PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 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 GRANT MABEY IONE N. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items relating to Council agenda and scheduling. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, discussed the merry-go-round for Liberty Park. Mike Chitwood, director, redevelopment agency, briefed the Council on the transfer of the Roberta-LaConia property from Salt Lake City Corporation to the Housing Authority; previously this item was discussed before the Redevelopment Agency. Jay Montoya objected to the transfer and requested the opportunity to purchase this property. Mr. Montoya made his request over three months ago, however no further action was taken by Mr. Montoya.
Council Members discussed the possible objections of the neighbors to the Housing Authority project. Mr. Chitwood indicated that it was a small duplex project and that the property could not be utilized for much more than that.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded that no public hearing be held regarding the transfer of this property and that the City should proceed with the Housing Authority’s request to receive the Roberta-LaConia property from Salt Lake City Corporation.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 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 M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Mayor Ted Wilson, Albert E. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Clarence Fields.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes, as amended, of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council held Tuesday, February 1, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(M 83-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 151 of 1982 submitted by Robert Peterson.
RE: Requesting that property in the vicinity of 3165 South 1300 East Street be annexed to Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the Robert Peterson Annexation Petition for the purpose of review. It is further recommended that a public hearing be held on March 8, 1983 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this petition.
DISCUSSION: This petition has been reviewed by the planning commission, city engineering, transportation, public utilities and the city attorney’s office. They have recommended that the petition be approved subject to the following conditions as requested by the city engineer: 1. The petitioner would be responsible to prepare and submit a plat abiding by the platting requirements of the city engineer. 2. That the petitioner, as part of an annexation agreement, would be obligated to install curb and gutter and sidewalk and street improvements along the frontage of his property, including Richmond Street and Woodlawn Avenue (3175 South). The planning commission has recommended that the zoning of this property be Commercial “C-l” classification.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 9 of 1983 accepting the Robert Peterson Annexation Petition for purposes of City Council review and schedule a public hearing for March 8, 1983 at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this petition, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-60)
Petition 400-15 of 1982 submitted by Janus Associates.
RE: Requesting that property located at 475 South 8th East be rezoned from its present “R-6” classification to a Residential “R-7” classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 8, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-15.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: A check from the petitioner is attached to the petition to cover the $50 advertising fee requirements.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by the planning commission and they have recommended that the petition be denied. The planning commission feels with the increase of families in the area the “R-7” zoning is not appropriate at this time. Also the rezoning would bring additional traffic next to a school and would increase intensive uses and speculation in the area. The petitioner has requested the public hearing to appeal the planning commission’s decision.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for March 8, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. to consider this petition, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-58)
Petitions 400-21 and 400-22 submitted by Neighborhood Housing Services.
RE: Requesting that a portion of the Granite Subdivision and the Deskey Subdivision be vacated including a portion of American Avenue and Hayes Avenue between Parkview School property and Navajo Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 8, 1983 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss these petitions.
DISCUSSION: The petitioned lots are all vacant and comprise a parcel of land located at approximately 1008 South Navajo Street just west of the Parkview Elementary School. The two dedicated streets covered in the petitions are Hayes and American Avenues. These streets have never been constructed and dead-end into the school to the east. Neighborhood Housing Services, in conjunction with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, is proposing to develop 20 units of new owner-built housing on this vacant site. The project calls for units to be built in either single-family or duplex structures.
Before a new subdivision can be approved, it is necessary to vacate this portion of the existing subdivision. It is understood that, under the state law, to vacate a portion of a subdivision requires the signatures of all of the owners of the property located in the subdivision. The petitions do not have the signatures of all the affected property owners, and it appears unlikely that all of the required signatures can be obtained as many of the property owners are absentee and out of state. However, the planning commission feels that the proposed reuse of the land is desirable to the City, that the existing subdivision is not compatible to proper reuse and if developed on the existing subdivision a substandard condition would result as the streets are dead-ended into the school board property. Therefore, it is recommended that the streets and alleys and that portion of the subdivision covered by the petitions be vacated as requested, provided all the legal restrictions as may be imposed by the legal department are complied with and also subject to maintaining easements for any utilities which may be located in this portion of the subdivision.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for March 8, 1983 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petitions 400-21 and 400-22 which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 83-59)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Amendment to Section 51-5-22, fence regulations.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 8, 1983 to discuss amending Section 51-5-22, fence regulations, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: The planning commission has been studying this ordinance for several months and now recommends that a public hearing be held and the ordinance adopted.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to schedule a public hearing for March 8, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss amending Section 51-5-22, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 83-5)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Appointment to the Civil Service Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that John Florez be appointed to fill the existing vacancy on the Civil Service Commission.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of John Florez to the Civil Service Commission, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(I 83-8)
#2. RE: Proposed amendment to the amended collective bargaining resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amending the resolution to allow police sergeants, arson investigators, fire captains, and police and fire lieutenants to belong to their respective bargaining units and bargain for non-economic items as determined by the Mayor.
DISCUSSION: The above named groups have expressed a desire to be permitted membership in their respective employee organizations and to be allowed to participate in the collective bargaining process regarding non-economic items.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Resolution 10 of 1983 amending Resolution 90 of 1978 regarding collective bargaining procedures for Salt Lake City Corporation, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(R 83-4)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use of Schools.
RE: Amending Chapter 6 of Title 51 of the zoning ordinances by adding a new Section 16 relating to conditional use of schools.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to consider this amendment. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that schools are located in residential neighborhoods zoned “R-2”. There are occasions when schools are not used because the enrollment is small; however, it is felt that the enrollment may increase in the future and so the school board does not want to close the building. As a result, the building is left vacant. With an amendment to the ordinance, the board of adjustment, with a recommendation from the planning commission, could grant a conditional use and the buildings could be used for other purposes.
The ordinance outlines standards governing the temporary use; for example, incompatible exterior or interior alterations could not be made to the building and all changes would have to be approved by the board of adjustment. Also the conditional use would not be for more than five years at which time the use can be reviewed; any time during the five-year period the board could periodically review the use of the school to determine if the use should be continued. Mr. Jorgensen said that the City would keep jurisdiction of the building to ensure that is was not abused. If the school board were to determine that there was no future need for a school building then the conditional use would cease and the property would only be used for purposes allowed by “R-2” zoning.
Mr. Jorgensen said that the school board would have to indicate that in the future they intend to use the building as a school. The conditional use would only be temporary and the use would be limited to approved public/private charitable or educational purposes; the buildings could not be used for retail, residential, or industrial purposes or any other use involving any type of correctional or institutional use. This would be a method to maintain the building and have a use for the building until it was needed for a school.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck expressed concern about backdoor zoning changes. Councilmember Davis said that the ordinance is written in a way so that control over the zoning would not be lost. Councilmember Parker asked about using the playgrounds as mini parks. Mr. Jorgensen stated that presently the playgrounds can be used for that purpose if the City and the school agree. Edward Rogers, 577 13th Avenue, said that he too was concerned about backdoor zoning changes. He said that the school district should not rent buildings for profit because they would be competing with the private sector and the district is a non-profit organization assigned by law for education. He asked why the school district should be given special consideration when an ordinary citizen or company would not be considered for such a waiver.
He also said that the Council has been committed to down zoning residential neighborhoods. He felt that traffic would increase in the neighborhoods if the buildings were used for other purposes. Mr. Rogers said that he was not opposed to the buildings being used for purposes such as community education but the school board should not be in the rental market. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the problem was what to do with the school buildings when they are not presently being used but will be needed in the future. Councilmember Davis felt that a temporary use that would not impact the neighborhood would be good use of the buildings.
Richard Carman, Salt Lake School Board, said that there has been an increase in student population and the school board is reluctant to sell schools. They wanted to have the buildings used and maintained which would minimize vandalism. He felt that this would be a wise use of taxpayers money. Steve Blackman, 910 3rd Avenue, said that he works for Utahns Against Hunger which is a non-profit organization. There are many non-profit organizations which need inexpensive space; vacant school buildings would provide this needed space. The Council ought to consider these types of groups.
Joe Smit, 472 North 1200 West, representing the Northwest Community Council said that he was in favor of allowing conditional use of schools. He said that these sites are valuable and will have to be used in the future so the sites should not be sold. Also a vacant building attracts vandalism.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that many of the school buildings were old and she asked how realistic it was that they would be used again. Possibly the buildings could be demolished and the school board could hold the property for future needs. Mr. Carman said that if the building is removed then the ground should be used as a park and the school board should not be in the park business. If the population increases then the schools would be needed. He said it was a debatable question whether or not portions of the old buildings should be used in conjunction with new structures.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 7 of 1983 amending Chapter 6 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding a new Section 16 relating to conditional use of schools, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
(O 83-2)
Petition 400-6 submitted by Beehive Lodge No. 407.
RE: Requesting that property located at 659 North 300 West be rezoned from its present “C-l” classification to a “C-3” classification.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to discuss Petition 400-6 of 1982. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that the property in question is currently zoned Commercial “C-1”. It was originally zoned “C-3” but as part of the Capitol Hill Master Plan the zoning was changed to “C-1”. Mr. Jorgensen said that “C-l” zoning permits retail business and certain wholesale business but does not permit taverns or Class “B” liquor licenses. The Beehive Lodge desires to construct a building at 659 North 300 West and wants a class “B” liquor license, therefore, they want the zoning changed.
Mr. Jorgensen said that the area adjacent to the west is zoned “C-3A” so technically this would not be spot zoning; however, the planning commission recommended denial of this request because they felt that it would be spot zoning and the use would not be compatible with the area. This was a split decision. Mr. Jorgensen stated that a quorum was not present at the planning commission meeting, December 2, 1982, when a favorable vote was taken. Because a quorum was not present at that meeting the action had to be ratified; when this action was presented for ratification it was denied.
Mr. Jorgensen continued by saying that the present zoning permits construction of a lodge but does not permit a liquor license. The planning commission felt that a “C-3” or “C-3A” classification would be inconsistent with the present land use on the block and inconsistent with the master plan which calls for stabilization of the area and diminished strip zoning. Furthermore, the planning commission felt that there must be some rationale for commercial zoning and the placement of liquor establishments; there are other adequate “C-3” and “C-3A” zoned areas where such use can take place.
Councilmember Shearer referred to information given the Council and said that in a 12-block area, both sides of 6th North, 55% of the area is residential. Mr. Jorgensen said that many of the commercial buildings are vacant but not many homes are vacant. He also said that the lodge owns the property and they were not aware of the down zoning. Jim Dooley, 513 Mint Green Circle, stated that the area where the lodge is presently located is being redeveloped by the Triad Corporation. The property at 659 North and 300 West was purchased 10 years ago when the zoning was “C-3”; they were unaware that the zoning had been changed to “C-1”. Mr. Dooley outlined concerns he had about the planning commission meeting when this request was discussed. He said that on December 2, 1982 the commission voted to approve this request; on December 16, 1982, when the minutes from December 2 were to be ratified, the request was denied. Mr. Dooley said that on December 16, Ms. Lee expressed concern that the zoning change was close to spot zoning and she was concerned about liquor in a predominantly residential area. However, a staff report indicated a predominance of commercial and industrial use in the area with only 29% residential use. Mr. Dooley reiterated that their property is adjacent to a strip of property presently zoned “C-3A” and granting this request would mean extending the existing zone to include their property.
Mr. Dooley said that in the December 16, 1982 minutes of the planning commission, several references are made to new information, specifically police reports. He said that the lodge has consistently tried to work with the police department to keep their present location peaceful; they have supported off-duty police officers to patrol the area. In the past month, the lodge received an endorsement from the police department for renewal of their 1983 liquor license at their present location. Any new and/or different information discussed by the zoning commission weighing upon their decision at the December 16 meeting, but not presented at the December 2 hearing, may or may not have been true, proper, or relevant. The lodge has not had an opportunity to rebut what was presented after December 2.
Ernest Hughes, petitioner, said that at the December 2, 1982 planning commission meeting he had asked for a zoning change for the entire section of property, not just his parcel, so that it would not be considered spot zoning. He said other suggestions he made were not reflected in the minutes of that meeting; he also said they did not have a tape recorder at the meeting. Mr. Hughes said that he was not notified about or invited to the meeting on December 16, 1982.
Councilmember Davis asked how the planning commission members who were absent from the December 2 meeting received information about what had happened in the meeting. Mr. Jorgensen said that they had the minutes from that meeting and a staff report; the only new information received after December 2 was a police report. Mr. Jorgensen also said that the planning commission can operate without a quorum but their action has to be ratified.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the planning commission recommendation may not be valid and she asked if the Council should proceed to discuss this issue when there are questions regarding the process which the planning commission followed. Roger Cutler, city attorney, said that according to state statute these kinds of requests have to go before the planning commission. If the matter was referred to the Council, the Council is not bound by the decision of the planning commission; if the request has changed then it has to go back before the planning commission for a rehearing. If the Council feels that the planning commission proceeding was not adequate or the petitioner was not aware of evidence presented then the petition can be sent back to the planning commission for reconsideration. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the Council has two options. They can choose to disregard the planning commission decision or they can send this issue back to the planning and zoning commission. Mr. Hughes said that they did not want this petition to go back before the planning commission. Councilmember Davis moved that a time certain be set on February 15 to continue this public hearing. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Cutler said that if the petitioner proceeded to have the Council hear this issue then they were waiving objections to the planning and zoning commission proceedings.
Mr. Hughes said that they were asking the Council to make the decision without considering what was proposed by the planning commission. Mr. Hughes distributed photographs of the area, 6th North to approximately 8th North, to show how many buildings in the area are actually residential. The buildings in the residential area are deteriorating; the majority of people in the two-block area are not permanent residents. Richard Carman, property owner on the block, showed pictures of the homes in the area and said that there are five businesses on the block and 22 residential units. Despite the zoning of this area it is not commercial. He was opposed to the zoning change.
Hermoine Jex said that the neighborhood councils have dubbed certain areas as transition zones and the strip of property in question was a crucial zone. People in the area have worked for 10 years to improve this area; she felt it would improve with the master plan. Erlinda Davis, 358 West 500 North, said that the area is targeted for CD funds so it can be upgraded and she felt the improvements would be made as a result of the down zoning. Robert Lund, representing the Children’s Museum of Utah, said he was concerned about having an establishment in the area serving liquor because the museum will be attracting children and families into the area at night. He believes that liquor and problems are inseparable. Jack Demke and Nephi Kennethmueller, both having businesses in the area, expressed their opposition to this zoning change.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
The Mayor said that he would tour the area and invited the Council to do the same. Councilmember Davis wanted an opportunity to review all the information. Councilmember Whitehead said that a member representing each side of this issue should tour the area with the Council so that all the information will be out in the open. The Mayor concurred with this recommendation. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that the decision was clear cut and thought the facts, figures, and photographs had explained the situation.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer Petition 400-6 to the Council agenda for February 15, 1983 for a definite decision and also tour the area with the planning director and the Mayor, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
(P 83-1)
Petition 313 of 1982 submitted by Union Pacific Railroad.
RE: Requesting the vacation of 200 North Street between 400 West and 500 West Streets to allow for full utilization for railroad operations.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to consider Petition 313 of 1982. Craig Peterson, director of development services, outlined the area on a map and said that in exchange for closing this area the railroad would remove several tracks located over 300 North and 400 North. Mr. Peterson said that Homco Investment and the Salt Lake Hardware would still have access to 200 North; the street would be closed across the tracks.
It is recommended that the Council close the street and have the Mayor negotiate an agreement with the railroad. Hopefully the parameters of the negotiation would include the following: Retire several sets of tracks at 300 North, substantially improve the crossing at 300 North, improve the railroad crossing at 400 North where the tracks have been removed, remove the street lights at 200 North across the tracks, place barricades in front of the closure of the street, agree to a special improvement district, and have a reversionary clause that in the event the railroad no longer uses 200 North for the purpose of railroad traffic the street would revert back to the City.
Other improvements are outlined in the petition information (this information is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). It is felt that closure will not impact the master plan of the Capitol Hill and west side neighborhoods. The City wanted to have flexibility to negotiate with the railroad either a lease or sale with a reversionary clause. Norm Kettner, representing Union Pacific, said that the railroad would have a problem with a temporary lease because they are investing a great deal of money into the project. They wanted to either buy the property with a reversionary clause or have a permanent easement. He said that 200 North really is not used for transportation and he, too, has been seeking a solution to 300 North; he thought the railroad’s request would be in the best interest of everyone concerned.
Rosemarie Rendon, Guadaloupe Neighborhood, said the area needs a passable route to West High School because the students presently have to cross through parked trains. She supported the improvements at 300 North. Bill Holyoak, representing the Salt Lake Hardware Company, said they want to ensure that access to the Salt Lake Hardware Company is protected. Councilmember Mabey said that they would have full access.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. Councilmember Whitehead said that many meetings have been held regarding the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and he thought reducing the number of tracks on 300 North was very positive.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve Petition 313 of 1982 requesting closure of 200 North between 400 West and 500 West with the conditions as outlined by the city, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 82-358)
Petition 152 of 1982 submitted by Community Organization Operations Program.
RE: Requesting that property located at 131 North 900 West be rezoned from Residential “R-6” to a Commercial “C-1” classification.
A public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to consider Petition 152 of 1982. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said the property is on the west side of 900 West north of North Temple; most of North Temple is zoned “C-1”. The proposal is to enlarge the “C-1” zone by 80 feet in order to include the chapel which has been sold. The zoning would only include the building; the parking lot would be a conditional use so the uses of the building could be controlled. This request received a favorable recommendation from the planning commission.
Ben Medina, executive director of the organization, said that they entered into a lease-option-purchase with the LDS church for the property and the current zoning would not allow the building to be used how the organization has planned. Mr. Medina reiterated that they only want the building to be included in the rezoning; the parking would not be rezoned. He said it is not the intention of the organization to have the property rezoned and then sell it. They will be using the gymnasium and chapel for training sessions and seminars; the gym will also be used for cultural enrichment purposes. The main purpose of the building will be for office space. There are no changes in the intended use as it was presented a year ago when the organization requested CD funds. The organization received $50,000 of CD funds for the 1st year and $50,000 earmarked for the 2nd year.
The funding was to be matched by CO-OP (private non-profit corporation); the project is currently in the first year of funding. When the building was originally acquired, they thought the building could be used for the project without a “C-1” zoning, but they can not use the building without a zoning change. Currently the building has been used for educational purposes. Councilmember Shearer pointed out that a “C-1” zone allows retail uses. Mr. Medina said that only part of the property would be rezoned. Mr. Jorgensen said that the parking lot will not be rezoned and a conditional use will be attached to the parking lot. Mr. Jorgensen said that an “R-7” zoning classification had been suggested, but some of the uses that the organization wanted would require “C-l” zoning. Eudora Morzelewski, 164 Laxon Court, said that the court leads into the parking lot. She was concerned that traffic would use the court as access to the parking lot. Mr. Jorgensen said that the parking lot would be fenced; there is a driveway off of 900 West that leads directly into the parking lot. Ms. Morzelewski said that a bus uses the court to pick her daughter up for school and enough room is needed for the bus. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the area could be protected.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to take a tour of the area and make a decision on this request in the Council meeting to be held February 15, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Whitehead who voted nay.
(P 82-357)
Petition 400-26 submitted by Robert N. Koyen, Jr.
RE: Requesting that property on the west side of Chicago Street and on the south side of 1100 North Street be rezoned from a Residential “R-2” to a Residential “R-6” classification.
A public hearing was held at 7:15 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to consider Petition 400-26. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map. He said that the petitioner had proposed building three four-plexes but modified this plan to two four-plexes; however, the petitioner’s plan did not meet zoning standards because he did not have the required yard area so he requested an “R-6” zoning. The planning commission recommended denial of this request on the basis that “R-6” zoning does not maintain restrictions needed for a plan which is not firm. The scale of the project overwhelms the property available and the surrounding residential community.
The proposed zoning is not in keeping with the general plan for the area. Mr. Jorgensen said that even though two four-plexes are proposed, anything allowed in an “R-6” zone could be built. Robert Koyen, petitioner, said that the neighborhood is in opposition to this request because they do not want any apartments in the area. Mr. Koyen felt that currently the property is in a blighted status; there are no sidewalks or curb and gutter on the corner parcel. He said that the present zoning allows the option to build three duplexes, so the issue of whether or not apartments can be build is mute. He said that since he was unable to acquire a parcel of property on Topaz Street, four-plexes would overwhelm the remaining property. He said that six units would be comfortable on the site and proposed that the zoning be changed to “R-3” so two tri-plexes could be built. This would provide more space between the buildings. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that “R-3” zoning would not necessarily allow triplexes to be built. Mr. Koyen said that currently he could build three duplexes but he felt that it would be better for the area if two triplexes were built. Leslie Heisey, 1038 Topaz Drive, opposed the zoning change. The integrity of the neighborhood is single-story, single-family dwellings. Within one block of her home there is a grocery store, clothing store, restaurant, motel, l8-unit apartment building, a convenience gas station, mill shop, and laundromat. Within three blocks of her home there is approximately a 600-unit apartment building. The residents are concerned with increased density and the impact on the neighborhood.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck reiterated that even if the zoning is not changed Mr. Koyen can build six units. Ms. Heisey said the residents did not want the zoning changed. The residents were not sure what Mr. Koyen’s plan was because there have been many changes. Karen Whartle, 1129 North Victoria Way, said that the residents in her area want to keep the neighborhood as single-family dwellings. She felt that the apartment buildings located to the east side of this lot are built too close together; there is not adequate parking for the tenants nor adequate play area for the children. The neighbors are concerned about additional children and additional traffic. She felt with a zoning change there might be inadequate planning.
Eileen Austin, 1260 North Redwood Road, said that she owns one of the parcels of property in question. She said that the apartment building across from the property is attractive and would attract nice people. She felt that the proposed structure would do the same for the area. Ms. Austin said that she has had other offers on her property and she knows that the buildings which would be constructed are not the type that the residents would want. She thought Mr. Koyen’s project would improve the neighborhood.
Mr. Koyen said he wanted the zoning changed so that the building design could he more flexible and allow for adequate parking and play area. He said that he would be required to install curb and gutter and sidewalk which the property does not currently have. Margaret Eastwood, 1069 Taffeta Drive, said that the existing apartments have caused congestion, children play in the street and garbage is not disposed of properly. She felt that the same problems would result with the new structure.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that apartments can be built under the current zoning but it might be to the residents’ advantage to have a zoning change. This would allow better use of the land and would allow more room for playgrounds and parking. Councilmember Whitehead reiterated Ms. Fonnesbeck’s comments. Mr. Heisey, 1038 Topaz Drive, said that the petitioner has a lease on the property, he does not own it. The neighborhood does not know what Mr. Koyen wants to do with the property because he has changed his mind. Mr. Heisey said if the petitioner would present a comprehensive plan then the residents would be willing to talk with him. Laura Landakusic, 938 North 1500 West, said that the neighborhood does not like the present appearance of the property; Mr. Koyen has built two good developments. Ms. Landakusic said that Mr. Koyen should work with the neighborhood and show them that this will be a good project.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the problem was that the Council did not know what Mr. Koyen was planning. She thought perhaps the hearing should have been continued. She said the petitioner should propose a plan after hearing the recommendations of the neighborhood. The plan should best utilize the land and allow for play areas and family use. Then the zoning could be decided. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that this was a design problem.
Councilmember Whitehead said that the Council wants the best use for the land. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that it was not economically feasible to demolish the present structure and build another single family dwelling. If the residents feel that the neighborhood would benefit from the demolition of the existing homes, then they will have to consider increased density; six units would be the maximum. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that “R-2” may not accommodate the best use of the land.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to rescind closure of the hearing and continue the public hearing to March 8, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Davis who voted nay. Councilmember Davis said that she thought this hearing should have been held before the planning and zoning commission.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to ask that plans for no more than six units, making best use of the land, be brought back to the Council on March 8, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmembers Davis and Parker who voted nay. Mr. Koyen said that he agreed with this motion because now he knows what he has to work with and the neighborhood also knows.
(P 83-2)
Commercial Security Bank.
RE: Inducement resolution for an industrial revenue bond for Commercial Security Bank in the amount of $4,000,000 for the purchase of land and construction and equipping of a building to house the centralized operations of CSB and its subsidiaries at approximately 1920 West North Temple.
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to discuss the Commercial Security Bank industrial revenue bond. Lance Bateman, city controller, said that the industrial revenue bond would be used to purchase land and construct and equip a building. This is a $4,000,000 request. Brent Milne, representing Commercial Security Bank, said that CSB wants to consolidate its operations and data processing facilities into one site located in Salt Lake City, about 1900 West North Temple. The facility would house over 100 employees. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesheck seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to place this item on the budget committee agenda for Thursday, February 10, 1983 and place it on the Council agenda for the meeting to be held Tuesday, February 15, 1983, which motion carried, all members present voting aye except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(Q 83-2)
Ninth Year Community Development Program.
RE: Approximately $4,772,000 will be available from HUD in July 1983 to allocate to various projects designed to improve physical conditions and public services within the City.
A public hearing was held at 7:45 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to obtain the views of citizens on housing and community development needs. Stephanie Loker, department of planning and zoning, said that the purpose of the hearing was to receive input from the public regarding community development and housing needs in the City. She said that a preliminary list of projects to be funded has not been released; the Council will not make a list of funded projects available until late March or early April.
Jim Jensen, director of the Salt Lake Boys and Girls Clubs, said that they are presently constructing a new facility. The facility will have 4,100 square feet; he said that he has requested an additional $50,000 to build add 1,352 square feet to the facility. This would enable them to provide group recreational programs, counseling and guidance activities, and a meeting place for the community. David Nimkin, director of Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services, said that they wanted consideration for the following projects: 1. $100,000 for the revolving loan fund in addition to the money which was committed last time. In 1982, loans totaling $480,000 were made to the residents of the east Liberty Park neighborhood and the west side. The need for continued support of the loan fund is important. 2. $60,000 for the operating budget. The operation has expanded in several different areas. 3. $28,000 for the principal reduction fund. A recently funded project will involve west side youth in the rehabilitation of vacant property or the construction of new housing on vacant land. The $28,000 will be used to subsidize the interest for borrowers who will purchase the homes. Mr. Nimkin said that the solar fund and the west side block redesign projects were being withdrawn from consideration. Donald Grinde, director of Native American studies at the University of Utah, said that the Native American community has proposed using $44,000 for building renovation and rehabilitation. The money would be used for paint, rugs, and other improvements to the building so that it can be leased to tenants. This would help cover overhead and aid in self sufficiency for the Indian Center, 120 West 1300 South. Mr. Grinde felt the proposal to rehabilitate the building would enhance the facility and benefit the general community. Councilmember Parker said that this facility was in a special improvement district and asked who would pay for the improvements. It was indicated that the state would bear those costs since it is a private non-profit organization.
Dennis Taylor, director of the Indian Alcoholism Program, said that additional funds are needed to complete the building which is used for the program; the building is located at 375 South 300 West. Funds would be used to install an elevator which is accessible to handicapped individuals and funds would be used for paint, landscaping, and partitions. He thanked the Council for last year’s funding. This request is for $67,600. Randall Dixon, co-chairman of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, said that the council was asking for $80,000 for the Marmalade Hills Center. The money will be used for wiring and exterior improvements; the building cannot be adequately used until the improvements are made. The building can then become self supporting.
Jesse Frazier proposed using money to erect a shelter for the transient population; the shelter would provide a place for the transients to sleep. He felt that $5,000 would be sufficient; Triple A Tent and Awning has agreed to provide him with the prototype, at no charge, for this idea. Stephanie Churchill, Utah Heritage Foundation, reiterated that the Marmalade Hills Center is in need of wiring improvements. She also said that the money would be used to make the common areas more attractive so the building would be more rentable. A small grant has been received from the Utah Arts Center; hopefully the CD money can be used to match a larger grant.
Grafton Jenkins said that he was requesting funds for a Huntington’s disease residential and treatment facility in Salt Lake City. He requested $60,000 for the program. Mary Allen, Housing Outreach Rental Program and Emergency Housing, requested that the Council continue to support the emergency housing program. Rawlins Young, Sugarhouse Community Council, said that there was not enough open space in the Sugarhouse area for public use. He asked that the City acquire part of the vacant land which is still available for this purpose.
Ruth Robbins, 819 Hudson Avenue, indicated that there was a need in her area for more open space. She also suggested a project for a freeway pedestrian mall which would improve the area under the freeway overpass in the Sugarhouse area. She said the Mr. Kay, UDOT, wanted the City to be the lessor rather than a private individual who wants the area to be used as a parking space for recreational vehicles. John Renteria, project director with the El Centro project, asked that the Council give favorable consideration for a grant request made last year. The money would help finish their building. Ray Trimble, resident of Hawthorne Avenue, said that the streets in the central city area needed to be resurfaced; he requested $87,000 to help beautify the area. Gayen Wharton, trustee on the Sugarhouse Community Council, requested money for the Westminster Neighborhood Park, 10th East 1700 South. She said that the area needed land for a neighborhood park. There will be more demand for the use of the parks because the population is stabilizing and increasing. Approximately $75,000 would be needed to purchase this property.
Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway Council, said that Paxton Avenue was recently curbed and guttered but the street now floods when there is a storm. She thought possibly there was a problem with the drains. The area needs to be repaired immediately. Councilmember Mabey said that the City was working with UDOT to alleviate the problem. Doyle Price, 274 West 200 South, said that she supports a proposal to get a group home and treatment center for HD victims. Judy Zaiz, 37 1/2 Green Street, said there was a need for housing related projects, both housing rehabilitation and emergency housing. Community Development funds are one of the few sources that low income home owners and renters can utilize to improve their housing.
Jeff Fox, 149 Windsor Street, said that measures needed to be taken to protect his area against crime and preserve the housing. He said that the area would submit a block redesign proposal; also, the East Central Neighborhood Master Plan needed to be re-evaluated. These projects will help anchor the eastern part of the City and will prevent loss of housing; this is part of an overall plan to protect the area. He said the zoning in the area needed to be considered as well. Robert McQuarrie, chairman of the East Central Community Council, said that the council is in favor of community development funds being used to save the residential nature of this area and upgrade the area to serve as a buffer against commercial and other encroachments.
J. C. May, community development and housing specialist at Crossroads Urban Center, said that the CD program is one of the few sources of funding for direct benefit to low-income people. He felt that the money should be reprogrammed into neighborhood projects rather than used for business districts. Larry Witherow, president of Emergency Housing Assistance Program, thanked the Council for the assistance that they have given the project in the past. He said that the program is tentatively scheduled for 9th year funding; the money given to the transient shelter was slippage funds. Gene Davis, Nibley Park Neighborhood Council, asked for $80,000 for the Warnock Avenue mini park, between 5th and 6th East next to the freeway. He also asked the Council to support the feasibility study for the Forest Dale Golf Course Club House; the request made was for $10,000. Virginia Carlson, 2260 East 4800 South, expressed her support for housing for RD victims.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(T 83-2)
Wild Wave Pool.
RE: The proposed master plan for the Salt Lake City Wild Wave Pool.
A public hearing was held at 8:00 p.m. before the Salt Lake City Council to discuss this issue. Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, said that the Council asked the administration at the beginning of the fiscal year to consider the current wave pool facility and develop recommendations as to its disposition or expansion. The future of the wave pool has been studied and the conclusion has been reached that there exists a recreational need that is not being totally met.
Mr. Haines said that the wave pool represents a logical anchor for the construction and future operation of a major water-theme park for Salt Lake valley. This has been in the consideration phase for some time and as a result of studies which have been conducted, the conclusion has been made that there is a great deal of merit in pursuing the feasibility of a major expansion of the wave pool to incorporate it into a theme park concept. Mr. Haines said the intent was to take the master plan and develop specifications. Proposals would then be solicited to determine whether or not there is private sector interest in the expansion of this facility.
It is not recommended at this time that the City consider assuming an owner/operator role but that it be referred to the private sector. Mr. Haines then outlined on a model the proposed expansion. Councilmember Shearer asked about the time frame for this project; she also asked how an interested party would get information about the requirements. Mr. Haines said that by the end of February there should be a packet detailing the process (request for proposal). If there are questions, Mr. Haines said they should be directed to his office. Councilmember Shearer asked what Council action was required. Mr. Haines said that specifically at this time no action is necessary but because this is a significant undertaking which affects the community, Council input and participation is desired.
William Hansen, 1841 South 1500 East, said that as a taxpayer he is upset about this project. He said that the newspaper indicated a government subsidized loan would be made to someone in private enterprise for this project. He said that currently these are financially hard times and the money could be better spent. The Council indicated that funding had not been determined at this point. Mr. Haines said that the City has no interest in spending taxpayers’ money for this project. The goal is to determine if this is a feasible project; the City would negotiate agreements with the private sector that would be to the City’s advantage. The City’s interest is to serve as a catalyst. Mr. Haines said there may be financing techniques available to be considered as part of the negotiation process but these techniques would not imply a commitment of the general obligation of the City. The City is interested in finding out what the private sector can do in terms of this project.
Bernice Cook, 1746 South West Temple, said that public comments she has heard on the radio have been negative towards this project. Bob McCullough, 2917 Casto Lane, said that he is in the recreational business. He has considered operating a water slide but in his research found that they can be dangerous and accidents have happened on them. He suggested that the City find out whether or not they would be liable for accidents. He also said that this area has a short season for water related recreation. Mr. Stewart Grow, 867 Northcrest, asked how much money had been spent examining this proposal; he also asked who would own the property and if there would be a zoning change. Mr. Haines said that these and other questions would he answered when the bid specifications are developed in about two weeks.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that a lot of planning is still required on the project. The Council wanted suggestions from the public about the proposal. Councilmember Davis said that in a previous meeting about this issue the people in attendance were told that it was a meeting for information purposes only. People indicated that they wanted to talk to the Council as soon as possible so this public hearing was scheduled for that purpose. A feasibility study has to be conducted and then questions can be answered. Wally Wright, 457 East 300 South, said that he has spent $2.5 million for a major water-theme park at the Great Salt Lake. In his research he discovered that an area the size of Salt Lake can only support one water-theme park.
Brent Henderson, 250 South State, Orem, said that one reason the wave pool was built was to make money. He said that the wave pool has lost several hundred thousand dollars; the proposed solution was to spend more money to solve the problem. Mr. Henderson said that the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions indicated in an economic survey that although Utah was growing in size the area was too small to support a major theme park.
He also said that the American Water Park Association has recommended that 150,000 people are needed per ride in order for the ride to survive. He told the Council that the area was saturated with water rides and he felt that in the next few years some would go out of business. He felt that the Council should consider carefully where they get their information about success of water slides. Mark Henderson said that he operates water slides in Ogden, Orem and Sandy; he reiterated that this area is saturated. He also said that the private sector is providing adequate water ride facilities. Kay Ruggles, 2928 Oakridge Drive, said he is a manufacturer of water slides and said that some slides are successful and others are not. The Council has to closely consider the success of these slides. Beth Henderson, 538 14th Avenue, part owner of Water Slides, said that if this project is subsidized by an IRB then that would be unfair competition. Private business cannot get an IRB for recreational purposes and it would be unfair for the City to get the IRB for a developer. Paul Stewart, 1270 South Sandhill Road, Orem, said that he thought it was unfair competition when the City fosters the program. He said that his business is not afraid of fair competition but they are bothered by what could be unfair government subsidized competition.
Grant Lloyd, owner of Cherry Hill camping park, said that he has a water slide in his park. He said that publicly-owned facilities are vulnerable to abuse and misuse. He said that free enterprise should have a chance to operate and if there is a need for a water oriented facility then the private sector will provide it. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how many water slides were actually in Salt Lake City. It was determined that there was only one slide in Salt Lake City.
Dick Andrew, 685 Terrace Hills Drive, representing Lagoon Corporation, said that Lagoon Corporation is opposed to this proposal. He said that the government has spent money investigating water parks and constructing detailed plans to create a need that does not exist. Mr. Andrew said that he wanted an accounting of funds spent thus far on this proposal. He said that he felt this project was being proposed to bail out the financial failure of the wave pool. He said that the water park being located on City property represents unfair competition. There is a serious question as to the financial viability of such an undertaking.
Councilmember Mabey said that before the wave pool was constructed the original request by the residents on the west side was for a swimming pool. Councilmember Whitehead said that if this project is not feasible then that information will come out in the proposals. Mr. Haines said that the best interest of the City was being considered; he also said that the wave pool is not a loser and he felt the pool could be enhanced. Councilmember Shearer said that there may be other alternatives that can he considered if this one is not feasible.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the details of the project would be outlined in the request for proposal. The response to the request will determine whether or not this project will be done. Ray Tucker said that there are a lot of water-ride facilities in the county. Councilmember Davis said that if there are any questions about future meetings regarding this issue, the Council office will have that information. The public hearing was closed without objection.
(P 83-429)
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.