PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD IONE M. DAVIS GRANT MABEY EDWARD W. PARKER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Ronald J. Whitehead conducted the meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, February 2, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck and Councilmember Shearer who were absent from the vote.
M 82-2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Enlarging Jackson Redevelopment Area.
Mike Chitwood, Redevelopment Agency, addressed the Council and stated that approximately 30 days ago the Redevelopment Agency and the Board of the Redevelopment Agency held a series of public hearings concerning the expansion of the Jackson School Neighborhood Redevelopment Project Area northward by approximately two blocks. The intent of the project was to provide a subsidy through Redevelopment funds and Community Development funds to allow disabled individuals to acquire apartments. He further stated that after the public hearing was held the Redevelopment Agency passed a resolution that was then submitted to the City Council.
After a 30 day advertising period this public hearing is now being held; the area being discussed is the two block expansion of the boundaries (north of 600 to 900 North Street and from the interstate highway to approximately 800 West). Councilmember Whitehead then asked if this would be the only public hearing needed. Mr. Chitwood stated that this is the public hearing as the City Council and that the public hearing as a Redevelopment Agency has been completed. Councilmember Whitehead stated that this was an area built for the handicapped people and many hours have been spent to work out a way for the people to buy this housing unit; this is just one option to help finance this project.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve enlarging the Jackson Redevelopment Area, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who abstained from voting.
T 82-11
Petition 575 of 1981 submitted by Robert H. Wiltshire.
RE: Property located on northeast corner of North Main be rezoned form Residential “R-5A and “R-4” to Residential “R-2”.
Dean Barney addressed the Council and outlined on a map the area to he considered for rezoning to “R-2”. He further stated that most of the property is owned by the State.
Councilmember Whitehead asked what was the purpose of rezoning, to which Mr. Barney replied that the petitioner is concerned about the use of the property, and wants it to be utilized in keeping with the rest of the block. Councilmember Davis asked what the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended. Mr. Barney stated that they recommend that the zoning he changed. There was some discussion about whether the boundaries should be at Loma Lane or include the vacant property; it was decided in keeping with the wishes of the neighborhood Council and the neighbors that because property is vacant it should be sold.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if there were any structures on the property to the east that would remain R-4. Mr. Barney stated that there is an existing fourplex that would remain R-4. He further stated that it is only the vacant property to the west that would be rezoned R-2. Councilmember Mabey asked what use could be made of the strip of property that would be changed to R-2, to which Mr. Barney stated it was not large enough to construct housing because of the set back of Loma street; however it would be the same problem if it remains in an R-4 zoning.
Councilmember Davis asked if the State owned the other half of the block, to which Mr. Barney replied it was owned by the State. Councilmember Parker asked if the State had made a recommendation on this proposal. Mr. Barney stated that the State had been notified several times, but had not expressed any opinion.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the rezoning of property located on the northeast corner of North Main from R-5A and R-4 to R-2 as published, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
P 82-5
Petition 403 of 1981 submitted for Salt Lake City by Vernon Jorgensen.
RE: To redesign 500 North and the closure of a 55 ft. strip on the north side of 500 North between 700 West and Grant Streets.
Dean Barney addressed the Council and outlined on a map the property proposed for closure to facilitate housing in the area of 500 North to be re-aligned for existing right-of-way, he also explained what portion of 500 North would be re-structured for the expansion of the park and public facilities in that location. LaRue Bowman addressed the Council and stated that she owns property right on the corner of Grant Street and 500 North, and that she was in opposition of the road change because she felt it would add frontage to her property that she does not want. Mr. Barney explained that the roadway will not be changed, her house would be north of the existing property line and that there would be an additional landscaped area before the road.
Ms. Bowman then stated that she did not want the added responsibility of taking care of this property, unless the City wanted to deed it to her. Councilmember Whitehead stated that if it becomes part of the Condominium project they would maintain the grounds within that project. Councilmember Davis asked why they were changing the Street. Councilmember Whitehead stated that it was to acquire more property for housing. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the problem is that Ms. Bowman’s house is the only one there. Mr. Barney stated that her house would have additional property to the front of the house.
Councilmember Whitehead then asked if the property was deeded to Ms. Bowman, would it change her opinion. Ms. Bowman stated that she would need more information. Councilmember Whitehead asked why the Bowman residence had not been purchased with the rest of the property, to which Mr. Barney replied there was not sufficient funds to purchase the home. Councilmember Mabey asked how many homes would be facing 500 North. Mr. Barney stated that there were seven including the Bowman homes. He further stated that this was just a proposal; no design has been worked out at this time, however a compatible design could be worked out.
Councilmember Davis asked who would have to pay to have the curb, gutter and sidewalk realigned. Councilmember Whitehead stated that it was a part of the Jackson Redevelopment Area. He further stated that the Redevelopment Area is to acquire additional housing, schools and to allow new families to move into the area. Councilmember Davis asked what the proposed width of the street would be, to which Mr. Barney stated that it would be approximately 32 feet. He further stated the realignment of the street, as proposed, would facilitate utilizing the south portion of the existing street for a park and the north side of the existing Street for housing development. Dave Collingsworth, addressed the Council and stated that he was concerned that the corner of 500 North and 800 West, proposed for development of a park, would not be maintained to protect his privacy by constructing a fence. He further stated that children were already playing ball in that area and climbing the fence into his property.
Mr. Collingsworth stated that it was his impression no playground equipment was to be placed near the existing housing; that the playground equipment and park benches would be located near the proposed housing development. Councilmember Whitehead suggested he talk to Mr. Chitwood and John Gust, Parks Department, regarding plans for the park and playground area. Mr. Collingsworth concluded by saying that he was not in opposition of the development. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked who owned the property, to which Councilmember Whitehead stated that the City had just recently acquired the property.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesheck who was absent from the vote.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer the petition to the Land Use Committee for review and schedule a field trip for the Council to inspect the area, which motion carried all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck and who was absent from the vote. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the Council wanted to invite Mr. Chitwood on the field trip to assist the Council in their review.
P 82-10
Petition 141 of 1981 submitted by Thomas M. Brook.
RE: requesting an amendment authorizing the Board of Adjustment to grant special exception for residential structures.
Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning, addressed the Council and stated that the Mr. Brook was requesting an amendment to Chapter 6 of the Revised Ordinances for Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, annotated, giving the Board of Adjustment the power to grant a special exception to the ordinance to legalize residential units, that have been converted, to a higher number of units allowed in the district by a previous owner. He further stated that the ordinance is restrictive because before the Board can act on a proposal a public hearing must be held, they must receive a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission and the petitioner must meet certain qualifications before the Board can hear the request such as: 1) that the use was converted prior to September 22, 1950; the date the parking ordinance took effect in Salt Lake City. 3) That the applicant is not related by blood or marriage to the owner who originally converted the units. He must show that he can provide the parking to convert the use or that there is no possibility of the use available on the site. Mr. Hafey read from Section 3 of the proposed ordinance stating that before the Board can grant a special exception it must he determined that the existing residential structure is not conducive to modification by either reverting it back to the number of units allowed in the district or reducing the number of units which would make it less offensive in the neighborhood and so it will meet the building code and provide for off street parking.
He concluded by stating that the Planning Commission has considered this ordinance and recommends that the Council hold a public hearing to consider changes in the zoning ordinance to allow for special exceptions. Councilmember Mabey asked how many conversions this ordinance would affect, to which Mr. Hafey stated that the only one that he knows of is the petitioners and he did not know how many would he triggered by the ordinance. Councilmember Mabey asked if the units were zoned R-4. Mr. Hafey stated that Mr. Brooks’ property is a potential four-plex in a R-2 zone.
He further explained that looking at the history of the area prior to the mid 1960’s they allowed the renting of rooms to not more than six individuals in single family dwellings. Probably in the University area, at that time, it was conclusive to renting rooms in this home; perhaps a bath or a kitchen was added and when Mr. Brooks bought the property he found he had a four-plex. He approached the City with good intentions to upgrade the electrical system; applied for a permit, and when the card was pulled on the property they found that he had a four-plex in an R-2 zone and they refused to issue him a permit.
Bernice Cook addressed the Council and asked if this proposed ordinance would apply throughout the City. She stated she had a friend who owned some property in the Sugarhouse area that he wanted to use as a rental units. The area the property is located is zoned R-2; however the surrounding area, with the exception of two blocks, is zoned R-4. She further stated that he had applied for a permit and was denied. Ms. Cook stated that she felt that this petition should also be denied. She further stated that he had spent $50 to petition for a similar hearing; he was not refunded his filing fee and was not told that this issue had been brought up before and denied.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that the adoption of this ordinance would assist her friend in converting his rental units. Mr. Hafey stated that Ms. Cooke’s friend spoke to the Planning Director prior to filing his petition and felt he was aware of the filing fee involved. He further stated that the Planning Department knew the proposed ordinance was in process and felt that if he had the possibility of qualifying for the terms of the proposed ordinance they would not send him before the Planning Commission.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent from the vote.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 13 of 1982, regarding Special Exception for Residential Structures to take effect upon its first publication, which motion carried all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent from the vote.
P 82-11
603 of 81 submitted by Gus Teseros.
RE: That property presently zoned residential “R-7” in Block 51 between 400 & 500 East and 100 & 200 South he rezoned to “C-3A”.
Mr. Hafey addressed the Council and outlined the area dealing between 1st South and 2nd South between 4th and 5th East. He stated that a year ago there was a petition by Hermes and Associates that delt with the residential “R-7” district that was located in the area between South Temple and 1st South and between 2nd South and 1st South both of these “R-7” districts were considered at that time, the Planning Commission Committee recommended that they hold a public hearing to consider changing the zoning.
Mr. Hafey went explained that on the original petition the two areas were recommended to be rezoned from “R-7” to “C3-A”; at the public hearing the Council eliminated that portion in the block, so now at this time Mr. Teseros is petitioning that the area remaining between in that block be rezoned from residential R-7 to commercial “C3-A the Planning Commission recommendation is to rezone it from “R-7” to “C3-A”. Councilmember Mabey asked if this was the area that should have been changed at the same time. Mr. Hafey replied yes, and explained what buildings are in that area.
Councilmember Davis asked if Mr. Hafey has had permission from the other property owners to change this to a “C3A”. Mr. Hafey stated that Mr. Teseros was here and that he could address that issue. Mr. Teseros stated that he had a petitioned all the property owners with the exception of the Board of Education. He further stated all surrounding property owners were in agreement to have the area changed to a “C3-A”. Councilmember Davis asked if there was any reason that he did not ask the School Board, Mr. Teseros stated that he did not think that they would have any objections.
Mayor Wilson stated that it has been his experience with the Board of Education that they are reluctant to state an opinion on public issues unless it is related to the School Board. Councilmember Whitehead asked Mr. Teseros to show the Council his plans, and that time Mr. Teseros introduced Mr. Platt who also owns property in that area. Mr. Teseros owns a gas station that right now is being used as a plant shop. For several years Mr. Teseros and Mr. Platt has had plans to combine their properties to build a structure that would be an asset to the community. They are proposing to build a combination office, commercial and a residential condominium building. Mr. Teseros stated that they were talking about 3,000 square feet of commercial or retail space, which is right on the plaza level, 14,000 square feet of office space, which would be the next floor up, and the remaining 85% of the building would be the living condominiums.
Mr. Teseros then stated that with his 12,000 feet at “R-7” with 25 foot set back it would be impossible for him to do anything on that piece of property and on Mr. Platt’s property it would require a 30 foot set back under “R-7”; and for them to try doing something under an “R-7” it would mean building 32 less condominium units. He further stated that if the zoning were “C3-A” it would allow them to extend their building to a 10 foot set back. He stated that he and Mr. Platt chose this plan for mixed usage for several reasons, but one of the primary reasons is the fact the area is saturated with office space.
He stated that it would be impossible for them to compete with the office space already existing. Mr. Teseros stated another major concern was that a lot of housing has been taken out of this particular area, so with their plan they intend to bring housing into the area an additional 50 units. He further stated that it would help with the energy situation because people living and working in the area could walk to work, downtown, schools and doctors offices. He also stated that it would multiply the tax base by allowing more businesses in the area than the two presently on the site.
Mr. Teseros stated that the building on the property now is 25 years old and if the area is rezoned would allow for a new structure better designed for use other than the present utility. He reiterated in the past there has been fear of eliminating housing in the downtown area. The structures presently on the block are the Ben Albert Apt. with 72 units, Ivy Terrace has been converted to condominium housing, and the Statesman with 19 units; these buildings will probably remain in the area for some time. Mr. Teseros stated that work on the project was started last September; he has a tenant on the property he will give notice because his lease expires in November.
Councilmember Davis asked where the parking would be located, to which Mr. Platt replied that the parking would be under the building with a small amount exposed for ingress and egress into the commercial area. Councilmember DePaulis stated that Mr. Teseros had answered a concern regarding the time frame for the project to ensure the Council was not being asked to re-zone an area for speculation. He further stated that he was pleased that the majority of the building would be for residential purposes which he feels the area needs. Councilmember Davis asked if Mr. Teseros would be requesting an industrial revenue bond, to which Mr. Teseros stated that he would not. Councilmember Parker asked what the anticipated cost of the structure would be and how it was to be financed. Mr. Teseros replied that the estimate was approximately $8,000,000 and that the concept would be to pre-sell the units.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent from the vote.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the petition that property presently zoned residential R-7 in Block 51 between 400 and 500 East and 100 and 200 South Streets to a C-3A classification, which motion carried all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent from the vote.
P 82-12
Recommendation for allocation of 8th Year Community Development funds.
Craig Peterson, Director of Development Services, addressed the Council and presented a joint recommendation for CDBG Three Year Plan from the Community Development Advisory Committee and the Community Development Planning Staff. He briefly discussed the changes made between the Community Development Advisory Committee’s recommendation and the recommendation of the Mayor stating that the CDAC had recommended $200,000 for the Land Writedown project and the Mayor has recommended $100,000. The CDAC recommended $225,000 for the Mixed Use Art Space Housing Project; the Mayor’s proposal is $165,000; in addition the Mayor’s proposal included the following projects not included in the recommendation from the CDAC: 1) the El Centro Civico Center in the amount of $10,000, 2) the NHS Program Operation Budget in the amount of $50,000, 3) the Community Economic Development Program in the amount of $50,000 and 4) design work for a new fire station at 1300 South and Main in the amount of $50,000. He introduced Dave Conine, Chairperson of the Community Development Advisory Committee, and the staff involved in the development of the proposal Stephanie Loker, project director for the City Planning Department, Bill Wright and Nancy Hausner, Associate Planners for Community Development Block Grants, and Doug Carlson, the Office of Budget and Management Planning.
Dave Conine addressed the Council and stated that the CDAC members were pleased to have the opportunity for citizen involvement. He stated that with the assistance a large number of hours had been spent in evaluating projects. He commended the Planning Department and Citizen Participation Office for their assistance. The CDAC evolved a numerical evaluation system in order to quantify the projects to avoid a subjective approach. He stated it was extremely difficult because of the number of worthy projects and the limited funds; however they feel the projects being recommended represent those that are most beneficial to the City. Mr. Conine stated that following the evaluation procedure a meeting was held with the Planning staff to concur on a joint recommendation. The City’s recommendations were very similar to those of the CDAC; the differences being very minor so that the joint recommendation represents a consensus rather than a compromise. He stated that differences in the Mayor’s recommendation are minor and represent areas in which the Committee had the most amount of debate. He pointed out that the Committee feels that the Neighborhood Housing Services does an extremely competent job; their only concern was in the area of funding administrative costs out of CD monies. However they do recognize that traditional funding for NHS has been subject to economic pressures and changes in public policy and concur with the Mayor’s recommendation for funding.
Mr. Conine further stated they are also concerned about the cutback in funding Land Writedown recognizing that it is a very good program. He also stated the Mixed Use Housing Project indicating a cut in the Mayor’s recommendation is a cut substantially more than what is reflected in the Mayor’s proposal because the proposal was originally $500,000; the committee felt that it was a well conceived project that would have many spin off benefits to a part of the City focused for redevelopment. The Economic Development Project recommended for funding did not score well in the Committee’s evaluation process; the evaluation process was weighted in favor of housing related projects.
He further stated that he hoped that the $50,000 allocated will be enough of a threshold to make the project viable. Funding allocated for the El Centro Civico Center was a minor change and the Committee felt comfortable with that amount. He stated that the Committee was uncomfortable in allocating money for the design of the fire station; however they recognize that this is a necessary service. He stated that it is his understanding that no decision will be made by the Council at this time; therefore he offered the services of Committee and staff for additional information.
Dee Anderson, addressed the Council and stated that he had been a member of the Committee since its formation. He stated that in the People’s Freeway area the people have been working for years in make curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. The last two years the City has improved streets by installing storm sewers and through the Committee the funding has been cut. He stated he felt it was his responsibility to the People’s Freeway area to encourage the improvements of that area. He stated that he appreciated what the Council has already done; but stated that he would appreciate any way the improvements could he completed in this area.
Ira L. Ames addressed the Council stated he attended a meeting on February 8, 1982 at 500 North and 400 West regarding improvements in the area. He stated that he was concerned about the street on 400 North, that was surveyed last summer, for the continuation of the development down 400 North. He stated that it was his understanding that a drainage system was being planned for that street. He stated that it had been discussed in community council meetings that the road is oval shaped and the present drainage system was installed in 1932. He further stated that nothing has been done since that time to improve the drainage in the area. Mr. Ames stated that there was a six or eight inch drain that is not adequate to handle the amount of water coming through the culvert. He further stated that he felt something should be done as they are putting in the drainage system on the northside of 400 West to lower the street to allow for proper drainage. (Mayor Wilson, asked which project he was referring, to which Councilmember Fonnesbeck replied that it was project #107 on pg. 12 of the Mayor’s Recommendation for the CDBG Three-Year Plan).
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she felt the community councils’ concern was that the design would be of no use if there was not follow-up funding to do anything about it. She further stated that the community council has been told that they will get a storm sewer and a catch basin in approximately three years; but there is no funding the pick up all the drainage problems along the way. They are concerned that there will be a storm system to carry water from one end of the City to another, but that the water will just sit there.
Richard Johnston, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the Council and clarified that the storm drain for this area has been funded under prior year funds and does involve construction of a storm drain on 400 North from 300 West to 400 West; along 400 West from 400 North to 600 North including a basin. He further stated that the storm drain is scheduled for construction this summer to solve some of the drainage problems in that area; however it will not solve the localized problems associated with the fact that there is not curb and gutter. A request has been submitted for $2,000,000; the amount of money that would be required to correct all of the street deficiencies in the Capitol Hills area. That funding was not approved in that amount.
The project is shown on the City’s ten-year Special Improvement District program, however that is still a few years down the road. Steve Holbrook, addressed the Council and stated he wanted to thank the City Council for the KRCL radio station existence. He stated that at the time Jim Barker was a member of the City Commission he asked if Mr. Holbrook would be interested putting together a community radio station that had a central city focus. At that time the City allocated some monies from the Model Cities Program to establish the radio station. He further stated that money is received from a wide variety of sources in order to exist.
Some funding is from private donation, grants, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Public Telecommunications Facilities Programs etc. He stated that they would appreciate some continued support from the City to provide the kind of service that citizens participation requires of community development. He outlined their broadcast range and the economic and racial groups that listen. They provide a specialized programming for Spanish speaking, Native American, Asian, Polynesian, Black, senior citizens and handicapped most of whom are the target groups of the programs of community development. Many of the listeners contribute by way of money orders; they don’t even have checking accounts, which indicates the economic level of the listeners and shows that some subsidy is necessary from government to provide this service. In effect the Council could allocate funds to publicize the citizen participation programs and community development that in term gives the station income that helps keep the programs on the air. He further stated that many business contribute by offering T-shirts, mugs and other items, but he felt that the City should help contribute.
Rosemarie Rendon, addressed the Council and expressed appreciation that their program was not forgotten in the funding of Special Improvements. She further stated that the Guadalupe residents are located on 600 West between North Temple and 500 North between the railroad tracks and I-15. She stated that there are many minority residents in the area and that the City staff had been great. Dave Nimkin, addressed the Council and thanked the Council and the Mayor for supporting the NHS request. He further stated that he wanted to speak in support of its funding at full request level. Concern has been raised by members of the Council about NHS becoming dependent on Salt Lake City; because of the expansion and scope of service of NHS; he stated that that is not happening despite some of the economic considerations.
He stated that they are now serving the westside; an area twice the size of the east Liberty Park Neighborhood. The whole service level area is now 37 structures. He further stated that their staff has been increased by 2.5 persons and despite the economy and the conditions of the savings and loan industry who have been supporting 50% of their budget in the past, the request made to the City represents 29% of the total operating budget. Last year in supporting the NHS Program, serving basically only east Liberty Park, the City’s support was 36% of the operating budget. He pointed out that despite the increased responsibilities taken and the increase in staff to accommodate that increase, they have broadened their base of support with the private sector and increased the level of contribution.
He stated there were a number of new program initiatives on the westside that he wanted to mention 1) the approval by Neighborhood Re-investment Corporation of an owner built housing development project to allow ten to sixteen families to build their own homes on a selected lot. 2) the acceptance by the State Division of Alcohol and Drugs for a youth project that will involve westside youth leaders in a project to promote home improvement and neighborhood beautification. John Renteria, addressed the Council and expressed his appreciation to the Council and the Committee for their consideration of the El Centro Civico Center. He stated that there had been a lot of work put into the idea and introducing the idea to the community.
He asked that the Council carefully review the proposal and the supplemental information provided. He further stated that they wanted to give back to the community that has supported this organization for the past 30 years. He stated that at no other time had they applied for this type of funding from any public source. Mr. Renteria further stated that they came to the realization that they could not finish this project without support; the property is partially developed, but further assistance will be necessary. He stated he hoped that the finished Center will represent a new beginning to the community where people can be attracted to that section of town. Mary Allen addressed the Council and stated that she is an outreach worker for the City speaking on behalf of the Housing Outreach Program. She stated that the program takes care of the emergency needs for housing; there is a great need for emergency housing within the City. She expressed appreciation to the Council for supporting the proposal for housing in the City.
Ben Medina addressed the Council and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the request for the Community Economic Development Project. He stated that he was talking about getting a dollar for dollar match from a non-profit community organization that greatly contributes to City needs and concerns. He also stated that he had always been in favor of a City Council form of government; that it has set up a opportunity for individuals to give meaningful citizen participation in government.
Erlinda Davis addressed the Council and expressed appreciation to the City Council and the Mayor for the opportunity of be a member of the CDAC; she felt it was a very meaningful experience. Chico Montoya, Youth Training Association, stated that he trains youth throughout the area in boxing. He stated that his family has been a resident of the Guadalupe area for some time. He stated that he felt that the Central City Expansion project should be a priority issue; it has grown and needs a central area to have activities especially for the youth in the area.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to the Mayor’s proposed recommendation under advisement to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
T 82-1
Petition 319 of 1981 submitted by Foothill-Sunnyside Neighborhood Council.
Councilmember Davis stated that she was delighted to see so many constituents in attendance and further stated that she wanted to clarify several points of misunderstanding. The Council has received numerous inquiries that have been in complete misinformation. It had been stated that if the Council decided to create a small neighborhood park in the area of Foothill that the cost would be $300,000; she stated that this figure is more than triple the actual cost. She stated that she had verified figures by the Parks and Public Works Departments that the cost would be $50,000 plus and estimate of $2,500 to purchase a small triangle that is privately owned and landscaped in the past. The expenditure for the creation and maintenance of the park would he appropriated out of the general fund and would include grass, sprinkling system and some minor recreational features such as a children’s playground or benches. The Neighborhood Council would have an opportunity to help with the planning of the park. She further stated that no one in the neighborhood would be specifically charged for this park. All parks are constructed and maintained out of the general fund. An appropriation for this park would have to made by the majority of the City Council in the budget year 1982-83, which the Council is just beginning to work on.
Councilmember Davis stated that the cost the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements would be the responsibility of the adjoining property owners. The Council has received a letter from Mr. Nygaard, attorney, wherein he states that the property owners that he represents account for approximately 567 feet, however Mr. Nygaard did not take into consideration that the property owners, Ms. Smith, Mr. Chivish and Mr. Jackson, would each receive a 75 foot exception because they own property that is on a corner. She further stated that this would reduce the amount of these owners to 319 feet, which would cost much less than stated in Mr. Nygaard’s letter.
Councilmember Davis stated that the total footage for the Special Improvement District would be 2,000 feet. Rates for these improvements range from $16 to $32 depending upon cuts for driveways and various other considerations. She further stated that these figures are available from the City Finance Department and that each adjoining property owner will he notified of the formation of the Special Improvement District and informed of the amount of their assessment. Councilmember Davis further stated that if the project is approved tonight they would all receive notice and then would have the opportunity to vote for or against it.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that the Special Improvement District is just involving only those property owners assessed; if 51% of those property owners protest the project will be turned down. Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning, reviewed the petition stating the area on Foothill Drive between 900 South and Hubbard Avenue be closed, and that traffic be diverted. He stated that The Planning Commission has reviewed the petition and recommended that the roadway not be closed, but that the street be left open and in alignment and that the improvements from Sunnyside to the intersection of 2100 East be narrowed within the existing right-of-way, to accomplish the slowing of traffic, and that the appropriate signing he placed by the Transportation Department.
They further recommended that the entire project be approved with a Special Improvement District to install the improvements. Mr. Hafey stated that this continued hearing before the Council is that the neighborhood over-ride the Planning Commission and close the roadway. Jan Green, Foothill-Sunnyside Community Council, addressed the Council and explained that the petition for closure of Foothill began almost 2 1/2 years ago when some members of the area met with Jess Agraz, then Traffic Commissioner, concerning a proposal by the City to make Foothill Drive a 52 foot, four lane right-of-way. Since that time a duly elected neighborhood council has been formalized which is an incorporated member of the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils, and a petition was initiated.
Ms. Green further stated that during this period the concerns and issues have remained the same, neighborhood and safety. She stated that because of visual and physical accessibility Foothill Drive has become a commuter route for an increasing number of cars. She stated that the speed limit is posted as 30 mph, but that the Police Department has indicated that they do not stop cars driving less than 45 mph as they would have to stop almost every car. Ms. Green stated that the road is a hazard to anyone attempting to cross, has become a physical barrier separating two neighborhoods and is evolving into a commuter artery.
Ms. Green stated that because of the concern over what Foothill Drive is now and what it is projected for the next ten years. The Neighborhood Council is proposing 1) that Foothill Drive be narrowed to 36 feet for its entire length. 2) that curb, gutter and sidewalk be installed for its entire length. 3) that the portion of Foothill Drive between Hubbard Avenue and 900 South be vacated to make 20th East the right-of-way to continue out to Sunnyside Avenue or to allow a left turn onto 900 South and then to Foothill Drive. 4) that appropriate stop signs be placed as indicated by the Traffic Safety Engineer. She further stated that the purpose of this modification is to eliminate the visual straight shot access that is now present.
Ms. Green stated that the purpose of this modification is to eliminate the visual straight shot access that is now present and will be present as long as Foothill Drive is straight. She stated that the stability of this neighborhood will be compromised if we accommodate the rapidly increasing commuter traffic. She further stated that existing commuter arteries will be able to easily accommodate these cars. She stated that the improvements, as presented by Blame Kaye, Utah Department of Transportation, at the annual neighborhood meeting on January 20, 1982, stated that the Foothill Sunnyside is to block a street with 3,000 cars per day; what shall we do with 13th East or Sunnyside. He stated that the figures presented to show that this is a heavily traveled road are misleading. He further stated that if a precedent is set now to submitting to political expediency just because a large number of people want a closure, the Council will be confronted with many neighborhoods wanting this kind of special favor treatment. He stated that the suggestions that in the future there will be more traffic on this highway runs counter to the statistics he presented and further stated that when the street is narrowed that those projections that have been made will not come to pass. He stated that when that street is narrowed and becomes a truly neighborhood street, with curb, gutter and sidewalk, you will not have the traffic problem. There may be those that want to have housing in that triangle, Mr. Nygaard stated that it was not a reasonable approach because both the opposition and the proponents are in agreement that they want to diminish traffic; by placing further housing, any traffic problems will increase. He concluded by stating that the neighbors are all in agreement to narrow the street; the closure does not resolve the questions and problems raised, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission does meet these issues and resolves them.
Councilmember Parker asked for the source of the statistics he quoted from, to which Mr. Nygaard replied they were from the Department of Transportation of Cities and stated that he would provide them to the Council. Councilmember Davis stated that the figures that Mr. Nygaard quoted are in direct opposition to the figures supplied to the Council from the Utah Department of Transportation and the City Traffic Department. She felt that the Council should have some clarification on the figures.
Tim Harpst, Deputy Transportation Engineer, stated that State-wide there has been a slight decrease in traffic volumes in the last year. The reasoning for this is people trying to conserve on gasoline. He stated that as you get more specific you will find some streets may increase and others decrease. The report submitted to the Council shows the current traffic volumes and the expected traffic volumes in the year 1995. There is no reason to believe that the traffic volumes will not increase between now and 1995. He further stated that the report does not address any specific one or two year increases or decreases in any location.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what the history of the street was; how was the street designed, to which Mr. Harpst replied that quite a bit of research was done into the history of the street. He stated that some of the history is not complete; however it appears that street width, which is now 100-feet, was expanded to that width after the neighborhood was originally platted. He stated that the triangle is a remnant of a previous lot. There may have been the possibility of taking the roadway toward the Veterans Hospital; that could not be done and the project did not go any further.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if Foothill Drive was intended to be a major artery, to which Mr. Harpst replied that at one time they felt it could be used as a relief valve. He further stated that this street is intended to be used as a residential street and many of the streets mentioned in any of the report are more of the arterial and collector-type streets that have been designated to carry the heavier loads of traffic. Signing has been set up along the way to handle that type of commuter traffic, where the intent here is to bring this to a residential-type of street in character and function. Councilmember Whitehead stated that he has observed the traffic and noticed that very few cars turn on Sunnyside; the majority go straight through the intersection at Sunnyside. Jim Byrne, Sunnyside-Foothill Community Council, and spoke to the question brought up about the history of the road. He stated that the wide right-of-way was designed in the 1940’s to be the major thoroughfare into Salt Lake City and down 4th South. The project that would have gone through the Veterans Hospital property was stopped by the Federal Government. The City or the State then had to find another alternative which became the 21st East thoroughfare. H. A. Reagan addressed the Council to verify the figures used by Mr. Nygaard. He presented a Traffic Bulletin issued by the State for 1980-81. He stated that they were authorized figures that would account for a diminish in traffic for each year.
Councilmember Davis stated that the figures the City prepared are for the specific area and not State-wide. She stated that Research Park, the University of Utah and University of Utah Hospital that are all expanding. She further stated that the figures prepared by the City have the additional information regarding the growth in the specific area. Mr. Reagan stated that the first two figures Mr. Nygaard quoted were State counts on Foothill Drive.
Mr. Reagan concluded by stating that if the straight shot is eliminated with a barricade between 900 South and Hubbard Avenue it will cause two more straight shots on 900 South and Hubbard Avenue; and that there are more children on 900 South than Foothill Drive. The following individuals spoke in favor of the petition for reasons stated by Jan Green: O. G. Brandt, JoAnn Anderson, Mark Anderson, Mary Spencer and Robert Reese. The following individuals spoke against the petition for reasons stated by Mr. Henry Nygaard: Fred Meadows, Ann Ball, Garn Hatch and Ardel Carlson.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
Mayor Wilson stated that regarding the traffic aspect it is not only the number of cars but the quality of the cars; sometimes one car going 50 mph is more dangerous than two cars going 30 mph. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Tim Harpst if the road were to be narrowed and curb, gutter, plants and shrubs installed what would the impact be regarding traffic volume and speed, to which Mr. Harpst stated that there would be no reason to change the present traffic control signing. He stated the traffic volumes would continue to grow; but the speed problem would be somewhat reduced because of the narrowed roadway and the curb and gutter would act to promote a positive guidance.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what the possibility would be of traffic being forced into the interior. Mr. Haprst replied that the proposed street width is the same as the street widths typical of a residential area that will allow for parking on both sides of the street and still have one lane of traffic in each direction. Some of the streets have some curvature; by placing the jog in the roadway and changing the traffic signing on those three intersections surrounding the jog, there may be an increase in traffic volumes on other streets in the area. Councilmember Mabey asked Mr. Harpst to outline the areas that would have four-way stop signs installed, to which Mr. Harpst replied that the signs would he placed at the intersection of 20th East and 9th South (four-way); the intersections of Foothill and Hubbard and Foothill and Michigan (two-way); Foothill at Hubbard and Michigan at Foothill.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if the road were not closed and the planned signing were placed what would that do to change the traffic patterns, to which Mr. Harpst replied that that would not be an ideal situation. You cannot expect people to follow something that is not logical; they would have a tendency to break the law and run the stop signs. He stated that there have been nation-wide studies that indicate that if traffic is stopped periodically along a straight roadway there is a tendency to increase the speed between the stop signs.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if there were any plans to raise the islands that were covered by the recent re-surfacing of the road allowing for left turns to be made across that area, to which Mr. Harpst replied the improvements planned by the State for this summer do not include raising the islands. Councilmember Davis asked if posts could he replaced in the middle of the island restricting left hand turns, to which Mr. Harpst stated they would have to discuss that matter with UDOT.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that most of the commuter traffic he has observed use the straight shot access, and those that wanted to turn left on Sunnyside went down to the cut out to make the light. If the light were long they would turn down 900 South and then toward Foothill Way. He asked if the improvements will add two left turn lanes for traffic to use, to which Mr. Blame Kaye, Utah Department of Transportation, stated that the joint project funded and programmed does not extend to the south of the Sunnyside Avenue. This project adds width to Foothill Blvd. between Sunnyside and Wasatch Drive or the access to the University to provide additional traffic that would be turning in and out to the Research Center and the University of Utah.
He further stated that at Wakera there will be two left turn lanes on Foothill for turning into the Research Center and two left turn lanes to come out to go south. He stated the plans also contemplate striping for the two lanes turning north onto Sunnyside to the east. Councilmember DePaulis asked how much right-of-way is presently on Foothill Drive, to which Mr. Kaye stated approximately 100-feet; however in the project the State will be building this summer the University on the east side is granting an additional 12-feet, and down near the Wasatch area the Veterans Hospital is also deeding a wedge shaped piece so that they can provide two lanes turning into the University. Councilmember DePaulis asked how the State views Foothill Way, to which Mr. Kaye replied that it is generally viewed as an urban street; but it also serves to some degree as a commuter street. Councilmember Parker asked if the street were closed and the jog in place would it place an additional load on cars going up 5th South to Foothill Blvd and down 21st East, to which Mr. Harpst replied that he anticipated a sharing of traffic; commuter traffic will not be totally reduced from Foothill and the traffic will he split among several arterial routes.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to override the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the petition to close that portion of Foothill Drive between 900 South and Hubbard Avenue, which motion carried all members present voting aye.
P 82-2
OTHER CITY BUSINESS
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to reschedule a public hearing on the proposed Compatibility Review Overlay Ordinance and establishment of a Compatibility Review District in the West Downtown Gateway Area for Tuesday, March 9, 1982 at 7:30 p.m., which motion carried all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent for the vote.
O 82-5
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M.