcel of land. He said the additional 40 acres was junk land and nothing could ever be done with it. He said Lime Kiln Gulch was a historic area and the City should be more concerned about maintaining the historic content and value. He said the proposal circumvented the spirit of the law and asked the Council to deny the request.
Terry Becker, 1500 Tomahawk Drive, Margo Becker, 1500 Tomahawk Drive, and Louis Ptacek, 1517 Tomahawk Drive, submitted written comments stating their opposition to the proposal.
(P 94-227)
#2. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting ordinances amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 49 of 1995 which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, including employment staffing document, for fiscal year 1995-96, and amending Salt Lake City Ordinance 40 of 1995 which approved the 1995-96 Compensation Plan for Executive Employees and Elected Officials of Salt Lake City.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 20 of 1996 and Ordinance 21 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 95-1)
The meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
sc