PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1982, AT 5:30 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 Councilmember Edward W. Parker conducted this meeting.
Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Carole Stokes briefed the Council on upcoming items of business. Herschel Hester of the Utah League of Cities and towns addressed the Council. He discussed legislation the League will present to the Utah Legislature in the upcoming session. He also discussed the dues structure of the League and furnished the Council with a copy of the League’s budget.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 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. FONNESBEC1C EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Edward Parker conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by City Attorney, Roger Cutler.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, August 3, 1982, and to approve the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held Thursday, August 5, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
Petition 105 of 1982 submitted by James R. Sharp, et al.
RE: A petition submitted by Mr. James R. Sharp, et al., requesting the vacation of a 15’ wide east-west alley (760 South) between Prospect Street and Redwood Road.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Petition No. 105 of 1982.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Fire, Public Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Fixed Assets and the Law Department. They have recommended that the alley be vacated subject to utility easements being retained by the City for any such facilities that may be located in the alley.
A public hearing is not required as the Petition contains the necessary signatures of all recorded property owners as they appear on the tax assessment rolls of Salt Lake County. The City Attorney’s Office has prepared the necessary vacating ordinance.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve Petition 105 of 1982, adopting Ordinance 63 of 1982, vacating a 15’ wide east-west alley (760 South) between Prospect Street and Redwood Road, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 82-222)
Petition 195 of 1982 submitted by Gordon O’Neil.
RE: A petition submitted by Gordon O’Neil, requesting that the alley which runs between 5th and 6th East and Commonwealth Avenue and 2100 South be vacated.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 14, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the request of Gordon O’Neil, Petition 195 of 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Mr. O’Neil is required to pay a $35 advertising fee to the City Recorder.
DISCUSSION: The petitioner has not been able to obtain the necessary signatures of all abutting property owners, therefore, a public hearing is required. The petition has been reviewed by Planning, Engineering - Transportation, Public Utilities, Fixed Assets, and the Fire Department. The Fire Department has recommended that the alley not be vacated as it provides access to the rear of commercial properties for potential fire fighting possibilities. The City Attorney’s Office is presently reviewing the petition and their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council before the public hearing.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to set a date for public hearing on September 14, 1982 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss the request of Gordon O’Neil, Petition No. 195 for vacation of the alley which runs between 5th and 6th East and Commonwealth Avenue and 2100 South, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-223)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: An amendatory resolution and amendatory language relating to the issuance of $3,060,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Airco, Inc. Project) Series 1982 of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt an amendatory resolution, Resolution 77 of 1982, relating to the issuance of $3,060,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Airco, Inc. Project) Series 1982 of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, which motion carried all members voting aye.
(Q 82-28)
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Resolution of Appreciation for Brent Young, Tracy Hunter, Richard Clausing, Charles Snow, and letters of commendation for Cheryl Luke, Officer Jeffrey Bollwinkel, and Officer David Greer for their roles in the apprehension and conviction of a hit-and-run driver. Councilmember Parker presented the resolutions, and Mr. Clausing, Mr. Young, and Mr. Snow addressed the Council, thanking them for the recognition. Officer Bollwinkel, Officer Greer and Ms. Luke also addressed the Council. Ms. Luke stated that this was an example of how well the system works when people are willing to get involved.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to accept the Resolutions of Appreciation for Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Clausing, Mr. Snow, and the letters of commendation for Ms. Luke, Officer Bollwinkel, and Officer Greer, which motion carried all members voting aye.
(R 82-16)
RE: Recognizing Lance Bateman, Gary Mumford, Dan Mule, Kurt Spjute, Peter Graves, and Steve Fawcett for their efforts on the City audits and assistance in obtaining MFOA certificate for Salt Lake City. Councilmember Shearer stated that the City has received its certificate of conformance from the Municipal Financial Officers Association. This is the highest award that a city can receive for performance and good auditing from the national organization. She also stated that a plaque was received. Mr. Haines indicated that the plaque would be posted in the Finance Office reception area.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to receive the Certificate of Conformance plaque for the City, to be hung in the Controller’s Office, which motion carried all members voting aye.
(C 82-26)
RE: Consider and approve a motion to amend the priority list for Capitol Improvements projects for Fiscal Year 1982-1983. Councilmember Davis stated that there were letters from Albert Haines and John Gust along with a list of the funding sources for Capitol Improvement projects included in the council packets. She stated this issue pertains to the Foothill Park. Jan Green, Foothill/Sunnyside Neighborhood Council, addressed the Council. She stated that Gibbons and Reed is now pouring the curb and gutter and making excellent progress in completing the narrowing of the road. She stated that there is an unresolved issue that affects completion of the project - the lack of funds to pay for the park.
Ms. Green stated that the curb and gutter forming the perimeter of the park is complete, however, the interior is a pile of dirt. The contractor has not been authorized to do anything further. She requested that the Council re-prioritize so that the park can be completed at this time. Ms. Green stated that Gibbons and Reed indicates that if they are able to do the Foothill park at the same time, they would use the same pricing structure for the park that they are using for the entire project. She pointed out how much money would be saved if the park is done now while the contractor and equipment are in place.
Ms. Green pointed out the neighborhood is concerned about this becoming a mud hole in the winter. She stated that the plan for the park is very modest - a minimum number of benches, landscaping and trees, and a few lights, no extensive playground equipment. She stated that they are hoping that something on a modest scale could be completed before winter arrives. Ms. Green stated that Gibbons and Reed would be ready to construct the park by August 16, 1982. Councilmember Mabey stated that he had no objection to proceeding on the park, but wondered if the Council wanted to change the priority at this time and possibly consider using the contingency funds.
Mr. Haines stated that the Council adopted the priority list in the budget, and stated that because the Council dropped the general fund contribution, the funding is different than the tentative budget, but the priority listing is the same. Mr. Haines stated the Council made two decisions on the budget: 1. to reduce the general fund contribution to the Capitol Improvements fund, and 2. that the ordering of these projects were understood and accepted by the Council. Mr. Haines stated that the issue is whether or not the Council desires to fund the Foothill Park prior to funding becoming available through the sale of surplus property. He stated that if the funds were available in the Capitol Improvements budget, there would be no problem in proceeding with a change order for Gibbons and Reed. He stated that the problem at this point is that there is only $100,000 surplus from completed projects available plus $253,500 transfer from general fund for all Capitol Improvements projects.
Mr. Haines stated the Council needs to change the priority of the projects and identify a funding source. Mr. Haines stated that he suggested in his memo that the Council consider using $60,000 from contingency, but later felt that the Council could re-prioritize the projects so that Foothill Drive Park Improvements would be included after railroad safety. Mr. Haines further stated that if the Council approves the reprioritization, the City could approve a change order to Gibbons and Reed to proceed with the grading and landscaping. Mr. Gust identified in a letter that $46,500 would include land acquisition work, concrete work (sidewalks through the park), rough grading, an irrigation system and the planting of the lawns. The remainder would pay for site furnishings and the play structures.
Mr. Haines stated that there is a problem with the land acquisition. He stated that there are two private ownerships for the property. One party is willing to make the property available, however, the other party appears to be reluctant. The Mayor asked about deleting $46,500 from the $253,500. Mr. Haines indicated that this would seriously dilute the program. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if this was an emergency or a hazard. Mr. Haines stated that the problem right now is that the City’s surplus property has not been sold. He stated that the only good fund sources in the Capitol Improvements fund for this year are prior years’ surplus ($100,000) and the $253,000 which the Council agreed to leave as a contribution from the general fund.
He stated that the Davis County and Sugarhouse property probably would not be sold in the next six to nine months, therefore, if the Council re-prioritizes the Foothill Park, no other projects on this list will be done for this year. Councilmember Mabey asked about taking the money out of contingency. The Mayor stated that he understood it was a very thin contingency. Robert Sloan, a member of the neighborhood council, addressed the Council and stated that the project is already in process and does not feel it should be left this way.
Councilmember Mabey stated that, there are projects in the city that have been half completed for 20 years. Mr. Mabey stated that he has no objection to completing the project, he just wants to see where to get the money and if it is available, then go ahead with the project. Mark Anderson, a member of the neighborhood council, addressed the Council and stated that he suggested a compromise by at least covering the park area with grass. He stated that the acquisition of the land to be incorporated in the park can wait, but the street needs to be covered over with grass. Gibbons and Reed is there and could scope the land, plant the sod and install the irrigation system. The cost efficiency of this far outweighs any concerns.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to refer to the Committee of the Whole Thursday, August, 12, 1982, to consider amending the priority list for Capitol Improvements projects for Fiscal Year 1982-1983, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(B 82-7)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Ordinance amending Chapter 9 of Title 5.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance which will allow Salt Lake City to give a permit for power to panel clearances for construction purposes only and not complete and final power to the building.
DISCUSSION: At the present time we have a problem that no special consideration is given for temporary power to panel. Once the panel is energized in effect, the project has final power and the City has lost control. This ordinance will allow the Building Division to give power to panel clearances for construction purposes only. Presently we are requiring an agreement and an escrow deposit to protect the City from premature occupancy. The new ordinance will eliminate this practice. Utah Power and Light Officials have been contacted and they feel our proposal would be an appropriate procedure.
Councilmember Parker moved, without objection, that the ordinance amending Chapter 9 of Title 5 be placed on the consent agenda for September 7, 1982.
(O 82-48)
FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Ordinances relating to coin-operated amusement device license fees.
RECOMMEDATION: That the Council consider the approval of amendment to Sections 20-8-3 and 20-8-4 and adding new Section 20-8-4.1 to ordinances relating to Coin-Operated Amusement Device License Fee.
DISCUSSION: Distributor’s license fee shall be $500 per year and Proprietors license fee shall be $50 per year for each device. All license fees imposed shall be due and payable on January 1.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer to the Budget/Administrative Services Committee the ordinances relating to coin-operated amusement device license fees, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 82-49)
OFFICE OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT PLANNING
RE: City Council approval is requested for 8th Year (1982-83) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for Wasatch Front Regional Council Planning Studies.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the expenditure of $13,660 from 8th Year CDBG funds for planning studies to be completed by the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Sufficient funds exist in the 8th Year CDBG contingency budget for this project.
DISCUSSION: The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) has requested a small CDBG appropriation from the four CDBG entitlement jurisdictions in Salt Lake County for the purpose of completing relevant county-wide planning studies. Briefly, the WFRC proposes to complete three planning studies at a total cost of $42,686, with compensation broken down as follows: Salt Lake County 54% $23,050, Salt Lake City 32% $13,660, Sandy City 7% $ 2,988, West Valley City 7% $ 2,988. Total $42,686.
Study #1 - GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The Wasatch Front Regional Council will prepare a 20-year projection of population, households and employment. The projection will be documented in a technical report which will give the projections in five-year increments, give a projection for surrounding areas, and document the procedures and assumptions used in preparing the projection. Specific areas for which projections will be made include Salt Lake City and six sub-areas within the City, West Valley City, Sandy City, and Salt Lake County with six sub-areas of the County. The projections will be consistent with Regional and County projections and will be developed in cooperation with local planners from each jurisdiction. The projections are necessary to address issues including housing needs, economic development, and planning for orderly growth.
Study #2 - DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC AGENCY POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE WASATCH CANYON AREAS OF SALT LAKE COUNTY.
Written policy guidelines for canyon management agencies to consider in adopting their individual policies will be developed and distributed to affected governmental agencies and other interested parties. Options for preserving vital portions of the canyons from further development by transferring property from private to public (or quasi-public) ownership will be studied and specific recommendations generated. Existing comprehensive development plans for the more heavily utilized canyon areas will be reviewed to determine if they are still adequate for balancing recreational, watershed, game habitat and flood control needs. While the Salt Lake Canyon Advisory Committee will continue to be the main forum for the discussion of canyon related issues and problems, consideration will be given to the creation of a permanent mechanism for coordinating ongoing policy development.
Study #3 - STUDY OF POTENTIAL FOR SHARED FACILITIES AND SERVICES BY SALT LAKE COUNTY GENERAL PURPOSE GOVERNMENTS.
The WFRC will identify the potential for increasing joint use of local government facilities and services. Current examples of cooperative arrangements with Salt Lake County and other areas will be documented. Barriers to further joint usage will be identified as well as suggested methods for overcoming barriers. A report containing specific recommendations and a plan of action will be developed for consideration by local government implementing agencies.
If legislative authority beyond what is available in the State’s Interlocal Cooperation Act (UCA 11-13-1-26) is required to implement recommendations, proposed legislation will be drafted. Councilmember Davis stated that Mr. Haines would review this and do another study and return to the Council with a recommendation. Mr. Haines stated that Councilmember Davis requested that the Administration review again the three components of the Wasatch Front Study Proposal and submit comments in terms of what Administration might perceive to be a series of priorities for the three areas. The Council pulled this item from the consent agenda, therefore, no action was taken at this time.
(T 82-22)
RE: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding of mixed-use housing program (Artspace) administrative expenses.
DISCUSSION: On April 6, 1982 the City Council approved the Mixed-Use Housing Project for 8th Year (1982-83) CDBG funding with a total budget of $225,000. As represented by Artspace, Inc., a local non-profit organization, the project involves the rehabilitation and conversion of warehouse space located on Pierpont Avenue into studio housing for artists. Artspace, Inc. has approached the city with a request to fund their program administration out of the CDBG appropriation. Previous to receiving the CDBG award from the city, Artspace did not have paid staff to administer their program. However, Artspace now claims that a full time Executive Director and related office expenses are necessary for their program to continue. Because Artspaces’s administrative costs were not represented in the project description when the Council approved the project, Council approval of this request is necessary.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the request by Artspace Inc., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 82-23)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Appointment of City Treasurer.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council confirm the appointment of Cheryl D. Cook as City Treasurer effective August 9, 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: This appointment will fill a vacant authorized position.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Cook was selected through a process consisting of an oral board comprised of five individuals, both from inside and outside of city government, and interviews with Mayor Wilson and Albert Haines. Based upon the unanimous recommendation of the oral board and the personal interviews with Ms. Cook, Mayor Wilson appointed her to the position of City Treasurer. Therefore, inasmuch as the position of City Treasurer is a statutory officer requiring Council confirmation, it is requested that Ms. Cook be confirmed as City Treasurer.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of Ms. Cook, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Ms. Cook addressed the Council and stated that she was pleased to accept the appointment and looking forward to working for the City.
(I 82-19)
RE: Planning and Zoning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint John Schumann, Tom Ellison, and Elizabeth Burns to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
DISCUSSION: When new members were added to the Planning and Zoning Commission last year, three of them were appointed to one-year positions in order to stagger the terms of commission members. These one-year appointments came due July 1, 1982. Chris Johnson, Tom Ellison, and Elizabeth Burns are the three members whose terms expired at the beginning of July. Mr. Johnson has requested that he not be considered for reappointment because of his busy schedule. However, Mr. Ellison and Ms. Burns have been active and enthusiastic members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and want to be reappointed to another term. Therefore, it is recommended that John Schumann, Vice President of Investments for Surety Life Insurance Company, be appointed to a four-year term on the Planning and Zoning Commission along with Mr. Ellison and Ms. Burns.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the reappointments of Tom Ellison and Elizabeth Burns and the appointment of John Schumann to the Planning and Zoning Commission for four year terms, which motion carried all members voting aye. Mr. Schumann addressed the Council and expressed his thanks.
(I 82-20)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 171 of 1982 submitted by the American Cancer Society.
RE: The petitioner submitted a proposed ordinance change allowing surplus school buildings to be utilized by charitable organizations as an office and to allow historical buildings to be utilized by charitable organizations as an office and service center.
A public hearing was set for 6:15 before the City Council, however, the petitioner wrote requesting that Petition 171 of 1982 be cancelled. Due to this request the hearing was not advertised and the petitioner’s advertising fee returned.
(P 82-202)
Petition 61 of 1982 submitted by Robert L. Case.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that an alley located between Cleveland and Roosevelt Avenues and between 300 East and 400 East Street be vacated.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this request. Vernon Jorgensen, Planning and Zoning, pointed out the alley on a map. He stated that all necessary departments had reviewed this petition, and Planning and Zoning recommends that this alley need not remain public. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about retaining a right of way for utilities.
It was indicated that there was an ordinance with the petition covering right of way. Robert Case addressed the Council and stated that he wanted the alley closed. He stated that there is a traffic problem in the alley especially since the repair work began on 300 East. He indicated that there were two abutting property owners other than himself. One party had not signed the petition and his other neighbor, in favor of the closure, was present with him. No one was present to speak against the request.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing on Petition 61 of 1982, which motion carried all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to vacate the alley retaining the right of way and adopting Ordinance 64 of 1982, which motion carried all members voting aye.
(P 82-172)
PUBLIC WORKS
RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Title 38 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to repairs and replacement of sidewalks and curbs and gutters.
A public hearing was held before the City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this ordinance. Max Peterson, City Engineer, addressed the Council. He stated that last year the Council adopted an ordinance relating to replacement of defective sidewalk. Included was the criteria for replacement and the allocation of cost between the City and the property owner, which was 50/50 for residential and 100% for commercial properties. Also included was a provision for curb and gutter to be replaced at any time at the property owner’s expense provided they took out a permit. If the curb and gutter was to be replaced concurrent with sidewalk replacement the allocation was the same as the sidewalk replacement.
If, however, there was a severe safety, or drainage problem, the cost was borne by the city, depending on availability of funds. Funds are very limited for this, therefore very little curb and gutter is replaced. The City Engineer’s Office is proposing that the property owners benefited by having the curb and gutter repaired to good condition (not only appearance but drainage), pay the same cost allocation as the sidewalk replacement. Councilmember Mabey asked about hardships caused to senior citizens. Mr. Peterson read Section 38-2-8 of the proposed ordinance relating to exemption from payment.
Councilmember Shearer stated that when replacing sidewalk directly adjoining curb and gutter, it would be advantageous and certainly best to replace both at once if they both need replacement. On the other hand, if far removed, it seems that although it might be nice, it would not be particularly necessary as far as the replacement of the sidewalk goes. Replacement of sidewalk is not dependant upon replacement of curb and gutter. She also voiced concern about the small business owner, or small landlord.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that if the sidewalk is being replaced and the curb and gutter needs repair that it should be done at the same time, because it would be less expensive. Councilmember Shearer stated that it would be best only if it is adjacent. She stated that if there are 10 or 20 feet between of grass, there is no particular advantage of doing curb and gutter at the same time the sidewalk is being done.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that if an area is being upgraded, it is to the City’s advantage to upgrade the entire area at the same time, rather than upgrade the sidewalk and leave defective curb and gutter. Mr. Peterson stated that the property owner is still benefited if the water is draining away from their property. Councilmember Mabey and Councilmember Shearer were concerned about the effect of the cost on small businesses. Mr. Peterson stated that the property owners have five years to pay for special improvements of this type.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing regarding replacements of sidewalks and curbs and gutters, which motion carried all members voting aye. Councilmember Shearer requested that the Council be sent a copy of the ordinance in legislative form.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer to Committee of the Whole for Thursday, August 12, 1982, the ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Title 38 relating to replacement of sidewalks and curbs and gutters, which motion carried all members voting aye.
(O 82-47)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Amending zoning ordinances to allow group homes as conditional uses in all residential districts.
A public hearing was held before the City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this issue. Larry Livingston, City Council Office, addressed the Council. He stated that in 1981 the Utah State Legislature passed an amendment to the statute that controlled the power of cities to exercise control over group homes for handicapped persons. The intent of the legislation was to say that cities could not restrict those homes from any zoning district whatsoever within their cities. There are two categories regarding the districts - (1) residential zones which are single family, as opposed to (2) all other zones.
Mr. Livingston stated that the City ordinance is not in conformity with the state statute. There have been complaints from some neighborhoods that a concentration of many different types of facilities is taking place in specific neighborhoods. He stated that those complaints do not relate uniquely to handicapped persons. There are many types of homes that can cause neighborhood problems, such as adolescent treatment homes, alcohol rehabilitation homes, correctional facilities, nursing and retirement homes. There also happen to be homes that treat handicapped persons.
Mr. Livingston further stated that when the statute addresses “all other zoning” districts as opposed to “R-1” it uses the terminology “conditional review process”. Yet the statute states that, after the conditional review process that the city does not have the option of saying no. How then is this conditional. The Board of Adjustment is set up to say yes or no to a specific request. Mr. Livingston indicated that the statute states explicitly that in “R-l” districts group homes for handicapped persons shall be allowed but subject to the conditional permit. This means that the Board of Adjustment, subject to listing specific criteria, can say no to a group home in an “R-1” district. Mr. Livingston stated that the Attorney’s office should look at this to see if it should work the same in other zones. Dean Barney, Planning and Zoning, addressed the Council. He stated that the Planning Commission is recommending that group homes for handicapped people be permitted in all zones. The Planning Commission anticipated all residential zones going through the conditional review process for a conditional permit, and they would have the authority, based on the findings, to grant or not grant the permit.
The Planning Commission agrees that there needs to be a definition of handicapped person and the opportunity to have group homes in all zones. They felt that there should be eight handicapped people for a total of 12 people per home. Charles Done addressed the Council. He stated that he sponsored the bill in the Senate and the House in 1981. He stated that the bill as drafted did not leave the cities the alternative of a conditional review process. He stated that there is difficultly for people working with developmentally disabled and handicapped people to locate homes throughout the state in residential neighborhoods. Often these homes were confused with other homes. Handicapped people need the opportunity for a neighborhood living experience.
Mr. Done stated that the conditional review process only allows one answer. He stated that this was included in the bill at the request of cities and counties. It was felt that the cities and counties should have the opportunity of having neighborhoods heard. Mr. Done also stated that he felt during this review process if there was really a reason, the application would probably be withdrawn. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why “R-1” neighborhoods were excluded. Mr. Done stated that this was put in at the request of cities and counties. He stated that the only way the bill was passed was through compromise. The statute does give the City the option to open “R-l” districts.
Councilmember Mabey stated that the City welcomes handicapped people and various types of social services, but in District 2 there are 21% of all social services in the County and City combined. He stated that three years ago District 2 had 52% of all social services in Salt Lake City. Mr. Mabey stated that he objects to the one mile radius, and felt it should be changed to three miles. Even with three miles District 2 could have eight or ten of these homes in the area, where the property is less expensive. With a three mile radius, the homes would be spread out so that everyone would get some homes and not just District 1 or 2.
Mr. Done stated that these people are good, upstanding citizens, many of whom contribute to the tax base of the state and the city. He stated that this is reason enough to live in the neighborhoods. The one mile radius was a compromise to get the bill passed. He stated that these are not undesirable types of neighbors. Councilmember Mabey stated that he did not feel they were undesirable, but just wanted all Districts to have social service functions. Councilmember Davis pointed out the financial problems in purchasing homes, and stated that there are only five group homes of this type in the city limits.
Mr. Done agreed that there certainly are fiscal constraints, but that should be the only constraint. If a group home could be purchased even in an “R-1” area, it would not be degrading to that neighborhood - neither economically nor personally. He also stated that he has some concerns with the ordinance which calls for a review process and then for many reasons it can be turned down, which contradicts the law.
Robert McQuarry, chairman of the East Central Community Council, stated that the community council concurs with the intent of the ordinance, but they are concerned with the fact that only five days notice is required prior to the hearing. They feel this is not adequate and wanted thirty days, but would suggest at least 15. Mr. McQuarry stated that they are concerned about being able to take part in hearings, but there is no allowance for adhering to their desires or expressed concerns.
Susan Bailey pointed out that the group homes have to meet health and licensing standards set up by the state, and suggested that everyone who opens a home without state funding meet the same standards. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the City still has the power to impose certain conditions, such as parking, traffic, fence height, etc., and Mr. Barney indicated “yes”. Ms. Rosemarie Rendon, Division of Family Services Board and the Northwest Council, stated that they welcome developmentally disabled and mentally retarded people in their neighborhoods. Their quality of life is as important as anyone else’s and they should live in our neighborhoods.
If we accept the halfway house for the prison and halfway houses for drug abusers, we should welcome handicapped people with open arms. She stated that she wished they had the money and resources to move into some of the other neighborhoods because it is a pleasure to be around these people. John Meyers, attorney at the Legal Center for the Handicapped, passed out a copy of the state statute. He stated that the statute does not completely divest appropriate authorities from making sure fire safety, and police requirements are met. He stated that he felt the standards listed in the proposed ordinance are too vague. He stated that Clearfield has passed the first residential facilities ordinance in the state and very clearly listed conditions to be complied with.
Mr. Meyers also passed out a copy of the Clearfield ordinance to the Council. Susan Bailey, chairperson of the Utah Coalition for the Handicapped, addressed the Council. She stated that the community should be involved and have some input and this should involve education so that the community will know what kind of homes these are. Hopefully this would dispel some of the problems. Group homes are the humane way for people to live. Presently there are approximately 750 people in the state training school which costs $25,000 per person per year. There are 425 people in nursing homes which costs between $16,000 and $17,000 per person per year. In group homes, the cost is about $7,860. There are approximately 1,200 developmentally disabled persons being born each year, all of whom will need housing. This not only is the most humane, but probably the most economically feasible way. Lynn Isbell addressed the Council. She stated that she has an 18 year old retarded son and lives in Salt Lake City. She has been involved in attempting to obtain group homes in the state for the past ten years. She stated that she has been involved in eight group homes in many municipalities in all districts. She stated that they have never yet applied for a district where the neighbors on first hearing thought that the home should be in their neighborhood. She also stated that it has taken years to open group homes.
Bill Handley, Governor’s Council for the Handicapped and Developmentally Disabled Persons, addressed the Council. He went over the problems in the passage of the bill. He stated that he felt there were some problems with the proposed ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Meyers that it was too vague. He stated that they are in favor of preventing overcrowding, and stated that the Department of Social Services is suggesting that through planning efforts no further overconcentration be carried out with any kind of group homes on the west side, in the area just below the University, and some of the avenues areas. There are times when it is economically better to perhaps build two group homes side by side; for instance, males and females. Services can be provided in this way more cost effectively than to scatter. There is still that option with conditional use permits.
Mr. Handley suggested that the ordinance be re-drafted and presented in another hearing process to the City Council. Councilmember Mabey agreed and asked that Mr. Handley assist in the re-drafting. Councilmember Shearer asked if the rest of the existing ordinance would be changed or just what was drafted. Mr. Barney indicated that there would be minor changes, such as the maximum number of people. Councilmember Shearer suggested that rather than just add to the existing ordinance, that the entire ordinance be reviewed and made more specific. Councilmember DePaulis indicated that his experience with this type of group home as a neighbor was extremely favorable.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing relating to amending zoning ordinances to allow group homes as conditional uses in all residential districts, which motion carried all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis, without objection, re-opened and continued for sixty days to October 12, 1982 at 6:15 p.m. the public hearing relating to amending zoning ordinances to allow group homes as conditional uses in all residential districts.
(O 82-44)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Willis H. Cowles addressed the Council regarding downtown transportation and bus bays. He was concerned with the congestion due to buses lining up at the bus bays downtown and suggested that the street parking be removed to accommodate the buses. Mayor Wilson indicated that Mr. Cowles suggestion was excellent and that the City is in the process of taking care of this through a grant. A copy of Mr. Cowles letter is on file in the Office of the City Recorder.
(C 82-27)
Joan Lally, a golfer, presented a petition with over 1,500 names objecting to the modification of the #1 hole at Bonneville Golf Course. She stated that there have been some problems with a homeowner in the area, and the City was going to modify the course for this reason. She stated that she felt there would be as many problems if the changes are made. The mayor indicated that he would meet with Mrs. Lally regarding this situation.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.