The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Regular Session on Thursday, August 8, 1996, at 6:00 p.m., in Room 315, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Stuart Reid Deeda Seed Bryce Jolley
Joanne Milner Tom Godfrey Keith Christensen
The following Councilmember was absent:
Sam Souvall
Brian Hatch, Acting Mayor; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council meeting held Tuesday, July 9, 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(M 96-1)
CITIZEN COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Barry Herbster said he owned the Stonewash Laundromat at 247 South 500 East. He said his laundromat had pool tables, a coffee bar, a coke machine, and hot dogs and other food was served. He said it was geared toward the college crowd. He said he had tried to obtain a beer license and had been told to apply for a Class B restaurant license. He said City ordinance did not allow the laundromat to be a restaurant, but he did not really want to be a restaurant.
Mr. Herbster said he was told he could have a Class C tavern license, but he did not want to ID everyone who came to the laundromat to make sure they were over 21 years of age. He said he spoke with the State who had said they would approve a license to sell liquor, but the State needed local authority.
Roger Cutler, City Attorney, said there were various classes of licenses. He said a Class A license was a store where beer was sold off the premises. He said Mr. Herbster wanted to sell beer on the premises. He said the City allowed beer to be sold in conjunction with food on a 60/40 split. He said this was a Class B license. He said there were special permits for buildings such as stadiums, but the laundromat was not a stadium.
Mr. Cutler said there was a Class C tavern license, but the laundromat was not a tavern either. He said Mr. Herbster was asking for something which did not fit into City ordinance. He said Mr. Herbster did not want the controls which go with a Class C tavern license. He said the State did not give authority to sell 3/2 lite beer. He said the State sold liquor licenses and they would give Mr. Herbster a liquor license, but he would need to acquire local authority.
Councilmember Christensen asked Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, to have staff address this issue.
Bob Fisher, 2172 Hannibal Street, said he felt the County landfill was cleaner than Pioneer Park. He asked if there was a litter law in the City and if there was how come it was not enforced.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
#1. RE: Approving the appointment of A. Robert Thorup to the Capital Improvement Citizen Board for a term extending through June 1, 1999.
(I 96-3)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Theodore G. "Bud" Mahas to the Utah Air Travel Commission for a term extending through September 1, 1998.
(I 96-14)
#3. RE: Approving the appointment of Kellie Daniels to the Recreation Advisory Board for a term extending through January 15, 1999.
(I 96-15)
#4. RE: Approving the appointment of Thomas E.K. Cerruti to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term extending through July 14, 1999.
(I 96-16)
#5. RE: Consider adopting Resolution 48 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Division of Parks and Recreation regarding a fiscal assistance agreement.
(C 96-492)
#6. RE: Consider adopting Resolution 49 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and State of Utah Department of Transportation to perform certain signaling and road work for UDOT at 1300 South, 1300 East, and for UDOT to pay the City for such work.
(C 96-493)
#7. RE: Consider adopting Resolution 50 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for cost sharing on the 800 East stormdrain from 2700 South to Nibley Park School.
(C 96-494)
#8. RE: Consider adopting a motion approving the following decisions made by the Planning Director.
a) Petition 400-96-44, to reconfigure Lots 25 and 26, Block 3, West Grand View Subdivision to allow two existing residential dwellings to be sold individually. Property is located at 1004 East 1700 South. Planning Director's decision: Approve with departmental conditions.
(P 96-288)
b) Petition 400-96-53, to reconfigure four lots at the Salt Lake International Center to better reflect the existing layout of each lot. Property located at 550 North Wright Brothers Drive. Planning Director's decision: Approve with departmental conditions.
(P 96-290)
c) Petition 400-96-54, to amend Lot 1, Federal Heights Plat C and Lot 14, Federal Heights Plat E, located at 1605 Arlington Drive. Planning Director's decision: Approve.
(P 96-290)
#9. RE: Setting the date of September 3, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider amending the Landfill budget and approving the proposed mid-year adjustments.
(B 95-4)
#10. RE: Adopting Resolution 51 of 1996 appointing Salt Lake City representatives to the Taxing Agency Committee for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City.
(R 96-5)
NEW BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Section 11. 16.060, Salt Lake City Code, relating to soliciting for immoral purposes.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 57 of 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(O 96-34)
#2. RE: Adopting an ordinance requesting the Administration to change the name of a section of 1930 West to Doralma Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to refer this item to the Administration for drafting and request response by October 1, 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(O 96-35)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of the Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, Special Assessment Bonds, Series 1996, CBD beautification and street lighting Special Improvement District, Project No. 106001 (the "Bonds") in the aggregate principal amount of $372,000; providing for pricing and terms, prescribing the form, the maturity and denomination of the bonds; providing for the continuance of a guaranty fund; authorizing and approving the form of a bond purchase agreement and the official statement, and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt Resolution 52 of 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(Q 95-1)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating a portion of the Kinney and Gourley's Subdivision pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-30.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 58 of 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(P 96-135)
#2. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting a motion amending Lot 32 of Highland Acres Subdivision to create a "flag" lot pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-16.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to deny the petition requesting to amend lot 32, Highland Acres Subdivision, based upon the findings made by the Planning Commission that the original subdivision was a viable subdivision which should not be amended; the area had not changed significantly over time and an amendment as proposed would change the historical uniqueness and character of the area established with the development of the original subdivision. Further, the denial be based upon the Council finding that the proposed subdivision amendment does not meet the applicable sections of State law, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, Planning Director, said the petition was submitted by Janet Sloan. He said the 100 acre subdivision was created in the 1920's and was designed with deep lots which allowed agricultural uses. He said each lot was approximately 1/2 acre in size with the frontage of approximately 80 feet and depth of about 272 feet.
Mr. Wright said the subdivision was between 2700 South and Atkin Avenue and between 1800 East and 2000 East. He said there were 66 lots in the subdivision and most of the lots had one structure. He said the applicant wanted to create a flag lot which would allow a home to be developed behind a home which fronted 1839 East Claybourne Street. He said the flag lot met the requirements based on "R1-7000" zoning. He said staff had held an Administrative hearing on April 2, 1996 to receive public comment from those living in the subdivision. He said the petition had been forwarded to the Planning Commission and they held a hearing on May 16, 1996 to analyze all the evidence which had been received. He said the conclusion of that hearing resulted in the recommendation that the petition be denied.
Mr. Wright said the findings were that the unique characteristics of the subdivision were still viable in today's market and that was the primary reason people lived in the subdivision. He said there was a section of the State Code which provided guidance to the Council on making a decision. He said the Council would need to make a finding that neither the public or any person would be materially injured by the proposed amendment to the subdivision. He said there needed to be good cause for the amendment. He said the Planning Commission initiated a rezoning for the properties to a Residential "R1-12000". He said that zoning would preclude any subdividing of the lots for flag lots in the future.
Doug Slagle said he was the property owner at 1839 Claybourne Avenue. He said the petitioner was Janet Sloan, his sister-in-law, who wished to build a house behind his lot. He said he wanted to urge the City Council to accept the proposed plat amendment. He said at the time the petition was submitted the proposal met all of the zoning requirements which were currently in effect in terms of setback, coverage, and minimum frontage. He said it was also recommended by Planning Staff and the City Engineer that the proposal be accepted. He said the proposal would not materially affect the neighbors in any way. He said the lots were 270 feet deep with relatively small houses on them.
Mr. Slagle said during the Commission meeting there were three areas which were brought up as concerns. He said 1) was potential flooding from the White Ditch Canal. He said there was a canal which ran along the back property line of the current lot. He said the City Engineer did not feel flooding was a potential problem. He said a problem could be mitigated by proper grating and a drainage canal. He said 2) the petitioner would be willing to accept language in the final draft which would release liability of the other users of the White Ditch Canal. He said 3) was increased density to the neighborhood. He said there were approximately 60 houses in the neighborhood and there was fear that there would be an additional 120 houses if this petition was approved.
He said at the Planning Commission meeting there was a motion passed to change the zoning which was approved and that would prohibit any future developments. He said his petition was submitted before the motion passed, so in effect there would be only one new home in the subdivision. He said one home should not increase the density. He said the final issue was loss of privacy. He said the lots were 270 feet deep and the house covered a small area of the lot. He said on the street every house had a double lot behind it and most lots were neglected.
Dick Hatfield said he had lived on Claybourne Avenue off and on since 1937. He said his parents bought the house in 1929 just for the acreage. He said the property was unique and the Highland Park area should stay intact. He said younger people were moving in, building onto the houses, and remodeling. He said every lot owner could develop a flag lot.
Bill Harris, 1908 East 2700 South, said his family moved there to get away from inner City crime and traffic. He said he enjoyed the quietness of the park like atmosphere. He urged the Council not to approve the flag lot.
John Morris, 1905 East Claybourne Avenue, said he lived one block east of the petitioner. He said he had lived there for 15 years. He said they bought the home because of the esthetic properties. He said he had put in excess of $50,000 into the old home. He said he enjoyed the space and the uniqueness of the neighborhood and wanted the neighborhood to remain unchanged. He asked that the petition be denied.
William Smith, 1843 Claybourne Avenue, said he had lived in the area since 1941. He said it was important to him that the area remain unchanged. He asked that the City Council deny the petition.
Earl Lewis, 1851 Claybourne Avenue, said he had been the property owner at that address since 1977. He asked the Council to deny the petition and not allow the lots to be subdivided.
John Murphy, 1930 East 2700 South, said he had lived in the neighborhood three years. He said he bought his house because of the property. He said they lived on a fairly busy street, but had a large lot where their children could play. He said if people started building houses back there, then there would be no privacy in the backyard. He said he had a petition from the residents on 2700 South asking that this petition be turned down.
Paul Linton, 1852 East 2700 South, said they bought the property for the park atmosphere. He said they had improved their lot and asked that the Council deny the petition.
Kathryn Donahue said she was representing Kevin Donahue, her son. She said her son's address was 1864 East 2700 South. She said he purchased the property in 1990 and had invested more than $50,000 in the home. She said her son bought the property because of the size of the lot and the location. She said her son wanted the Council to deny the petition.
Nathan Massey, 1944 East 2700 South, said he lived on the opposite corner of the area being discussed. He urged the Council not to allow the petition. He said he felt the concerns with the flooding and the privacy were real. He said once one flag lot was allowed, there would be nothing to prevent it from happening again.
Joe Pellegrino, 1908 East Claybourne Avenue, said he moved from 300 East to his present location in 1960. He said if this petition passed everyone would want to start building on flag lots. He urged the Council not to pass the petition.
Taylor Robbins, 1916 East Claybourne Avenue, said he was in opposition to the proposed amendment and urged the Council to change the zoning to "R1-12000".
Udella Webb, 1919 East Claybourne Avenue, said she had lived in her home since 1962. She said they had bought into the area because of its uniqueness and the country like atmosphere. She urged the Council to deny the petition.
Angie Richardson, 1892 East Claybourne Avenue, said the majority of the neighborhood felt strongly about the Council denying the petition. She said the neighborhood wanted to keep the area as a park like atmosphere. She said if one flag lot was established, then there would be more flag lots.
Councilmember Christensen said this area was in his district. He said he knew the area and was concerned about the petition. He said it was evident there was serious concern in the neighborhood. He said flag lots should not be permitted in Salt Lake City. He said he supported the motion to deny the application.
Councilmember Reid said everything should be done to preserve the environment in which people live. He said he would support the proposed zoning change ordinance.
Councilmember Jolley said he supported the denial of the petition. He said open space needed to be preserved.
Councilmember Milner said housing was a primary and critical issue in the State of Utah. She said economic challenges were faced by many families trying to find affordable housing.
Councilmember Godfrey said he had a number of flag lots in his district. He said over time every one of the flag lots had turned into nightmares. He said they created problems for the rest of the neighborhood. He said he had made the motion based on the experience he had in his district and would not want this neighborhood to experience the same problems.
(P 96-136)
#3. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of Lake Street pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-11.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 59 of 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Rod Mills, petitioner, said the petition represented one of the final steps in reconciling the improvements which now exist at the end of Lake Street to the property ownership.
(P 96-137)
#4. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Bill No. 43 of 1991 to add title, chapter and section numbers and to amend the ordinance to include non-wireline services (cellular telephone).
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 60 of 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(O 96-33)
#5. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion and vacating a portion of an alley, located between Paxton Avenue and Lucy Avenue and between 300 and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-26.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Reid seconded to table the issue, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Robert Fisher, owner of property on Lucy Avenue, said a pit had been dug in the alley. He said the pit contained old mattresses and tunnels. He said businesses were robbed and then the robber would crawl through the tunnels and into the pit. He said the alley needed to be closed because of litter.
Paul Young, Young Electric Sign Company at 2401 Foothill Drive, said their company would be open to letting the residential property owners take ownership of part of the alley. He said Young Electric was only interested in the west end of the alley.
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, said when the alley was no longer used by the City, it was sold to commercial properties but given to residential properties. She said Young Electric did not have a need for the property so they would prefer to see it given to the residential owners.
Bill Wright, Planning Director, said staff had met with Property Management and it was decided that the City could accommodate Mr. Young's proposal. He said the portion of the alley closed for the commercial business would require that a waiver be signed for portions of the alley which Young Electric was not interested in purchasing. He said then the other portions of the alley could be assigned to the abutting residential property owners. He said that way the total alley could be blocked and fenced off.
Roger Cutler, City Attorney, said if the City vacated the alley, as a matter of State law, the title would vest down the center line to the abutting property owners. He said that would give Young Electric title on the portion which was vacated. He said the City would close an alley, require commercial properties to pay, and then title to the alley was transferred. He said this was a mechanism whereby the City could receive compensation from commercial interests rather than just give them the land. He said State law required transfer of title without compensation if the City vacated the alley.
Mr. Cutler said if the City vacated the alley and required Young Electric to come to an agreement with their neighbors, the City had a problem because Young Electric did not have title. He said there had been several situations where the City had closed alleys. He said a certain alley had been closed on the Avenues involving a rock garden. He said the City had closed the alley on condition that certain deeding would take place. He said the ordinance was recorded, the deeds transferred and the title vested, but the conditions did not occur and the residents came back to the Council quarreling about title to the land and whether the alley should have been closed. Mr. Cutler suggested that the City get the petition and the deeds straightened out, so everything could take place at once.
Councilmember Reid said if the City followed the process which Mr. Cutler described, Mr. Young would be deeded half the alley which abutted his property. Mr. Cutler said if the City vacated the alley then Mr. Young would not have to pay for the property. He said when Mr. Young made payment, the City would transfer title.
Councilmember Christensen asked what if the abutting owner did not want the real estate. He said the City would then have a piece of vacant real estate with nobody willing to buy it. Mr. Cutler said the City should not close or vacate the alley until everything had been worked out.
Mr. Cutler said Young Electric was willing to pay for some portions of the property. He said they would tender a check to the City as compensation for getting title to the property through the alley closure process. He said other portions of the alley could be purchased but Young Electric was not going to exercise that option.
Carl W. Schmidt, owner of some property in the area, said according to the map, the residential areas were not to be charged for the property. He said the home at 354 West was shown as commercial, but it was rented out as residential. He said that property should not be charged. He said the whole area was zoned commercial "M-1".
Ms. Gust-Jenson said staff could work on this issue and bring it back to the Council.
(P 96-291)
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
bj