PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1983, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS GRANT MABEY EDWARD W. PARKER.
Councilmember Palmer DePaulis was absent.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and Councilmember Sydney R. Fonnesbeck conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch, executive director of the council, briefed the Council on agenda items.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1983, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE N. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Councilmember Palmer DePaulis was absent.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and Councilmember Sydney R. Fonnesbeck conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Gillette Vandergrift.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, August 2, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(M 83-1)
Proclamation:
Mayor Wilson introduced Sam Weyher, who served as Mayor-for-a-Day on Tuesday, August 9, 1983. The Mayor read a proclamation and explained that Sam was selected from a Rowland Hall School program. The Mayor discussed the day’s activities and said that Sam had done an effective job as Mayor-for-the-Day.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve the proclamation to Sam Weyher, who served as Mayor-for-a-Day on Tuesday, August 9, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(G 83-25)
PETITIONS
Petition No. 325 of 1982 submitted by William B. Kearns, et al.
RE: Petition No. 325 of 1982, William B. Kearns, et al. vacation of an alley between 548 and 556 Dexter Street.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt an ordinance authorizing the vacation of an alley running east from 800 West Street between 548 and 556 Dexter Street. Said ordinance provides that before its effective date the petitioner must make appropriate arrangements with the Public Utilities Department for the reconnection of the service line presently located in the alley and if the relocation is not completed within one year, the ordinance will be null and void.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 57 of 1983, vacating the western arm of a 15-foot wide “T”-shaped alley located between Dexter Street and 800 West Street as it runs east from approximately 552 North Dexter Street, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-261)
Petition No 400-60 of 1983 submitted by Gerald Corwin.
RE: Petition No. 400-60 of 1983, requesting the annexation of approximately 12,320 acres of unincorporated territory lying east of the City in the vicinity of Emigration Canyon.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the annexation petition for purposes of City Council review. It is drafted to meet the requirements of Section 10-2-416, Utah Code Ann., 1953, the annexation law, under which we must proceed. To permit eventual annexation of the property, this resolution must be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the Council.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Under any annexation of Emigration Canyon, property owners and/or residents within the annexed area will be required to bear all capital costs for services extended by the City in addition to their proportionate share of operational costs for services. Development Services will spend $5,000 of the general fund to process this petition.
DISCUSSION: Upon adoption of the resolution, the Planning Commission and City Administration will review and develop recommendations for the Council. The annexation may be subject to protest and eventual boundary commission review. Should protests fail to materialize, it will be necessary for the matters to he referred back to the City Attorney’s Office in order that necessary annexation ordinances can be prepared. If valid protests are made, the City Attorney’s Office will defend the proposals before the boundary commission. Councilmember Whitehead said that there has been a lot of prior discussion with regard to annexing Emigration Canyon and questioned the acceptance of the petition.
Craig Peterson, director of development services said that in order to accept an annexation petition a 2/3 vote was required. He said that the last annexation petition was for partial annexation of Emigration Canyon sponsored by the developers of the canyon. The petition now before the Council is sponsored by the citizens living in the canyon and the majority of those citizens have indicated that they wish to be a part of Salt Lake City. He further said that the developers have not joined in or sponsored this petition but indicated that they intend to build in the county.
Mr. Peterson explained that by voting for the acceptance of the petition the Council would not be adopting a resolution for annexation of Emigration Canyon, but would consider the petition for review. He further said that if the Council voted against accepting the petition, the City would consider the matter closed and would submit an amendment to the City’s annexation resolution indicating that under no circumstances would the City consider the annexation of Emigration Canyon.
Councilmember Shearer asked if a majority of the property owners had signed the petition for annexation because the developers did not participate in this particular petition, to which Mr. Peterson said that the City engineer has certified that a majority of the property owners had signed the petition and the correct assessed valuation exists in the canyon. Mr. Peterson asked the Council to note that there is a statement in the proposed resolution that any cost of services to the canyon must be paid by the petitioners. Obviously, if there is no development in the canyon the cost to bring sewer and water to the canyon would be higher than it would be if the developers proposed units were constructed.
Ms. Shoppe addressed the Council and said that the petition was mailed to more that 800 property owners, each committee member phoned property owners, divided the canyon into geographical areas and assigned committee members an area to contact. Ms. Shoppe said that the committee used the tax rolls and again segregated the area for committee members to ask for support. Ms. Shoppe said that she and her husband own a half an acre of land in the canyon and that they have good water and sewage; however, they wanted to bring the petition before the Council so that every property owner in Emigration Canyon would have the opportunity to voice an opinion. Councilmember Whitehead asked Ms. Shoppe why she wanted to be annexed to the City if the canyon already has good water and sewage, to which Ms. Shoppe replied that she feels the traffic situation will be taken care of and that all present and future development of the canyon would be under the rules and regulations of the City. Councilmember Davis said that she has been working with the citizens of Emigration Canyon for two years.
When the previous petition for annexation, submitted by the developers, was defeated the residents felt it was proper to proceed on their own. Councilmember Davis said that although she voted against the original petition she feels that there have been changes in the canyon, particularly during the recent flooding situation. She said that large amounts of money will have to be spent to repair the damage to the roads. Councilmember Davis further said that the canyon is in a close proximity to the City and that there are interlocal agreements between the police and fire. She also stated that the Planning and Zoning Board membership has changed since the previous petition was considered and she felt that this petition should be accepted and reviewed by that Board and then submitted for review by the Council.
Craig Peterson addressed Councilmember Davis’ concern of the repair of the road in the canyon. He said that he had spoken to County Commissioner Barker who said that the repair of the flood damage to the road would be a top priority, and that it would in no way obligate the City to repair the roads. Councilmember Whitehead asked if the annexation of Emigration Canyon would cost the taxpayers of Salt Lake City more money because there is no commercial activity in the canyon. Mr. Peterson said that if the petition is approved for review, development services would perform detailed economic analysis of the viability of the canyon.
Mr. Peterson said there is a critical portion of the proposed resolution that he felt the citizens of the canyon should understand. He read from the resolution ...“Whereas it is anticipated that under any annexation of Emigration Canyon property owners and or residents within the annexed area will be required to bear all capital costs for services extended by the City in addition to their proportionate share of operational costs for services”... Mr. Peterson said that if the Council accepted the petition for study, the residents of the canyon need to know that this would be one of the criteria that would be expected in the acceptance of the canyon annexation.
Councilmember Mabey asked if there were any additional costs, to which Mr. Peterson said that he did not know of any other costs. Mr. Cutler said that capitalization costs for sewer and water lines and police and fire stations can be handled through the City’s present ordinance structure. He said that with regard to police and fire service, the level of service would have to be relatively equally divided, considering the density of the area, and these expenses would have to be born out of the general tax base. Mr. Cutler further said that if the service level was higher a special service district could be set up. Mr. Cutler said that he did not know what the studies would indicate, but the developers who petitioned for annexation of the canyon had agreed to make capital contributions as a part of the annexation agreement. He said that everyone must be treated under equal protection; however, when considering annexation you can equalize some costs with an annexation agreement.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if the $5,000 cost was the only cost to the City that would be involved, to which Mr. Peterson said that the $5,000 represented the costs to development services and that other departments such as public works and public utilities would incur some costs as well. Councilmember Mabey asked what new information could be provided that was not provided when the other petition was considered. Mr. Peterson said that some of the Council Members indicated that they thought it would be better to view the annexation of the canyon as a whole rather than a piece-meal annexation.
He said that the petitioners correctly or incorrectly were left with the impression that the Council would rather consider the annexation of the entire canyon. Mr. Peterson said that he believes the economic viability is marginal without the additional development of the canyon that was anticipated by the developers; studies show that additional units would have to be built within the canyon in order to have a positive rate of return for the City. He said that the question of cost, based upon the development potential, could be addressed by development services from a financial aspect, if the Council approves the petition for review.
Mr. Peterson said that when the proposed partial annexation was considered a great deal of analysis was done in terms of the total density that would be permitted in the canyon. Mr. Peterson also said that as a planning issue the canyon would be an appendage the City; however, if the county approves the development there would be a impact on the City streets because of the county’s plan to truck sewage from holding tanks in the canyon across Salt Lake City to Midvale. He said that there were some planning aspects in terms of City ordinances vs. county ordinances. He said that he felt the City would be more sensitive than the county to the canyon development.
Mayor Wilson said that he felt there was a distinct interest by the City in a whole canyon concept. He further said that without the elements of the previous petition and the developers proposing the same annexation, the present issue can he examined. He said that he feels the citizens felt that there was some good faith on the part of the Council to consider a petition for whole canyon annexation. Councilmember Davis reiterated her support for approving the petition for further review.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that she resented the fact that so much time and effort was spent in consideration of the previous annexation petition and that the canyon should have been annexed at that time.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to accept annexation petition No. 400-60 of 1983, requesting the annexation of Emigration Canyon, for the purpose of City Council review, which motion failed for lack of a 2/3 majority vote. Councilmembers Mabey, Fonnesbeck, Davis and Parker voting aye and Council Members Whitehead and Shearer voting nay, Councilmember DePaulis was absent.
Councilmember Davis asked if the matter could be brought before the Council at a future date because of the absence of Councilmember DePaulis, to which Mr. Cutler said that it could be brought before the Council on the request of any Councilmember. Mr. Cutler said that the attorney’s office would issue an opinion with regard to the validity of the vote because there was some confusion concerning the requirement for a majority vote on the question of accepting the petition for review.
(P 83-428)
Petition 400-90 of 1983 submitted by Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation.
RE: A request by Salt Lake City Parks and Recreation to rezone public property located west of the Jordan River, and south of 17th South (Land adjacent to Wild Wave Pool) from R-2 to C-3A.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 6, 1983 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss Petition No 400-90.
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission will not consider the matter until August 11, so their recommendation will be submitted later. The City Recorder should obtain the property description and adjacent property owners who should be notified from Byron Jorgensen for the public hearing notices.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a date for a public hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 1983 at 6:15 to hear a request by Salt Lake City Corporation, Parks and Recreation Department to rezone that property on the south side of 1700 South west of the Jordan River and north of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad tracks (1200 West) from “R-2” to C-3A” with the amendment that publication be worded to include the discussion of the use as a “water theme park”, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-429)
Petition No. 400-31 submitted by Salt Lake City Airport Authority.
RE: Petition No. 400-31 by Salt Lake City Airport Authority requesting that the Land Use Policy Plan for the Salt Lake City International Airport with the revised avigation easement be adopted and appropriate revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 11 Airport Zoning Height regulations be made.
RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Airport Authority that the Land Use Policy Plan submitted by the Salt Lake City Airport Authority be adopted as an element of the City’s General Plan and that a public hearing be held on September 13, 1983 at 7:00 pm. to consider adopting the changes to the Zoning Ordinance which will accomplish the objectives as set forth in the Land Use Policy Plan.
DISCUSSION: Further written information will be submitted to the City Council on the zoning changes and the avigation easement prior to the hearing date. The City Recorder should notify the Airport Authority, adjacent property owners, and the Housing Development Committee of the hearing date.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a date for a public hearing on Tuesday, September 13, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. to consider Petition No. 400-31 by the Salt Lake City Airport Authority requesting that the Land Use Policy Plan for the Salt Lake City International Airport with the revised avigation easement be adopted and appropriate revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 11, Airport Zoning Height Regulation, be made, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-430)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Consider and approve a resolution expressing the intent of the Salt Lake City Council to issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of up to $7,000,000 and loan the proceeds thereof to DMS, Ltd., a Utah Limited Partnership, to assist DMS, Ltd. in financing the purchase of DMS, Ltd. of up to approximately 16 acres of real property and the construction thereon of one or more buildings containing up to approximately 340,000 square feet to be leased to Certified Warehouse and Transfer Company, a Utah Corporation, to be used as a warehousing facility, and authorizing the execution of a memorandum of agreement between DMS, Ltd. and Salt Lake City in connection therewith.
Lance Bateman, city controller, addressed the Council and said that this resolution has been presented as an amended inducement resolution. However, it has been reviewed as if it were a new application for inducement because the amount of the bond issue has been changed from $2,500,000 to $7,000,00 and there has been a a change in the developer of the project. Mr. Bateman said that the City would prefer to hold the required public hearing prior to the adoption of an inducement resolution, however the developer wanted to proceed with the project as soon as possible.
Craig Terry, Parsons Behle & Latimer, attorney for the developer, addressed the Council and said that the developer is requesting that the Council postpone the public hearing at this time and adopt the proposed inducement resolution. That would allow construction of the project to begin in order to start incurring costs that can be reimbursed out of the bond proceeds. Mr. Terry said that it is necessary for the issuer to take official action regarding its intention to issue the bonds prior to any cost being incurred. He said that the developer was anxious to begin construction.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 74 of 1983 expressing the intent of the Salt Lake City Council to issue industrial development revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount of up to $7,000,000 and loan the proceeds thereof to DMS, Ltd., a Utah Limited Partnership, to assist DMS Ltd. in financing the purchase by DMS, Ltd. of up to approximately 16 acres of real property and the construction thereon of one or more buildings containing up to approximately 340,000 square feet to be leased to Certified Warehouse and Transfer Company, a Utah Corporation, to be used as a warehousing facility, and authorizing the execution of a memorandum of agreement between DMS, Ltd. and Salt Lake City in connection therewith, subject to the approval of the city attorney, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 82-1)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1 RE: the appointment of George Nicolatus and the reappointment of Keith Stepan, I. J. Wagner, and Herman Hogensen to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
DISCUSSION: There are presently four vacancies on the Planning and Zoning Commission caused by the resignation of Elizabeth Burns and the expiration of the terms of Keith Stepan, Izzy Wagner and Herman Hogensen. It is recommended that George Nicolatus be appointed to complete the term of Elizabeth Burns, and that Keith Stepan, Izzy Wagner and Herman Hogensen be reappointed to complete terms.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck, referred without objection, the appointment of George Nicolatus and the reappointment of Keith Stepan, I. J. Wagner, and Herman Hogensen to the Planning and Zoning Commission to the consent agenda for September 6, 1983.
(I 83-19)
#2. RE: Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board.
DISCUSSION: Ronald Carnago resigned from the Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board, and the terms of Fred Wheeler and Clinton Mott have expired. It is recommended that Wayne Hadley be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Ronald Carnago, and that Fred Wheeler and Clinton Mott each be reappointed to another term. The financial disclosure statements for Fred Wheeler, Clinton Mott and Wayne Hadley are on file in the City Recorder’s Office.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of Wayne Hadley and the reappointment of Fred Wheeler and Clinton Mott to the Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
(T 82-8)
#3. RE: Salt Lake City Public Library Board.
DISCUSSION: The first terms of Joyce L. Christiansen and James F. Butler on the Library Board expired June 30, 1983. It is recommended that both be reappointed to the Library Board to fill second terms which will expire on June 30, 1986. The second term of Richard L. Goode expired on June 30, 1983. Since he is not qualified for reappointment, it is recommended that James A. Giauque be appointed as his replacement on the Library Board. Mr. Giauque is on the audit staff of Coopers and Lybrand and has the necessary financial background that will be needed on the Board as Mr. Goode is replaced.
John R. Grantham resigned from the Library Board effective May 1, 1983. It is recommended that Boyer Jarvis be appointed to fill the remainder of his term. Mr. Jarvis is Vice President of Academic Affairs at the University of Utah and served on the Library Board from 1976 to 1982 as a particularly committed member, willing to invest substantial time in the interests of the library. The library is at a critical phase in its development campaign, and needs a working member with a solid background in library development.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of James A. Giauque and Boyer Jarvis and the reappointment of Joyce L. Christiansen and James F. Butler to the Salt Lake City Public Library Board, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(I 83-15)
#4. RE: Golf Advisory Board.
DISCUSSION: The terms of Herman Franks and Jimmy Brown on the Golf Advisory Board have expired. It is recommended that each of them be reappointed to another full term. Both of their financial disclosure statements are on file in the City Recorder’s Office. Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the reappointment of Herman Franks and Jimmy Brown to the Golf Advisory Board, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(I 83-16)
#5. RE: Housing Advisory and Appeals Board.
DISCUSSION: A vacancy presently exists on the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board because of the resignation of Estella Blewett. It is recommended that Mr. Joe Smit be appointed to fill this vacancy.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of Joe Smit to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(I 83-17)
#6. RE: Board of Examiners and Appeals.
DISCUSSION: There are presently three vacancies on the Board of Examiners and Appeals. It is recommended that Bob Springmeyer, Sr., Steve Smith, and Rex Loker be appointed to fill these vacancies.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of Bob Springmeyer, Sr., Steve Smith, and Rex Loker to the Board of Examiners and Appeals, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(I 83-18)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Construction Contract Award, Special Improvement District No. 38-686 on 1300 South Street from 700 East to 1300 East Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution granting approval for the Mayor to award a contract with Gibbons and Reed Construction Company for the construction of the Special Improvement District.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Fiscal year 1983/84 Community Development Funds and property owner assessments (Special Improvement District).
DISCUSSION: Curb and Gutter District No. 38-686 is comprised of improvements on 1300 South Street from 700 East to 1300 East The project will consist of the construction of curb and gutters, sidewalks, roadway reconstruction, drainage facilities and traffic control devices. The results of the bids opened by Council on August 2, 1983 indicate that Gibbons and Reed Construction Company was the low bidder for the project. Construction of the improvement district on 1300 South will begin in September 1983, and the project is scheduled for completion by September, 1984.
The project is scheduled for construction over a two year period because of the size of the project. During the fall of 1983 only minor work (i.e. tree removal, traffic control, sidewalk replacement and drainage facilities) will be constructed. Beginning in the spring and summer of 1984 the roadway will be reconstructed and all improvements installed. Max Peterson, city engineer, addressed the Council and said that the bids have been reviewed by the engineering division; they recommend that the Council award the contract to Gibbons and Reed Construction Company in the amount of $709,736.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 75 of 1983 awarding the construction contract to Gibbons and Reed Construction Company for the construction of improvements in Salt Lake City, Utah; Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-686 (1300 South from 700 East to 1300 East), which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 82-35)
#2. RE: Construction Contract Award, Special Improvement District No. 38- 723 on various non-contiguous streets throughout the City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution granting approval for the Mayor to award a contract to King Con, Inc. for the construction of the Special Improvement District.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Fiscal year 1983/84 Capital Improvement Funds and property owner assessments (SID).
DISCUSSION: Curb and Gutter Special Improvement District No. 38-723 is comprised of numerous non-contiguous residential streets in the southeast and northwest portions of the City. The project will consist of the construction of curb and gutters, sidewalks, roadways and drainage facilities. The results of the bids opened by Council on August 2, 1983 indicate that King Con, Inc. was the low bidder for the project. Construction of the improvement district will begin in September, 1983, and the project is scheduled for completion by October, 1984. Because of the size of the project it will require construction over a two year period. During the fall of 1983 the streets requiring curb and gutter and only minor asphalt tie-ins will be completed. Those streets scheduled for complete reconstruction will be done during the summer of 1984.
Councilmember Davis asked if the engineering division had a schedule indicating the priority order of the various locations of the project, to which Max Peterson, city engineer, replied that certain streets would be constructed this fall including all the sidewalk, curb and gutter and asphalt tie-ins. He said that none of the streets would be opened up during the winter. Mr. Peterson said that the engineering division does not schedule the priority of the project; scheduling is left to the contractor.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 76 of 1983 awarding the construction contract to King Con, Inc. for construction of improvements in Salt Lake City Utah; Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-723 (various non-contiguous streets), which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 82-32)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-20 submitted by Norris W. Goold and J. Leland Behunin.
RE: the vacation of an alley which runs north and south betewen Columbus Street and Victory Road.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this issue. Craig Peterson, director of development services, addressed the Council and outlined the area on a map indicating the property owned by Mr. Goold, the petitioner, and the area he is requesting to be vacated. He said that all the property owners adjacent to the area requested for vacation have not signed the petition. Mr. Peterson said that the alley has never been used because there is a steep slope.
Mr. Goold’s petition stated that he did not believe that anyone would ever use this as an alley. He said that Mr. Goold presently owns property on both sides of the alley that is zoned R-5; he has some four-plexes in that area. Councilmember Davis asked if the state had acquired an interest in a portion of the property, to which Mr. Peterson said that the state has acquired all the land that they intend to acquire. John Paul, representing the petitioner, addressed the Council and outlined on a map Mr. Goold’s property.
He said that Mr. Goold was the largest property owner in the area. Mr. Paul stated that they had tried to ascertain whether the alley could ever become functional; whether fire engines could use the alley for ingress or egress. He said that the alley was not functional because of the steep slope that would not permit emergency vehicles to use the alley. Mr. Paul said that all the departments within the City have concurred with the request to vacate this alley. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why the petitioner was requesting the alley be vacated, to which Mr. Paul said that they wanted the alley for convenience, for access and to have one continuous piece of property.
Mr. Jex, property owner, outlined on a map the alley and the adjacent property. He said that the alley was currently 400 feet in length rather than 500 feet because the state changed its right-of-way. He said that with the permission of all adjacent property owners Mr. Behunin has landscaped the alley and used a portion of the Jex property on the north. All this has improved the area but the Behunin land use of the alley, and parts of the Jex property, are only temporary. Mr. Jex said that when he visited the State Transportation Department and inquired as to criteria pertaining to access roads to Victory Road, he was told that safety is the main factor; they would oppose any design that was not safe. He said it would therefore seem wise to have an alley access rather than access directly onto Victory Road.
Mr. Jex said that the alley closure petition is an alternate plan of Mr. Goold dealing with block 15 plat J. He said that records show that since 1969 Mr. Goold has been requesting various legalization of building violations in an R-4 district. He said that he was informed that the law requires 25 feet of open space from the rear of Mr. Goold’s buildings to his property. Mr. Jex said that the plan approved for Goold’s Columbus development, was for 20 feet from the line. However, Mr. Goold actually built within 15 feet of his rear retaining wall, which itself is five feet onto the alley right-of-way.
Mr. Jex said that Mr. Goold had violated the variance he was given on that site. He said that because of his extensive encroachment of the City’s right-of-way, Mr. Goold has made it impossible to put an alley along his property without destroying his retaining wall. Mr. Jex said that the alley is essential to his property, block 17 and 18, for apartment development; he feels it is best to use the lower levels for garages with access to the alley, and to landscape the side terrace garden area. He said that the Jex property had been owned by his family since 1939 and therefore he feels it is his privilege and right to be able to use the alley as an access to the two pieces of land.
Mr. Jex concluded by saying that by vacating the alley it promotes the property rights of one private party unfairly over the property rights of another. He said the various departments who sent in reports failed to give any consideration to his property rights; or even the opportunity to provide input. He said that the vacation of the alley could promote problems relating to density and could impact neighborhood and Victory Road use.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer this item to the Committee of the Whole for review and set it on the agenda for September 13, 1983 for Council consideration, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-377)
Petition 400-35 of 1983 submitted by Robert Koyen.
RE: vacating a 20-foot wide alley which runs east and west between Victoria Way and Topaz Drive for a distance of 140 feet, parallel to 10th North and 9th North in Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this item. Craig Peterson addressed the Council and said that Mr. Koyen had previously requested a change of zoning in the proximity of this alley to R-4, which the Council approved and adopted an ordinance changing the zoning of this area to R-4. Mr. Peterson said that this alley is adjacent to Mr. Koyen’s property. He said there is no opposition from adjoining property owners to the vacation of this alley. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 58 of 1983 vacating a 20-foot wide alley which runs east and west between Victoria Way and Topaz Drive for a distance of 140 feet, parallel to 10th North and 9th North in Salt Lake City, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
(P 83-378)
CITIZENS COMMENTS
Phyllis Larson addressed the Council and said that she wanted to establish an antique store business in Salt Lake and wanted the Council to waive the business license requirement for the remainder of this calendar year. She explained that she would not be able to open her business until October or November and she did not feel she should pay the license fee for this calendar year and then pay the fee next January. Mayor Wilson suggested that Ms. Larson work with his office to see what recommendations or accommodations can be made.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.