PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1984, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at the meeting.
POLICY SESSION
#1. Ms. Leigh von der Esch, council executive director, briefed the Council on the status of the Marler alley vacation request and ordinance. #2. Stephanie Loker, capital planning and programming, briefed the Council on the status of the Spencer Branch Library, located at 200 North and 800 West. She said that this building is owned by the school board and recommended that the city relinquish its lease on this property. The building was formerly occupied by the Rape Crisis Center and Council Chairperson Whitehead warned that the Council would be unable to provide funds to relocate the center. Ms. Loker stressed that the building should not be left vacant because it would then become a haven for transients and vandals.
#3. Louis Miller, director of airports, briefed the Council on a proposed interlocal agreement between the airport and the City of West Jordan. Mr. Miller said that this agreement is needed in order to expand the airport’s sewer system. #4. Councilmember Shearer discussed a proposed resolution that would allow individual cities to decide whether or not to allow the sale and use of fireworks. The Council agreed that the use of fireworks had become a serious and dangerous fire hazard. Mary Kimball, fire marshal, and Ms. von der Esch will work together on a resolution to encourage legislation on fireworks. #5. Lane Nielson, planning and zoning, briefed the Council on changes in the proposed property taxes in Emigration Canyon. He said that under full development the revenues received from the taxes would be much higher than had been previously anticipated.
The policy session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1984, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Roger Cutler, city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and Councilmember Alice Shearer conducted the meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the emergency meeting held Tuesday, June 12, 1984, and for the regular meetings held Tuesday, June 12, 1984, Thursday, June 14, 1984, Thursday, June 21, 1984, and Thursday, July 5, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 84-1)
Special Presentation
#1. Mayor Wilson presented letters and Resolutions of appreciation to individuals and organizations who assisted in managing this year’s spring run-off.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-106 of 1983 by Ray Marler, et al.
RE: An ordinance vacating a portion of a public alley located within the Waterloo Addition Subdivision, said alley being 13 feet wide and running south from Kensington Avenue to Bryan Avenue between 300 and 400 East Streets in Salt Lake City. This ordinance was pulled from the agenda so that the property description of the alley could be rewritten.
(P 84-5)
Petition 400-134 of 1983 by Little America Hotel.
RE: The vacation of Carson Street which runs south from 400 South and is approximately 148 feet west of Main Street. Shin Holbrook, owner of Paramount Beauty Supply, mentioned that Carson Street provides public access and parking. His opinion was that the needs of the public would be better served if this street remains open until the petitioner has submitted development plans for this area.
He referred to the original dedication of Walker Place and Carson Street in 1909 and indicated that the Owner’s Dedication specifies that the streets would be available for perpetual use by the public. Al Landvatter, representing Little America, mentioned that in previous discussions Mr. Holbrook had been concerned about having a turnaround area for delivery trucks. Little America felt that this situation could be resolved by leaving the south end of Carson Street open for turnaround purposes.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the north end of Carson Street (from 400 South to Walker Place), and ask the Attorney’s Office to prepare the necessary ordinance and review the stipulations of the original conveyance, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-11)
Petition 400-142 of 1983 by McIntyre Investors.
RE: Petitioner’s appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Petition 400-142 which requests vacation of certain portions of Elizabeth Street.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, August 14, 1984, at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this issue, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-42)
Petition 400-183 of 1984 by Donald M. White, et al.
RE: The rezoning of property located at 984 Donner Way from “R-5” to “R-1”.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 43 of 1984, amending Section 51-12-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to zoning and fixing boundaries of use districts, by rezoning property located at 984 Donner Way from Residential “R-5” to Residential “R-l”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 84-36)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and West Jordan for construction of a new sanitary sewer line at Salt Lake City Airport #2.
Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred this resolution to the consent agenda for July 17, 1984.
(C 84-260)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance repealing Section 135 of the Traffic Code relating to all-night parking prohibited, and renumbering Section 135.5 to be Section 135 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to streets for storage prohibited.
Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred this ordinance to the consent agenda for July 17, 1984.
(0 84-23)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: The Sugar House Target Area Plan.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, July 17, 1984, at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-16)
#2. RE: The West Capitol Hill Target Area Plan.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, July 17, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this plan, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(T 84-17)
#3. RE: Proposed revisions to the city’s electrical code.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, July 17, 1984, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the revisions, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-22)
#4. RE: The addition of the James Jensen Granary to the City Historic Register.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 44 of 1984, amending Section 51-32-2(4)(b) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Historic Districts and Landmark Sites - City Historic Register, by adding the James Jensen Granary, 626 South 400 East, to the register, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(L 84-1)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: City employment staffing document.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Ordinance 45 of 1984, amending Section 25-1-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as last amended by Bill 19 of 1984, relating to the adoption of an employment staffing document for Salt Lake City, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-16)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: The reappointment of Ronald Coleman to the Civil Service Commission.
Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred this reappointment to the consent agenda for July 17, 1984.
(I 84-12)
#2. RE: The appointments of Stephanie Cannon and Corinne Sweet and the reappointment of Elizabeth Montague to the Library Board.
Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred the appointments and the reappointment to the consent agenda for July 17, 1984.
(I 84-13)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, by amending Schedule 1, relating to wastewater control.
Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred this ordinance to the consent agenda for July 17, 1984.
(O 84-20)
#2. An ordinance amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewers and sewer service.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to amend the ordinance so that its effective date will be upon publication, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred this ordinance to the consent agenda for July 17, 1984.
(O 84-21)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
International Center Hotel Associates.
RE: A resolution of intent to issue Industrial Revenue Bonds for International Center Hotel Associates, Ltd.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this issue. Ilene Kamsler, Utah Hotel Motel Association, read a statement on behalf of the Association opposing the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for this project. The Association felt that if a need exists then the project should be built by using conventional financing and thereby not placing current operators at a competitive disadvantage. They also felt that the use of IRB's to subsidize new development is warranted when the situation requires government intervention as a catalyst but the Association did not feel that this is the case at the International Center. Ms. Kamsler mentioned that there is an existing hotel at the International Center and she felt that any other developer ought to get financing on their own if the need for additional facilities exists. Robert Thorup, bond counsel, said that the proposed hotel would serve the average customer by having lower rates than the present facility. He said that the company would he paying the same types of rates as other hotels pay for their conventional financing. He also mentioned that congress has made the IRB's available to encourage projects which employ new people and provide added boosts to the economy of an area. Mr. Thorup said that a study was done to determine a need for this project and the study concluded that the need exists.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Whitehead noted that this project meets the Council’s criteria for approving projects to be funded by Industrial Revenue Bonds.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt an inducement resolution, Resolution 73 of 1984, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, for Industrial Revenue Bonds to finance a project under the Utah Industrial Facilities Development Act and authorizing the execution of a memorandum of agreement by and between International Center Hotel Associates, Ltd. and the City of Salt Lake, Utah, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Hardwick who abstained from voting.
(Q 84-13)
Employee Compensation Plan
RE: An amendment to the compensation plan of Salt Lake City employees. A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to consider the amendment.
Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, explained that the amendment to the plan will provide a compensation program for the fire fighters since a contract had not been negotiated with that bargaining unit. Mr. Haines mentioned that the compensation is comparable with what the other units received and this will retain compensation parity with the police department. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Resolution 74 of 1984 amending the compensation plan of Salt Lake City employees as last amended on June 12, 1984, by Bill 41 of 1984, to accommodate issues dealing with the fire department, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 70 of 1984 authorizing the execution of the memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake City and AFSCME 1004, adopt Resolution 71 of 1984 authorizing the execution of the memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake Police Association, and adopt Resolution 72 of 1984 authorizing the execution of the memorandum of understanding between Salt Lake City and AFSCME; and providing for ratification of this action in the Council meeting on Thursday, July 12, 1984, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 84-15, C 84-297, C 84-298, C 84-296)
Petition 400-60 of 1983 by Gerald A. Corwin, et al.
RE: The annexation of Emigration Canyon.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this petition. Gerald Corwin, petitioner, said that his petition requested the annexation of the entire canyon. He mentioned that he had informed people that connection onto the city water system would be done through a special improvement district which could be denied by those in the district. He addressed the issue of sewage disposal and indicated that annexation would enable proper disposal of sewage through city sewers.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, outlined three methods which could be used for canyon residents to connect onto the city’s water and sewage system. First, developers could be required to provide the improvements for new development; second, a special improvement district could be formed for existing development; and third, the city could finance the improvements and require connection onto the system. Lane Nielson, planning and zoning, mentioned that many issues, such as environmental, traffic, safety, and economic, have been considered in connection with this annexation. He said that the Planning Commission, in consideration of these issues, recommended approval of annexation and indicated that the canyon should be zoned appropriately because of its sensitive nature.
Mr. Nielson said that the economic issue was a consideration but the Planning Commission felt it was just one of many issues and other factors, such as proximity to the city, delivery of services, and bussing school children, outweighed the economic considerations. He explained that the cost of servicing the canyon would probably outweigh revenues which would be realized through the annexation but this is generally the case in any residential neighborhood. He also explained that costs of providing city services had been studied and weighed against projected revenues and the feeling of the Planning Commission was that the estimate was not out of the ordinary given any residential community in the city. Mr. Nielson said the Planning Commission recommended that if the canyon is annexed, an in-depth city-generated master plan should be prepared for the canyon addressing the issues of water and sewer and also addressing developable limits within the canyon. Councilmember Parker asked what future problems the city and residents would face if the canyon is not annexed. Mr. Nielson mentioned the proximity of the canyon and said that activity within the canyon will affect Salt Lake City so there is some feeling that the city should have input into what happens in the canyon. He also mentioned that people feel school children should not have to be bussed past Salt Lake City schools to go to school in the county.
The following citizens opposed the annexation: Leon Sheya, 4900 Emigration Canyon, Earl Davis, 388 East 18th South, Bountiful, Kent Fetzer, 762 East 500 South, Douglas Carlton, representing the owner of 1840 Emigration Canyon. Concern was expressed that the cost of improvements and operating costs for services, such as a fire station, would be too high. It was felt that the Council was being asked to base their decision on theoretical benefits to the city. It was also mentioned that the county is a responsible entity and capable of development control. There was concern about overdevelopment in the canyon and the opinion was expressed that annexation would be viewed as welcoming development.
The following citizens supported the annexation: Irene Sweeney, 6201 Emigration Canyon. Alfred Neilson, 6400 Emigration Canyon, James Shoppe, 4151 Emigration Canyon. These citizens felt that there needs to be long-range orderly planning for development in the canyon. The opinion was expressed that long-range planning also needs to take into consideration the effects of Emigration Canyon on Salt Lake City. They felt a need to receive good community services and it was felt that the cost for these services would not get any cheaper in the future.
Lynne Van Dam, 1183 Herbert Avenue, opposed development in the canyon and felt that there should be a moratorium on development. She asked the Council to give serious consideration to the environment of the canyon and preserving it for the animals. Hermoine Jex, Capitol Hill Community Council, felt that a plan, with restrictions, is needed before annexation and she suggested that a committee be formed to address this subject. J. S. Johnson, 8165 Emigration Canyon, did not support annexation of the upper portion of the canyon because there is very little development in that area of the canyon and there are no facilities. Craig Smay, 4845 Emigration Canyon, felt that a majority of the people who signed the petition had done so based on misinformation.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Mayor Wilson indicated that a large-scale purchase of the canyon for preservation purposes would be prohibitive because of the cost. He expressed concern with the piecemeal development which is taking place and he suggested that in the future people may wish there had been tighter controls. Mayor Wilson recommended annexation even though all the questions have not been answered and he suggested that the Council could impose a moratorium on development while these questions are being answered. He indicated that annexation of the canyon will permit the authority which the city needs for control. Councilmember Davis agreed with Mayor Wilson and she felt that determining the costs for improvements would be part of the long-range planning process. Ms. Davis felt that a majority of the people want controls in the canyon and these controls would allow for better preservation.
Councilmember Whitehead said that development will take place in the canyon regardless of whether or not it is annexed and he agreed that it would be better under city controls. However, he was concerned that the question of connection onto the city water/sewer system was unresolved and he was concerned with the cost to the citizens of Salt Lake City to help provide services in the canyon. He felt that a decision is needed about connection onto the water/sewer system before the canyon is annexed.
Councilmember Parker agreed that there are financial concerns but felt that if the annexation does not occur problems will get worse. He also mentioned that it costs money to annex other areas and provide services. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that from a land use point of view the canyon needs to be annexed. She reiterated that any residential district costs money to annex but felt that annexation is necessary for orderly development. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that the options regarding improvements would have to he explored and the only immediate requirement should be good building practices.
Councilmember Mabey said he had mixed feelings about the annexation because of his concern about the financial impact to the citizens of Salt Lake. He felt that areas already within Salt Lake which need improvements should have priority rather than annexing the canyon and then spending money for improvements there. Councilmember Hardwick expressed the same feelings. Councilmember Shearer mentioned that she felt there was good subdivision development and planning in the county.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to grant Petition 400-60 of 1983 requesting the annexation of Emigration Canyon to Salt Lake City, which motion failed, Councilmembers Hardwick, Mabey, Whitehead, and Shearer voting nay and Councilmembers Parker, Davis and Fonnesbeck voting aye.
(P 83-428)
Fire Code
RE: The request of Delbert 8. Ward that Section 15-2-3.22 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to modification of existing buildings for fire code, be repealed.
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this issue. Mr. Ward distributed written comments to the Council (a copy of his statement is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). He briefly summarized his concerns which were the contents of the new code provision and the process by which this code provision had been passed. Mr. Ward said that the change in the code now affects a class of buildings which had not previously been required to meet this aspect of the fire code. Specifically the change classifies buildings of two stories with a half level flight down, categorized previously as a basement level, as three story buildings and requires them to meet certain fire safety requirements to protect stairways.
He mentioned that many buildings had been built in the city under the prior code which defined building heights in a different fashion and now the owners of the buildings were required to make the modifications as outlined in the new ordinance. Mr. Ward’s major concern was that, in his opinion, this change had been adopted and implemented without enough public notice. It was his opinion that the Council had not been adequately advised on the changes in the ordinance. Mr. Ward suggested that the status quo be maintained and that some power of enforcement be removed from the fire department. He requested that this ordinance he brought before the Council for reconsideration.
Marvin Kimball, deputy chief and fire marshal, indicated that in the fire department’s opinion, a two-story building with a half level underground is not a new class of building but it is a three-level apartment house which has been allowed to violate the building code. He mentioned that in 1981 enforcement responsibilities were given to the fire department and the code in question is being enforced. He explained that this code refers to inside stairways and the owners have been given 18 months to submit a plan for compliance, which would be to either have sprinklers or enclose the stairway, and they have been given another 18 months to comply. He said that the fire department has been charged by law to make recommendations and protect lives.
Raema Hunsaker, fire department, indicated that there had been a misinterpretation of the previous code and the new code attempts to clarify this. Dave Nelson, apartment house association, suggested that in the future the apartment house association could he consulted about major changes such as these. Mayor Wilson suggested that the Council carefully consider this code because it is a serious life-safety issue and owners have been given a long time to comply. He suggested that there may be other options or alternatives which can be considered rather than repealing the ordinance.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Parker suggested that members of the building/housing department and the fire department could meet with Mr. Ward to determine alternatives.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to not reconsider the repeal of the ordinance but properly notify parties affected about future changes. This motion was later withdrawn.
Councilmember Mabey suggested that a committee from the apartment association could meet and determine a way to notify people. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that members of the fire department could be invited to attend meetings of the Housing Development Committee to inform the committee about impending changes. Councilmember Davis suggested that a representative of the fire department attend the meetings regularly. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, indicated that the Council has the option to refer this appeal to the Mayor’s Office.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to not reconsider repealing the code in question but refer this issue to the Mayor’s Office, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(G 84-10)
Hazel Investment, Co.
RE: The issuance of $1,000,000 of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Hazel Investment, Co. for construction of a warehouse-office building facility at approximately 1657 South 700 West.
A public hearing was held at 8:00 p.m. to discuss this issue. Lance Bateman, finance director, said that the inducement resolution, previously approved by the Council, for this Industrial Revenue Bond is not affected by the recent limitation placed on the amount of money allocated to each state for IRB's. Bernice Cook asked if this project is behind the liquor store and would be a warehouse for the liquor store. Councilmember Mabey said that this building is south of the liquor store and will be used for an automotive parts business; it is an existing business.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-12)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Frank Dorman was scheduled to address the Council and Mayor concerning the Building and Housing Department. He was not present when called upon.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.