PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 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 ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items appearing on the agenda. She also distributed a letter sent to Florence Bittner explaining the change in the district meeting schedule agreed upon at the retreat. Dave Nimkin and Scott Gutting presented the recommendations of the Energy Advisory Committee on efficient use of energy in the City. The City has seen an increase of 50% spent on energy in the last two years and will experience another 50% increase by 1985. The committee report recommended that the City hire an energy specialist to find areas the City could save money and to work with the Public Service Commission.
Cheryl Cook and Albert Haines briefed the Council on the refunding of water and sewer bonds. Jim Talebreza presented the options available to the City on the trash collection contract. He indicated that it would be less expensive to discontinue the contract, fill some unfilled positions, and purchase new trucks than to agree to the terms presented by the private contractor. They will be coming to the Council to reopen the budget to allow them to purchase the new trucks.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 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 MABEL IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted Wilson, Albert Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at this meeting. Councilmember Alice Shearer conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Cliff Higbee.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, March 1, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember DePaulis who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 83-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 201 of 1982 submitted by Joseph Cabibi et al.
RE: Requesting that the alley running north and south between 8th West and Grant Street north of 5th North to the freeway ramp at 6th North be vacated.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing on April 12, 1983 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this petition.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Mr. Cabibi has paid the $35 public hearing advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by the planning commission, fire, transportation, engineering, fixed assets, and public utilities departments. The departments concur that at least some portion, if not all of the “T’ shaped alley could be vacated, provided access currently being provided to the property owners of tax parcel numbers 008 and 010 is continued. A utility easement will also need to be retained. The city attorney’s office has outlined three alternatives available to the City Council if the alley is vacated:
Alternative No. 1: Portion of the north/south leg of the alley extending beyond the southernmost fence presently running between the lot lines and connecting the south side of lots 31 and 4 of said subdivision extending north to 600 North. This is the most conservative and it appears that there is no one that is objecting, nor anyone who requires this portion for access. Alternative No. 2: Includes all of area No. 1 plus the east half of the east/west leg. This would be the portion of the alley abutting Lot 1 to the north and portions of Lot 40 through 44 on the south side. No one is utilizing this portion for access to abutting properties.
Alternative No. 3: Includes No. 1 and 2 plus the entire alley system. This has the consequence that two property owners now utilizing the alley would not have claim to the alley because of its public nature. They would have to base their claims and rights to continue using the alley based on any existing prescriptive private rights of ways over the easements. After a decision has been reached, the city attorney’s office should be directed to prepare the necessary vacating ordinances.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, April 12, 1983 at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 201 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 82-266)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: Amendment to the ordinance relating to solicitation, peddling and transient merchants.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council set a date for a public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this amendment.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to schedule a public hearing for March 15, 1983 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this ordinance amendment, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-9)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Special Council meeting for Thursday, March 10, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 211.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve an order establishing a special meeting to consider and adopt the Water and Sewer Improvement and Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1983, and providing related notices.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to approve the order establishing a special Council meeting for Thursday, March 10, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 211, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 82-16)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Street Lighting Assessment District #2; publication of Notice of Intention and Notice to Contractor.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Notice of Intention and Notice to Contractors at the March 8, 1983 City Council meeting for publication as part of the renewal process for combining five street lighting assessment districts into District #2.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The District #2 cost estimate incorporates projected lighting costs to May 14, 1988. The estimate includes an annual inflation factor to cover projected rate increases during the five year period. Abutting property owners are responsible for 75% of the total cost and Salt Lake City provides the remaining 25% as per city policy.
DISCUSSION: The recommendation as herewith submitted represents a consolidated lighting district renewal procedure that eliminates several non-essential renewal steps and combines mandatory steps. The Notice of Intention and Notice to Contractors have been reviewed by the city attorney’s office and approved as to form for publication. This district renewal is the second step of the five step scheduled plan to consolidate all lighting assessment areas into a more efficient and easily managed program.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to approve the Notice of Intention regarding Street Lighting Assessment District #2, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-5)
Special Improvement District 38-708 - Sugarhouse Business District.
RE: Proposed improvements or creation of Sugarhouse Beautification Special Improvement District No. 38-708. Project area includes 2100 South from 900 East to 1300 East and 1100 East/Highland Drive from Ramona Avenue to Ashton Avenue.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to receive protests to this proposed improvement district. Jim Talebreza, public works director, said that there are approximately 42.5% against and 57.5% in favor of this special improvement district. He said that these figures needed to be confirmed, however, because protests were received until 5:00 p.m. on March 7, 1983. Monroe Tucker, representing the McIntyre Company, spoke in opposition to the proposed improvements. He said that the people he represented felt the allotment to corner lots and main arteries was unfair; the cost was not equal to the benefits. He said what the Sugarhouse area needs is anchor tenants not sidewalks and benches; many businesses in the uptown area did not survive the improvements there.
Mr. Tucker said that they were told their costs would be $95,000 but he felt they would be over $100,000 because a project like this is never finished for the estimated cost. He also said that the area would have two summers of torn-up streets which would be hard on the businesses. He felt that it was only a matter of time until a large development would take place in Sugarhouse. Mr. Tucker said that he felt the $1,000,000 of City money should be used for general repair on curb and gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Tucker said that according to his calculations there was a total of 11,044 front linear feet; of that amount protests have totaled 6,908 linear feet, which would leave 4,136 linear feet. He said that City and federal government property should not be counted; that property totals 551 feet and subtracted from 4,136 would leave a net of 3,585 linear feet that has not opposed the project. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Tucker what he would suggest be done in Sugarhouse to revitalize the area. He said that the bad curbs should be repaired. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if he was suggesting that the City do this work without any local participation; Mr. Tucker replied “yes”. Ms. Fonnesbeck replied that the City does not do this work cost free for neighborhoods and those people do not live on income making property.
Jack Chappois, branch manager of a bank in Sugarhouse, said that several customers of his bank, who own property in Sugarhouse, have indicated that they are not planning to expand their business or will leave the area if this improvement district fails. They will not expend additional funds in an area they consider blighted; he said it was probably six to one in favor of the improvement district. The success or failure of this district will determine growth or retrogress. He felt that the property values should increase as a result of the district.
Councilmember Parker asked Mr. Chappois if he had evidence that any businesses are now leaving Sugarhouse because of the deteriorated conditions. Mr. Chappois said that he knew of three businesses that would consider trying to move to higher growth areas if they did not get the improvement district. They feel that the blight situation will not permit the community to grow; it would continue to deteriorate and their future would deteriorate too. Dick Jones, 928 East 2100 South, said he checked the protests submitted to the recorder’s office and he counted 55% against this project. He said that if an individual does not speak against the project they are counted as being in favor of it.
Mr. Jones said that most people feel the assessment is unfair. He felt that the negative vote arrangement was undemocratic. He said that he has owned his property for nine years and has made improvements that were within his budget. Bill Wood, Celeste Draperies, said he was concerned with the condition of Sugarhouse and if it was not improved he would move from the area. John Walton, former president of Sugarhouse Chamber of Commerce, said that in the last 12 or 15 years various merchants of the community have pleaded for improvements. The only way to accomplish this is to involve the property owners.
Mr. Walton said that he appreciated the offer from the City to help with these improvements, the area needs a catalyst to encourage other businesses to moved into the Sugarhouse area. Mr. Walton said that he had talked with some of the protestors and their response was that they would rescind their protest if it meant that the project would be squelched. He said that from time to time everyone has to give money to help the community. Mr. Walton requested favorable consideration for this project but said if it did not pass he hoped that the City would make the property owners upgrade their deteriorated property. Helen Hansen said that the sewer system in Sugarhouse had not been discussed and asked what the plans were for the sewer system. She said at a community council meeting Dean Barney from the planning department indicated that nothing would be done with the sewer system at this time. She was concerned that the City would spend money to beautify the area and then have to tear it up later to install a sewer system because of growth. Councilmember Parker said that the engineering department has indicated that a new system would not be needed for several years. Mr. Talebreza said that there was one section of sanitary sewer that would be improved under this program; he could not say what the future need might be. Councilmember Whitehead said that if growth takes place the present sewer system may not be adequate.
Ms. Hansen said that if a new system is needed in the next three or four years it would be a waste of money to repair the streets and then tear them up for sewer replacement. Rick Johnston, engineering department, said that the public utilities department has indicated that a portion of the sewer on 2100 South west of 1100 East needs to be upgraded and this will be done at the same time the improvements are made. Otherwise, the sewer and water capacity is adequate for anticipated development. Additional lines may be needed for the full development scheme that has been proposed with the Clark project but most of the lines would be in streets other than the ones improved under this improvement district.
Also, the full development scheme is at least 10 years away. Installing a new system would be a large expense and it is felt that a new system is not needed at this time. Mr. Mabey asked about the drainage situation. Mr. Johnston said that this project included a substantial amount of improvement to the drainage system. Robert Tucker, counsel to Monroe Tucker, asked if the Council intended to put on record at this meeting the owners filing protests, the owners withdrawing in writing their protests, and the total footage being used by the Council to calculate whether or not this special improvement district can be created.
Councilmember Shearer said that it was normal practice for the city engineer to compile all of the necessary information and then report to the Council; all of the information is available to the public. Ms. Shearer indicated that protests could not be withdrawn after this Council meeting. Robert Doidge, chairman of the Sugarhouse beautification committee, said that they have worked hard to get the Sugarhouse area beautified and he was troubled that some people were still opposed to this beautification. Mr. Doidge gave the Council photographs showing the poor condition of the area. He said that now was a critical time for Sugarhouse and this project is a starting point to make the area more desirable. Dean Sealy, president of the Sugarhouse Chamber of Commerce, said that the board of directors at the chamber of commerce met on January 21, 1983 and a motion was made to support this beautification program. It was discussed in detail and passed with a unanimous vote. Rawlins Young, chairman of the Sugarhouse community council, said that the council looks forward to the beautification and welcomes the City’s commitment. Tye Besinger, representing Clark Financial Corporation, said that they wholeheartedly supported this beautification. Their assessment is approximately $85,000 and they think it is a good investment. He congratulated the City for their support.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer this matter to the Committee of the Whole and ask the city engineer to tabulate the protests and submit a recommendation to the Council for the Thursday, March 10, 1983 meeting at 5:00 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-3)
Petition 330 of 1982, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Abbott and Mr. and Mrs. Gudmundson.
RE: Vacation of 15-foot alley approximately 139 feet in length between 726 and 752 Goshen Street.
This Petition has been reviewed by the planning commission, finance, public utilities, fire, public works and the city attorney’s office. Each of the departments has recommended that the alley be vacated subject to retaining all existing easements and rights of way. The alley was dedicated as a part of the Seventh South Subdivision, only the Abbott property is located within this subdivision. The property owned by the Gudmundsons as part of a separate subdivision. Therefore, upon vacation of the alley, ownership of the entire alley will revert to the Abbotts rather than the usual instance of each abutting owner receiving a one-half interest. All the abutting property owners have signed the petition.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to consider this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning department, said that the alley is located between 726 and 752 Goshen Street and both abutting property owners have signed the petition to close or vacate this alley. It is, therefore, recommended that the alley be vacated. Conan Gudmundson, 752 Goshen, said that he and the Abbotts agreed to the vacation of this property because it is a dead piece of property.
Mr. Gudmundson said, however, that he would be denied access to his property if the Abbotts were given the whole alley. He wanted to get the property because then he would have a full-size building lot. Mr. Gudmundson said when the petition was signed neither party knew that the Abbotts would get the entire alley. Roger Cutler said that the statute says the property will go to the abutting property owners and not to the point of dedication, but it may take more research. There may be a conflict created where Mr. Gudmundson would lose his right of access. If the parties agree, they could create, by a quit claim deed, an easement for Mr. Gudmundson; the Council may want to consider that as a condition for vacating the alley if there is any question. Ms. Abbott said that they were not aware that they would get the entire piece of property, however, they wanted to have it. If it is divided Mr. Gudmundson still would not have access to the property because it is a pie shape. She also said the lot is too small to be a building lot.
Mr. Cutler said he wanted a recommendation from planning as to whether or not this property is needed by Mr. Gudmundson for access. The Council should have this information before a decision is made. Mr. Hafey said for this property to be a legal building lot there would have to be a 50-foot frontage at the set-back line and the lot tapers and becomes smaller as it goes away from the Street. If the lot was a matter of record prior to the zoning in 1927 then its gained the rights under the granddaddy clause which waives certain of the current zoning requirements. Mr. Hafey said he would have to research that. Councilmember Shearer said that the Council needed more information.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to refer this petition back to the planning department for further consideration and to make a recommendation to the Council, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Shearer said if possible this petition should be on the agenda for the March 15, 1983 meeting.
(P 83-170)
Petition 400-15 submitted by the Janus Associates.
RE: Requesting that property located at 475 South 800 East be rezoned from its present “R-6” classification to a Residential “R-7” classification.
The petition has been reviewed by the planning commission and they have recommended that the petition be denied. The planning commission feels with the increase of families in the area the “R-7” zoning is not appropriate at this time. Also the rezoning would bring additional traffic next to a school and would increase intensive uses and speculation in the area.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to consider this petition. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning department, said that the property in question is located on the northeast corner of 8th East and 5th South. There are several different zoning classifications in the block between 4th and 5th South and between 8th and 9th East. Two years ago the area around the Bennion school was rezoned to “R-7” at the request of the board of education. The board of education wanted assurance that if the school was rebuilt the building could be used for other uses if the student enrollment declined. Mr. Hafey said that the planning commission recommended denial of this request. James Pappas, petitioner, reiterated that there is considerable mixed use on the block. He said their request was to change the zoning from “R-6” to “R-7” or from residential/multifamily to residential/multifamily with limited office use. He felt that this project is compatible and consistent with the area; the building has been designed to fit in with the ambiance of the area. Every attempt has been made to design the project with sufficient parking and landscaping. Mr. Pappas showed the Council a drawing of the proposed building.
Mr. Pappas outlined some concerns that had been raised. He said that some of the residents felt that there would be better, alternative uses for the property if the existing “R-6” zoning remained; it was also felt that an office building would cause traffic problems for the school children. Some people felt that this property should be purchased by the school board for a playground. Mr. Pappas said that it would not be feasible to build single-family dwellings on this property; the cost would be too high. The only viable project allowed under the present zoning would be an apartment complex. Mr. Pappas felt that an office complex would be better; a traffic survey also suggested that an office would be better than an apartment complex.
Mr. Pappas said that a number of school board members did not think it would be feasible or realistic to use this property for a playground. However, if the residents still want the property used for that purpose, Mr. Pappas said he would offer the property to the school board for a 60-day period at $14.69 per square foot, which is the same amount they paid for the adjoining property in 1979. He asked that the “R-7” zoning be given conditional upon his offer to the school board; if they did not buy the property then he would be able to proceed with his building. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Pappas why he bought the property if he knew at the time that it would only be feasible to build an apartment complex under the present zoning. Mr. Pappas said that they had hoped the zoning would be changed.
Councilmember Parker asked why the school board did not want the property. Mr. Pappas said that a number of the school board members felt that it would be more economically feasible to take property in the middle of the area that is more contiguous to the playground. They also felt that a corner lot might be less safe than interior property. Councilmember Davis asked if the residents had expressed a preference over having an office building instead of apartments.
Mr. Pappas said that people he talked with indicated that their first choice would be for the school board to use the property but they would rather have the office building than apartments. Grant Fetzer, 452 South 8th East, said that he was representing Sandra Fetzer who is the president of the Bennion School PTA and Richard Brady who is the chairman of the Bennion Community Council. Mr. Fetzer said that Ms. Fetzer and Mr. Brady gave a letter to the planning and zoning commission opposing this change; after Mr. Pappas presented his idea to the planning commission, Ms. Fetzer and Mr. Brady were still opposed to this change. Mr. Fetzer said that he, too, was against this commercial use. Kerry Bate, 543 East 6th South, said that he felt the planning commission’s decision to deny the request was wise. He did not think that the options given by Mr. Pappas were the only options available.
Mr. Bate said that he was concerned about the children going to school; he said that traffic is a serious problem because of Trolley Square. Mr. Bate felt that the proposal would bring in more traffic. The road structure in this area is poor and there is no curb and gutter. Mr. Bate said that he was concerned that other property in the area would go commercial if this zoning change was made. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if any move had been made to down zone the area. Mr. Bate said that the area south of 6th South has been down zoned.
Councilmember DePaulis briefly gave the history surrounding the Bennion school and the zoning change. He said that a lot of people worked hard to get the Bennion school rebuilt but the school board was not willing to build the school unless the compromise was reached on the “R-7” zone. The neighborhood people believed at that time that the expansion potential from 9th East, 4th South, and Trolly Corners could destroy the area. The residents were afraid that developers could use this zoning change as leverage to get other property zoned “R-7”. The residents in the area were fearful about the zoning change but wanted the school in the area and so agreed to the change.
Councilmember Parker said that officially the school board is neutral on other’s zoning issues. Kent Fetzer, 763 East 5th South, said that only 33% of the area is used for business; commercial use has been kept out of the inner hub. Mr. Fetzer thought that this property could be used for school expansion. He said that the school population has increased since the school was built and it is projected that the enrollment will continue to increase. Mr. Fetzer said that the inner hub of this area is residential and it needs to be preserved. He wanted the Council to deny this zoning change.
Michael Error, 133 Windsor Street, chairman of the North Central Neighborhood Council, distributed a letter to the Council from the North Central Neighborhood supporting the opposition to this zoning change. He said they were opposed to the encroachment of business in residential areas. LaMar Nay, 515 South 8th East, said that he liked the idea of the school board buying the property but thought an office building or apartment complex would be reasonable alternatives. He thought that the office would attract professionals such as doctors and the office complex would be closed at night which would alleviate some of the parking problems. He thought that it would blend better with the school than an apartment building. An apartment complex would bring in singles, transients and students. A gentleman representing Don Moss of Chuck-a-Rama said that Mr. Moss wanted something in the area that was clean and attractive and felt that renters in an apartment building would not have the same concern for the area as would a property owner. Mr. Moss felt that the owners of the office building would maintain the premises. J.C. May, housing and community development specialist, said that he did not want to see a precedent set where developers destroy sound housing which could be rehabilitated. He wanted to see housing produced if old housing is torn down.
Mr. Pappas said that because of the economy he thought only two alternatives for the use of this property were realistic. He asked the Council to consider how the office building would affect the neighborhood and how the apartment complex would affect the neighborhood. He said that Mr. Wong, who’s property adjoins the property in question, said that he would much rather have an office building than a large apartment complex. Mr. Pappas thought that the office complex would be a good neighbor.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that the planning commission decision should be upheld. She thought it was a good planning attempt to protect the interior blocks; to allow this commercial encroachment would be an anchor point from which commercial use would continue to grow. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that she assumed residential services were paid for this property and she thought something residential should be built like duplexes or four-plexes: families with children moving into the residences would add to the school. She said there was a need in the City for low-cost housing.
Councilmember Davis said that the homes on the property were demolished before Mr. Pappas bought the land. She felt the proposal of offering the property to the school board should be considered by the Council and said that this zoning request had not yet gone before the land use committee.
Councilmember Davis moved to refer this petition to the land use committee. The motion was not seconded and, therefore, died. Councilmember Whitehead said that he too felt the planning commission decision should be upheld but he did say that he felt apartments would have a more adverse impact on the area. He felt there needed to be a way to let people know that there were certain areas that needed to be kept residential and areas where development was needed, such as the west side. Councilmember DePaulis said that the homes in that area have a great potential for rejuvenation. The area needs to be strengthened as a residential neighborhood. Mayor Wilson said that the school was given an “R-7” zoning and the Council should consider the fairness of this action; perhaps that zoning should revert to “R-2”. He said he was troubled by the indication that the school can be trusted but a developer can not. Councilmember Shearer said she did not think it would be a problem to down zone the school because of the new ordinance that allows for conditional use of school bui1dings.
Councilmember Fonnesheck moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to affirm the decision and recommendation of the planning commission to deny the rezoning request. which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Davis who voted nay.
(P 83-58)
Petitions 400-21 and 400-22 submitted by Neighborhood Housing Services.
RE: Requesting that a portion of the Granite Subdivision and the Deskey Subdivision be vacated including a portion of American Avenue and Haves Avenue between Park View School property and Navajo Street.
The two dedicated streets covered in the petitions are Hayes and American Avenues. These streets have never been constructed and dead-end into the school to the east. Neighborhood Housing Services, in conjunction with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, is proposing to develop 20 units of new owner-built housing on this vacant site. Before a new subdivision can be approved it is necessary to vacate this portion of the existing subdivision.
The planning commission feels that the proposed reuse of the land is desirable to the City, therefore, it is recommended that the streets and alleys and that portion of the subdivision covered by the petitions be vacated as requested, provided all the legal restrictions as may be imposed by the legal department are complied with and also subject to maintaining easements for any utilities which may be located in this portion of the subdivision.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to consider this petition request. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, said that the location of the property is west of the Park View School; the property abuts Navajo Street on the west and the U.P. railroad tracks on the north. The property is presently vacant, the streets and improvements have never been constructed. The NHS has been working to get a subdivision in this area. The streets and alleys and configuration of the old subdivision is not appropriate to handle their proposal; the only way to deal with this is to vacate the subdivision.
Mr. Hafey said that the petitioners did not obtain all of the signatures as required for the vacation but the planning commission gave a favorable recommendation to this request subject to an advertised public hearing being held. Dave Nimkin, Neighborhood Housing Services, said that they have worked hard to get the necessary signatures since the planning and zoning hearing; 25 property owners are in favor and four are opposed. Mr. Nimkin said that significant progress has been made on the development of the owner-built project; hopefully construction can begin in mid May. The plan will be single family detached homes at a maximum selling price of $35,000. Originally twin homes were going to be built but enough applications were not submitted so the plan was changed to single family detached homes. Mr. Nimkin outlined the project on a site plan. He said there would be 18 units of single family housing with 6,000 square foot lots. The configuration of the streets is the same as the twin-home concept so the proposed subdivision was not altered when the plan was changed to single homes. No one from the audience spoke on this issue.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Mr. Cutler indicated that a letter was submitted by the attorney’s office to the Council explaining the circumstances that have to be met in conjunction with the approval of this request (this letter is on file in the Office of the City Recorder).
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded that the City vacate the specified portions of the Deskey and Granite Subdivisions, as requested by the petitioners, subject to the following: 1. A finding by the Council that the petitioners have substantially complied with the provisions of state law pertaining to vacating subdivisions. A finding that actual riot tee has been given to all required parties and that notice of the proposal to partially vacate the subdivisions has been published. 2. The City pass an ordinance, closing the streets and alleys within the subject property, to be recorded after NHS has filed its subdivision plat.
3. In the event the filing of the subdivision plat does not occur within one year from the time the closure ordinance is passed that the streets and alleys then be declared open to public use. 4. The compliance by NHS with all of the City’s current platting, draining, survey control, engineering design, and drafting regulations in preparing said subdivision plat. 5. The assumption by NITS of all costs in constructing the required public improvements, including flood control works and that NHS satisfy the requirements of the railroad company in regards to right-of-way provisions and storm water detention in areas adjacent to the railroad embankments.
6. The resolution by NHS of any conflicting easements currently running with the land, including those for overhead utilities. The Council finds that NHS has substantially complied with the state statute relating to the closure of the streets, therefore, the city attorney is directed to prepare the ordinance and other necessary paperwork to implement this request, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-59)
Fence Regulations.
RE: An ordinance amending Chapter 5 of Title 51 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to fence regulations.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this ordinance amendment. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning department, said that this ordinance amendment has been considered for two years. This amendment brings all of the fence elements within the zoning ordinance into one section which has clarified and improved the ordinance. It has allowed for fences to exceed four feet high in the front-yard area on corner lots in some cases; it has allowed for the board of adjustment to grant variances to allow fences that would exceed six feet high in the front-yard area and allows the board of adjustment to deny fences that are not in keeping with the neighborhood. The proposed ordinance also allows for some decorative-type fences.
Larry Livingston, Council office, said that the current ordinance does not state conditions under which the board of adjustment would act; this ordinance outlines criteria for the board to follow when giving special exceptions. Mike Brown, resident of Sandy, said that he felt the proposed ordinance is most appropriate. However, he felt that there were certain limitations in the ordinance regarding the structure of a security fence or gate that must be considered. He said that the ordinance states that chain-link fences would not be allowed but there are some very attractive chain-link fences that have been developed for the purpose of beautification.
Roger Cutler discussed the amendments to the ordinances that Larry Livingston made. He said that one of the amendments changed the meaning and the other created redundancy which is not an improvement. Mr. Cutler referred to Mr. Livingston’s letter outlining the changes. He felt that it was redundant to use the phrase “any request” at the beginning of each paragraph dealing with requests that may be denied by the board of adjustment. Mr. Cutler said that number two under requests that can be denied by the board of adjustment has been changed from “...when there is a driveway...” to “...that includes a driveway...”; Mr. Cutler felt that the meaning was changed. He felt that the original intent was that a request could be denied when the property owner has a driveway adjacent to the proposed fence; the amendment changes the meaning. Mr. Cutler said that he did not have a problem with the other changes. Councilmember Shearer suggested that this ordinance he referred to the land use committee so the ordinance can be reworked.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to refer the fence ordinance to the Thursday, March 10, 1983 land use committee meeting and to bring it back for passage on March 15, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-5)
Petition 400-26 of 1983 submitted by Robert Koyen, Jr.
RE: Requesting that property on the west side of Chicago Street and the south side of 1100 North Street be rezoned from a Residential “R-2” to a Residential “R-6 classification.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:15 p.m. to discuss this request. This public hearing was continued from February 8, 1983. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning department, said that Mr. Koyen’s plan is to build two triplexes on the property; one will front 1100 North and the other will front on Chicago Street. Mr. Hafey said that this proposal meets the “R-4”, “R-5A” or “R-3A” zoning requirements. It has the required off-street parking, meets the setbacks, and has usable open space around the buildings. Under the present zoning it is possible to build three duplex structures. Robert Koyen said that in the past month he has worked with the planning commission on this project and he feels that two triplexes would utilize the site to its fullest and make the site more favorable.
Mr. Koyen showed the Council the site plan. Mr. Hafey showed the Council a plan of what could be built under the existing ordinance. Leslie Heisey, 1038 Topaz Drive, said that the alternatives have been reviewed and it was decided that the present zoning, “R-2”, does not allow for the needed living space. The “R-3A” does not offer the restrictions to assure the residents that Mr. Koyen will build a triplex; this property needs to be upgraded to insure the best usage so it is felt that the “R-4” zoning would be the best. This zoning does not require the landscaping like “R-3A” but Mr. Koyen assured the residents that he will do landscaping and keep this project within the integrity of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead said that there were concerns with every zoning classification. He said that “R-3A” has stricter landscaping requirements than “R-4”, however, if it is rezoned “R-3A” Mr. Koyen could build up to eight units. The “R-4” zoning makes it mandatory to build the triplexes. Mr. Whitehead said the height of the buildings has been a concern to the residents. He felt that for the neighborhood, however, the triplexes were a better development than duplexes. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Koyen if he was going to put in the landscaping; Mr. Koyen indicated that he was planning to do the landscaping. Councilmember Shearer said that it would be to Mr. Koyen’s advantage to make the buildings as attractive as possible so they would be easy to rent.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to rezone the area as outlined in Petition 400-26 from “R-2” to “R-4”, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-2)
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.