The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, December 10, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Joanne Milner Sam Souvall Deeda Seed
Bryce Jolley Keith Christensen
The following Council Members were absent:
Stuart Reid Tom Godfrey
Mayor Deedee Corradini; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Bonnie Ferrin, Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council meeting held December 3, 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(M 95-1)
#3. Adopting a joint resolution with the Mayor honoring Jane Edwards for her service to the YWCA.
Councilmember Christensen read the joint resolution honoring Jane Edward for her 11 years of service as Director of the Salt Lake YWCA.
Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Milner seconded to adopt Resolution 81 of 1996, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(R 96-1)
QUESTIONS TO THE MAYOR FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Souvall said an officer from the Avenues area borrowed a speeding board and wanted the Mayor to know that the results were positive.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Eric Jergensen, 53 East 200 North, said he was Chairman of the Capitol Hill Community Council.
He said the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council felt strongly that the proposed moratorium parcel was incorrectly zoned at RMF-45. He said when the zoning ordinance was approved the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council was told that their specific concerns about the parcel would be resolved during the master plan process. He said the Council suggested that this parcel would be zoned low density. He said since the zoning rewrite had been approved, the Neighborhood Council had worked closely with Planning Staff to complete the Master Plan vision which would change the zone on the parcel. He said the wrong zone on the parcel produced a series of wrong development proposals. He said there were too many units, no sensitivity to surrounding neighborhood in terms of design mass, and traffic circulation or parking problems. He said this was not a development which enhanced the neighborhood. He said the developer first proposed a 34-unit project which was voluntarily withdrawn; he then proposed another project with 42-units which was rejected by Landmarks. He said the developer currently had proposed a project with 50-units which, again, was sent by Landmarks back to the developer for another review.
Mr. Jergensen said the expenditure of time and effort by a developer in presenting an unacceptable project did not constitute vesting. He said a down-zoning proposal to correct a zoning mistake after a developer had shown little regard for the surrounding zoning and community interest, did not constitute an action which was arbitrary or capricious.
He said the neighborhood had also spent significant amounts of time trying to work with the developer. He said each of the communities numerous suggestions were met with the words "not feasible". He said he thought neighbors had some right to a vesting on their property, to protect them from a zone which continued to produce proposals not correct for the neighborhood. He said the moratorium and subsequent down-zoning action would be a giant step toward saving the neighborhood. He urged the Council to take corrective action to save a vital and important part of the City.
Stephen Pace, 181 "B" Street, said options were shown in Gary Mumford's report regarding the investigation of the Mayor's conduct and the potential for City liability for payment of the attorney's legal fees. He said the person who wrote the staff report would now agree that there was no direct guidance from the City Council on the issue of what legal fees might be owing. He said it was clear the ethics act created an obligation which only related to a failed obligation, not just to an investigation.
He said when a powerful elected official asked for a personal payment, an ethical line might have been crossed whether any money changed hands or not.
Hardin Whitney, 258 Almond Street, said the Council had heard a lot about the Capitol Hill area with their steep and narrow streets, traffic and parking problems, and the unique nature of the historical district. He said the plan was to build 50 housing units in an area which could scarcely support 12. He said the LDS Church would be building a huge assembly hall one-half block from the proposed development. He said that development would cause traffic and parking problems. He said to permit an additional major development in the same area was not good planning. He said many individuals had given a lot of time and money to preserving the integrity of this neighborhood. He said the existing zoning was a serious mistake.
Joe Pitti, 325 North Quince Street, said he owned a 119 year old Victorian home located one-half block from the Watts project. He said he spent a long time trying to come up with solutions to preserve the neighborhood. He said in the 10 years he lived there he had seen the neighborhood turn around. He said the size and scale of the proposed project was massive in comparison to the buildings in the neighborhood and he felt it was inappropriate. He urged the Council to reconsider the zoning.
Brian Romriell, Attorney representing the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, said a moratorium was a stand-still agreement which did not purport as an ordinary measure to effect the rights, as the Utah Supreme Court had clearly stated. He said the rights were fixed, based on whether or not an application had already been made. He said he thought it was appropriate to impose this type of moratorium.
Bonnie Mangold, 326 Almond Street, said at last week's Council meeting there were concerns expressed about the fairness to the developer. She asked if the Council felt it was fair to a neighborhood to take 16 months of concentrated, persistent, non-stop effort to get the City to address the zoning problem. She said the equivalent in volunteer time and energy was at least one full time, skilled, professional, salaried position; plus at least $10,000 contributed by members of the neighborhood toward legal and other fees, and another $3500 to $4000 out-of-pocket expenses. She said the neighborhood had never asked Mr. Watts to do anything which would not still make him a substantial profit. She said the proposal for the Heritage Orchard was brought to Mr. Watts before he finalized the purchase of the property in March of 1996. She said the neighborhood proposed a way for both Mr. Watts and the neighborhood to get out of the impasse prior to his deadline for finalizing the purchase. She said in September of 1995, at the second Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the neighborhood suggested the possibility of 6 to 8 twin homes. She said open space, whether it was a natural conservation area or public trails and greenways was permitted use in RMF-45 zones. She said single family homes in the form of attached dwellings, up to 14.5 per acre, were also permitted.
She said it was unfortunate that Mr. Watts was involved with this property, because it was actually a zoning issue between the neighborhood and the City. She said it was still a zoning issue, and to proceed with something based on an RMF-45 zoning, was detrimental to the neighborhood.
She said Mr. Watts had not addressed any of the neighborhood concerns. She said if the proposals had been sensitive to neighborhood concerns and existing realities, a moratorium would not be necessary. She said the Council had a responsibility which went beyond one individual or even one neighborhood. She asked the Council to look carefully at the zoning issue.
Russ Watts, 2490 East Wren Haven Lane, said there had been an RMF-45 zone for over 25 years. He said he had tried to address neighborhood concerns. He said the corporation tried to create a project which would work in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. He said neighbors were against the PUD and had appealed the project. He said Landmarks also had a problem with the development so it went back to the drawing board. He said they decided to follow the zone which had been on the property for many years. He said Landmarks worked with them for months and had them hire separate design firms to create a design which would work in the Historic Master Plan District. He said they were close to conceptual approval. He said through the entire process, the massing of the building had gone down. He said the 34-unit project would make housing more affordable. He said this was because the units would be put in one building and would keep traffic off all roads with the exception of West Temple.
Bruce Baird, 201 South Main, Counsel for Watts Corporation, said Ms. Mangold would have the Council believe that this was the only opportunity the neighborhood had to consider the change in zoning. He said this was not true. He said at any time in the past 16 months she could have petitioned the Council to change the zoning. He said if she had petitioned the change before Mr. Watts got the plan this close, there would not be a vesting issue. He said every element of the project had been worked through repeatedly by the Historic Landmark Commission.
He said it would be bad public policy given the absence of Councilmember Godfrey and Councilmember Reid. He said this would expose the Council and City to significant legal risks, which Mr. Jergensen did not have to pay. He said the issue should have full Council consideration.
He said the rules were set and his client had jumped through every hoop. He said the Council should do what was right, no matter what the public outcry.
Jerry Tertocha, 142 West 300 North, John Sulich, 217 Almond Street, and Robin McLall, were in support of the moratorium.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the exclusion of the amended agenda, Item #7, and removal of Robert Archuleta's board appointment, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
#1. RE: Approving the appointment of Linda Nowlin to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board for a term extending through October 14, 1999.
(I 96-1)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Robert Archuleta to the Capital Improvement Program Citizen Board for a term extending through June 1, 1997.
(I 96-3)
RE: Approving the appointment of Evelyn W. Johnson to the Capital Improvement Program Citizen Board for a term extending through June 1, 1998.
(I 96-3)
#3. RE: Adopting Resolution 77 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation to construct and maintain a utility line within certain UDOT right-of-way property, and related matters.
(C 96-759)
#4. RE: Adopting Resolution 78 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Community Development to loan to Salt Lake City Corporation the sum of $20,000 in HOME funds to help defray the City's costs in contracting for installation of a new boiler system at the First Step House at 411 North Grant Street in Salt Lake City.
(C 96-758)
#5. RE: Adopting Resolution 79 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Sandy City, Murray City, Midvale City, City of South Salt Lake, West Jordan City, Holliday Water Company, and White City Water Improvement District applying for Section 319 Nonpoint Source funding proposal being submitted by the East Salt Lake Valley Drinking Water Source Protection Project.
(C 96-760)
#6. RE: Setting the date of January 14, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating a street known as Gemini Road located between Lots 1 and 2 of the Bonneville Center Plat A Subdivision (Industrial), pursuant to Petition No. 400-92-29.
(P 96-449)
#7. RE: Approving the appointments of Calvin L. Rampton and Jack Gallivan to the Utah Transit Authority Board.
(I 96-18)
NEW BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting a motion assigning legislative audit of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah.
(G 96-19)
#2. RE: Adopting a motion assigning legislative audit of the Utah League of Cities and Towns.
(G 96-19)
#3. RE: Adopting a motion assigning legislative audit of the availability of community action team information to police dispatchers.
(G 96-19)
#4. RE: Adopting a motion assigning legislative audit of complimentary golf rounds played on City courses.
(G 96-19)
#5. RE: Adopting a motion assigning legislative audit of housing and zoning enforcement and court processes.
(G 96-19)
#6. RE: Adopting a motion assigning legislative audit of the Salt Lake City Cemetery.
(G 96-19)
#7. RE: Adopting a motion assigning legislative audit of the City's Risk Management program.
(G 96-19)
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to table Item's 1 through 7, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
#8. RE: Adopting an ordinance eliminating homeless shelters as conditional uses from the Downtown D-3 Zone and General Commercial C-G Zone.
ACTION: Councilmember Milner moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt the motion referring to Planning for review and City Attorney for drafting; request response by April 4, 1997, which motion carried, all members present voted aye.
(G 96-22)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting a motion reconsidering the Council's action of December 3, 1996 to adopt an ordinance establishing a moratorium in the Capitol Hill area.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Souvall seconded to adopt the motion, which motion carried, Council Members Souvall, Jolley, Seed, and Milner voted aye, Councilmember Christensen voted nay, and Council Members Reid and Godfrey were absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Souvall said he initiated and supported the moratorium. He said the input he received had been consistent and helpful. He said it was a simple realization that the development allowable under the zoning was too impacting on the neighborhood and its infrastructure. He said it was important to remember that up until recently they were dealing with approximately 30 units. He said the problem for Mr. Watts was the project was too expensive, per unit, for the area. He said he tried to see both sides of the issue and tried to be fair.
RE: Adopting an ordinance establishing a moratorium on all development relating to the Capitol Hill vacant property south of 300 North between Almond Street and West Temple for six months or until the Council formally considers rezoning the parcel, from Residential Multi-family 45 "RMF-45" to Special Residential "SR-1".
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Souvall seconded to adopt Ordinance 92 of 1996, which motion carried, Council Members Souvall, Jolley, Seed, and Milner voted aye, Councilmember Christensen voted nay, Council Members Reid and Godfrey were absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Christensen said he opposed the motion because there had been many community meetings and too many months had passed. He said this was exercising bad government. He said 15 months was too long. He said the entire City was rezoned about a year and a half ago and he asked where the neighborhood organization was then. He said he did not think zoning was the issue. He said the developer had worked too hard and too long to have the City say no 15 months into the process. He said anyone could have petitioned the Council for a rezone.
Councilmember Seed said a moratorium was being established and the zoning issue was not being dealt with. She said the moratorium would only stop things for the next 6 months. She said she hoped that during this time there could be continued conversations between the developer and the community. She said the reason she asked that the issue come back before the Council was because she felt she did not have adequate information about the issue at the time. She said she felt she now had the needed information. She said as an elected official, she was responsible to the citizens of the community.
Councilmember Jolley said he voted for the moratorium because he did not feel he had a clear understanding of both sides of the story. He said it was clear to him that even though the project had been in process for some time, there had not been a completed project which would entitle vesting in the project. He said since there had been several changes, there had not been an approvable project for 15 months and there still was not an approvable project. He said he was concerned that the voices of the neighborhood had not been listened to in the past 15 months. He said he felt comfortable that the community had tried to change the master plan and the zoning. He said the neighbors were told that when the master plan was taken care of the zoning would be corrected. He said a moratorium would give everyone 6 months to see if changes could be made or some other project approvable to the community could be found.
(O 96-45)
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
bf