PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1984, 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 GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
#1. Ms. Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, briefed the Council on items scheduled for action. She also announced that the administration has requested action on several items Thursday, December 13, 1984. Ms. von der Esch recommended that the Council meet at 4:30 on December 13 so action could be taken before the Redevelopment Agency meeting. The meeting was scheduled for 4:30 as recommended.
#2. Ms. von der Esch briefed the Council on space utilization options for the restored City and County Building. Three options were presented. The Council expressed concern about each option. Their concerns included lack of access to elected officials if they were housed on the fifth floor, inadequate space, and functional difficulties arising from locating the Council Office away from the Council Chambers, away from the City Recorder, and away from the Mayor’s Office. The Council directed Ms. von der Esch to pursue other alternatives that would locate the Council, Recorder, and Mayor Offices near one another, close to entrances to provide public access and near the Council Chambers.
#3. Arlo Nelson, Stephanie Loker, and Bill Wright briefed the Council on changes to target area designations. They requested Council action so the new target areas could be reflected in Community Development Block Grant planning processes. The Council agreed to take formal action on the recommended target area changes on Thursday, December 13, 1984.
The briefing session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1984, 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. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Allen Roden.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, December 4, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 84-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-227 of 1984 by Loveland and Hill.
RE: Annexation of 1.553 acres at approximately 2100 South Lakeline Drive into Salt Lake City.
Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter on September 13, 1984, and recommended approval. He explained that the petitioners intend to develop five residential subdivision lots and build a single-family dwelling on each lot. He said that the recommendation for approval was given with the stipulation that the property be zoned “R-l” with an “F-l” overlay. He also mentioned that the property is surrounded on three sides by Salt Lake City. Councilmember Davis had questions about the drainage in this area and also mentioned that she wanted a chance to read the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. She suggested that this item be postponed.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to postpone this petition request until the first Council meeting in January, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-283 and R 84-16)
Petition 400-244 of 1984 by Dennis Bangerter.
RE: Annexation into Salt Lake City of one acre of land located at 3100 North 2450 West.
Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the Planning Commission discussed this request on November 29, 1984, and recommended that the city annex the property with the following conditions: 1. That the property be zoned Agricultural “A-1”. 2. That the petitioner provide all required sound attenuation improvements in the home he proposes to build. 3. That the petitioner provide an avigation easement with the property. 4. That the petitioner agree to sign a waiver of protest to future SID street, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Mr. Johnson said that it is the petitioner’s intent to build a dwelling on the property, which is allowed under the “A-l” zone. He indicated that the surrounding area is mainly agricultural.
Ms. Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, explained that the purpose of the annexation is to enable the petitioner to have city water and sewer services. Mr. Johnson said that there is a water pipeline adjacent to the area but presently there is no sewer line. He said that the petitioner will use a septic tank until sewer lines are installed at which time he will be encouraged to connect into the sewer line.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to suspend the rules and consider this request on first reading, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 126 of 1984 accepting Petition 400-244 of 1984 for purposes of City Council review; adopt Resolution 127 of 1984 amending Salt Lake City’s policy declaration relating to annexation; and adopt Ordinance 70 of 1984 extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the “Bangerter Annex”, zoning the same “A-l” by amending the use district map as adopted by Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, and specifying conditions of said annexation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-282, R 84-15)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: West Downtown Master Plan.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, January 15, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the proposed West Downtown Master Plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-32)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Industrial Revenue Bond for Big “V” Associates.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 125 of 1984 providing for the financing by Salt Lake City, Utah, of a project consisting of a commercial office building facility at 450 East 500 South, equipment, furnishings and related property and improvements in order that Big “V” Associates may be provided with facilities to promote the general welfare and encourage the increase of industry and commerce; authorizing and providing for the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984 (Big “V” Associates Project) which will be payable solely from the revenues arising from the pledge of a loan agreement with Big “Vs Associates; authorizing the execution and delivery of a loan agreement between Salt Lake City, Utah, and Big “V” Associates; providing for the acquisition, financing and construction of said project; authorizing the execution and delivery of an indenture of trust and a bond purchase agreement; confirming the sale of said bonds to the purchaser thereof, authorizing the use and of an official statement; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-10)
#2. RE: Amendments to the Fiscal Year 1984-1985 budget.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, January 15, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the 1984-1985 budget amendments, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(B 84-5)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: The request of Mayor Ted Wilson to appropriate $25,000 to finance part of the cost of an Olympic Games feasibility study.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve the request for $25,000 with the provision that all records relating to the study are public and available for inspection, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 84-38)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: A resolution affirming the City Council’s support of the Memorandum of Understanding approved under Resolution 100 dated December 6, 1983.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 128 of 1984 affirming the City Council’s support of the Memorandum of Understanding relating to the Central Utah Project approved under Resolution 100 dated December 6, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 84-14)
#2. RE: Interlocal agreement for the establishment of Little Dell Dam and Reservoir.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to reaffirm Resolution 124 of 1984, which was adopted December 4, 1984, authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City for the construction of Little Dell Dam and Reservoir, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(C 84-555)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Distributors Remanufacturing Center.
RE: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Distributors Remanufacturing Center.
A public hearing was held at 6:25 p.m. to discuss this issue.
Councilmember Shearer explained that the inducement resolution for this project has already been approved and the Council is to the point of approving the issuance of the bonds. No one from the audience addressed this matter.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 129 of 1984, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, providing for the financing by Salt Lake City, Utah, of a project to purchase and rehabilitate a manufacturing facility at 2494 Directors Row for Distributors Remanufacturing Center, a Delaware Corporation, authorizing and providing for the issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984 (Distributors Remanufacturing Center) in the amount of $1,100,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-19)
East Central Neighborhood Plan.
RE: Adoption of the East Central Neighborhood Plan.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this issue. Brent Wilde, planning and zoning, said that the East Central Neighborhood Plan encompasses the area between South Temple and 600 South and it extends from the University of Utah west to a western boundary which meanders from about 10th East at South Temple to 7th East at 600 South. This area is identified for low-and moderate-density housing. Mr. Wilde said that because of differing land use and building condition characteristics the study area has been separated into two segments. Mr. Wilde explained that in Area A, east of 10th East, they endorsed the change of zoning to “R-3A” and proposed the compatibility review overlay to accomplish two main purposes: It is a mechanism by which a project can exceed the base-zone requirements as well as a design review process that will be imposed on projects that comply to the “R-3A” base-zone requirement with a less rigorous process for the projects that comply with the base zone. He said that Area 13 is presently zoned “R-6” and their original thinking was to retain “R-6” with compatibility review to consider higher density projects. He said that the neighborhood wanted some “R-3A” zoning in the area and so, as a compromise, it was proposed to modify the zone in three main areas: reduce the density potential from 80 units to 50, eliminate the height exception and have 45 feet as the maximum height, and modify the side-yard requirements particularly for apartments which are oriented to the side yard.
Mr. Wilde indicated that the plan includes numerous other neighborhood improvement recommendations such as endorsing the proposed residential parking permit program and public facility improvements. In conclusion Mr. Wilde said that the neighborhood representing Area B, west of 10th East, has felt strongly that the “R-6” zoning is improper in all areas east of 700 East. He said that actions were being taken to address this situation but information had been received too late to incorporate it into the plan.
Michael Error, 133 Windsor Street, chairman of the North Central Neighborhood Council, endorsed the plan but felt that it was discriminatory in his neighborhood. He indicated that the residents want to maintain this area as residential but the area is not included in Area B and the residents feel the zoning should be the same as the zoning proposed for Area B. Councilmember Fonnesbeck mentioned that she had been informed that this area was not completed because of the funding situation. She said that there are only nine blocks and suggested that the Council consider having this area completed when funds become available.
Robert McQuarrie, 843 South 900 East, chairman of the East Central Community Council, said that the plan represents a good compromise between the city and the residents. He mentioned that they wanted to see the plan extended to other areas and additional work accomplished. He also said that they are not opposed to development where necessary and compatible but he felt that residential areas need to be maintained. Frank Ratliff, 932 East Place, said that he wanted his area to remain a residential area. Amy Shirk, 238 South 800 East, said that her area is a good neighborhood and with the help of a target development area the homes could be improved. Don Tucker, 354 South 1100 East, supported the plan and said that he wanted the study continued into other areas.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck mentioned that there is a parking problem at the Trolley Corners Theater and she asked if this was addressed in the plan. Mr. Wilde said that a recommendation has been made to increase the parking requirement for theaters. He explained that this will not solve the problem with Trolley because they can not impose additional parking requirements on them now. He said that the only solution would be to consider this with the residential parking permit program.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the East Central Neighborhood Plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded a Council intent to include the nine blocks from 10th East to 7th East and South Temple to 600 South, which were left out of the plan, and complete this area, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to request that the necessary resolution implementing this plan be drafted and brought before the Council as soon as possible, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-27)
Sign Regulations.
RE: Amendments to Chapter 7 of Title 51 relating to signs projecting over city property.
A public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this issue. Craig Peterson, director of Development Services, explained that this ordinance came about as a result of requests by property owners in the area for the city to modify its regulations regarding signs on awnings and also modify other ordinances relating to canvas and awning signs. He said that the Planning Commission disagreed with the Administration’s viewpoint on this matter and they recommended that the changes not be adopted.
He said the planning staff believes that well-done awnings and signs on awnings can bring an interesting dimension to the streetscape of Salt Lake City and he said that they believe the ordinance’s extreme limitations should not lead to flagrant violations. Mr. Peterson said that the Planning Commission recommended that no changes be made to the existing ordinances. He also said that they are concerned that canvas signs may discourage owners from constructing more lasting, desirable types of signs.
Mr. Peterson said that the Mayor reviewed the ordinance and agrees with the staff recommendation. He said the Mayor believes that adequate provisions could be made to protect and enforce proper signs on awnings and canvas structures and the changes would enhance the urban design characteristics of Salt Lake City. Allen Johnson, planning and zoning, outlined the proposed ordinance (a copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). He said that the amendments which have been proposed basically take the existing provisions in the sign ordinance and extend them to include advertising on canvas media in the form of an awning or a permanent canvas sign. He said that the basic size and location of advertising is not being changed. Mr. Johnson said that no attempt has been made to legalize any existing violations. He indicated that currently awnings without signs are allowed if certain conditions are met.
Mr. Johnson explained that the performance standards for signs on private property have not been changed from the existing ordinance. He said if the awning sign is projecting into a required yard area then specific provisions will have to be met and these are contained in the existing sign ordinance with respect to projecting signs or free standing signs. Mr. Johnson outlined Sections 51-7-403 (d), 51-7-403 and 51-7-422 of the proposed ordinance which list required provisions.
Councilmember Mabey asked how maintenance of signs would be enforced. Mr. Johnson said that the owner will have to post a maintenance bond and when building and housing services locates signs which are not being maintained, they can have the sign removed by the property owner or building and housing services can remove the sign themselves by using the bond. Councilmember Mabey expressed concern that multicolored and designed awning signs will give Salt Lake City a carnival effect. He also expressed concern that if owners do not maintain the signs properly they will become dirty, faded, and torn.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that presently awnings (without signs) are allowed and the controls in the proposed ordinance are better than those in the existing ordinance. Bruce Griffin, Allied Griffin Awning Company, said that small businesses need awnings to keep merchandise which is displayed in windows from fading and they also need a sign. He indicated that awnings are made of synthetic fabrics which are strong and are guaranteed not to fade. Mr. Griffin also said that retractable awnings are no longer used. He said they want to be able to give the small businesses, which cannot afford both a sign and an awning, a chance to have the business name displayed on an awning. It was Mr. Griffin’s opinion that permanent awnings should be allowed to be four feet away from a building instead of two.
Don Sevy, Sugar House Awning Company, reiterated that the new synthetic fabrics are guaranteed and acrylic paint which is used on the awnings almost eliminates fading. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that she feels awnings are an important part of the city. She did not anticipate that this new ordinance would encourage the use of awnings and she reiterated that awnings without signs on them are currently allowed. She felt that the protection in the proposed ordinance is better than the current ordinance. It was Ms. Fonnesbeck’s opinion that a festive atmosphere may encourage people to shop along the streets instead of staying inside ma11s. Councilmember Shearer mentioned that the “B-3” zones have not been included in this proposed ordinance. Mr. Johnson said that this zone has only been excluded from having awnings over public property.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer this proposed ordinance to the Committee of the Whole for the first Thursday meeting in January, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-33)
Residential Permit Parking
RE: Amending Title 46 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, relating to the Traffic Code by adding a new Article 24 relating to establishing a residential permit parking program to be administered by the Public Works Director.
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this issue. Larry Livingston, legislative analyst for the City Council, explained the program. He said that there has been a great deal of public pressure, mainly from residents around major institutions such as the University of Utah and area hospitals, regarding parking problems due to commuter vehicles being parked in residential areas. He said that an attempt has been made to draft an enabling ordinance that would allow the creation of a district with special parking regulations. These regulations would give a certain benefit to those people who live in the area and have limited parking.
Mr. Livingston said that this legislation is an attempt to enable people with this parking situation to petition in order to solve the problem. He explained that the process would consist of meeting with the Transportation Engineer about establishing a district and then the petitioner would begin to gather signatures of support for the creation of the district. When there was a significant show of support, the Traffic Engineer would conduct a study to determine the impact of the commuter vehicles on the area. Mr. Livingston said that there would be criteria to be satisfied in order for the area to qualify as a district.
After the criteria were satisfied and the Transportation Engineer determined that there was a high level of impact, then the petitioner would need to provide the signatures of 60% of property owners and residents to show that they support the establishment of a district. Mr. Livingston said that the petitioner would have 90 days to collect the signatures and he clarified that the petitioner would not collect signatures twice but would begin to gather the signatures at the beginning of the process in order to show the level of support. Mr. Livingston said the intent is that there would be close communication with the Transportation Engineer and the neighborhood. Mr. Livingston said that when a district is declared eligible and a valid petition with signatures of 60% of the property owners and residents is received and verified, then a public hearing would be held before the Public Works Director since the Public Works Director would administer the ordinance. Mr. Livingston said that the purpose of the hearing would be to determine the impact in an area and the special circumstances of the area. Mr. Livingston outlined several problems which will have to be resolved. These problems include how parking permits will be allocated, issuing temporary permits for visitors, and cost for permits.
Norman Barnett, transportation engineer, explained that details have not been written into the ordinance in order to provide flexibility so that the special needs of a particular area can be met. The following citizens expressed support for the ordinance: Desmond Barker, 1427 Military Way, Mike Murphy, 1432 East South Temple, Jack Schoenhals, 2849 Millicent Drive, Don Tucker, 354 South 1100 East, Robert McQuarrie, 843 South 900 East, Orson Gibb, 314 South 12th East, Arthur Swindle, 1296 Third Avenue, Jane Stromquist, 33 C Street.
Support was expressed for the concept of the ordinance but it was pointed out that the ordinance should be studied carefully to work out the details and problems. All agreed that there are parking problems in many areas. Concern was expressed that University parking would be extended into the neighborhoods through use of the temporary permits. Suggestions were also made that the state should resolve the problem of parking at the University. Another point was made that there may be contention over the issue of fees.
Lionel Farr, 130 South 10th East, opposed the program and said that he did not like restrictions of government on private property. He suggested that in the Council’s effort to collect information about this problem they should investigate whether or not the businesses are supplying adequate off-street parking and whether or not that parking is being used. He also suggested that parking problems at the University need to be investigated so student parking does not spread into the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck commented that many people park on the street instead of in the parking terraces because there is a fee to park. She referred specifically to Mr. Farr’s neighborhood and said that doctors at medical facilities in that area do not give parking validations. Representative Samuel Taylor commented that several years ago the State Board of Regents voted to request the UTA Board of Directors to institute an off- peak, no-fare program for students in order to alleviate traffic problems. He suggested that the Council ask the UTA Board of Directors to extend the off-peak, no-fare service to everyone.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this proposed ordinance to the Council retreat scheduled for January 17, 1985, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-30)
CITIZEN COMMENT
#1. W. L. Davis, 880 East 1st South, mentioned that there is a parking problem in this area. He said that “No Parking” signs were installed and he indicated that this is inconvenient. Councilmember Whitehead referred Mr. Davis to the Mayor’s Office.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adjourn to the Council Office, Room 211 of the City and County Building, and meet as the Committee of the Whole to consider a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of electing a Council Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 1985, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 84-39)
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.