PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: GRANT MABEY ALICE SHEARER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS PALMER DEPAULIS EDWARD E. PARKER.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted the meeting.
CONSENT AND POLICY
Albert Haines briefed the Council on items relating to the opening of the budget, scheduled for January 26, 1982.
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to begin the Council meeting in room 301.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1982, 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 PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Albert E. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, January 12, 1982, as amended, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who abstained from voting.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
Petitions 325 of 1977, 383 of 1978, 909 of 1978 submitted as Pappel Annexation.
The Pappel Annexation combines Petitions 325 of 1977, 383 of 1978 and 909 of 1978, submitted respectively by Atom Plumbing, Kim-Khanh Ngugen, and James T. Larkin. The petitions deal with the annexation of an island of unincorporated property located at approximately 900-1045 West between 1700 South and 2100 South Streets. A public hearing on this matter was held before the Salt Lake City Council on November 17, 1981, and at that time was referred to the Land Use Committee. After meeting, the Land Use Committee reported that their decision was to annex the property to Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 5 of 1982, extending the limits of Salt Lake City to include the “Pappel Annex”; Zoning the same industrial “M-lA” by amending the use district map as adopted by Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, and specifying conditions subsequent to said annexation, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-1
Petition 439 of 1981 submitted by Salt Lake City Corporation.
RE: Closure of the east 238.75 feet of Oblad Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 8:30 p.m. to discuss closing 238.75 feet of Oblad Street between 3rd and 4th East Streets and to exchange it for two properties owned by Fourth East Associates.
DISCUSSION: This petition is the result of Salt Lake City’s planning efforts for the block revitalization in this neighborhood. The two properties obtained from Fourth East Associates will be used for parking and turnarounds at the ends of Beldon Place and Stanton Place. This will help facilitate the implementation of the Beldon-Stanton Block Redesign Project and the Stanton Place Housing Projects. The Law Department, Planning Commission, Fixed Assets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Fire and Engineering Department have reviewed the Petition and their recommendations are attached to the petition for review.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to schedule the public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 8:30 p.m. to discuss closing 238.75 feet of Oblad Street between 3rd and 4th East Streets and to exchange it for two properties owned by Fourth East Associates, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
P 82-7
FROM CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Proposed amendment to City Ordinances adopting an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the attached proposed ordinance and employment staffing document for adoption.
DISCUSSION: During a recent City Council meeting, the Council and administration agreed that the City’s employment staffing document should be officially adopted by ordinance. The staff document has now been prepared by the Personnel Department. Councilmember Parker stated that the Personnel Committee had recommended by a 3-0 vote to adopt the staffing document. Councilmember Shearer stated that there had been changes made to the document. The Council received the amended document prior to the meeting and had not had sufficient time to read the amended document. Mr. Haines stated that there had been changes made in the number of authorized positions at the Airport adding five positions to the total staffing of the Airport; the changes had been discussed with the Committee.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to place the employment staffing document on the agenda for January 26, 1982 for consideration, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-2
FROM CITY COUNCIL
RE: Resolution of Condolence.
Councilmember DePaulis read a Resolution of Condolence acknowledging Police Officer Ronald Heaps who was killed in the line of duty.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt the Resolution of Condolence, Resolution 8 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
R 82-4
FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: 1981 Summary Updates of the Housing Element for Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Salt Lake City Council adopt the 1981 Summary updates for the Housing Element for Salt Lake City.
DISCUSSION: The Housing Element of Salt Lake City’s master plan recommended that a review of housing conditions and programs be made each year so that housing remains a vital concern of the City. The Planning Commission has reviewed the 1981 Updates on December 3, 1981 and recommended that it be adopted.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred to the Land Use Committee the 1981 Summary Updates for the Housing Element of Salt Lake City’s master plan, referred without objection.
G 82-5
RE: Compatibility Review Overlay Ordinance,
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 7:30 pin., first, to discuss and adopt the proposed compatibility review overlay ordinance and; second, to establish by ordinance the first compatibility review district in the West Downtown Gateway Area.
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed that draft and recommends that it be adopted. They further recommend that the draft be applied to the West Downtown Gateway Area as soon as possible. The designated area would be from North Temple to 4th South and from 2nd West to 4th West Streets. This ordinance would ensure that the general appearance of buildings, structures, and development of land would not be in conflict with adopted plans for the area. Judy Lever, City Attorney’s Office, is presently preparing the ordinance into proper form and will submit it for review prior to the March 9, 1982 hearing.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to change the hearing date from March 9, 1982 to February 9, 1982 at 7:45 p.m., which motion carried all members voting aye.
O 82-5
RE: Parking Strip Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss and adopt the proposed parking strip ordinance and parking strip standards.
DISCUSSION: The proposed parking strip ordinance is a draft of the parking strip standards. The purpose of these standards will be to clarify the objectives established by the City in administering parking strip requirements. In the past, broad interpretations and inconsistent implementation have led to problems in understanding the City’s requirements. These standards will provide uniform and concise resource to all citizens attempting to landscape a parking strip. The Planning Commission, with the Mayor’s approval, may grant exceptions to the Parking Strip ordinance based on these standards.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing for March 9, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the adoption of the proposed Parking Strip Ordinance, which motion carried all members voting aye.
O 82-6
RE: Four buildings be designated to the City Register of Cultural Resources as Landmark Sites.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss designating the following buildings as landmark sites: Edwin P. Kimball House 124 South 600 East, Rose Hartwell Whiteley House 132 South 600 East, George Arbuckle House 747 East 1700 South, Thorid Peck House 466 South 500 East
DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission and Historical Landmarks Commission has recommended that the building be designated to the City Register of Cultural Resources as Landmark Sites.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing for March 9, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss designating the Edwin P. Kimball House, Rose Hartwell Whiteley House, George Arbuckle House and Thorid Peck House as landmark sites, which motion carried all members voting aye.
(L 82-2
RE: Barricade Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on March 9, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed barricade ordinance and an amendment to the noise ordinance.
DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance will increase fees for barricade fences and will outline penalties for time violations. A change in the crane portion of this ordinance regarding times for loading and unloading materials has necessitated a change to the noise ordinance.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to set a public hearing for March 9, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed barricade ordinance and an amendment to the noise ordinance, which motion carried all members voting aye.
O 82-7
FROM FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond Application: Trolley Office Building Partners.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve an inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Trolley Office Building Partners in the amount of $10,000,000 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the City. 3. That Trolley Office Building Partners pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to construct a 150,000 square foot office building on Trolley Square to be leased to various firms.
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond Application: Trolley Hotel Partners.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve an inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Trolley Hotel Partners in the amount of $10,000,000 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the City. 3. That Trolley Hotel Partners pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to construct a 300-unit guest room hotel to he located on the southwest corner of the block of Trolley Square. The Industrial Revenue Bond applications for both projects were considered together for discussion. Councilmember Shearer stated that no action had been taken by the Budget Committee and that their recommendation was to open this item for discussion to the entire Council. Wally Wright, Developer of Trolley Square, addressed the Council and presented the proposal for Trolley Hotel Partners. He outlined through visual aids the proposed location of the Hotel and Office Building and the architectural design in keeping with the atmosphere of Trolley Square.
He further explained the economic advantages of the project in terms of tax revenues. He also stated that the Hotel would provide for the creation of approximately 300 full and part-time service oriented jobs. Mr. Wright also stated that the construction of a Hotel would continue to make Trolley Square a tourist attraction. Jenille Larsen addressed the Council and commended Mr. Wright on his efforts to preserve the area as a historic site. However, she stated that she had concerns about the construction of a hotel and office building in an area where she felt parking and noise was already a problem; she felt the block would become too congested. She further stated that she felt a traffic study should be made to evaluate existing and proposed conditions and asked that the project be delayed until results from a study can be provided.
Chris Thomas, Central City Neighborhood Council, addressed the Council and stated they had received a presentation of the proposed plan; however no neighborhood impact studies had been performed. She stated the Neighborhood Council concurred with the statements made concerning traffic congestion in the area. She commented that the increase to the tax base and the increase in jobs are good. She further stated that they felt that the Historical Preservation Committee should review the project; she felt this would be critical because the height of the proposed buildings would mask the historical quality of Trolley Square.
Ms. Thomas further stated that none of the businesses in the area had been contacted and the only notice they had regarding the proposed construction were articles in the local newspaper. She asked the Council for a delay until impact studies could be completed. Kerry Bate addressed the Council and reiterated comments previously made concerning delaying the project until studies could be made. He also stated that he felt the Planning and Zoning Department should make a recommendation on the best way to proceed with the project. Wally Wright addressed the Council and commented on the issue of public notice. He stated that the Deseret News published an article on December 1, 1981, showing the scope and architecture of the building. He further stated that there had also been television coverage. Those individuals who had responded had concerns with zoning. He stated that the area is zoned C-3; the same as downtown, and that zoning allows for even larger buildings to be constructed than is proposed.
Mr. Wright stated he felt there was adequate parking at the present time and the proposal creates 350 parking stalls for the 300 room hotel. There is also adequate parking for employees on the lower level. He also stated that most of the people arriving at the hotel will arrive by airplane and utilize taxi service to the hotel. He further stated that he has conducted traffic studies and they have been available for the past 60 days. Mr. Wright also addressed the concern raised regarding the historic preservation of the area. He stated that the proposed building site is on the Utah State Historic Register. He further stated that he served on the Landmarks Committee, has discussed it with them and said he would happy to review it with them. He also stated that the project does fit within the criteria set by the Committee.
Councilmember DePaulis stated he felt that the timing of the project was too close to Christmas to get people out to look at the feasibility of the plan. He also stated that the feeling he had from discussing the issue with citizens within his district was the size and height of the building for that area. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the C-3 zoning in the area allows for this type of project, to which Councilmember DePaulis stated that he felt the issue was that the City would be taking an active role in inducing this type of construction. Without the City’s help Mr. Wright would not be able to finance the project; approval would put the Council in the position of making an impact in an area that has been very sensitive to this type of impact.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that from a Planning standpoint it was more sound to construct a hotel on a commercial piece of property than perhaps trying to change the zoning in a residential area for the project. Councilmember Davis asked if this would be a convention hotel, to which Mr. Wright stated that it would not. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the impact was a major one to the Community and felt they needed more time to look at the studies and ask questions. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what the advantage would be if this project were delayed, to which Councilmember DePaulis answered that he feels the Council needs more time to study the impact issue before it approves the Industrial Revenue Bond that could be used as a sign of the Council’s favorable activity for development in this commercial area. He also stated that if interest rates were not as high as they are Mr. Wright would not need the City’s support in the form of an Industrial Revenue Bond and would construct the project without an Industrial Revenue Bond. Councilmember Davis stated she feels the Council needs to set specific policies on where to place Industrial Revenue Bond projects such as this, considering the Council did not approve Hermes application and is still considering one from Prowswood. Councilmember Whitehead responded by stating that he felt one difference was the Council wanted to encourage mixed usage in the area of the proposed Hermes project. Trolley Partners is asking to develop in an area that is already zoned for commercial use.
Kerry Bate addressed the Council and reiterated the concerns of the Central City Neighborhood Council. He stated that he felt a delay would allow the Neighborhood Council to review the impact of the project on the area; he requested a delay of approximately four to six weeks. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she felt it was unnecessary for this project to be submitted to the Landmarks Committee for review and that they were asking Mr. Wright to go to exceptional extremes. She further stated that she felt it was illegal to ask Mr. Wright to take his plan to the Landmarks Committee.
Councilmember Davis stated that a traffic study should not affect the approval of an Industrial Revenue Bond. The Transportation Division can always make a study and change the striping of a street to control traffic. Mayor Wilson stated that he felt there was a philosophical problem with tying Industrial Revenue Bonds to other problems around them because the proposed plan is zoned appropriately. He stated that this was a financial situation and should be approved or disapproved on that basis. There is no reason why the concerns cannot be dealt with also. He stated the bond market was getting worse and there is a danger that Congress may enact legislation that would prohibit Industrial Revenue Bonding.
Councilmember Parker stated that there are worse traffic problems in the County and that we need to do something to keep business vital in Salt Lake City. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if it were possible to pass the Inducement Resolution and suggest that the developer and neighborhood council meet to work out the issues and come to a good faith agreement prior to the time it comes before the Council for approval of the enactment resolution. Roger Cutler replied that assuming they met all of the City’s legal requirement as to form, he did not feel the City could refuse to sign the Enactment Resolution based on conditions imposed by an agreement reached between the developer and the neighborhood council.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt the Inducement Resolution, Resolution 9 of 1982, for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Trolley Hotel Partners in the amount of $10,000,000; and adopt the Inducement Resolution, Resolution 10 of 1982, for an Industrial Revenue Bond for Trolley Office Building Partners in the amount of $10,000,000, both subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which motion carried all members voting aye, except Councilmember DePaulis who voted nay. (101 and 102 of 1981)
Q 82-7 and Q 82-8
RE: Industrial Revenue Bond Application: NDS, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of an inducement resolution for Industrial Revenue Bonds for NDS, Inc., in the amount of $2,500,000 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolution as to form. 2. That the application meet all necessary financial requirements of the City. 3. That NDS, Inc., pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to acquire 4.2 acres of land and to construct thereon a warehouse facility of approximately 80,000 square feet to be located near the Salt Lake International Center. Councilmember Shearer stated that it was recommended by the Budget Committee to adopt this Industrial Revenue Bond.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 11 of 1982 for an Industrial Revenue Bond for NDS, Inc., in the amount of $2,500,000 to acquire 4.2 acres of land and to construct thereon a warehouse facility of approximately 80,000 square feet to be located near the Salt Lake International Center, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Q 82-1
Re: Industrial Revenue Bond Application: Clark Financial Corporation for $10,000,000 Sugar House Office Building Associates for $7,000,000.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider the approval of inducement resolutions for Industrial Revenue Bonds for Clark Financial Corporation and Sugar House Office Building Associates subject to the following conditions: 1. That the City Attorney approve the resolutions as to form. 2. That the applications meet all necessary financial requirements of the City. 3. That Clark Financial Corporation and Sugar House Office Building Associates pay the established non-refundable fee for processing.
DISCUSSION: The applicants propose to construct a 10-story office building located on the northwest corner of 1300 East and Wilmington Avenue. Councilmember Shearer stated that this item was a companion item to Clark Financial Corporation’s application for UDAG funds, and that it was recommended out of the Budget Committee for adoption.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt the Inducement Resolution for Clark Financial Corporation in the amount of $10,000,000, Resolution 12 of 1982, and Sugar House Office Building Associates in the amount of $7,000,000, Resolution 13 of 1982, which motion carried all members voting aye. (106-1981)
Q 82-9
FROM FIRE DEPARTMENT
RE: Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Riverton City wherein Salt Lake City will dispatch all alarms for fire and emergency medical for Riverton City.
RECOMMENDATION: That the agreement he approved.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department is presently dispatching for Riverton City per previous agreement.
RE: Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Sandy City, wherein Salt Lake City will dispatch all fire and medical alarms for Sandy City Fire Department.
RECOMMENDATION: That this agreement be approved.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City Fire Department is presently dispatching for Sandy City Fire Department per previous agreement. These items were considered together for discussion. Councilmember DePaulis stated that this item was another of the typical interlocal agreements that deal with the consolidation of dispatch services; however the Committee had some questions regarding the amount of revenue that would be taken in by the agreement and whether that revenue would be fair and not to the City’s disadvantage.
Peter Pederson, Chief of Fire, stated that the fees that would be charged are based on the amount of responses and the workload they anticipate for the City and would be adjusted if there is an increase in responses. He further stated that the revenue was adequate to cover the City’s costs and expenses of the operation of the dispatch center. Councilmember Mabey asked if they were one-year contracts, to which Chief Pederson stated that they were.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt a Resolution authorizing an agreement with Riverton to provide dispatching services, Resolution 14 of 1982, and adopt a Resolution authorizing an agreement with Sandy City to provide dispatching services, Resolution 15 of 1982, which motion carried all members voting aye.
C 82-13 & C 82-14
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Library Board.
RECOMMENDATION: That John Richard Grantham be appointed to the Library Board.
DISCUSSION: The Library Board is presently in need of a replacement to fill the unexpired term of Bobby Florez, who was appointed to the State Legislature to finish the term of her late husband. Ms. Florez’s term with the Library Board was to expire June 30, 1982. Councilmember Davis introduced Mr. Grantham to the Council. She explained the Conflict of Interest Ordinance and asked Mr. Grantham to complete a financial disclosure statement. Councilmember Davis expressed her appreciation to Mr. Grantham for serving on the Board. Mr. Grantham stated that he was pleased to serve in this capacity.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the appointment of John Richard Grantham to the Library Board, which motion carried all members voting aye. (256-1981)
I 82-7
RE: Salt Lake Arts Council.
RECOMMENDATION: That Glade Peterson, General Director of the Utah Opera Company, be appointed as a member of the Salt Lake Arts Council.
DISCUSSION: The Utah Opera Company does not have a member on this Board, although every other major performing arts group in the City is represented in this organization. Mr. Peterson is well known for his dedication and efforts on behalf of the Utah Opera Company. His own abilities are recognized both here and abroad. Mr. Peterson’s presence on this Board would give an added dimension of expertise.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the appointment of Glade Peterson to the Salt Lake Arts Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (248-1981)
I 82-6
RE: Planning and Zoning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: That Robert Lewis be appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
DISCUSSION: It is recommended by Kathy Wacker, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, that Robert Lewis be appointed to fill the remainder of Herman Hogensen’s term as the Commissions representative on the Board of Adjustment.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the appointment of Robert Lewis to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which motion carried all members voting aye.
I 82-2
RE: Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees.
RECOMMENDATION: That Joseph S. Fenton, Wilbur Parkinson, and Jim Talebreza be appointed to the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees.
DISCUSSION: The term of office for the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees will expire December 31, 1981 for Joseph S. Fenton, Wilbur Parkinson, and Jim Talebreza. These men have been very active in their responsibilities on the Board and have indicated their willingness to serve another two years; therefore it is recommended that their terms be extended to December 31, 1983.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the appointments of Joseph S. Fenton, Wilbur Parkinson, and Jim Talebreza to the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
I 82-3
RE: Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: That Stephen E. Featherstone be appointed to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
DISCUSSION: The term of appointment for Mr. Featherstone will expire on December 31, 1981. He has contributed greatly to the efforts of the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and has performed an outstanding service for the citizens of Salt Lake. Inasmuch as Mr. Featherstone has only served for two years and this committee is in the middle of a number of major programs; i.e. water and sewer bonding, 201 Facilities Plan, etc., it is important that he serve a full term.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the appointment of Stephen E. Featherstone to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye. (257-1981)
I 82-5
FROM PUBLIC WORKS
RE: Resolution to Create Curb & Gutter Extension No. 38-622, Sidewalk Beautification Project on Exchange Place and Cactus Place.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution to create this Special Improvement District.
DISCUSSION: This Special Improvement District was constructed several years ago. On July 15, 16, and 17, 1980, Board of Equalization meetings were held before the City Council. As the bonding attorney was preparing necessary resolutions and actions to go before Council to approve the levying of assessments for the district, he discovered that the actual creation of this district by ordinance never occurred. On June 5, 1979, the Board of City Commissioners approved this district and passed a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for its creation. However, the ordinance was never prepared for adoption by City Commission. The purpose therefore of the resolution is to provide for the creation of this district as required by State Statutes. Once this resolution has been approved, the Council will be asked to approve the proposed assessments.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt the resolution, Resolution 16 of 1982, to Create Curb & Gutter Extension No. 38-622, Sidewalk Beautification Project on Exchange Place and Cactus Place, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Q 82-3
FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RE: “Central Business District Neighborhood Development Plan”, Report of Central Business District Development Plan, “Seventh Year Implementation Program” and consider the adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of Title 24 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah 1965, relating to Central Business District Neighborhood Plan and resolution relating thereto. Mike Chitwood addressed the Council stating he had presented an ordinance for consideration which would approve the Redevelopment Plan and the report on the Plan.
Mr. Chitwood presented the Council with copies of an amended implementation plan as they had requested in a prior meeting. He explained that the amended plan contained a map showing the old redevelopment boundaries and stated that the boundaries should be placed in the ordinance. He further stated that they were deleting the four blocks for the American City and one block on Triad; these areas will be considered during the coming year for possible inclusion into the CBD Project area. He also stated the other amendment the Council asked them to make was on Item “G” whereby the City Council would control the expenditure of the funds for the plan and study on downtown transit improvements, acting as the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency.
All of the above mentioned changes have been made and are contained in the document before the Council. Mr. Chitwood asked for the approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 8 of Title 24 of the Revised Ordinances, and a resolution approving the implementation plan as amended. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the American City blocks would be held in abeyance, to which Mr. Chitwood replied that they were holding them until they could present an amended implementation plan. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if they were earmarking $600,000 for a transit improvements, to which Mr. Chitwood replied yes.
Councilmember Davis asked what would happen to the $600,000 if they did not approve a transit improvements. Mr. Chitwood replied that the City could not submit an application for Federal matching funds because they would not have the resources to provide their 20% local matching share. Councilmember Mabey asked if some blocks had been deleted, to which Mr. Chitwood replied that they had; he further stated this was the original plan as it exists today containing 18 1/2 blocks and not including the five American City blocks that were proposed or the one block, block 85, that was requested by Triad. Councilmember Shearer asked if the ordinance that is to be passed needs to be amended because of changes in the project area. Mr. Chitwood indicated that the ordinance should contain the legal description of the existing CBD Neighborhood Development Project area and not the expanded area that was originally included in the plan for Council consideration.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 15 of 1982, amending Chapter 8 Title 24 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City to read as presented in the proposed ordinance before the Council, except that the legal description in the proposed ordinance would be amended to include the existing CBD Project boundaries; and also to insert the words “as amended” after the words “November 6, 1981’, wherever those words appear in the proposed ordinance, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt the Seventh Year Implementation Program, 1981-82, November 6, 1981, as amended, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
T 82-5
FROM SALT LAKE COUNTY
RE: Proposed amendment to Title 44 dealing with the inspection of ambulances.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the amendment to Title 44 of the Salt Lake City Code.
DISCUSSION: Currently both the City-County Health Department and the Utah State Department of Health are conducting inspections of ambulances at approximately the same time of the year. The proposed changes in the ordinance will eliminate a duplicate inspection and simplify licensing procedures of the applicant.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt the proposed amendment to Title 44, Ordinance 6 of 1982, dealing with the inspection of ambulances, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-4
PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing was held before the City Council to discuss the need for an Urban Development Action Grant (UDG) for the Sugarhouse Redevelopment project. Doug Carlson, Office of Budget and Management Planning, addressed the Council and stated that this is the second hearing as required by HUD. He summarized the Sugarhouse Office Building Development by stating that the proposed project is a private and public sector effort to help rejuvenate the Sugarhouse business district. The proposal calls for the construction of a 12 story, 135,000 square foot office building and a 489 stall parking structure on 2.2 acres of property located at approximately 1300 East Street and Wilmington Avenue. The developer of the project, Clark Financial Corporation, will own and manage the office building after completion.
Salt Lake City is applying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for an Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) in the amount of $2,020,250. If approved by HUD, the city will loan $2,000,250 from the grant to the developer as part of its construction financing. The developer will use the City’s UDAG loans for parking structure construction, creek and power line relocation, and street improvements. The balance of the developer’s project financing will be from an Industrial Revenue Bond issued for approximately $8,000,000 and developer cash equity of approximately $4,262,750 bringing the total project cost to $14,263,000.
Over the 25 year amortization period, the recaptured UDAG funds will be used by the City for community development projects in Sugarhouse or other HUD eligible areas, as designated by the City Council. Mr. Carlson concluded by stating that amount of the recaptured funds would be $185,000 per year plus 8% interest for 25 years. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the recapture money was guaranteed even if the CD program were to vanish, to which Mr. Carlson replied yes. Councilmember Davis asked if the Council should be concerned with the practicality of 489 parking stalls.
Mr. Carlson replied that if they go over 500 parking stalls they would be subject to the completion of an environmental impact statement before they could begin the project. Mr. Biesinger also stated that that was the amount of parking stalls required by code. Jack Scherbel, Sugarhouse Council, distributed printed excerpts from the Master Plan and stated that they had reservations concerning the project. He further stated that they are in favor of development of the area, however they were concerned that phases of the project were not in keeping with the Master Plan. They desire to keep the green areas intact and improve them. He also stated that research has indicated the old Pioneer Trail was in this area and should be preserved and emphasized.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the advantage of this project is that it would be a catalyst to revitalization of Sugarhouse. She asked if the City was planning to sell the entire piece of property for the project or just the portion needed for the building; Mr. Chitwood replied that just a portion would be sold. Helen Hansen addressed the Council and stated that she was concerned about the wording of the notice of these public hearings as they indicated the hearings were to be held to discuss the need for a UDAG for the Sugarhouse Redevelopment Project; she felt the title was misleading. She further stated that people were referring to this office building as phase I, which indicates there is more to come. Ms. Hansen asked if the application is approved, before the money is disbursed does the area need to he declared a redevelopment area; to which Mr. Chitwood replied the disbursement of funds on the project does not have to wait until the area is designated a redevelopment area. Councilmember Shearer asked if the disbursement could be made with no intention of making it a a redevelopment area; Mr. Chitwood replied that there was no involvement of a redevelopment area in this project.
Ruth Robbins addressed the Council and presented a map indicating the property that the developer already owns in the area. She reiterated previous statements made by Mr. Scherbel. John Walton addressed the Council and stated that he felt the area surrounding the proposed building was a disgrace and needed to be improved. He felt there was good representation of property owners at the meeting held January 13 at Highland High; he further stated that everyone was in favor of doing something to improve the area. Mr. Walton concluded by stating that he felt it was a great asset for Sugarhouse.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the building is in a location where it is going to impact positively 21st South or Hyland Drive, wouldn’t it be better if it were to be located closer to those centers. She stated that the purpose of a UDAG is to impact the areas around it. Mayor Wilson responded that the polar concept was a good idea; where you build projects on both sides with the expectation that you get infill and spark revitalization of the area. Councilmember Davis stated that she was concerned about the difficulty of renting other office space in the area.
Councilmember Parker stated that Dan Hammond, Executive Secretary of the Suqarhouse Chamber of Commerce, has given him information that there is a high rate of turnover in the number of businesses in Sugarhouse. Mr. Walton stated that the businesses in the area have deteriorated and are in a blighted condition; financing is a problem right now, and he felt that this project would be the catalyst to the development of the area. Tai Biesinger, Clark Financial Corporation, stated that the survey of the area indicated that 80% of the area is blighted. He stated the funds could be put back into Sugarhouse to make improvements.
He also stated that the project would not be successful if built in any other location. He further stated that he felt this was the only location that provides access to the major corridor; this provides exposure and has the vista to the park and the mountains that will assist in leasing office space. Mr. Biesinger stated that they were in negotiations with property owners who must sell their property by their own choice. He concluded by asking for the support of the Council on approval of the project. Councilmember Mabey stated that a view is important in attracting potential tenants in an office building; if you do not have the view you will not lease the building. Councilmember Davis stated that if some of the property owners did not want to sell their property, under this proposal the Council would not condemn the property. She asked Mr. Biesinger if he was free to discuss negotiations with the Council, to which Mr. Biesinqer stated that he was. Mayor Wilson stated that he felt it was time some action was taken in Sugarhouse. He reiterated his point that he felt it would be a good catalyst to start development in the area and put some pressure on the City to re-route some of the payback monies into the Sugarhouse area.
Councilmember Parker asked if it would do anything for the property value of the area, to which Mr. Biesinger replied that it would enhance those values. Councilmember Davis asked if there was anyway the payback monies could be earmarked for development of Sugarhouse. Mayor Wilson replied that the Council could pass a resolution of intent, but he did not feel they could legally bind future Council’s to use those funds in that manner. Rawlins Young, Sugarhouse Neighborhood Council, addressed the Council and stated that the project did not have support of the Sugarhouse Community. He reiterated statements made previously by Ms. Hansen.
He further stated that he felt the general public would not be served by this development. He further stated that he felt it was not essential to use City property to develop office space; he stated that if the project were built across the street it would benefit the area. Mr. Rawlins stated that he has been working on the Goals, Objectives, and Planning Strategy for Sugarhouse and hopes that this project is not approved before this document can be presented to the Council next month. John Keele addressed the Council and stated that his main concern was removing good substantial housing from the area for the development of commercial property.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried all members voting aye. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if there were any restrictions on the deed, to which Mr. Biesinger stated that he had not heard of any. Councilmember Shearer stated that if the property had been given to the City there may be some restrictions. Mr. Biesinger stated that Clark Financial is not destroying residential areas. They have proposed an office building in an area zoned for that use. He also stated that the application must still be approved by HUD pending the action taken by the Council.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that a UDAG does not cost the City money; the City becomes the sponsor of an area. She further stated that a UDAG application would not be passed by HUD just to assist a developer unless they felt it would help develop an area. Mr. Biesinger concluded by stating that Clark Financial must put up funds at a 6-1 ratio; the funds do not go back to the Federal Government, but revert to the City to be used for other improvements. He further stated that this is not a tax increment issue or a redevelopment issue.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) for Sugarhouse development, which motion carried all members voting aye.
T 82-2
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Murry McEntire addressed the Council stating that he has been assigned by the Government Affairs Committee of the Salt Lake City Board of Realtors to serve as Community relations Coordinator for Salt Lake City. He further stated it is the desire of the Committee to establish a liaison between the Salt Lake Board of Realtors and the community which, he hoped would be beneficial to all concerned.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.