PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WL-IITEHEAD PALMER DEPAULIS GRANT MABEY ALICE SHEARER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS.
Councilmember Edward Parker was absent from this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items appearing on their agenda.
The policy session adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, JULY 13, 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 PALMER DEPAULIS GRANT MABEY ALICE SHEARER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS.
Councilmember Edward Parker was absent from this meeting.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Ione Davis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Royal Ewing.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, July 6, 1982, were approved without objection.
(M 82-2)
PETITIONS
Petition 4 of 1982 submitted by State of Utah Department of Natural Resources.
RE: Requesting the vacation of Gertie and Irving Streets.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council deny Petition 4 of 1982. It is recommended that the alley be closed - not vacated, and sold to the abutting property owners at fair market value. However, the alley should not be closed without a commitment from the petitioners to purchase the land. The drainage problem should then be corrected.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The property has been appraised by Edward P. Westra at approximately $162,342.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Public Utilities, Fire, Engineering, Transportation, Fixed Assets, and the City Attorney’s Office. They have recommended that this public property is not needed as a street, and closure and sale may be appropriate subject to the following conditions: 1) standard utility easements be retained, and 2) that the petitioner execute the standard form agreement entitled Waiver of Installation of Public Way Improvements. It is the staff’s position that the drainage problem, which began occurring after the Natural Resources building was constructed, is the state’s responsibility and they are held liable for any damages caused by the drainage problem. The state has declined to accept such responsibility and has failed to take action to solve the problem.
If the petitioner’s decline to purchase the property, the city has two options: 1. Give the state formal notice to resolve the drainage problem or the city will bring suit for injunctive relief. 2. If the Council believes the drainage threatens to create a public nuisance, give the state formal notice to resolve the problem, or after a fixed period, the city will resolve the problem (estimated cost $2,000 - $10,000) and bring suit against the state for reimbursement.
Councilmember Davis referred Petition 4 of 1982 to the Land Use Committee; referred without objection.
(P 82-195)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Ordinance repealing Sections 20-17-17, 20-17-18, 20-25-1, 20-25-2, 20-25-3, 20-25-4, 20-25-5, 20-25-6, and 20-25-7 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, and re-enacting new sections 1 through 11 of Chapter 25 of Title 20 relating to street vendors.
DISCUSSION: The City Attorney’s Office has been requested by the Council to prepare an ordinance pertaining to street vendors in the downtown Salt Lake City business district. The guidelines furnished the attorney’s office regarding the intent of the Council in this matter consisted of ordinances from other cities regarding this subject. The initial draft of a proposed ordinance dealing with Street vendors is based in part upon some of the furnished ordinances and recommendations from other city departments. While the health department is very much opposed to Street cart vendors selling food, the ordinance does include food as an item which may be sold by street vendors if the vendors comply with the Board of Health regulations. It is the understanding of the attorney’s office that the zoning department and the licensing division have favorably reviewed the draft ordinance.
Additional changes will be necessary before this ordinance may be adopted by the Council. For instance, in addition to technical adjustments to Chapters 17 and 25 of Title 20, it will be necessary to amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to C-4 districts in order to include pushcarts as a permissible use. Additional provisions pertaining to newspaper vending devices will also need to be included and will be submitted to the Council in the near future. This draft ordinance expresses one concept of how street vending may be approached by the Council. Dr. Harry Gibbons, Director of Salt Lake City-County Health Department, addressed the Council. He stated that the health department is against Street vendors selling food.
The open-food units are potentially unsanitary and difficult to regulate, especially when it comes to good food handling techniques, temperature controls and toilet facilities for the employees operating those vending units. Dr. Gibbons stated that other cities are trying to trim back on food vendors because of these same problems. He also indicated that the number of sanitarians doing health inspections would have to be increased. Dr. Gibbons concluded by saying that flower vending is fine and would promote aesthetic qualities of downtown but food would not be an advantage to Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Davis referred this proposed ordinance to the Land Use and Budget, Finance and Administration Committees; referred without objection.
(O 82-43
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
RE: Civil Service Commission.
DISCUSSION: The term of Margaret “Peggy” Boevers on the Civil Service Commission expired June 30, 1982. Ms. Boevers has done an outstanding job on the Commission and it is recommended that she be reappointed for another six-year term.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve the reappointment of Margaret “Peggy” Boevers to the Civil Service Commission, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(I 82-17)
RE: The appointment of Robert Doherty to the Art Design Board. This item was pulled from the agenda because Mr. Doherty’s financial disclosure statement has not yet been received.
(I 82-15)
RE: Airport Authority Board.
DISCUSSION: The terms of Mirvin D. Borthick and Alvin W. Joseph on the Airport Authority Board expired January 1982. It is recommended that Mr. Borthick be reappointed for another four-year term to expire January 1986. Mr. Joseph has expressed his desire to step down. Therefore, it is recommended to appoint Eddie Mayne, President, Secretary-Treasurer of the Utah State AFL-CIO, to a four-year term to expire January 1986. Councilmember Shearer indicated that she was opposed to the appointment of Eddie Mayne because he is President, Secretary-Treasurer of the Utah State AFL-CIO; since Airport employees are represented by AFL-CIO she felt there would be a conflict of interest. Councilmember Davis indicated that she agreed with these concerns.
Mayor Wilson stated that the recommendation of Mr. Mayne was based on the tradition of having a labor leader on the board. Mr. Joseph, at the time of his appointment, was president of the Utah State Building Trades Council, an arm of AFL-CIO. The Mayor stated that he felt there was not a conflict of interest because this is only an advisory board. He further stated that the advice of these labor leaders is often helpful in reconciling differences with employees. Mr. Mayne would be an able representative.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to not approve the appointment of Eddie Mayne to the Airport Authority Board, which motion failed, all members present voting nay, except Council Members Davis and Shearer who voted aye.
Councilmember Whitehead suggested that this item be moved to committee. Councilmember Davis referred the appointment of Eddie Mayne to the Public Improvements Committee; referred without objection.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the appointment of Mirvin Borthick to the Airport Authority Board, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(I 82-14)
RE: Amendments to Memorandum of Understanding with UPEA.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ratify and adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Public Employees Association.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The City Council has approved the FY 1982-83 Budget which contains the funds to cover this Memorandum of Understanding.
DISCUSSION: This is the Memorandum of Understanding for FY 1982-83 between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Public Employees Association. This Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the membership of the Utah Public Employees Association as voted upon July 12, 1982. Alan Bridge, Personnel Officer, addressed the Council and stated that the document before the Council signifies the culmination of weeks of bargaining. The membership approved the agreement calling for a 5% cost-of-living raise instead of approving a $500 one-time payment. Effective July 1, the city will start paying the employees’ retirement contribution and the 5% cost-of-living increase will be effective January 1, 1983.
This increase is within budget projections and because the cost-of-living increase would not be effective until January, enough money was available to pay employees’ parking. Mr. Bridge stated that UPEA represents approximately 400 city employees but only 90 to 100 employees pay dues; UPEA decided that only the dues-paying members should vote on the agreement. There were 60 employees who voted in favor of the agreement and only two or three who voted against. Mr. Bridge further indicated that the $10 per month for parking will only be given to the employees who do not already have parking provided; this will affect approximately 130 or 140 employees.
Councilmember Mabey asked if parking was available in the police parking lot; Mr. Bridge stated that he understood the parking lot is full. Councilmember Davis stated that from a survey she conducted, she found only one business in the downtown area provides employee parking.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to ratify and adopt Resolution 71 of 1982 authorizing the execution of amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Utah Public Employees Association, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who voted nay.
(C 82-445)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
RE: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the agreement which has already been approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Funds have been budgeted in the 1982-83 fiscal year budget of the Public Utilities Department to cover the $50,059 cost.
DISCUSSION: Employees of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department were being exposed to potentially dangerous situations in enforcing the city watershed ordinance in the canyons. For that reason, an agreement has been negotiated with the County Sheriff’s Office for them to assume the prime responsibility of enforcing City-County watershed regulations and ordinance. This will result in adding two deputies to their force, in addition to the six deputies already assigned to canyon surveillance and law enforcement, to be trained in the area of environmental concerns in order to enforce the city’s watershed ordinance.
They will provide enforcement coverage in the watershed from 7 a.m. to the following 2 a.m. With this modification of the program and with the remaining personnel concentrating on the maintenance work and surveillance of private toilets, a job-time analysis indicates that public utilities will be able to cover more efficiently all the work which needs to be done to protect the city’s water supply. This agreement is scheduled to become effective on July 1, 1982.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 72 of 1982 authorizing an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City for law enforcement services and protection of Salt Lake City’s watersheds and authorizing the Mayor to execute same, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Whitehead who was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 82-392)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 124 of 1982 submitted by Franklin Financial.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that property at 150 North Main Street be changed from its present “R-5” zoning classification to a “C-l” zoning classification. The petitioner is requesting the zoning change to allow the already converted Kimball Apartments, which is a residential condominium, to be used as a shared ownership condominium. A shared ownership or time-share condominium is viewed as a hotel and not a permitted use in the Residential “R-5” district.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this request. Vernon Jorgensen, Planning Director, addressed the Council. Mr. Jorgensen outlined the area on a map and indicated that the existing Commercial “C-1” zoning on the east side of Main Street, between North Temple and Gordon Place, would be extended north an additional 99 feet to include the property at 150 North Main Street. At the present time, the petitioner’s property is zoned Residential “R-5” except for the south 37 feet which is “C-1”. The existing Commercial “C-1” district boundary bisects the Franklin Financial property. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the Kimball apartments were originally approved to be converted into condominiums but a fire destroyed the south unit of the apartments. The petitioners want to rebuild the south building and convert both units into a timeshare condominium. Since this is viewed as a commercial use, the area has to be zoned “C-1”. The total frontage of the Kimball apartments is 136 feet. Immediately north of this property is a vacant lot, a different developer proposes to construct a condominium on this property; a cemetery is located east of the site. The Planning Commission voted, by a split vote, to recommend approval of this rezoning request. Fred Ball, President and General Manager of the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council. He stated that the fire which destroyed the south section of the Kimball apartments had an adverse impact on many local business people.
The people involved in the construction of this project have not been able to recoup their losses. The new owners and developers have made a commitment to recoup for these suppliers and vendors at least a major portion of their investment. Mr. Ball further stated that the Kimball apartments are located one-half block from Temple Square, which has many visitors annually. Since the fire, the appearance of this site has not been desirable and the chamber was concerned about the impact this appearance would have on visitors. The zoning on the west side of Main Street, across from the project, is currently zoned “C-1”. Mr. Ball encouraged the Council to follow the Planning Commission recommendation and change the zoning in the area.
Randy Dixon, co-chairman of the neighborhood council, addressed the Council in opposition to this petition. He stated that the present zoning provides a buffer between the commercially zoned southern part of this area and the residentially zoned northern part of this area. If the “C-1” zoning is extended, then Gordon Place would be the buffer and one side of the street would be zoned differently from the other side. Mr. Dixon also expressed concern that approval of this request would lead to further “C-1” zoning demands in this area; he thought that a dangerous precedent might be established.
If this zoning is changed, the area could then accommodate many other, perhaps less desirable, commercial uses. Mr. Dixon agreed that the property has been an eyesore and building on the site would improve the area. The residents only opposed this project when these units were advertised to be sold as time-share condominiums. Becky Olson, a resident of the area, addressed the Council. She stated that several of the people in the neighborhood have purchased old homes and have invested their resources into beautifying these homes.
She felt that there was a swing toward having a more residential neighborhood and the people in the area want permanent residents who will contribute to the area rather than people who would not care about the neighborhood or the schools. Janet Spitz, a resident of the area, addressed the Council and stated that she has invested in her home by making many improvements. She stated that she does not want to live in a commercial zone. She was concerned about the possibility of zoning changes in other blocks and perhaps other builders wanting to build establishments to serve the time-share condominium owners. Bob Sykes, area resident, addressed the Council and stated that he is concerned with the long-range effect on the community if these types of exceptions are made. He stated that many young families have moved in and out of the area and they have expressed concern about whether or not this would be a good family area. Mr. Sykes was concerned, not with this particular development, but with the long-range aspects of allowing an exception which he felt would spur similar development. He further stated that there was high profit in this project and other developers may want to build in the Capitol Hills area for the same reason; the area contains several prime locations which could be developed into similar units.
Mr. Sykes stated that the purpose of zoning is for protection of property interests. He felt that the many times the community is placed in the position of having to dissuade the Council from making a zoning change. The people requesting a change in protective zoning should have the burden of proof in convincing the Council about making the change. Peter Atherton, area resident, addressed the Council. He stated that an urban neighborhood is confronted with a variety of problems; these neighborhoods have a particular problem in trying to live in close proximity to commercial development. Mr. Atherton stated that the owner of the property north of the Franklin Financial property appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he too wanted “C-1” zoning if the Franklin request was granted.
Mr. Atherton stated that the community council has proposed, as a compromise, that the commercial zone be extended 33 feet north so that the new building could be constructed in the “C-l” zone. This building could then be marketed as a time-share condominium but the northern building would be developed in the residential zone and marketed as condominiums. This compromise would assure that the desired buffer is maintained. Mr. Atherton stated that the community council felt three items were important for Council consideration during the decision-making process. 1. That the time-sharing must abide with the time-sharing ordinance as would be drafted. 2. Consider the height control of the Capitol Hills protective zone.
3. Understand that the integrity of the residential zone has been maintained and commercial encroachment stopped. Mr. Atherton stated that the community council’s first request is for the Council to deny this request because the residents do not want the commercial zone further north; however, the compromise has been offered as a possible alternative. Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Jorgensen if there is currently an ordinance dealing with time-share condominiums.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that a new ordinance was being developed which would clarify the time-share aspect. He further stated that under the existing ordinance it is clear that time-shares are not allowed in residential districts; the new ordinance will make this point as well as govern time-shares. Ralph Marsh, representing Franklin Financial, addressed the Council. He stated that because of the fire at the Kimball apartments the owner at that time was unable to development the property so Franklin Financial stepped in and proceeded to improve the property. It was determined from a financial standpoint that a shared-ownership condominium would be best. The company felt that a shared-ownership project could be built under the present zoning, however, the Planning Commission suggested that a “C-1” zoning be required. Mr. Marsh stated that the company only wants the north portion of the property rezoned since the south is already zoned “C-1”. He also felt that Gordon Place would be a more natural dividing line; zoning the north portion of this property would then match the “C-1” zone across the street.
Mr. Marsh stated that the company is not proposing an intrusion of commercial use into a residential area, they are trying to restore what was there years ago. Mr. Marsh further stated that the neighbors have been contacted and most of them do not object to the proposed use of that located but they are concerned with a precedent being set. He pointed out that all future projects must be considered on their own merits. Mr. Marsh felt that this project is an appropriate buffer for the residential neighborhood and did not consider it to be similar to a hotel; there will be no restaurants, retail shops, or convention facilities. He stated that the project is residential and will be used by those who buy and own an interest in the building.
He stated that Franklin Financial wanted to restore the facility to its original beauty. This project will involve more owners than a whole condominium but will not involve more users; he stated that projects of this kind have about 60% occupancy. Mr. Marsh stated that advertising has taken place for the units but no sales have been closed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what assurances the city would have that this location would not be used for other commercial uses once the area is rezoned. Mr. Marsh stated that a building is already on the property and it is not financially viable to tear it down and start a different project.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked about maintenance of the units. Mr. Marsh stated that once the units are sold the owners are responsible for the maintenance. If the owners do not contribute to this maintenance then they will lose their ownership interest; owners are obligated to pay certain assessments to cover these expenses. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that if these units do not sell it may be economically feasible in the future to construct a different commercial project. The problem then becomes a “C-l” intrusion into the neighborhood.
Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that she would feel more comfortable if a conditional use was attached indicating that it could only be used for a time-share project. Mr. Marsh indicated that the response toward this project has been very favorable and he thinks the units will sell. If they do not sell, then the company would be forced to sell whole condominiums. Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Jorgensen if economic conditions are a basis for rezoning. Mr. Jorgensen indicated that zoning is not based on economics but proper development; strictly economic is not usually a basis for zoning. He also stated that the proper use of land is always brought up and land cannot be zoned so that it would be unusable. A logical use has to be found which will benefit the community as a whole. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Marsh if he had an opportunity to study the compromise submitted by the citizens. He stated that he had heard the compromise for the first time at this hearing. He also stated that one individual had not been specified as the person the company should deal with in this matter.
Richard Christensen, President of Franklin Financial, addressed the Council. He stated that a number of alternatives have been examined and it was felt that a time-share would be best for all parties concerned that are in the ownership position. He stated that security to the building has been increased and the company is trying to be a good neighbor. Mr. Christensen stated that part of the economic problem with the Kimball apartments was because the property was being sold on contract and the first contract holders elected to keep the insurance money after the fire.
Councilmember Mabey indicated that this project would be better than leaving an empty building on the property and possibly having different commercial development take place. Also, the people buying the units would probably be of good character. Ruth Mitchell, area resident, addressed the Council. She stated that she had inquired about what would happen to a unit if an owner did not use the week they had scheduled. She stated that she was told the management could sublet the unit if the opportunity presented itself. Ms. Mitchell stated that she wanted to know what restrictions there would be on subletting; she was concerned about the character of the people who would sublet the unit.
Mr. Christensen stated that the units are sold by the week but the owners do not have to stay all seven days. The owner would be in control of their week and would be in control of who uses the unit during that time. The management does not advocate a transience within units because they are finely decorated and a high level of maintenance would be expected at all times. Gail Hunt, area resident, addressed the Council and stated that he felt the area should be used as the developer has planned. Carolyn Banks, owner of Sterling Heritage, addressed the Council. She stated that these units would not offer amenities so she felt that they would attract family oriented people interested in doing genealogy work and using other downtown facilities.
Devon Olsen, area resident, addressed the Council and stated that he is interested in maintaining a cohesive neighborhood. People coming and going can not contribute to a neighborhood. The neighborhood wants a reasonable compromise and felt that having one building a time-share condominium and the other a permanent condominium would be satisfactory. Mr. Olsen also stated that the first urban time-share was unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. Shirley Keys, Marketing Director for the Kimball, addressed the Council and stated that many people in the area have indicated that they are in favor of the project. She felt that the project is appropriate and it would give people the opportunity to purchase a comfortable home away from home. It offers people a nice place to stay when they come home to visit.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. Councilmember DePaulis stated that he was concerned that presently there is not a time-share ordinance with viable concepts; he stated that he wanted to consider this issue more carefully. Councilmember Davis stated that it was difficult to know if a decision was being made on zoning or time-share. Mr. Jorgensen stated that these are two separate issues and once an ordinance is adopted a time-share will still have to be built in a “C-1” zone.
Roger Cutler stated that the issue before the Council is the question of whether or not the property should be zoned “C-l”; when an ordinance is adopted, time-shares will still be required to be in a “C-1” zone. By adopting an ordinance, the Council will be setting standards, which will be administered by the executive branch, in regulating and controlling time-share operations. The ordinance will define and regulate time-shares. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the ultimate question is whether or not this property is rightfully zoned residential or commercial; once it is rezoned “C-1” it can be used for any commercial use. Mr. Cutler indicated that the Council could always down zone the property.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she understood the Council could make the petitioner’s request more restrictive but not more lenient so the Council could vote for the compromise. Councilmember Davis stated that she felt the Council needed to review the proposals and restrictions which have been suggested. She felt the request should be referred to the Land Use Committee and then brought back before the Council for action.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer Petition 124 of 1982 to the Land Use Committee for further study, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Shearer who voted nay.
Mr. Cutler stated that if the Council is seriously considering the question of a restrictive deed then he needs to meet with the Council because there are some legal issues which need to be resolved.
(P 82-140)
Alignment of Indiana Avenue
RE: Alignment of Indiana Avenue from Redwood Road to the west city limits. The Planning Commission has reviewed the official map and has recommended that it be adopted. The eventual construction of Indiana Avenue as shown on the map will correct serious inadequacies as to width and correct the alignment as it passes under I-215 and crosses over the surplus canal at right angles into 9th South Street. The adoption of the official map will legally provide for the preservation of the needed right-of-way until the project can be completed.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this matter. Vernon Jorgensen, Planning Director, addressed the Council. He stated that an official map shows the surveyed lines of a future road or a road that needs to be widened and by adopting the map the integrity of the property is protected. Therefore, by adopting the proposed map showing the new alignment of Indiana Avenue, future buildings will have to be set back seven feet so they are not destroyed when rights-of-way are acquired.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that Indiana Avenue is an essential east-west access street. With the construction of 1-215, Indiana Avenue had to be moved north so one structure would go over both the railroad tracks and Indiana Avenue. Also, the bridge over the surplus canal needs major reconstruction if it is to carry the heavy traffic. An engineering firm, CH2M Hill, did an alignment study for this area and they proposed five different routes to try to do away with the two right-hand turns. From an engineering and land use standpoint, the proposed alignment is the most desirable.
Mr. Jorgensen indicated the area on a map and stated that some property would have to be acquired. He stated that in the past, condemnation has not taken place in order to acquire the needed property. There are funds in next year’s budget to acquire the more critical portions of land and if the land is not acquired now, the adoption of the map will protect the integrity of the Street. Councilmember Shearer pointed out that the Council is the only body that can condemn the property. If an agreement can not be reached with property owners, a request would come before the Council for condemnation.
Rick Johnston, Deputy City Engineer, addressed the Council. He stated that the realignment would eliminate the two existing 900 jogs in the road. Mr. Johnston indicated that several pieces of property would have to be purchased; he stated that the city owns the area where the road will jog under I-215. Widening is required in most areas and where the actual relocation takes place there will be right-of-way required. Mr. Johnston stated that the two property owners on both sides of Indiana Avenue, east of the surplus canal, have been contacted. These owners would be affected the most because they are doing property development; their development is in concurrence with this realignment proposal.
Notices and a copy of the map have been sent to all property owners. Mr. Johnston indicated that the proposed route was chosen because it did the least in terms of damage to the existing facilities. Mr. Jorgensen stated that there is no proposal to vacate any streets. H.W. Howells, owner of Rider Engineering Company, addressed the Council. He stated that he felt the bottleneck on Indiana Avenue was at the intersection of Redwood Road where large trucks negotiate 90° turns. He felt that funds could be better spent on Indiana Avenue by constructing an access to the freeway. Mr. Howells stated that the proposed plan would cut two corners of his developed property and expose the south yard operations to the heavier traffic flow. This would create an opportunity for more theft and vandalism on the property. He felt that if Indiana Avenue is realigned then in addition to compensation, an eight-foot or higher fence should be provided along the east and south boundary which would obscure visual access to the property.
Mr. Howells concluded by stating that he felt the least expensive way for improving the traffic flow would be to resurface the existing street and rebuild the existing bridge. Robert Knickerson, owner of property at 2143 Indiana Avenue, addressed the Council. He stated that he would be most affected by this realignment because of several existing structures on his property which will be involved. He stated that originally he had intended to add space to his building and this alignment will prevent that construction. Mr. Knickerson stated that he was opposed to the road and felt that 1300 South would be a more logical road to develop. He also felt that when the realignment was being designed the property owners could have been contacted about what was taking place.
Mr. Knickerson stated that if the realignment takes place, any cut made to his property would need to be straight so a building could be designed along a straight line. Councilmember Mabey indicated that consideration has been given to constructing a freeway access at 1300 South. Mr. Mabey asked Mr. Johnston about the possibility of enlarging the existing turns on Indiana Avenue. Mr. Johnston stated this was one alternative considered but was rejected because it was not possible to get enough additional turning space without getting too close to the buildings. Councilmember Shearer asked why the street was only being widened to 84 feet instead of 100 feet as originally discussed.
Mr. Johnston stated that even with the projected volumes of traffic, 84 feet was determined to be sufficient. It is projected that California Avenue will be 100 feet wide and will be a major arterial with Indiana Avenue being a minor arterial street. Mr. Johnston stated that the proposed official map projects widening the road all the way to Redwood Road so the intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue will be improved. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the state was planning 1-215 with having all of the underpasses on existing rights-of-ways; this would have created a tremendous bottleneck. The city had to convince the state that the major roads would be widened and it was determined that the same amount of improvement could be done on 84 feet as 100 feet.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the Council needed to meet with the engineering office and study the various proposals which were made concerning this realignment.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer the official map showing the new alignment of Indiana Avenue from Redwood Road to the west city limits to the Public Improvements Committee, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(W 82-5)
Petition 308 of 1981 submitted by Colleen B. Hardwick, et al.
RE: The petitioner desires curb and gutter repairs on Harvard Avenue from State Street to 200 East. It is the contention of the petitioner that damage occurred to the curb and gutter in the area as a result of work performed by Mountain Fuel Supply Company and the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. The Department of Public Utilities and Mountain Fuel Supply deny any responsibility for the damages. Several proposals were offered to address this problem. One would be for the city to assume the total cost for the repair of damages on Harvard Avenue. The second proposal is that a 50/50 participation proposal be offered to the residents. In either event, an immediate solution will require an emergency appropriation by the Council to cover the expense of the repairs.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this matter. Sam McAllister, Deputy City Engineer for Public Works construction, addressed the Council. He stated that in 1980 the city contracted for a drainage system, part which was constructed on Harvard Avenue. As part of the work the contractor was to replace the curb and gutter on the south side of Harvard Avenue as was necessary to construct the storm drain; most of the curb and gutter on the south side was replaced. At the same time, Mountain Fuel upgraded their fuel system in that area to eliminate the necessity of making a separate cut later.
Apparently during construction by the city, certain damages were caused to the curb and gutter on the north side of the street; also due to the construction by Mountain Fuel, a certain amount of damage was caused. After investigating the situation, it was determined that most of the major areas of deterioration occurred at utility cuts. Mr. McAllister stated that the first proposal was to have the Public Utilities Department, Mountain Fuel, the residents, and the contractor participate in the needed repairs.
This proposal was turned down by the utilities and the contractor; the contractor claimed that there was damage before they started construction and Mountain Fuel said that their cuts were in city cuts or in the parkway and not under the street or curb and gutter. Mr. McAllister stated that the damage is mostly due to settlement which has occurred at or near old excavations for a utility line; indications are that this damage was aggravated because of the recent trenching. Mr. McAllister agreed that damage was caused by the contractor during his work. He further stated that he withheld $3,500 from the contractor because of the damage. Mr. McAllister concluded by outlining three proposals which were made: 1. That Salt Lake City make the repairs using the $3,500 to partly offset the cost. This is not necessarily recommended because some residents have already repaired their curb and gutter at their own expense; it would not be fair to these people if the city repaired the damage for the rest of the residents and did not reimburse these people. 2. Have the city and the residents participate by splitting the cost 50/50 and using the $3,500 to offset the residents’ 50%.
3. This street is in a CD area and so the city could wait and do the repairs as a CD project. Councilmember Mabey stated that he thought a pictorial record, having before and after pictures, could be kept on these types of projects so future problems could be avoided when determining the condition of the road before construction. Earl Hardwick, resident on Harvard Avenue, addressed the Council. He stated that damage had been done to the new curb and gutter which was installed by some of the residents; damage was done by the contractor and the utilities.
He stated that heavy equipment was driven up and down the street and this caused considerable damage. Damage also occurred in residents’ yards; parking strips were dug out as well as some bushes. Mr. Hardwick stated that a list was made of the problems while the contractor was still working on the street. He agreed that the street had some deterioration but the heavy equipment went in yards, broke sidewalks, and caused the curb and gutter to sink. Mr. Hardwick stated that the curb and gutter had been replaced twice because there was no drainage. He also stated that several of the people on the street are senior citizens who are on a fixed income and would be unable to pay for repairs.
Colleen Hardwick, petitioner, addressed the Council. She stated that promises were made to the residents on the south side of the street that their parking strips and gutters would be restored to original condition. These repairs have not been made. She also stated that this petition was submitted before the curb and gutter work was done on the south side the second time. She stated that Mountain Fuel came to the area and took pictures of the street but the pictures were taken after they had done their work.
Ben Crookston, resident, addressed the Council. He stated that a large bush in his yard had been torn out by The Tempest Company; he was not consulted before the bush was taken out. The company did replace some sod and told Mr. Crookston to buy a new plant. But damage was done to the parking strip for which there has been no reimbursement. Mr. McAllister stated that originally when the curb and gutter was replaced on the south side of the street it did not drain. The contractor was required to replace the curb and gutter a second time and if there are additional problems then possibly the contractor will have to do the work again. Mr. McAllister stated that the original estimate for replacement of curb and gutter was $7,000. He stated that his recommendation is to redo the whole street; a design analysis would have to be done to determine cost but the cost could be upwards of $50,000. Jacobus Marcelis, resident, addressed the Council and also attested to damage done on the street. Councilmember Mabey felt that the fair and equitable way to get the damages repaired would be to contact the public utilities again. A resident living on Kensington Avenue, Mr. Horton, addressed the Council and stated that since the damages have occurred to Harvard Avenue, people in other areas are worried about similar problems happening on their street. Mr. Horton also attested to the damage on Harvard Avenue.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis thought that possibly the Council could make a recommendation so the Mayor could consider funding these repairs with CD slippage money. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Cutler if it was worth the residents time pursuing this matter with Mountain Fuel. Mr. Cutler stated that the residents claiming damage was done by Mountain Fuel to personal property could sue the company in small claims court. Mr. Cutler stated that Mr. McAllister indicated to him that it was hard to show cause for the damages described in the street; there is evidence that some of the areas have been sinking for years.
There may be areas where cause can be shown; while the repair work is being done perhaps cause could be established by evidence of the cuts, the appropriate entity could then be sued. The damage probably has an antecedent history; it is difficult to apportion the damages. The $3,500 has been withheld from the contractor but the contractor can claim that he did not cause that amount of damage and sue the city. Councilmember Mabey stated that to avoid future problems of this sort the curb and gutter at a project could be filled with water to determine if drainage problems exist prior to construction. Mr. Mabey thought the best way to pay for the damages would be to get 25% from each party involved.
Mr. Cutler stated that the city probably would not get a contribution from the fuel company without court action. If the Council wants to pursue this remedy, evidence would have to be found to support the suit; that may only come from unearthing road cuts. The Council would have to be careful about a statute of limitation problem. Councilmember Davis thought that the residents could go to small claims court on personal home and yard damage. Mr. McAllister stated that his office will check the curb and gutter on the south side of the street to assess the situation.
Councilmember Davis referred Petition 308 of 1981 to the Public Improvements Committee; referred without objection.
(P 82-139)
City Register of Historic Buildings
RE: Three property owners have requested that their homes be placed on the City Register of Historic Buildings. The homes are the Charles H. Jenkins house - 31 Gray Avenue; James and Susan Langton house - 648 East 100 South; and Robert R. Widdison house - 464 Pugsley Avenue. The Landmarks Committee has reviewed and inventoried their homes and found that they meet the standards and recommends that these homes be placed upon the historical register. The Planning Commission has concurred with Landmark’s recommendation.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this request. Linda Ediken, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. She stated that the owners have requested to have their homes placed on the register and a positive recommendation has been given by the Landmarks Committee and the Planning Commission. Ms. Ediken then gave a slide presentation and briefly described each home: The Jenkins home, 31 Gray Avenue, was built in 1904 and is being nominated for its architectural significance. It is a two-story box-type home and has a classically inspired porch which wraps around to the eastern side.
The Widdison home, 464 Pugsley Avenue, was built in 1894 and is being nominated for its architectural significance. There are some interesting features especially the glass and mirror fragments which have been incorporated into the front gable. The Langton home, 648 East 100 South, was built in 1908. It is significant for both is architectural merit in the area and its historical association with the Langtons. The Langtons were a prominent Salt Lake business family who represent an important theme in Utah’s history. This is a large ten-room house. No member of the audience addressed this issue.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to place the Jenkins, Langton, and Widdison homes on the City Register of Historic Buildings, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(L 82-5)
Wastewater Control Ordinance.
RE: Amending Title 37 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah 1965, relating to sewers and including an industrial pretreatment program. As required by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and as a condition of Salt Lake City’s NPDES Discharge Permit, the city is mandated to enact an ordinance for the regulation and control of industrial discharges that enter the city’s sanitary sewer and treatment system. Pursuant to that requirement, Title 37 relating to sewers has been amended to include the industrial pretreatment program including discharge limitations, sampling, monitoring, enforcement procedures and penalties. The basic document entitled “Wastewater Control Ordinance/Rules and Regulations” was developed by all the sewer agencies within Salt Lake County in order to provide a county-wide ordinance regulating wastewater control that would uniformly control industrial discharges. The amended portions of Title 37 reflect changes necessary to make the city’s ordinance consistent with the county’s other sewer agencies.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this matter. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, addressed the Council. He stated that the purpose of this hearing is to receive comments relative to amending Title 37 of the city’s ordinance and to include a pretreatment program. The purpose of the pretreatment program is three-fold: 1. It is required by federal law under the Clean Water Act which mandates that publicly owned treatment works develop a pretreatment program under the direction of EPA.
2. It is a condition of the city’s NPDES Discharge Permit which also includes a schedule that states that the city should be in compliance with the federal law by August 31, 1982. 3. The city’s own concern and need to protect the sewage collection and treatment system and its operation from harmful industrial discharges. The ordinance has been developed on a county-wide basis; all of the sewer entities have worked on this ordinance so it is uniform and industry will not go shopping to find a more lenient entity. The other entities have passed this ordinance. Extra time has been taken by Salt Lake City in order to conduct a one-year EPA study since Salt Lake City has a larger proportion of industrial discharges. An advisory committee was formed to provide public input from industry; Mr. Hooton named the members of this committee.
Dr. Jim Reynolds, Montgomery Engineers, addressed the Council and gave a brief overview of the pretreatment program. He stated that most commercial and industrial establishments have two options available to them: 1. They may treat their own industrial/commercial discharges prior to discharging those into a natural receiving stream; 2. They may utilize the municipal or POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) to treat their wastewater prior to having it discharged to a receiving stream. Generally, it is thought that industry should in some cases bear the cost of pre-treating their waste prior to having it discharged to the community’s wastewater treatment system because of the specific characteristics of many industrial wastes.
Dr. Reynolds stated that industrial wastes can be costly for municipalities to treat if they are not properly controlled. Often there is an explosive or corrosive type of material that can be discharged which severely damages the sewer collection system. High-strength industrial wastes can require excessive treatment capacity at the treatment plant. Unrestricted discharge of high-strength industrial wastes can take unfair advantage of the capacity. Industrial wastes sometimes contain toxic or hazardous substances which disrupt operations at municipal treatment facilities thus causing an increase in operation cost. Many of the industrial pollutants which find their way into the collection and treatment system are not treatable (compatible with the type of treatment process) and as a result they pass through untreated and become a violation of the city’s discharge permit there is often an accumulation of undesirable contaminants in the sludge which prohibit certain sludge disposal methods or cause the sludge disposal process to be more costly. Because there are certain limitations placed upon the discharge permit, violations may result in federal fines to the municipality.
Dr. Reynolds further stated that an industrial waste survey was conducted and identified the problem of industrial waste within the community. Questionnaires were sent to approximately 600 industries in the Salt Lake City limits; of those, approximately 400 were identified as “potential” industrial discharges which may create problems for the treatment facility. Of those 400 only 93 would require some form of monitoring to insure compliance with the industrial pretreatment ordinance.
Dr. Reynolds stated that the Environmental Protection Agency has designated 129 compounds as priority pollutants; those are pollutants which have been designated by the federal agency as being particularly hazardous to the environment and to human health. Of those 129, 55 have been identified in the waste reaching the Salt Lake City municipal treatment plant. Not all 55 are currently creating a major health hazard at the treatment plant; 55 have been identified as being present, some could cause problems.
Dr. Reynolds stated that the pretreatment ordinance before the Council for consideration forms the foundation of the overall pretreatment program. The report provides guidelines to the public utilities department for implementation and administration of the pretreatment ordinance. The ordinance merely provides the public utilities department with the authority and ability to administer a pretreatment program; they then have the flexibility to change, modify, and administer the program as the needs of the city develop. The ordinance is the foundation for a permit system and contains specific discharge limits.
Dr. Reynolds summarized by stating that adoption of the overall pretreatment ordinance with its associated pretreatment program will reduce the costs of municipal waste and industrial waste 1) through protection and preservation of an expensive collection system, 2) through reduced operation and maintenance cost, 3) a reduction in capital investment, 4) increased effluent quality. Dr. Reynolds stated that of the 400 industries identified as potential problems all are currently discharging to the Salt Lake City collection system. The industries discharging directly into a receiving stream are monitored by the EPA and the State. Probably less than 20% of the 400 industries pre-treat waste. Most of the industries that have the potential for creating problems already have some form of pretreatment. Mr. Hooton explained the financial plan. The cost to the city to conduct the pretreatment program is an annual cost of $336,283; this cost prorates all of the employees who are presently on the payroll who will contribute time to the project. Significant costs are involved in the annual sampling and chemical laboratory analysis to test the water. The Public Utilities Advisory Board is recommending that the costs associated with the general administration, system monitoring and sampling be borne through sewer user charges. This equally distributes the cost between residential and commercial users.
Presently domestic users are paying 40% of the cost to operate and maintain the system; industrial and commercial users are paying 60% because they are the larger user. All costs associated with specific industries will be borne by that industry. There are $107,680 one-time costs to construct system monitoring manholes, automatic samplers, and data processing; this is not included in the FY 82-83 budget. The Public Utilities Advisory Board recommends that these one-time costs be funded through reimbursements from EPA for the pretreatment and other studies. It is recommended that the 400 industrial users that have been identified as potential users be charged a one-time $20 permit fee. All of the other costs associated with the program are included in the budget.
Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Hooton if this project would demand an increase in the sewer fees for residential property. Mr. Hooton stated that there will not be an increase to fund this program. This project requires that only one clerk be hired to process permits and log the data into the computer. Ronald Ganim, attorney with AMOCO oil company, addressed the Council in order to distribute his prepared statement. This statement is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the City Recorder.
Mr. Hooton recommended that the Council take no action on this item at this meeting so that the public utilities department can again notify the industries of this ordinance. However, action needs to be taken in August so the program can be implemented by August 31.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to amend the Wastewater Pretreatment Ordinance in Section 37-7-10 to include in the second sentence the words “willfully or negligently” so that it reads, “Any person who willfully or negligently violates the provisions of this title...”, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to put this matter on the August 3, 1982 agenda for final Council consideration, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.