PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD GRANT MABEY SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK PALMER DEPAULIS ALICE SHEARER IONE M. DAVIS EDWARD W. PARKER.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch discussed items relating to Council agenda and Council scheduling. Larry Failner briefed the City Council on items relating to contracting and bidding for office equipment maintenance contracts. Mr. Failner explained how the purchasing department determines which office equipment maintenance contracts are best in terms of cost and benefit to the city and the selection process.
Ramon Johnson, member of the Greater Avenues community council, briefed the Council on the proposed Sunnyside Community Center. Mr. Johnson distributed copies of the design and feasibility study prepared by students at the University of Utah. Mr. Johnson discussed the efforts of the Sunnyside Community Center Committee and the possibility of a special service district to finance the center.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, Lance Bateman, city controller, and Wally Miller, deputy city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Kent Goble.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, July 5, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Council Members DePaulis and Davis who were absent when the vote was taken.
(M 83-1)
Special Recognition:
#1. Resolution of Appreciation to Vernon Smith upon his retirement after 37 years of service to Salt Lake City Corporation. The Council pulled this item from the agenda since Mr. Smith was out of town and not present at the meeting.
(R 83-14)
PETITIONS
Petition 232 of 1982 submitted by Monroc, Inc.
RE: Requesting that the city vacate all remaining streets and alleys of Folsom Addition lying east of Beck Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the vacation and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by the transportation division, public utilities and fire department. They recommend that the petition be granted and a letter from the Property Manager and City Engineer recommend that the streets be closed and the land sold at a fair market value. However, the City attorney’s office is of the opinion that the City has a slight claim, if any, to the fee simple interest in the value of the streets. A staff report, attached to the petition, goes into more detail in this respect.
The matter has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and inasmuch as the existing streets and alleys have never been opened or used and they are not platted in such a way as to lend to logical or proper development of the land, it is their recommendation that these streets and alleys be vacated as requested. At a previous meeting, May 17, 1983, a public hearing was held to consider this petition. At that time the Council closed the hearing and referred the petition to committee for further study.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve Petition 232 of 1982 requesting the vacation of all remaining streets and alleys of Folsom Addition lying east of Beck Street, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary vacating ordinance for Petition 232 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 83-263)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
#1. RE: Proposed ordinance amending Article 5 of the Traffic Code by amending Section 95 relating to concealing identity or facts.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amending Section 95 of the Traffic Code.
DISCUSSION: The police department uses a Class “A’ special officer to check damage on vehicles in investigating accidents. The courts have ruled that since the person is not a police officer, the law against giving false information does not apply to people who lie to the Class “A” officer. Section 95 of the Traffic Code corrects this defect.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 41 of 1983, amending Article 5 of the Traffic Code of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by amending Section 95 relating to concealing identity or facts, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Depaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-26)
#2. RE: Proposed ordinance revisions amending Section 32-10-1, et seq., and deleting Section 30-1-26 of city ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amending Section 32-10-1, et seq., relating to public offenses, and deleting Section 30-1-26, relating to giving out false information.
DISCUSSION: Several departments, including the City-County Health Department, have requested ordinances making it unlawful for persons to knowingly give false information to City officials, knowing the City will rely on the information. Chapter 10 is a new chapter which makes it illegal to give false information to various departments. It is recommended to repeal Section 30-1-26 as it is a criminal provision which should be in the public offenses chapter instead of the police administration section. The section, as it now exists, is difficult for people to find if they do not know where to look.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 42 of 1983, amending Title 32 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding Chapter 10 relating to public offenses, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 43 of 1983, repealing Section 30-1-26 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to unlawfulness of giving false information, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-27)
#3. RE: A proposed ordinance amending Section 20-32-2 of city ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amending Section 20-32-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, dealing with wrecker service.
DISCUSSION: The towing companies are claiming that the City restriction to towers who have facilities within the City acts as an anti-trust violation. The towers comply with the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. They make arrangements with a yard within Salt Lake City limits to use on the permit but tow cars outside the City. This ordinance amendment broadens the class of eligible towers, but more expressly meets the spirit of the law by requiring them to tow the vehicle to an area close to the City limits unless they have permission of the owner or operator to move the vehicle further.
Councilmember Davis referred to the section of the ordinance which indicates that a vehicle is to be moved to a facility within Salt Lake City corporate limits or within three miles outside the nearest corporate limit. She asked why the three mile limit had been established. Councilmember Mabey said that several months ago an ordinance was passed which restricted storage of vehicles to within City limits but this caused disagreement with towing services. This proposed ordinance states that if the owner objects to the car being towed three miles outside the City limits this can be protested.
Councilmember Parker read from Section l(2)(a) of the ordinance which states that no vehicle may be moved to a location which is not within Salt Lake City limits or within Salt Lake County and within three miles outside the nearest corporate limit of said City, without the prior consent of the owner or operator of the vehicle. Councilmember Shearer suggested that the word “tower” be changed to avoid confusion. She felt that appropriate synonyms would be “wrecker towing service” or “licensee’. Leigh von der Esch indicated that the attorney’s office was aware of the necessity for this change and the word “tower” would be changed.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to amend the ordinance to remove the word “tower” and replace it with an appropriate synonym, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 44 of 1983, as amended, amending Section 20-32-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to storage areas used by independent wrecker services, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Council- member DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-28)
#4. RE: Proposed amendment to Sections 46-6-105 and 46-6-106 and deletion of Sections 46-6-104 and 46-6-110 of the city’s revised ordinances relating to “driving under the influence” charges.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments and deletions of sections of Chapter 6 of Title 46 of the Salt Lake City code.
DISCUSSION: At the request of the city prosecutor’s office, the proposed ordinance enacts into City ordinance the provisions of House Bill No. 142 passed by the Legislature involving 41-6-44, et seq., and 41-6-44.5, et seq., Utah Code Annotated, which relate to driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 45 of 1983, amending Sections 46-6-105 and 46-6-106 and deleting Sections 46-6-104 and 46-6-110 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to “driving under the influence” charges, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-30)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: Amendment to Chapter 7 of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding new Section 15 thereto relating to masonry.
RECOMMENDATION: That the ordinance amending Chapter 7, Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, be adopted.
DISCUSSION: The amendment proposes changes to existing masonry values. The proposed changes would permit a wider use of brick in construction. The amendment has been reviewed with favorable comment by the Housing Development Committee, endorsed by the Utah Structural Engineers Association and adopted by Salt Lake County. It has also been submitted for national review and approval is expected at that level. Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 46 of 1983, amending Chapter 7 of Title 5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, by adding Section 15 thereto relating to masonry, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-31)
#2. RE: Odyssey House request for $10,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.
RECOMMENDATION: That no new CDBG projects be funded at this time unless they are designed to meet needs having a particular urgency.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Sufficient CDBG slippage funds exist; however, following the approval of the 9th year CDBG program, unallocated excess funds have been earmarked for existing projects.
DISCUSSION: During the late stages of the 9th year CDBG funding process Odyssey House, a local non-profit organization, submitted a request for slippage funds to rehabilitate their program facility located at 625 South 2nd East. The proposed facility rehabilitation includes fire and health code improvements, construction of a kitchen, two new bedrooms and two new bathrooms. At the time this proposal was submitted, the administration did not take action because many worthy 9th year proposals were being turned down and it did not seem fair to either include this request in the annual funding cycle or give this project priority over those projects being considered.
When the City Council approved the 9th year CDBG program on May 24, contingency was reduced to $210,059 from the recommended $311,714 in order to fund additional projects. It was the administration’s understanding at that time that slippage monies from previous program years would be “rolled up” into 9th year to provide an adequate contingency for existing projects. The present need to retain slippage and contingency balances for existing CDBG projects is the basis for the recommendation to not approve new projects at this time.
Council Chairman Mabey referred the request from Odyssey House for $10,000 in CDBG funding to the committee of the whole for Thursday, July 14, or Thursday, July 21, 1983; referred without objection.
(T 83-18)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for telecommunications survey.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the interlocal agreement.
DISCUSSION: Several months ago Salt Lake City Corporation contracted with Telecommunications International, Inc. from Denver Colorado to provide an analysis of the existing telephone service and to make a recommendation whether or not it should be replaced. Because the City shares many of the same lines and much of the equipment with Salt Lake County, that government agency has requested to join with the City in this survey. The cost associated with their participation in the program will be paid by Salt Lake County.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Resolution 68 of 1983 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County enabling both the city and the county to obtain a joint study of city and county telephone system needs, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 83-5)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Ordinance change to repeal existing Title 15.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance which would repeal existing Title 15 which incorporates the Life/Fire Safety manual of Salt Lake City and adopts in lieu thereof, the 1982 edition of the Uniform Fire Code.
DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Fire Department feels that the Uniform Fire Code with amendments, deletions and exceptions as proposed by the Salt Lake City Fire Department will make inspections much more uniform throughout the City.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 47 of 1983, amending Title 15 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965 as amended, relating to fire prevention codes, by repealing said Title 15 as it adopts by incorporation by reference the Salt Lake City Life/ Fire Safety Code, 1977 Edition, and by reenacting by incorporation in lieu thereof, The Uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition with amendments and exceptions thereto, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-29)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: Law enforcement functions within city watersheds.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the amendment to the interlocal agreement between the city and the county which was entered into on July 29, 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department has budgeted $51,690 in the 1983-84 fiscal year budget to cover contracted law enforcement costs on the city’s watersheds.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office entered into a contract for canyon watershed ordinance enforcement on July 29, 1982, for services during FY 1982-83. The proposed amendment continues this service through FY 1983-84 and has been approved by Salt Lake County. Council Chairman Mabey referred the resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement with the county for law enforcement of City ordinances on City watersheds to the consent agenda for July 19, 1983; referred without objection.
(C 82-392)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: An ordinance changing the name of “Sir Phillip Drive” between 1305 North 2000 West and 1355 North 1995 West to “Sir Philip Drive” upon the Official Street Map of Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council eliminate confusion and change the name of that portion of Sir Phillip Drive, as it is presently named and located, to Sir Philip Drive.
DISCUSSION: Because of a drafting error the spelling of Sir Philip Drive on Westpoint Plat B Amended Subdivision is incorrect. No homes have been built on lots abutting the street and no address certificates on the proposed street have been issued.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 48 of 1983, changing the name of Sir Phillip Drive between 1305 North 2000 West and 1355 North 1995 West, to Sir Philip Drive, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-32
#2. RE: An ordinance changing the name of “Major Avenue” as it lies at 1400 North between Miami Road and Morton Drive to “Springfield Road” upon the Official Street Map of Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council eliminate confusion and change the name of that portion of Major Avenue, as it is presently named and located, to Springfield Road.
DISCUSSION: Major Avenue duplicates Major Street which is located at 50 East running from 550 South to 2110 South. This matter has been discussed with Mike Holmes of Prowswood Inc., developer of Amended Plat “A” Westpoint Subdivision, and he agrees that Major Avenue should be renamed Springfield Road. One address has been issued on Major Avenue, however, at the time of issue the applicant was told the street name is incorrect. The owner will be advised when Council executes the proposed ordinance. No other structures exist on the street.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 49 of 1983, changing the name of Major Avenue between Miami Road and Morton Drive to Springfield Road, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(O 83-33)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 400-41 of 1983 submitted by Highland Golf and Equipment.
RE: A request that the property located at 507 South Redwood Road be rezoned from its present Residential “R-6” classification to a Commercial “C-1” classification. In the opinion of the Planning Commission it is impossible to develop this property in conjunction with the residential properties to the east because of the school and workshop for the blind that was developed by the State of Utah. Therefore, the most logical use for the property would be commercial. The Planning Commission also recommended that the Council consider rezoning the adjoining property on the corner to “C-l”.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-41 of 1983. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said that the petitioner wants to construct a store and repair shop on the property in question. This property abuts land owned by the State of Utah, who did not comply with local zoning and constructed a school for the blind and a small industrial complex. Much of the property to the south is vacant land.
Mr. Jorgensen said that the property in question could not be developed in conjunction with the land to the east (the state land) and indicated that at one time it was hoped that the entire area could be developed into housing but this could not be down now because of the state development. Mr. Jorgensen said that this rezoning request would include the adjoining land on the corner which is presently zoned “B-3”. A hearing was held before the Planning Commission and they recommended approval; a meeting was also held with the neighborhood organization.
Councilmember Davis asked the difference between a “B-3” zone and a zone. Mr. Jorgensen said that “B-3” is strictly retail business and “C-l” adds wholesaling and repair. Layton Ott, petitioner, said that his building will be used mainly as a headquarters for the administrative-type work. A few carts may be brought into the business for repair but there is not a high density of traffic. Mr. Ott felt that his business would be compatible with the existing establishments which include two convenience stores and a service station.
Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Ott if he sold gas or electric golf carts and if he did business with the City. Mr. Ott said that his business sells both. He also said that he has submitted proposals to the City but currently they are not doing business. Councilmember Mabey asked about the noise from the repair shop. Mr. Ott said that the business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and there is very little noise involved with repair work. The work is done mainly with hand-type tools and not heavy equipment. Mr. Ott also indicated that the business does not store volatile liquids or do welding. A gentleman from the audience asked if Mr. Ott was planning to take the Circle K which is on the corner. Mr. Ott indicated that he had no plans at this time to take the Circle K. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if, from a planning standpoint, the entire “R-6” strip in the area would eventually become commercial if this area is rezoned. Mr. Jorgensen reiterated that when the state developed their property, the property in question became too small to be developed residentially. But the land to the south is still vacant and has potential for residential development. Councilmember Mabey indicated that the owners have a plan in mind for housing. No one from the audience opposed this request.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve Petition 400-41 of 1983 rezoning the property located at 507 South Redwood Road from “R-6” to “C-l”, which motion carried, all members voting aye. The Council requested that the City Attorney prepare the necessary ordinance to effectuate the rezoning of this area.
(P 83-312)
Petition 400-45 of 1983 submitted by Linda Tracy and Bob Lowe.
RE: A request that property located between 9th North and 17th North and between Redwood Road and I-215, which is now zoned Residential “R-6”, be rezoned to a Residential “R-2A” classification. The Planning Commission recommends the rezoning since this classification will allow for the development of the area as proposed in the master plan which has been previously approved for this section of the City. It will also be in keeping with the existing developments to the south and with the existing “R-2” zoning facing Redwood Road.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to consider Petition 400-45 of 1983. Mr. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said that in the past all of the land on the west side was zoned “R-6”. Several attempts had been made to rezone portions of the area to “R-2A” and 1977 was the last time when the Planning Commission recommended that the area be zoned “R-2A”. At that time the master plan was prepared and approved for the development of the northwest part of the City. Development was designed to be a combination of single-family homes and planned-unit developments. The City obtained school sites and park sites.
Mr. Jorgensen said that the “R-2A” zoning gives better control than just relying on subdivision control which is how the development is controlled under the present “R-6” zoning. The “R-2A” zoning allows for one- and two-family dwellings with planned-unit developments as conditional uses. Mr. Jorgensen said that those developments have been approved on the basis of from 12 to 15 units per acre. He said that currently there are two planned-unit developments and two major single-family dwelling areas proceeding. Mr. Jorgensen said that the “R-2A” zoning is in keeping with the master plan for the entire northwest community and will also allow the development of the plan which has been proceeding since 1977. Bob Lowe, petitioner, thanked Mr. Jorgensen for the work he has done in favor of the west side. Mr. Lowe felt that the land in question should be rezoned to allow for tighter controls. He also said that the petition has the support of the community council in the area. He also said that the residents feel it is time to control the area more so that there is not uncontrolled development. Mr. Lowe said that thus far the residents are not opposed to the developments which have been approved.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why the area residents wanted the zoning to be “R-2A” as opposed to less restrictive zoning such as or “R-5. Mr. Lowe said that the west side characteristically has been an apartment oriented side of the City. The communities such as Morton Meadows which have been developed in the area have been stabilizing influences to the west side. Mr. Lowe said that the residents want a mix of multi-family housing with the stability of single-family housing. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why “R-2A” zoning was requested over “R-2” zoning. Mr. Lowe said that “R-2” is too restrictive on lot size. The residents are understanding of development costs and “R-2A” allows for greater flexibility in development of the area.
Councilmember Whitehead said that “R-2” zoning would not coincide with a plan being developed by Ivory and Company. He also said that “R-6” does not allow enough influence from the neighborhood in the development of the plans. Vernon Cooley, general partner with Ivory and Company, said that “R-2A” will be in consonance with their plans. He thanked Councilmember Whitehead and the City planning staff for their input. Mr. Cooley supported the “R-2A” zoning. No one from the audience opposed this rezoning request.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve Petition 400-45 of 1983 rezoning the property located between 900 North and 1700 North and between Redwood Road and 1-215 from “R-6” to an “R-2A” classification, which motion carried, all members voting aye. The Council requested the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance effectuating the rezoning.
(P 83-313)
Petition 400-43 of 1983 submitted by Sven Nilsson.
RE: A request that the property located at 650 Victory Road be rezoned from Residential “R-5A’ to a Residential “R-5” classification. Mr. Nilsson desires to construct an apartment house on this property containing approximately 150 units. The plan as presented would not meet the “R-5” standards in regard to yard areas. At the Planning Commission hearing the neighborhood residents expressed considerable concern over the density, the traffic and the height of the buildings which would be allowed under an “R-5” zone. It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the petition be denied on the basis that the existing “R-5A” zoning is in keeping with the Capitol Hill master plan, that the existing “R-5A” zoning is compatible with the existing density in the area, that it provides property usage for the property and it does not deny the petitioner the right to use his property, that the higher densities and heights allowed in an zone would be improper from both neighborhood and traffic considerations.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-43 of 1983. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said that several years ago, in keeping with the Capitol Hill master plan, major rezoning was accomplished in the area. The property in question, which had been zoned “R-6”, was changed to “R-5A”. Mr. Jorgensen reiterated that the request was to rezone the property to “R-5” for the purpose of constructing an apartment building. He said that the “R-5” zoning allows for a higher density apartment building than “R-5A’.
The “R-5A” limits the height to 35 feet but allows another story if the garages are underneath the building. It also requires more open space, there is a requirement for usable open space for each unit, and the “R-5A” zoning has lower density than “R-5”. Mr. Jorgensen said that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. Mr. Jorgensen indicated that the property in question was surrounded by “R-5A” zoning but across the street property is zoned “R-6”, the east side of Victory Road.
Councilmember Parker asked if the zoning change would be in harmony with the master plan. Mr. Jorgensen said that it would not because the master plan requires lower density than “R-5”. Sven Nilsson, petitioner, showed the Council architectural renderings of his proposed project and briefly described the history of his efforts in trying to acquire property for the project. Mr. Nilsson said that in the later part of 1978 the property was down zoned unbeknownst to him. He said that he met with engineers from the state highway department and they indicated that there would not be a traffic problem as a result of this project.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if traffic would use Victory Road for access in and out of the building parking lot. Mr. Nilsson said that there would he ingress and egress both at Victory Road and West Capitol. Councilmember Whitehead indicated that currently traffic in that area is very congested during the rush hours. Arnold Fluckinger, project architect, addressed the economic feasibility of the project. He used the AIA standard method for his study and initially considered a low-rise, 41-unit development but found that the cost would be prohibitive. He then considered a 63-unit development, 84 units, 105 units and 115 units a found the same results. Mr. Fluckinger felt that the minimum number of units needed to make the project feasible is approximately 174. Councilmember DePaulis asked how many units would be allowed in an zone. Mr. Jorgensen said 200 plus units and approximately 105 units are allowed in an “R-5A” zone but the number would vary if parking is underground. Mr. Jorgensen referred to the question raised about ingress and egress from the parking lot and said that Victory Road is a wide street but the street on the west is narrow and only half of the street is open, it is also a dead-end street. He said that the traffic would funnel through the West Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Mr. Jorgensen said that the Planning Commission felt the zoning change which was made several years ago from “R-6” to “R-5A” was proper and was in keeping with the area and with the density of the street system. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the current zoning does not deny the petitioner the use of the property but the higher densities and heights allowed in the “R-5” zone would be improper to both the master plan and traffic considerations. Mr. Nilsson indicated that Victory Road would be used as the main access to the building.
Minta Branden, area leader for the community council living at 113 Clinton Avenue, indicated that when people were presented with the petition they were given the impression that it was a petition to change the zoning in order to beautify the Capitol Hill area. Ms. Branden said that when she explained to the neighborhood the petitioner’s plan they voted to rescind their signatures. Ms. Branden said that the residents are opposed to this project because they feel that the land will not facilitate the structure. She invited the Council to visit the area and view the site of the proposed project. She reiterated that West Capitol is a one-way street and one side of the street does not have sidewalks. She said that Clinton Avenue could not accommodate any additional traffic and emphasized that currently the traffic is horrendous.
Ms. Branden felt that the area would be ideal for single-family dwellings but felt that the proposed project is not feasible. Randy Dixon, co-chairman of the Capitol neighborhood council living at 726 Wall Street, felt that the property in question needs to be developed but the residents are concerned that it be developed in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Dixon said that the area is comprised of mostly small, single-family dwellings and the proposed building would be very large in comparison to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Dixon felt that the streets could accommodate traffic from a low-density development.
Councilmember Whitehead asked why the area was only down zoned to “R-5A”. Mr. Jorgensen said that most of the area could handle a higher density according to traffic studies but West Capitol would have to be widened to its full width. He said that before a project can be constructed in an “R-5A” zone the design has to he approved and traffic studies have to be done. Mr. Jorgensen indicated that at the time of the down zoning, consideration was given to development costs and it was felt that a multiple-family development would be the most feasible. The “R-5A” gives the potential for development but is more restrictive than the “R-6” zoning. Mr. Dixon felt that the density allowed under the current zoning is sufficient. He said that the area is improving and the proposed project would not be in congruence with the current master plan. A gentleman from the audience who is building a home at 584 West Capitol, said that many of the existing homes do not have off-street parking, especially along Clinton. He also said that there is a potential in the area for development of many multi-family units and asked the Council to consider that future development.
Gerrit Van Dijk, area resident, opposed the rezoning because of the additional traffic which would be caused by the proposed development and the bad driving conditions that would be created during the winter. Peter Atherton, member of the community council living at 430 North Main, said that the community council has not agreed with the facts and figures presented by the petitioner. He also said that it is important to recognize that the proposed project is only one idea for development of the property. Mr. Atherton said that an “R-5A” zone provides a great deal of opportunity for exploration of economical development for the land. He felt that the “R-5A” was a generous zone.
Paula Beck, living west of the property in question, expressed concern because there is no curb and gutter and the street is narrow. She reiterated that the traffic is a problem. She felt that the neighborhood could not support a high density development allowed by an “R-5” zone. Ms. Beck thought that it was important for the Council to view the area.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the rezoning for the following reasons: 1. It would not be in keeping with the master plan for Capitol Hill, 2. There would be a serious traffic impact due to narrow streets and steep streets, 3. The land has an unusual contour, it is steep and oddly shaped, and 4. Denial does not deny the owner use of the property; which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-314)
Petition 400-37 of 1983 submitted by Kevin Nelson, et al.
RE: A request for the vacation of an alley located between 500 North and Ouray Avenue and between Colorado Street and 1300 West. Presently there is no surfacing, gravel or asphalt on a majority of the alley. The only present use is by the owners of the two north lots. The northeast lot is a commercial business of carpet sales and they use the alley for a second access to their parking. The northwest lot uses the alley for access to their garage which faces 500 North. Neither of these property owners signed the petition for the vacation. Nine of the abutting 14 landowners adjoining the alley have signed the petition. All of the affected City agencies have responded in favor of the vacation subject to the maintenance of the easements for utilities. There are utility poles that presently run along the east side of the alley. It would be desirable if the entire alley were vacated and the owners of the properties on the two north lots could give easements to each other allowing for the continued use of this property as access. However, if such an agreement cannot be reached, it may be desirable to vacate all the alley except for the north 55 feet.
A public hearing was held a 7:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-37 of 1983. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said that there are five abutting property owners who have not signed the petition. Mr. Jorgensen said that the property is used by the people at the north end and if the alley is vacated the owners could give each other a right-of-way. Mr. Jorgensen said that the remainder of the alley has not been improved. He said that all of the necessary City departments recommended vacation subject to retention of easements for utilities and subject to the two end owners understanding that an agreement needs to be reached regarding their portion of the alley.
Kevin Nelson, petitioner living at 473 North and 1300 West, said that the alley needs to be vacated because there are various problems associated with the alley such as crime and fires. He said that the alley is not improved and is of no value as an access. Mr. Nelson said that the alley is overgrown with weeds and presents fire problems. He said that if the north end needed to remain open that would be an acceptable alternative. Donna Hall, 469 No. 1300 West, expressed her support for the vacation of the alley. She said that people ride motorcycles in the alley and trash is thrown in the alley. She also said that people have written on her garage with spray paint and someone tried to start a fire behind her garage.
Ms. Malone, living on the north end of the alley, said that she uses the alley for access to her garage. David Hall, living at 469 North 1300 West, said that the building at the north end uses the alley for part of their driveway and said that if this end is closed it would hamper their parking. He supported closure of the remaining portion of the alley.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve Petition 400-37 of 1983 vacating an alley located between 500 North and Ouray Avenue and between Colorado Street and 1300 West with the exception of 55 feet on the north end which is to be left as it is; and directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance to effectuate the vacation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-326)
Board of Adjustment.
RE: An ordinance amending Section 51-3-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake relating to the Board of Adjustment. The amendment is in keeping with the recent action of the Legislature authorizing cities to appoint alternate members to the Board of Adjustment and to have a zoning administrator who can handle, under the direction of the Board of Adjustment, routine and noncontested matters. The amendments to the State Enabling Act were recommended by the Planning Commission and sponsored by Salt Lake City as a step to improve the function of the Board of Adjustment, to alleviate the difficulty of having a quorum to act on the cases, and to facilitate routine matters before the Board, thus better serving the public.
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this ordinance. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that at the last session of the Legislature the City submitted a request to amend the Enabling Act affecting the Board of Adjustment. This was passed by the Legislature and the change in the statute has now taken place. The change authorizes two changes in the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Jorgensen said that there has been a problem in obtaining quorums and to make it easier a recommendation was made to have alternate Board members.
The first part of the amendment authorizes the Mayor, with the consent of the Council, to appoint alternate members of the Board. Furthermore, the agendas have been lengthy and contain routine matters so the amendment also authorizes the appointment of a zoning administrator by the Board. Mr. Jorgensen concluded by saying that the proposed ordinance was prepared by the legal department and would take advantage of the new Enabling Act to make it possible for the Board to work more efficiently for the City and the public.
Councilmember Parker asked if there was a restriction that the zoning administrator he appointed by the Board. Mr. Jorgensen said that the Board would be delegating their authority and someone already on the City staff would be appointed to the position. Councilmember Fonnesheck expressed concern about the Board making the selection for the position rather than the Mayor making the selection with the advice and consent of the Council.
Mr. Jorgensen said he had no objection to this alternative but said that it was not a major office. It was felt that the person appointed needed to be someone who works with the Board. Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that this issue needed to be discussed further. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to refer the proposed ordinance amending Section 51-3-1 regarding the Board of Adjustment to the Committee of the Whole for July 14 or July 21 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-25)
Petition 400-46 of 1983 submitted by Reba Kiter.
RE: A request for the vacation of a 14.5 foot wide alley running east and west between West Temple and Richards Street for approximately 314.25 feet at approximately 1720 South. There are five property owners adjacent to this alley, four of which have signed the petition, the grocery store owner did not sign. Presently four of the property owners use the alley. Problems have been created because of the commercial and residential uses that share the access. The Traffic Engineer posted a weight limitation to help restrict the truck traffic but the residents have evidence that shows the limitation is ignored by the delivery trucks.
Even though most of the residents use the alley, they are strongly requesting it be closed to remedy the use conflicts. The grocery store delivery area would still function if the alley were vacated. The party that would be most adversely affected by the vacation is the property owner that submitted the petition. She has limited access to her garage unless a portion of the alley is maintained as a right-of-way. City staff met with the property owners who have requested the vacation and a workable solution has been reached by them; therefore, it is recommended to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintaining a utility easement, 2. Notice to the Traffic Engineer to allow recovery of the “No Truck” signage, 3. A right-of-way to be shared by the two westerly property owners.
A public hearing was held at 7:45 p.m. to consider Petition 400-46 of 1983. Mr. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said that out of the five abutting property owners four signed the petition, the owner of the store has not. He said that the alley has been a source of conflict for a while, basically with the trucks utilizing the store and passing the homes on both ends of the alley.
Mr. Jorgensen said if the alley were vacated the store would still have access onto 1700 South for deliveries and the parking lot has access to side streets. He said that the vacation of the alley would create a problem to the residents because the store would gain half of the alley. However, this problem could be solved by changing access to their garages and the people have felt that they would rather solve the access problem than endure current problems. Mr. Jorgensen said that all of the City departments recommended vacation of the alley as long as the property owners understand that the store would have the right to go to the center of the alley and enclose their portion with a fence. Tom Kiter, petitioner’s son, said that he and his brothers and sisters have tried to discourage people from using the alley, especially the heavy trucks. Mr. Kiter said that this alley has created undue hardship on his mother because of the debris from the store’s garbage dumpsters and because of vagrants loitering in the alley. He also said that the alley is an eyesore.
Frederick Dissel, representing his mother who is an abutting property owner, supported the vacation of the alley. He said that his mother lives alone as does the petitioner and the alley has presented a problem. He said that people have broken into his mother’s home and it presents an additional access into the property. He said that large trucks have ignored the signs limiting the weight of trucks using the alley. He recommended that the Council consider the fact that the store has access to unload freight in front of the store.
Perry Kiter, petitioner’s son, reiterated about the garbage in the alley from the store’s dumpster. He said that the dumpster is always too full for the lids to be closed. Also the store has not been penalized for this garbage situation. Reba Kiter, petitioner, said that she has lived in her home for 26 years. She reiterated that there is a problem with trash and vagrants in the alley. People also throw things into her yard. Ms. Kiter said all she wants is her privacy. Mr. Norman, 1708 Richards Street, supported the vacation of the alley and reiterated about the trash problem. He felt that if the alley is vacated it would be better for the community.
Richard Welch, owner of the property where the store is built, said that he is not opposed to closing the alley. Mr. Welch said that if the alley is vacated he will install posts which will landlock the petitioner’s property. He said that Mr. Norman and Ms. Dissel would not have an access problem to their property but Ms. Kiter and the owner of a duplex will be landlocked. It was Mr. Welch’s opinion that these two property owners would have insufficient space to drive a car between the posts he intends to install and the corner of their homes. Mr. Welch said that there would be improper side yards and setbacks with no access to the rear. He said that he met with Douglas Wheelwright from the City planning office to discuss the feasibility of vacating the alley.
Mr. Welch said that Mr. Wheelwright indicated that it was not within the zoning requirements or the scope of the planning and ordinances of the City. Mr. Welch reiterated that he was not opposed to the vacation of the alley but wanted the Council to know that if the alley is vacated it would not conform and Ms. Kiter would not have proper access from the corner of her property. Mr. Jorgensen said that homes were built in this area before zoning regulations and agreed that Ms. Kiter would have limited access to her garage unless a portion of the alley is maintained as a right of way. If the alley is vacated seven feet will be added to Ms. Kiter’s property and if part of the shrubbery is removed then Ms. Kiter will have a 10-foot drive which will be sufficient although substandard. But money will have to be spent and fences and shrubbery will have to be moved. Councilmember Mabey asked Mr. Perry Kiter if he understood this situation and Mr. Kiter indicated that he did. Mr. Montanez, part owner of the structure at 1722 Richards Street, mentioned the same problems with the alley that were previously discussed and said that he wanted the alley vacated. Mr. Dissel said that if Ms. Kiter removes shrubbery there will be access to her property and he is willing to make necessary arrangements with Ms. Kiter so she will have access.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that if the alley is vacated it is the responsibility of the neighbors to make arrangements regarding the alley. Mr. Jorgensen said that it needed to be understood that a legally located parking area has to be provided in the back yard. Thomas Montanez, part owner of the duplex, supported the vacation of the alley. Bernice Cook, chairman of the People’s Freeway community council, said that the alley is in her area. Ms. Cook said that the duplex and Ms. Kiter have no access except for the alley. She said that Ms. Kiter’s home has always had to use the alley but the duplex is not very old and it is her opinion that a permit should not have been allowed for the construction of the duplex because there is no driveway.
Ms. Cook said that Ms. Dissel has her own driveway and she indicated to Ms. Cook that she did not want any additional property. Ms. Cook said that the alley is so narrow that Ms. Kiter has to back onto the store’s property to get her car out of the garage.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve Petition 400-46 of 1983 and adopt Ordinance 50 of 1983, vacating a 14.5 foot public alleyway within Block 3, Quayles Addition Subdivision, running east-west for 314.25 feet from West Temple to Richards Street at approximately 1720 South in Salt Lake City, Utah, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-327)
Rocky Mountain Bank Note.
RE: An Inducement Resolution for Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $8,000,000 for Rocky Mountain Bank Note for the acquisition and construction of facilities at 4867 Harold Getty Drive to house the company’s distribution system.
A public hearing was held at 8:00 p.m. to discuss this request. Stewart Cannon, representing Rocky Mountain Bank Note, said that the company has been in business in Salt Lake City since 1907. He said that the company plans to expand their operation within the near future which requires a new building. Currently sales in the Salt Lake plant are $12 million and it is hoped that with the new facility this will increase to $30 million. Mr. Cannon said that the increase in business will come from Utah as well as the western United States particularly the west coast. Mr. Cannon said when the plant is completed it will be the largest plant in the Rocky Mountain area.
Councilmember Shearer said that the budget committee reviewed this proposition and gave a favorable recommendation. She said that this is located in the International Center. Lance Bateman, city controller, said that finance and planning have given a favorable recommendation to this project. Mr. Bateman said that the necessary fee has been paid. No one from the audience opposed this request.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the Inducement Resolution, Resolution 66 of 1983, subject to approval by the City Attorney, for the Industrial Revenue Bond in the amount of $8,000,000 for Rocky Mountain Bank Note, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-19)
Salt Lake Residence Corporation.
RE: An Inducement Resolution for Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $8,000,000 for Salt Lake Residence Corporation for the construction of a Brock Residence Inn consisting of 16 buildings with eight units per building to be located at 400 South between 700 East and 800 East in Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held at 8:15 p.m. to consider this request. Fred Olsen, representing Salt Lake Residence Corporation, indicated that he would answer any questions that the Council might have. Lance Bateman said that this was a new corporation formed for the purpose of this project and he said a private placement is recommended. If they cannot do a private placement Mr. Bateman said that he wanted to re-review the financial aspects. He suggested that this resolution be approved subject to attorney’s approval. No one from the audience addressed this request.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which notion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the Inducement Resolution, Resolution 67 of 1983, subject to approval by the City Attorney, for the Industrial Revenue Bond in the amount of $8,000,000 for Salt Lake Residence Corporation, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-16)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Mr. John Johnson, president of Office Equipment Associates, Inc. addressed the Council concerning the Salt Lake City Corporation annual maintenance contract on IBM typewriters. He said that several months ago he contacted the City purchasing department about the contract for typewriter repair and was informed that they would not entertain bids from any source outside of the IBM Corporation. He said that his company has been in business for 20 years servicing IBM typewriters. He also said that his maintenance people are given the same training on IBM equipment as the IBM maintenance people.
Mr. Johnson also said that he was informed that the City only used IBM ribbons and he felt the ribbons he sold are as good as the IBM brand but would save the City 25%. He felt that this was a substantial savings that should be considered by the City. Councilmember Whitehead agreed that this should be considered. Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Johnson what reason he was given as to why the City only used IBM. Mr. Johnson said that he was told the City had a bad experience with two other companies.
Lance Bateman, City controller, invited Mr. Johnson to meet with him so that they could review the current contract and discuss the situation. #2. Timothy High, 424 University Village, addressed the Council about gardens that are going to be ruined because of the installation of the Big Cottonwood Conduit. He said that the Village gives the students plots for the purpose of planting vegetable gardens and many of the students rely on the food grown in these gardens. The students recently learned that the gardens will be destroyed the first two weeks of August for the installation of the conduit. He said that the students are requesting that the construction be delayed until the gardens are harvested. He said that there are 60 families involved.
Councilmember Davis said that she attended a meeting regarding the project and said that the builder is receiving pressure from the University of Utah because the University wants to build a parking lot on Guardsmans Way. She also said that the students’ concerns were presented at the meeting. Ms. Davis said that she was at the meeting because she had learned of the project’s delay which was supposed to have begun July 1. Councilmember Davis felt that the project could start on another portion of the conduit and leave and gardens intact until after harvest.
Councilmember Shearer indicated that apparently there had been a lack of communication on the University’s part. Mr. High agreed that the University had not communicated the situation to the students and felt that the University parking could wait until spring. Councilmember Davis said that eight or nine months ago she met with the water department when the project and timetable were approved and at the time the University did not indicate any plans about a parking lot. Councilmember Mabey felt that the students ought to be reimbursed. Councilmember Whitehead felt that adjustments could be made to the timetable and Councilmemer Shearer said that another section of the project could be started first. Councilmember Mabey requested that Leigh von der Esch, executive director to the Council, meet with LeRoy Hooton, director of public utilities, and Mr. High to discuss this situation. He also requested that she inform the Council if a meeting is needed with the Council Members.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.