PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982, 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 Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted the meeting.
CONSENT AND POLICY
Report of the Executive Director: Discussion of items on Council’s agenda. Mike Chitwood addressed the Council about the request from the city of Cleveland, Ohio, that Salt Lake City attend a seminar of 50 cities and provide a presentation of Redevelopment projects that have involved the private sector. The seminar would be in June. Byron Jorgensen briefed the Council on the findings of the asphalt plant audit. He indicated that it is the opinion of the administration that the plant should he kept in operation but that plant personnel should be reduced by 12 positions with some of those personnel being transferred to other Public Works service areas.
The Council adjourned at 5:55 p.m. to begin the Council meeting in Room 301.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Grant Mabey conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Clarence Fields.
Pledge of Allegiance.
From City Council:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, March 2, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
M 82-2
PETITIONS
301 of 1981 submitted by Arthur and Fred Fairclough.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that the property at the northeast corner of the intersection of 9th West and 17th South be reclassified from a “B-3” and “R-2” classification to a Commercial “C-2 classification.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider changing the zoning classification of the property.
DISCUSSION: The owners of the property want to construct higher class warehousing and/or industrial office space on the property.
A public hearing was held on September 22, 1981, to consider this request. At that time it was moved and seconded to take this matter under advisement and tour the area. Councilmember Mabey stated that the Westside Council wanted to work with the petitioner as the plans are made and wanted to have input if possible.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve Petition 301 of 1981, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-38
21 of 1982 submitted by the L.D.S. Church.
RE: The petitioner requests the vacation of 7th South from a point approximately 165’ east of 8th West, east to the Freeway and a 17’ alley running east and west in the rear of the properties facing on 7th South Street.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council discuss Petition No. 21 on March 16, 1982.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: If the street is closed, the property should be sold to the petitioner at fair market value.
DISCUSSION: This petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and is presently being reviewed by Engineering, Transportation, Water, Fire, Fixed Asset and the Law Department. These recommendations will be in the March 16 Council packets. The petitioner has obtained all the necessary signatures of the abutting property owners and a public hearing will not be required. It is recommended that the property owners on the part of the T-shaped alley that is not being vacated be notified, by the City Recorder, that the City Council will be discussing this petition.
Councilmember Mabey stated that this item had to be postponed because a bid that is needed for that particular part of the road, regarding the appraised value of the road, has not been submitted. Councilmember Davis asked if there was a time problem to which Mr. Mabey stated there was a time problem. The building has to be constructed because there is a deadline when they have to move from the old facility at 300 West and the new facility has to be provided for the handicapped people working in the office. Councilmember Mabey stated that the deadlines could be met if this item was postponed for a week.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to postpone discussion on this item until March 16, 1982, consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-27
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL
RE: A resolution identifying contributions to the Salt Palace Expansion project including land redevelopment appropriations and $110,000 to be applied to fees related to the expansion project. Judy Lever addressed the Council. She stated that the resolution is in rough-draft form. The contributions being discussed are contributions that the Council is proposing to make to the Salt Palace. She stated that there was one item that arose requiring a policy decision; Ms. Lever suggested that the Council refer this item to the Committee of the Whole.
The item in question dealt with the contribution of the permit fees, the $110,000. She stated that the Council was interested in creating a donation for the $110,000 but the expectation was that it would be equally reciprocated, probably from the conduit fees. There may be a large disparity between the $110,000 and the fees that would normally be incurred on the conduit. The Public Works director proposed that if there is a disparity, encourage the Salt Palace to make a similar donation of that amount to the project in terms of the services in renders.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer this item to the Committee of the Whole on Thursday, March 11, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
R 82-9
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
RE: Amendment to assessment ordinance for Special Improvement District 38-533.
RECOMMENDATION: The Council adopt an Amended Assessment Ordinance in connection with the assessment of property in Salt Lake City Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-533, so that the interest rate to accrue on unpaid assessment balances will be seven percent per annum instead of the interest rate or rates provided in the Assessment Ordinance.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Excess interest earnings in other Improvement Districts will be available to finance the difference in interest rates.
DISCUSSION: The maximum interest rate indicated in the Notice of Intention dated October 3, 1978, consistent with a Salt Lake City Ordinance then in effect, stated in part: “Any assessment may be paid in ten (10) equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance not to exceed seven percent (7%) per annum until due and then after at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until paid.” Section 5 of the Assessment Ordinance provided for interest on unpaid balance at a rate of thirteen percent (13%) and a provision that the interest rate is to be paid to the net effective rate of assessment bonds when issued based on new State Statutes and City Ordinances passed since October 3, 1978. The purpose of the amended assessment is to effectively charge all individuals the legal rate of interest at the time construction was completed.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 18 of 1982, amending Bill 4 of 1982 in connection with the assessment of property in Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-533, so that the interest rate to accrue on unpaid assessment balances will be 7% per annum instead of the interest rate or rates provided for in the Assessment Ordinance, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Q 82-4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Special Improvement District 38-700.
RE: A protest hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council on March 9, 1982, 6:00 p.m., regarding Special Improvement District 38-700.
Rick Johnston, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the Council. He stated that all the protests were due by Monday, March 8, 1982, 5:00 p.m. A preliminary tabulation has been made; ownerships still have to be verified as well as potential problems. Mr. Johnston reviewed the protests (against) on a street by street basis: 12th Avenue between “K” and “L” Streets - 63% 700 West between 1300 and 2100 South - 76% Parley’s Way between 2300 East and Maywood Drive - 8% 500 North between 1400 West and Redwood Road - 31% Foothill Drive between Sunnyside Avenue and 2100 South - 30%. Mr. Johnston indicated on the Foothill Drive protests, the two major protestors are still in question; the Zion’s Lutheran Church indicated that they are considering withdrawing their protest and the Townes Condominiums’ protest was received from the treasurer of the association and not from the various property owners. If both protests are valid then the rate against is 30%. The overall protest percentage is 55%; however if 700 West and 12th Avenue are eliminated, since they have such a high protest rate, then the protest percentage on the remaining projects would be 25%.
Mr. Johnston further indicated that the Public Works Department recommends that following the hearing the matter be referred to committee where a final tabulation of the protest rate and recommendations as to the District. The City will pay 60% of the cost and the property owners will be assessed for 40%; this information was indicated in a letter sent to the property owners. Mr. Johnston added that the 700 West protest is basically the largest percentage-wise and also accounts for a majority of the footage on the project. The theme of the protests was that because of the economic conditions, the majority of the property is industrial and commercial, the timing is not good for the project.
Councilmember Davis asked about the proposed waterline through the Foothill Sunnyside area. She asked Mr. Johnston about efforts being made to coordinate the projects so that construction can be accomplished at the same time. Mr. Johnston stated that the two departments have been coordinating projects. Public Utilities is planning a major waterline which would run from the mouth of Parley’s Canyon down to the vicinity of the University of Utah stadium; a route has not yet been chosen. One of the alternate routes that has been studied is through the section of Foothill Drive in SID 38-700. A letter has been sent to the Public Utilities Department stating that if that is to be a route the Public Works Department would need to have a design and a decision made so that the watermain could be included before or during the time the roadway is constructed.
Mr. Johnston stated that at this point in time the Public Utilities Department feels that the Foothill Drive alternate will not be the most advisable alternate. Councilmember Davis asked if the City Engineer, Mayor, City Council, and Director of Public Works had any input on the route of the waterline. Ms. Davis stated that the line ought to be put in Foothill Drive which will be under construction rather than dig up another street. Ms. Davis stated that she felt the Council should be consulted on the placement of this waterline before a decision is made.
The Mayor stated that administration respects the Council’s right to give advice and appropriate information will be supplied to the Council. Mr. Cutler stated that the decision is an administrative decision but it is appropriate for the Council to give input.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded that the Council have direct input from the Public Utilities Department before any final decision is made on the 42” waterline that will bisect Council District 6, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who abstained from the vote.
Lawrence C. Diehl stated that he has property on 7th West on the west side from 1756 South to 1840 South and is against this improvement. Paul Dorius, Ben Albert Investment, has property at 750 West 1625 South and is against the improvement. Blame Abbott, Parker-Abbott Transfer and Storage, stated that the business was against this improvement. Councilmember Whitehead read through the list of persons who filed protests.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer this item to the Public Works Committee for review and to bring it back to the Council for action, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Q 82-12
Parking Strip Ordinance.
RE: Proposed revision of the ordinance controlling the parking strip standards.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council on March 9, 1982, at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed ordinance relating to parking strips and parking strip standards. Vernon Jorgenson, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council and stated that several months ago, after a meeting with the Council, it was suggested that the ordinance be revamped. Mr. Jorgensen read from the ordinance regarding how parking strips are to be maintained; he then read the suggested modification and stated that it was felt the Parking Strip Standards should not be part of the ordinance but part of the adopted standards.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that when the basic standards are met then exceptions for different types of materials can be given when it is proper with the character with the neighborhood. Mr. Jorgensen read from the section of the Parking Strip Standards titled “Other Requirements” and stated that this will give the needed flexibility which can make it possible to handle each case in keeping with the neighborhood.
For clarification Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the ordinance to be passed allows exceptions to be made and the development of standards by which the exceptions will be made. Councilmember Shearer asked why the appeal from this exception would go the Mayor; she stated that since it was to allow an exception to an ordinance shouldn’t it go to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the Board of Adjustment does not have authority on public land. Mr. Cutler stated that the property is owned by the City and is in the area of the Mayor in managing City property. Councilmember Parker asked about enforcement of the ordinance to which Mr. Jorgensen replied that this will give some flexibility and make it easier to enforce than at the present time. Mr. Cutler stated that present enforcement has been fairly effective. This new ordinance will create a situation that will respond to special needs of the properties and get more cooperation and less friction; there will probably be more voluntary compliance.
Ralph Driggs addressed the Council and stated that if the property owner is required to maintain the parking strip then this ordinance will help solicit compliance; this will allow for more freedom in maintaining the parking strip the way the property owner wants it maintained. Councilmember Fonnesbeck clarified that the standards were not being included as part of the ordinance.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to adopt Ordinance 19 of 1982, amending Sections 38-1-5 and 51-5-16 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah 1965, as amended, relating to use and landscaping of parking strips, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
O 82-6
City Register of Cultural Resources.
RE: Four buildings to be designated to the City Register of Cultural Resources as Landmark Sites.
A public hearing was held before the City Council on March 9, 1982, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss designating the following buildings as landmark sites: Edwin P. Kimball House 124 South 600 East; Rose Hartwell Whiteley House 132 South 600 East; George Arbuckle House 747 East 1700 South; Thorid Peck House 466 South 500 East.
Vernon Jorgensen, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council and stated that the homes have been nominated by the owners; the historic survey has indicated that they meet the requirements, they have been through Land Marks and the Planning Commission. Mr. Jorgensen then outlined the qualities of each house: The Peck house was built about 1895; its architecturally significant for its Victorian style including its tower corner and the brick work. It is a representation of the speculative housing boom in the late 19th Century and is in the process of being restored. The Kimball house was built in 1885 and is significant for its overall Victorian style, its size and its unusual decorative elements. Its historical significance is derived from its original owner who was Edwin Kimball, at one time the Mayor of Park City. There are plans to restore this home to its original appearance. The Whiteley house was the home of the noted Utah artist Rose Whiteley who studied art in Europe and has had her works exhibited throughout the major cities of the United States. The Arbuckle house is the most significant and has also been nominated for the Federal register. This house was built about 1890, has a unique style of Gothic Revival. Very rare in Utah are the pointed arched windows as found on the second floor and the fan-type decoration on the porch.
The home has been altered but it retains the characteristics which make it an outstanding and unusual example of the Gothic Revival style. Mr. Jorgensen then outlined the procedure if the Council accepts the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He stated that notice is sent to the owners who have a month in which to object; if they do not object, an ordinance is passed placing these homes on the City Register.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to accept the four homes to placed on the City Register of Cultural Resources as Landmark Sites, and direct an ordinance to be prepared, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
L 82-2
Petition 598 of 1981 submitted by Robert Trujillo.
RE: The petitioner is requesting that the City vacate a portion of Ashton Avenue adjoining his property at 2332 South 1800 East Street.
This petition was denied by the Planning Commission on November 17, 1981. It is their opinion that the existing walkway is desirable as it provides a pedestrian access through the neighborhood; to close the walkway would create an undesirable dead-end alley to the West. Mr. Trujillo has requested a public hearing before the City Council to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision. The Petition has been reviewed by the City Engineer, Public Utilities, Transportation, Fire and Fixed Assets.
A public hearing was held before the City Council on March 9, 1982, at 6:45 p.m. to discuss Petition 598 of 1981. Vernon Jorgensen from the Planning and Zoning Department indicated on a map the area which Mr. Trujillo is requesting be vacated. He stated that originally this street was 30 feet wide; many years ago it was requested that the street be vacated and at that time it was reduced to a 10-foot wide walkway. This walkway is paved and runs from Hannibal Street east. At the time it was narrowed it was felt that there should not be vehicular traffic; the people wanted to have pedestrian access to and from a Church building to the east. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the middle 10 feet of the street was left open, the 10 feet to the North went to the abutting property owners to the north, and the 10 feet on the South went to the Country Club. The petitioner has utilized this area for his own driveway and has requested that this portion be vacated. This would leave the portion to the west as a 10 foot dead-end drive. Complaints have been received because this area is being utilized as a pedestrian access. The Planning Commission recommended denial on the basis that they felt the pedestrian walkway contributed to the stability of the neighborhood and also to create a dead-end walkway would not be proper. Also the abutting property owners have not signed the petition in favor of this action.
Mr. Jorgensen then answered the Councilmember’s questions. He stated that there was a fence along the Country Club property and that the walkway is paved; the western boundary of the walkway is Hannibal Street. It is possible that the walkway can be narrowed and still allow for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Trujillo addressed the Council. He stated that he used this area as part of his driveway. He distributed pictures of this area to the Council Members. Mr. Trujillo stated that the maintenance on the alley way has been given to the property owner and the residents do not realize the cost of such maintenance. Mr. Trujillo stated that he had to black-top the area; he went to the City, County, and Highway Department for help but they told him that maintenance is the owner’s responsibility.
Mr. Trujillo further stated that the neighborhood does not help with the maintenance of this street and people do not realize the expense involved yet they want to be furnished with a walkway. He also added that children go through the walkway on bicycles and dogs go through the area which both contribute to the burden of maintenance. Another maintenance factor is the snow which has to be kept off of the walkway. Mr. Trujillo stated that his garage is in the back of the house and he depends on this walkway for his driveway. Mr. Trujillo stated that he felt a 4-foot wide walkway would be sufficient for the residents. Mr. Trujillo stated that his driveway and the street are 15 feet wide or more and an 11 or 12-foot driveway would be sufficient. He stated that he would construct a fence to block off his driveway.
Fletcher Gross, living on Hannibal Street across from where the walkway ends, stated that this street is an important access for the school children. Currently the children only have to cross Parley’s Way to get to school and there is a crossing guard at that street. Mr. Gross stated that he would be upset if the access were closed and does not feel the residents have to rely on Mr. Trujillo’s “good will” for a walkway. He further stated that Mr. Trujillo harasses the small children that use the walkway.
Mr. Gross stated that he had no objection if a fence were built separating the walkway from the driveway. P. L. Summerhayes addressed the Council and stated that he lives across the street from Mr. Trujillo. Mr. Summerhayes stated that he has maintained the property since 1955 and the City has been in twice to clean the area. He stated that he did not feel it was his responsibility to clean the property and if the City is not going to maintain the alley to a reasonable degree then he is in favor of having the alley deeded over to the property owners that live along the way. Mr. Summerhayes stated that he did not have any objection to people using the area as a walkway. He stated that he had a fence bordering the 10-foot area. Councilmember Parker stated that Mr. Summerhayes’ point was well taken. If the City is going to maintain the walkway as their property then they have the responsibility to keep the street clear of weeds.
S.L. Clark addressed the Council and stated that he felt an equitable compromise on the issue could be reached. Mr. Clark stated that the property owners have fence-lines along the street except Mr. Trujillo; his fence-line is the Country Club fence. Mr. Clark stated that with the walkway the children have almost straight access to the school; the school children need this walkway as well as the older people walking to church. If the residents can have a 4-foot walkway, with a fence, and possibly two arc lights in the middle of the block, then the problem of transient people walking through the area would be eliminated as well as any burglary aspects. Mr. Clark stated that he felt the neighbors realize the importance of the walkway and they would cooperate in doing a neighborhood clean-up in the area, with the help of the City.
Councilmember Mabey asked if there would be an assessment to the residents if lights were erected, to which Mayor Wilson replied not necessarily. There was some concern about existing lights inhibiting the installation of additional lights mid-way in the street. Another suggestion was made about using weed killer to control the weeds in the alley. Mr. Clark presented a petition opposing the request of the existing petition. Mel Price addressed the Council and stated that Mr. Trujillo had closed off the alley way illegally some time ago and the City later forced him to reopen it. If Mr. Trujillo would not harass people using the alley then there would not be any problem.
Mr. Price further stated that a 4-foot walkway was not wide enough and it should be a minimum of six feet. The residents should not have to depend on Mr. Trujillo to “give” them the property for a walkway. Ferrin Seager addressed the Council. He stated that he ridiculed Mr. Trujillo for taking over City property, laying a hard-surface road, and telling people to keep off “his” property; the property is City property and the residents have the right to use the 10 feet until the City Council decides differently.
Mr. Seager said he refused the idea of Mr. Trujillo dictating to the residents that they can have four feet; the residents use the City property now and they want to continue to use the property they have been using for many years. Mr. Seager felt that this request was unfair and the residents had the right to use the whole 10 feet as a walkway. Mr. Seager stated that Mr. Trujillo had usurped City property for his convenience. Councilmember Parker reminded the Council that the petition had come before the Planning Commission and was denied so the question was if the Council wanted to over-ride the Planning Commission. The evidence presented indicates how the residents feel. Mr. Trujillo’s best point is that the City has let him down in maintaining the area. Mr. Seager stated that the other residents had put their driveways in close to their houses; why can’t Mr. Trujillo do the same. The Mayor stated that traditionally City alleys had allowed vehicular use and were often built with that in mind. The Mayor stated that he surmised that the way the home was built the alley had to be used to get to the garage.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck briefly outlined two letters received from residents and the recommendations made by different departments. First, two letters had been received protesting the closure of the street; the letters were submitted by Cory and Jill Webster and William and Lois Ross. The letter from the City Engineer concurs with the Planning and Zoning recommendation in denying closure; the letter from Public Utilities states that there is no objection to the closure; the letter from Transportation concurs that the street should not be closed; the letter from the Fire Department states that if any part is closed, all ought to be closed because by closing the one strip a dead-end alley would be created which would complicate access to fires.
Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that generally there was concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny this petition. Councilmember Mabey stated that one of the policies that the Council is trying to follow is to close many of the alleys; it is a tremendous cost to the City to maintain the alleys and in some cases they are not being maintained. Mr. Clark stated that this really was not an alley but actually an Avenue. Vernon Jorgensen stated that this was not like an ordinary alley; at one time it was a 30-foot street. Mr. Jorgensen stated a problem with narrowing the street is encroachment of foliage through fences along the walkway; this is also an added maintenance problem. Mayor Wilson stated that he would contact the proper departments about maintenance of this street. As long as this is a public thoroughfare then it should be maintained.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Parker was concerned about the harsh feelings of the residents regarding this issue and felt that it was too early to make a decision. He felt a compromise needed to be reached and if the street was narrowed then it would be like rewarding Mr. Trujillo for breaking the law.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer this request to the Land Use Committee and invite representatives for both sides to discuss this issue, which motion failed. Councilmembers Parker, Davis, and Shearer voted aye; Councilmembers DePaulis, Fonnesheck, Mabey, and Whitehead voted nay. Councilmember Parker stated that he would be willing to gather the interested parties together to work out a compromise.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to narrow the City property from 10 to 7 feet, require Mr. Trujillo to build a fence along the new property line, and in lieu of compensation the City will work with Mr. Trujillo on the quality of the fence, which motion carried, Council Members DePaulis, Fonnesbeck, Mabey and Whitehead voting aye; Council Members Parker, Davis, and Shearer voting nay.
Councilmember Parker stated that he was against this motion because he felt that the City Council has distinguished itself for its willingness to study issues and he felt the Council was being hasty and premature.
P 82-9
Barricade Ordinance
RE: A proposed barricade ordinance and an amendment to the noise ordinance. The proposed ordinance will increase fees for barricade fences and will outline penalties for time violations. A change in the crane portion of this ordinance regarding times for loading and unloading materials has necessitated a change to the noise ordinance.
A public hearing was held before the City Council on March 9, 1982, at 7:00 p.m., to discuss the barricade ordinance and amendment to the noise ordinance. Albert Blair, Building and Housing Department, addressed the Council. He stated that the ordinance is a result of meetings with the Downtown Merchants Association, the Downtown Development Committee as well as the Community Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. These people are concerned about the negative impacts that barricades have had both for pedestrian travel and vehicular travel; therefore, it was felt that some changes need to be changed in the existing ordinance.
Mr. Blair presented an overview of the important changes that the ordinance will bring about. First, all petitions for a barricade or encroachment into a public right of way will have to be reviewed by the Building Official the Traffic Engineer, or the Transportation Engineer and the City Engineer; they will make a determination as to whether or not the barricade or other encroachment is needed. Second, a time of beginning and ending of the barricade would be identified in the application. If the barricade is up longer than the agreed time penalties would be assessed for the additional time.
Councilmember Davis asked about unavoidable delays to which Mr. Blair replied that the department will be reasonable. Mr. Blair replied that the present barricade ordinance is enforced, but it is not adequate to serve the public. He further stated that the builder would leave the application with the Building and Housing Department and then the application would be discussed with the Transportation and Engineering Departments; a decision would be made in less than one week, presently this procedure is being used informally. Mr. Blair further stated that the existing ordinance talks about a bond requirement which the new ordinance would clarify and in addition an insurance certificate would be required. The permit fee has been increased and relates to the size of the fence. This is to let the developer know that it is in the City’s best interest not to have barricades in the street, if the barricade can be kept on the developer’s own property then it costs less. Another section has been developed to specifically address the issue of cranes; a section has also been developed dealing with the loading and unloading at construction sites when traffic lanes are used, especially at peak hours.
Councilmember Davis stated that she was concerned with the specific hours established for loading and unloading. She asked what happens if a fully loaded truck appears at the construction site at the wrong hour. Mr. Blair stated that the truck would be allowed to unload but a traffic ticket would be issued. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that a citation would only be given if City property was involved and Mr. Blair stated that the ordinance allows for special exceptions. Councilmember Mabey stated that the City and the builders need to work together as much as possible.
The Mayor stated that he is concerned about the document as presented; the multiples on the fines are severe and it is a bad time to put a burden on an industry that is struggling to survive. The Mayor further stated that he is not ready to recommend the document at this point but is willing to continue to refine the ordinance. If the present document is implemented it would be devastating to construction people. Councilmember Mabey suggested that a group of construction people work with the City in developing the ordinance.
Jerry Lawrence, President of Rocky Mountain Contractors, addressed the Council. He stated that he, Jay Christiansen, Byron Paulson, and Craig Zwick were representatives of the Utah Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America and represent a committee that has been organized to present their feelings to the Council regarding this problem. He stated that their purpose was to present concerns about this proposed amendment. The committee has reviewed the amendment and it is their opinion that by passage of the revision, the City Council would cause an increase in the cost of building in the Salt Lake City area and as a result would add significantly to the conditions that would act counter to the growth of Salt Lake City. It is requested that the Council postpone action on this matter and allow the contractors to offer their services in working with the City on this ordinance.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the committee was aware of isolated incidences in the City where abuse of public rights of way had occurred; however, it is not felt to be necessary through regulatory action to punish the masses for the actions of a few. Mr. Lawrence summarized the contractors’ concerns. The first concern was the almost unlimited power which the City officials can exercise in determining when and where barricades will be allowed; second, time limitations and proposed penalties; third, extremely restrictive measures in the use of any part of public right of way other then barricaded areas; fourth, the regulatory action automatically causes the City to be a partner-manager with any firm involved in construction or crane rental in Salt Lake City; and fifth, in Land Use Area C-4 the use of concrete as a major structural element would almost be eliminated by the limited time period allowed for unloading. Mr. Lawrence concluded by stating that the contractors wanted to have the opportunity to enter into committee action with officials from the City.
Councilmember Davis stated that she and the other Council Members were concerned about the graffiti on the barricades. Mr. Lawrence replied that he was certain the construction people would be willing to periodically paint their barricades. Mr. Lawrence stated he felt the present Uniform Building Code could handle the problems if the enforcement officers are familiar with the code and enforce them. Councilmember Mabey reiterated that if the codes are being enforced then the contractors will comply.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to refer this matter to the Public Works Committee and ask citizens to assist in the resolution of this problem, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
The Mayor asked that the Public Works Committee allow the Executive Branch to continue work on the document so the Committee can move ahead.
O 82-7
Compatibility Review Overlay Ordinance.
RE: The proposed compatibility review overlay ordinance and the establishment of the first compatibility review district in the West Downtown Gateway Area. The Planning Commission has reviewed the draft and recommends that it be adopted. They further recommend that the draft be applied to the West Downtown Gateway Area as soon as possible. The designated area would be from North Temple to 4th South and from 2nd West to 4th West Streets. This ordinance would ensure that the general appearance of buildings, structures, and development of land would not be in conflict with adopted plans for the area.
A public hearing was held before the City Council on March 9, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the proposed Compatibility Review Overlay ordinance. Vernon Jorgensen, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. He stated that the ordinance has been under consideration for about a year and a half; the ordinance could be applied in planned commercial areas requiring review of plans for all commercial structures. When a commercial zone is overlaid, then any building within that zone is required to go to the Planning Commission for approval; they would review the design of the building, its signs, its environment, and if its in keeping with the plan of the neighborhood. It is proposed that this zone be created and then applied to the area of the west downtown, or the Gateway Area; the section of land covered by the American Cities study and the Triad development.
The ordinance does not affect the underlying uses permitted in the zone; but it would require that any building in the area go through the review procedure to be considered against the objectives which have been established for the area. Mr. Jorgensen then briefly reviewed the procedure as outlined in the written information. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that Judy Lever from the Attorney’s Office had not had adequate time to review this ordinance; Ms. Fonnesbeck asked that the hearing be continued. Mr. Jorgensen stated that a conceptual agreement would be helpful so that the Attorney’s Office can prepare the actual ordinance.
Ms. Fonnesbeck stated that the area this will be applicable to is a crucial area, the South Temple area, where a great deal is happening. Most of the developers that the Council has worked with are in agreement with this ordinance but there is a fear that a developer that has not worked with the Council in the past could come in and do damage without the Council having any control. Roger Cutler stated that the hearing should be continued instead of closed so that the Council will have the ordinance and it can be addressed specifically before the public.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to continue the public hearing to April 13, 1982 at 7:00 p.m., which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
O 82-5
648 of 1981 submitted by Mitch Godfrey.
RE: The rezoning of property on the southeast corner of 7th North and Redwood Road from Residential “R-2A” to a Business “B-3”. This petition has been reviewed by the Planning Commission who recommends that the zoning be changed. The petitioner has requested the zoning change so he can build a convenience grocery store with gas pumps on the property.
A public hearing was held before the City Council on March 9, 1982, at 8:00 p.m. to discuss Petition 648 of 1981. Vernon Jorgensen from the Planning and Zoning Department addressed the Council. On a map, Mr. Jorgensen indicated the area which Mr. Godfrey wanted rezoned and also outlined the immediate area surrounding the property. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the area to be rezoned is on the southeast corner of 7th North and Redwood Road (193 feet on 7th North and 115 feet on Redwood Road). At the present time, across the street, there is approximately four acres where there is a shopping center; there is a credit union on the southwest corner. The east side of the street is zoned Residential “R-2A”. Adjoining the property to the south is vacant ground with a church adjoining the vacant ground to the south. To the east there is a home and additional vacant ground. Rezoning the property to B-3 would allow the operation of any type of retail business; the petitioner is proposing a convenience store and gas pumps. Councilmember Mabey asked what the feelings of the neighborhood council had been in rezoning this area and extending the commercial use.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that when an informal hearing was held there was not any objection; however, the objection was raised that the property and vacant ground to the south would be a good site for a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development). Another objection raised was that three corners of the intersection would be commercial if this property is rezoned; usually commercial zoning is kept to one side of a street. If this is rezoned it will be difficult not to rezone the fourth corner also. The basic objection raised was the possibility of interfering with future development. Mitch Godfrey, the petitioner, addressed the Council. He stated that the original petition had been turned down about two years ago. The petitioner went through the process again because the gentleman that objected originally passed away and heirs to his estate offered this property to the petitioner for sale.
Mr. Godfrey stated that the request went back before the Planning Commission who voted in favor of this rezoning. Mr. Godfrey addressed the possibility of a P.U.D stating this issue has been thoroughly discussed. The corner is extremely busy and will be the off ramp to the freeway; 7th North and 6th North will be the connecting route between the two main freeways. This street is too heavily traveled to be a P.U.D. or residential type application. Councilmember Whitehead stated that he does not want to see the corner as it is now but he is concerned if the business fails; once the area is zoned what type of business can go in a 13-3 area. Also in the past the Planning Commission has fought the idea of four-corner commercialization.
Councilmember Whitehead also raised the question that if the property is rezoned will the whole area turn business; the east side of the area is currently residential. Mr. Whitehead agreed that the corner itself is too busy for a home but there is a possibility of a P.U.D. utilizing the other parcel of land. Mr. Wilford Summercorn, North Redwood Community Council, addressed the City Council. He stated that the people he has talked with may not necessarily be opposed to a commercial zoning but they are not certain what the proposal is; the residents wanted a chance to review the proposal and perhaps give comments. Lanell Case addressed the Council and stated that he lives in the house east of the property in question. He further stated that he objects to a convenience store at that location because if it is built a wall will have to be built between his property and the business. When this happens it will be difficult to back out onto 7th North. Councilmember Mabey replied that there are certain restrictions applied to building walls. Councilmember Whitehead asked what types of businesses could go into an area zoned 8-3. Mr. Jorgensen stated that any type of retail business such as a store, cafe, service station with some repairs, bakery, etc. He further stated that four corner zoning is not good zoning; its better to keep businesses on one side of a street. Councilmember Whitehead further stated that another person wants to turn the corner of 10th North and Redwood Road into a business; people are looking at the corners as being commercial.
Councilmember Whitehead stated that his concern is that the north end of Redwood Road will become as commercial as the south end. Mr. Jorgensen stated that similar requests had been denied on the basis that strip zoning was not wanted along Redwood Road. Mr. Godfrey stated that the whole area is changing. The freeway exit will have a great impact on this area. Mr. Godfrey suggested that he meet with the Northwest Council to discuss this request. Mary Case addressed the Council and expressed her concern about the impact of this rezoning; she wondered in what position the residents would be placed. She was also concerned about the vacant shops in the shopping center.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to deny Petition 648 of 1981, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Davis who was absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-15
Petition 439 of 1981 submitted by Salt Lake City.
RE: The closure of the east 238.75 feet of Oblad Avenue. This petition is the result of Salt Lake City’s planning efforts for the block revitalization in this neighborhood. The two properties obtained from Fourth East Associates will be used for parking and turnarounds at the ends of Beldon Place and Stanton Place. This will help facilitate the implementation of the Beldon-Stanton Block Redesign Project and the Stanton Place Housing Projects. This petition has been reviewed by the Law Department, Planning Commission, Fixed Assets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Fire and Engineering.
A public hearing was held before the City Council on March 9, 1982, at 8:30 p.m. to discuss Petition 439 of 1981. Vernon Jorgensen, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. He outlined the area on a map and showed pictures of the area showing the conditions of the street and the need for curb and gutter work. At the present time the street improvements are designed and ready to go in on Stanton Avenue and Beldon Place. It was proposed to do away with the dead-end condition on Beldon Street by acquiring the land for a parking and turnaround area; a similar proposal was made for the end of Stanton Avenue. The parking and turnaround projects are not dependent upon the housing projects. The parking will be available to residents of Stanton Avenue and Beldon Place and would not be part of the development; however, the people constructing the project will provide the landscaping around the parking areas, as outlined in the articles of condominium. If the project is not built, then the City would have to maintain the landscaped areas. Roger Cutler stated that appraisals have been done on the property and the City is getting a good bargain.
Rainer Huck addressed the Council and stated that he owned two parcels of property on Stanton Avenue. Mr. Huck said that Oblad Place was open and paved before the houses were torn down. He further stated that he was not opposed to the closure of Oblad Place but he felt the proposed turnaround areas were too small and needed to be wider. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the turnaround areas were not designed for continuous turning; Mr. Huck replied that continuous turning would be more useful. Paul Whorton distributed a map to the City Council and stated that he was concerned about two things. He first asked what is Oblad Place and stated that Oblad Place, as shown on the map be distributed, is called Stanton Avenue from one end to the other.
Mr. Whorton stated that he felt if the Council was convinced that Stanton Avenue was a dead end and that Oblad was a dead end, then the Council does not feel so bad about vacating a dead-end street. But Stanton Avenue is a continuous street and the sign on the 4th-East end lists the street as Stanton Avenue. Mr. Whorton referred to a street improvement project, Roberta-Laconia, paid by CD funds. He stated that the project was built to make Roberta and Laconia into a through street; yet, the Council is now being asked to dead end a through street. Mr. Whorton stated that he understood that the City had an ordinance against dead ending through streets and stated that service vehicles need to be able to get through.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that apparently there was a question as to whether or not the City had title to the property in question. Mr. Cutler stated that he was not aware of that but it is a dedicated street. Mr. Cutler further stated that there is a State Statute that says if an area is used for more that 10 years it is dedicated as public roadway. Councilmember Fonnesbeck read from a letter stating that there is a potential “cloud” upon the City’s title. Mr. Cutler stated that this should not be a concern because the City would only quit claim the property; whatever title the City has would be given to the people acquiring the property.
Steve Madden addressed the City Council and raised objections. He stated that at present there exists questions as to the ownership of Oblad Street and the City acquired its interest in Oblad Street via a quit claim deed. In the deed a restriction existed which only gave the City the right to use and maintain the street for the purposes of a public street; it did not give the City the right to the ownership of the land under the street. Mr. Madden further stated that until the time the developers engaged in the demolition of the buildings along Oblad Street, it was paved and in the same condition as the rest of Stanton Avenue. Mr. Madden stated that the “clouded” interest is alluded to in a report from the Attorney’s Office. Mr. Madden objected that the project described in Petition 439 does not exist in the same form today and further stated that the Central City Neighborhood Council, as was previously understood, no longer has an ownership interest in the project. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the condominium project was not the topic of discussion.
Mr. Cutler reiterated the position of the Attorney’s Office. He stated that if a street is vacated, private rights of way are not affected; the only change is the public’s right to use the road. Mr. Cutler stated that the question of the title was not a relevant concern as far as the Council’s decision as a policy matter; the parties desiring acquisition of the land are willing to accept the conditions surrounding the property.
James George, 324 Beldon Place, addressed the City Council. He stated that the project being discussed was for street design only; this had been in the planning stage before the developers decided to construct condominiums. Mr. George stated that he was in favor of the condominiums and also getting the streets improved. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the curb and gutter work was still going to be accomplished.
Ethel Hale addressed the Council and stated that she was confused as to what the issue was. She stated that she thought it was unlawful to close a through street and asked if this closure was a precedent or an exception. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council has vacated many streets in the past and stated that this vacation was the issue. Virginia Walton addressed the Council and stated that the project to do the redesign of the two streets was started in 1977. Neighborhood Council meetings were held and the residents discussed the closure of the streets; most of the people who attended the meetings wanted to dead end the streets. Ms. Walton stated that the people on the blocks have been in favor of the block project; the exchange of property was discussed long before the Stanton Place project. She stated that the improvements need to be made.
Eppie Martinez, 314 Stanton Avenue, addressed the Council and stated that the parking would be on the other end from his home; he stated that he was worried about the vandalism that would occur because the parking is so far away. Tony Scarborough addressed the Council and stated that he has a four-plex on 341 Stanton Avenue. He stated that he was concerned because there is very little lighting on the street. Councilmember Shearer suggested that Mr. Scarborough could contact the Planning Office and find out the lighting situation.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Fonnesbeck and Davis who were absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to accept Petition 439 of l8l closing 238.75 feet of Oblad Street between 3rd and 4th East and exchanging it for two properties owned by the Fourth East Associates, also that the City Attorney prepare the necessary ordinance and quit claim deed, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Council Members Fonnesbeck and Davis who were absent when the vote was taken.
P 82-7
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.