PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1982, AT 5:30 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WFIITEHEAD PALMER DEPAULIS GRANT MABEY IONE N. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on items appearing on their agenda.
The 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, MAY 11, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD PALMER DEPAULIS GRANT MABEY IONE N. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson and Walter Miller, Deputy City Attorney, were present at this meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Palmer DePaulis conducted this meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Royal Ewing.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for its meeting held Tuesday, May 4, 1982, and Thursday, May 6, 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 82-2)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
RE: Amendatory resolution regarding the issuance and sale of Hospital Revenue Bonds, Series 1982, Intermountain Health Care, Inc., changing the date of the bonds and the related documents from April 1, 1982, to March 1, 1982.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 47 of 1982 amending a prior Resolution 43 of 1982 authorizing the issuance of Hospital Revenue Bonds (Intermountain Health Care, Inc.), by changing the date of said Bonds and the instruments relating to the same from April 1, 1982 to March 1, 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 82-20)
CITY RECORDER
RE: Proposed redistricting of City Council boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed changes in boundaries as they have been realigned in accordance with County voting district changes using 1980 Census data.
DISCUSSION: It is recommended that Salt Lake County voting districts 2016 and 2074 be included in Council District 1 and that voting district 2064 be included in Council District 3. Other variations in boundaries reflect little or no population variations and follow voting district boundaries.
Kathryn Marshall addressed the City Council. She outlined on a map the current council district boundaries and the proposed changes in the boundaries. She indicated that there were changes in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; in District 7, voting district 2592 was omitted but the boundaries were not changes. The recommendation is to include districts 2016 and 2074 in Council District 1 and include district 2064 in Council District 3. Ms. Marshall stated that copies of the map with the changes would be available after the map has been approved.
Councilmember Davis indicated that voting district 2074 was always in Council District 1 so that would not be a change. Councilmember Whitehead expressed concern about the size of voting district 1010; Councilmember Davis stated that if district 1010 includes the entire west side there could be problems but she also indicated that a voting district cannot be divided in half regardless of the situation. Councilmember Davis also indicated that the map would not change for another 10 years.
Councilmember Davis stated that she has worked with the school board on this issue and the recommendation has been made that boundary lines for the City Council and the school district be the same. Councilmember Whitehead asked how many additional people his district would gain as a result of the change. Greg Selby, Planning and Zoning Department, indicated that he would gain almost 200 additional people.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer the proposed redistricting to the Committee of the Whole for further review and study, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
R 82-12
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 20 of 1982 submitted by Brickyard Associates, William Gibbons.
RE: The request of Brickyard Associates to rezone properties occupied by Brickyard Shopping Center from the existing “C-1” to a Commercial “C-3A” classification.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this request. Dean Barney, Planning and Zoning Department, outlined the area on a map (south of Brickyard road between 11th East and Richmond Street - 1300 East) and stated that the rezoning would include all the Brickyard Mall except the area occupied by Harmon’s Shopping Center and a portion abutting 3300 South. Mr. Barney indicated that a “C-1” District allows retail business, and wholesaling with some warehousing and specialty uses. The “C-3A” District allows general commercial activities as found in the downtown area, taverns are also included in this use; “C-3A” requires a 15-foot landscaped setback.
Bill Gibbons, Brickyard Associates, addressed the Council and explained the reasons why Brickyard Associates was requesting this zoning change. He stated that a “C-3A” District would expand the use of the present facility; the facility is built so that there should be no major impact on neighboring property. The retail shopping center is not full and Brickyard Associates wanted to include uses not allowed in a “C-l” District. Office space could be included, however, very little of the rezoned area includes office space. One of the permitted uses is for private clubs and interest has been expressed to open a private club; game rooms and bakeries could also be included.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if there were any incompatibility problems with the residential units to the north and west of the area. Mr. Gibbons indicated that at the zoning commission hearing there were three people from the condominiums who indicated that they were against a private club but they were protesting use and not the rezoning. Mr. Gibbons stated that the facility which would be used for a private club is at least 600 feet from the closest condominium. Mr. Barney stated that the Planning Commission recommended that the zoning change be approved. He also indicated that a private club would have to meet all the provisions for licensing of private clubs; it could not just automatically be included. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the public hearing was to consider the zoning of the area and not the intended use.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the rezoning of properties occupied by the Brickyard Shopping Center from “C-1” to a Commercial “C-3A”, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
P 82-63
Petition 8 of 1982 submitted by Upland Industries Corporation, Dale Hadley.
RE: Request that 650 acres of property located approximately between 1300 South and 2100 South and 4800 West and 5600 West be annexed to Salt Lake City.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this request. Dean Barney, Planning and Zoning Department, outlined on a map the area proposed for annexation. He stated that if the Lake Valley City Incorporation takes place, the east boundary for that city would be 7200 West so the annexation of this property would not be affected. Currently this area is used for limited agriculture; the requested “M-1A” zoning would allow for light industrial use and this zoning would be consistent with the zoning to the east of the property.
Mr. Barney stated that the Planning Commission recommended the annexation of this property; however, there are conditions which would have to be met before development could occur. Mr. Barney outlined these conditions: 1. That the developer or property owners satisfy the city with respect to the proposed street widening of 1300 South (California Avenue), 21st South, 48th and 56th West. 2. That an acceptable annexation plat be submitted specifically addressing the provisions of necessary off-site improvements to go into the area. 3. That an avigation easement, as required by the Airport Authority, be given. 4. That all the requirements be complied with as outlined by the City Engineer’s Office. 5. That all the requirements be complied with as outlined by the Department of Public Utilities. David Wilding, Land Development Engineer with Upland Industries, addressed the Council and stated that he was available for questions.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the annexation of 650 acres of property located between 1300 South and 2100 South and 4800 West and 5600 West, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
P 82-171
Special Improvement District #38-622.
A protest hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:30 p.m. to receive comments and discuss items relating to Special Improvement District #38-622, Exchange Place Beautification. Rick Johnston, Deputy City Engineer, addressed the Council. He outlined the background of the project stating that construction was accomplished in 1979 and early 1980; the Board of Equalization was held July 15, 16, 17, 1980; and the City Council acting as the Board of Equalization approved the levying of assessments on April 6, 1982.
Mr. Johnston stated that the hearing before the City Council at this meeting was to receive input prior to the Council giving final approval to the levying of assessments; the main area for input would be the proposal to increase the interest rate for property owner assessment from the original amount of 7%, which was indicated in the Notice of Intention, to the current market interest rate which is 13%. It was felt that this rate increase was necessary due to the fact that there has been approximately a two-year delay between the construction of the project and the actual levying of the assessments.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked why there was a two-year delay. Mr. Johnston replied that there was an area of concern regarding the actual implementation of the Special Improvement District; basically there had been an action in 1979 to create the District but it was never actually created. Prior to approving the District this was discovered and there was a period of time when the process had to be repeated. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked who was responsible for this delay to which Mr. Johnston replied the city. Councilmember Fonnesbeck then asked why the property owners were being asked to pay a higher interest rate; she stated that it seemed they were being asked to pay for the city’s neglect.
Mr. Johnston stated that there has been a benefit to the property owners in that the delay resulted in them not having to pay the assessment two years ago; because of that they have received a cost benefit and it was felt that due to that benefit there would be justification to increase the interest rate. Steve Page, City Treasurer, addressed the Council and stated that the difference between the 7% and 13% over a ten-year life on an average $35,000 a year payment is approximately $115,000.
Dick Fox from Fox, Edwards & Gardener, addressed the Council and stated that the interest does not start to run until the assessment is levied and no assessment has been levied so interest has not accrued during the two-year period. Mr. Fox stated that the question is when the assessment is levied what rate is appropriate. He further stated that the city is bearing the interest cost of the interim financing. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she did not feel the city should ask the owners to pay a higher interest rate when the city is responsible for the delay. Councilmember Davis asked what the city has paid in interest on the interim financing. Mr. Page replied $23,000; this is the figure between the time when the operation was started and up to the retirement of the interim financing which was the end of December. The Mayor asked if a bond was issued on this project. Mr. Page replied that bonds are issued after the interest rate is established. He stated that this District was established by interim financing; banks put up money at a certain interest rate which is charged to the abutters.
The Mayor stated that the integrity of all the Special Improvement Districts is jeopardized if the city has delays and then asks the taxpayers to pay a higher interest rate. Councilmember Whitehead stated that too many times the public feels that the city does not really care; he stated that he did not think this was fair. The Mayor stated that when people agree to the project at a certain interest rate they expect the city to hold that rate so it seems if the city could get the money up front by issuing the bond early then the city would be in better shape.
Mr. Fox indicated that under the statute the city has two choices and in each instance the bonds cannot be issued until the assessments are levied. The assessments can be levied before or after construction; in most districts, assessments are levied after construction is done and the total costs are known. People feel better about being assessed after the improvements are made rather than paying before they know what the improvements are. Wally Wright addressed the Council and expressed his strong opposition to raising the interest rate.
Gil Gardner, representing the Boston Building Associates, Commercial Club Building and Broadway Enterprises addressed the Council. He stated that when this agreement was made with the city the terms were predetermined and his clients agreed to accept the project on the terms of 7% interest with a 10-year payoff. Mr. Gardner stated that he understood this project was effectively killed three years ago but his clients were strong proponents for these improvements and because of the substantial approval by his clients this project was approved. He concluded that his clients are not in favor of this increase.
George Hunt, general partner in SEM Land Company owner of the Newhouse Building, addressed the Council and stated that a written objection to the increase had been filed. He stated that the Newhouse Building was purchased in August of 1980 and at that time they were aware of the Notice of Intention filed in April 1979. The payment for the improvements was calculated at that time and included in the calculations for setting rents for the building. Mr. Hunt stated that in the interim the state statute and city ordinance were amended to eliminate the 7% interest ceiling; however, at the time the notices establishing the district were published and public input solicited the 7% interest ceiling was in effect. Mr. Hunt stated that this increase is inappropriate because of the city’s delay but also he feels this increase is illegal. The District was established based upon notices that provided for a 7% maximum interest rate. Councilmember DePaulis asked if the SID commitments, when established from the beginning, have the same tenets of contractual agreements. Walter Miller stated that it was felt that it would be legal to raise the interest rate; Mr. Fox agreed that with the protest hearing it was felt that this would be legal.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she understands when adjustments have to be made but this requested increase is due to a delay by the city. Councilmember Mabey stated that he felt it was unfair to increase the rate after two years but he was also concerned that if the building owners do not pay the cost then the burden is placed on the taxpayers so it is a no win situation. Councilmember Mabey suggested perhaps there could be a 50-50 split on the cost. The Mayor stated that the process was developed in a time when the interest rates did not go up but now there is the problem of when the assessment should be made and at what interest rate. The Mayor concurred that perhaps a 50-50 split could be worked out.
Albert Haines stated that this hearing was to receive protests and there was not a request that a decision be made; the only motion made would be to close the hearing. After the hearing is closed, an ordinance will be prepared at which time the Council would make the decision setting the interest rate. Mr. Haines further stated that the property owners in this District have not been assessed for two years; those are funds for which they would have been assessed assuming the city was on target. Mr. Haines also stated that this is a commercial district and if the city subsidizes the cost of this project then it is recommended that funds be used from the Guarantee Fund.
Mr. Haines stated that at this point he is not willing to recommend the 13% interest rate but he is not convinced that charging 7% interest on two years of idle money is sufficient. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that funds have gone into the area at the owners’ expense for such things as fire escapes; the city has made a lot of demands for the upkeep of the area and the funds have probably not been idle. Bob Stansfield, representing the owners of the Quality Press Building, addressed the Council and concurred in the dissent of the property owners. He stated that the business community works with Salt Lake City on these types of projects as a matter of civic pride and the Council should consider what effect this situation might have on the future. The Mayor stated that the city cannot ask the public to do their civic duty and then change the conditions of the agreement.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 82-3)
Petition 54 of 1982 submitted by Wallace Wright, Trolley Square Associates.
RE: Requesting to have Trolley Square removed from the City Register of Historic Places.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this request. Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. He stated that the Landmarks Committee held an extensive hearing on this request and they recommended that the site remain a historic site; the Planning Commission sustained their action. Henry Whiteside, Landmarks Committee, addressed the City Council and stated that the Landmarks Committee received this request and concluded that it raised two questions. One was the matter of owner consent and whether or not listing on the register worked an unnecessary hardship on the owner; the second was a question of eligibility, whether the building still qualified to be on the register.
Dr. Whiteside stated that the first question falls to the Council and not Landmarks; Landmarks addressed the second question. The Committee concluded unanimously that Trolley Square did still qualify and should remain on the register. Wallace Wright addressed the City Council. He stated that he was aware that Trolley Square was on the state register but he was not aware, until recently, that it was on the city register. Mr. Wright stated that evidently in 1975 the city adopted an ordinance that adopted all the properties that had previously been put on the state or federal register. Mr. Wright stated that he learned Trolley Square was on the city register when the question was raised before the Council.
He further stated that he wanted Trolley Square removed from the register to avoid the bureaucratic process; every time a building permit is taken, which is almost weekly, a hearing is required before the Landmarks Committee for their approval. Mr. Wright stated that he has been on the Committee for two years and he knows what a bother it is to go before them; he further stated that one of the problems with the Committee is that the judgments made are subjective. This has benefits when a building is in a historic district where the continuity needs to be preserved.
Mr. Wright further stated that he was furnished with the original survey of Trolley Square which indicates the opinions of the people who placed Trolley Square on the register. First, under classification, the buildings are not classified; the site is classified. The reason for its classification is its historic use. Under the area of significance, “historic” is marked but “architecture” is not. The final concluding statement says, “Presently the car barns and repair shops located on Trolley Square are undergoing a very extensive and somewhat dubious renovation.’ This survey indicates that Trolley Square was placed on the register May 22, 1972. Mayor Wilson stated that Trolley Square has been built with attention to the historical aspects. He further stated that it seemed silly that the company would have to go before Landmarks for every change made to the exterior of the building; there should be a threshold where the city becomes involved. Councilmember Davis suggested that a dollar amount be indicated, such as changes over $100,000 have to be approved by Landmarks. The Mayor felt that generalities should be dealt with rather than placing so much emphasis on the specific aspects.
Mr. Wright indicated a similar problem with Liberty Park, which is on the register. In order to extend the sidewalks the request would have to go before the Landmarks Committee, the request to change the bandstand had to go before the Committee, and technically the planting of a tree would have to be approved. Mr. Wright stated that he was not trying the avoid the aesthetic judgment but he did not want to be governed by a committee. Councilmember Davis stated that Mr. Wright has done a tremendous job with Trolley Square and she was certain that he would continue to do so, but she was thinking about the future when maybe he would no longer have a controlling interest in Trolley Square.
If the dollar figure criteria could be used to determine what building permits needed review by the Committee, then in the future the historic aspect could be protected. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the problem with placing a dollar amount on permits, such as $100,000, is that requests for building permits in the Avenues would not come before the Landmarks Committee. Councilmember Davis stated that she was thinking of this criteria for only Trolley Square but Councilmember Fonnesbeck indicated that the city had to be cognizant of due process.
Councilmember Whitehead asked what type of additions to historic sites have to be approved by the Landmarks Committee. Mr. Hafey replied that changes or additions to the exterior of the building, changing the character, have to be approved by Landmarks Committee; landscaping does not require a permit. Mr. Wright stated that he thought this decision was a political consideration having to do with owner consent. The Landmarks Committee follows national criteria in their evaluation and recently the congress amended the national register criteria to require owner consent. Mr. Wright stated that he had no problem with Trolley Square being on the state register, but he does not want to be on the city register and go through the Landmarks Committee which filters his ideas.
Mr. Wright further stated that every time a sign is changed on the exterior of the building the tenant has to apply to the Landmarks Committee and there is a time delay before the sign can be erected. Mayor Wilson stated that he felt if owner consent is required the city would face various problems of having significant historical buildings removed from the register. The Mayor stated that state and federal have very little control over the situation; there are tax advantages but the control factors are not there. Councilmember Whitehead asked about the situation with the proposed hotel for Trolley Square.
Mr. Wright stated that the design would have to be approved by the Committee and if they do not approve, the building would have to be redesigned. Councilmember Mabey stated that Trolley Square has a different situation than other places because tenants are constantly moving in and this presents quite a problem. Councilmember Parker asked Mr. Wright why he consented to be on the Landmarks Committee. He stated that he felt he could do a service to the community and he thought perhaps he was asked so that there would be a business judgment as well as aesthetic judgment.
Mayor Wilson stated that a complex of structures is much different from single dwellings and this needs to be considered. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that this was true and changes in Landmarks needed to be made. Councilmember Davis stated that perhaps there could be a provision that when Wally Wright no longer owns controlling interest of Trolley Square it would automatically be placed on the historical register. She further stated that a provision could be made whereby any permit over a certain dollar amount would require the approval of the Landmarks Committee.
Councilmember Mabey stated that Mr. Wright should have to go before the Committee if major changes are going to be made to the outside of the building but he should not have to meet with Landmarks on minor changes. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she felt for any commercial location once a sign permit is issued then changing the sign should not have to be approved by the Committee. Councilmember Mabey stated that the landlord of a building is going to want to keep the aesthetics of that building. Councilmember Whitehead stated that was true today but in the future it may not be so.
Mr. Wright stated that this was a question of who’s judgment should prevail, the property owner or a committee. Mr. Wright stated that he was asking to be removed because of his record of keeping Trolley Square historic. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the issue of owner consent is so large that if this is granted then anyone who wanted to be removed would have the same rights to request removal and this could create problems in the overall impact. However, Mr. DePaulis stated that he was sympathetic with the problems that Mr. Wright faces.
Mayor Wilson stated that the key to the whole issue was the fact that Mr. Wright has a large complex facility which requires individual freedom. An amendment could be written to the historical landmarks ordinance that would allow in these kinds of structures that the freedom be granted; however, this would have to apply city wide and not just to Trolley Square. The Mayor recommended that this issue be sent to Planning and Zoning to study the situation. Bernice Cook addressed the City Council and asked if the hotel was going to take away from the beauty of the water tower. Mr. Wright stated that the hotel was going to be built on the other side of Trolley Square and not on the side with the water tower.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. Councilmember Whitehead stated that Trolley Square should stay on the register but the procedure needs to be studied by Planning and Zoning Commission so amendments can be made.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny removal from the register but send this issue back to Planning and Zoning Commission to have modifications made to the procedure in dealing with commercial properties, which motion failed, Council Members Whitehead, Fonnesbeck, and DePaulis voting aye and Council Members Mabey, Davis, and Parker voting nay.
Councilmember Davis moved that the City Council ask the Planning Commission to review their decision on Trolley Square and that they take into consideration the issues raised, which motion died due to lack of a second.
The Mayor stated that by the Council not taking action on this item, it in effect tables the item. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that tabling this item means that Trolley Square stays on the register without a recommendation from Planning and Zoning. The Mayor stated that there are enough concerns about the problems of the Historical Landmarks Committee that he will take his prerogative as the Mayor and ask Planning and Zoning Commission to review this issue and a recommendation will be returned to the Council.
P 82-83
Petition 435 of 1981 submitted by Jerald V. Sarafolean.
RE: Appealing the Planning Commission decision not to extend District “A” liquor area one block west from 300 West to 400 West.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:00 p.m. to discuss this appeal. Mark Hafey, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the Council. He stated that this was not really a zoning issue but deals with modifying the boundaries of the liquor ordinance map which governs the number of Class “C” beer licenses and Class “B” private club licenses within the city limits. The petitioner is asking that the boundaries be modified by expanding District “A” one block west from 300 West to 400 West between 400 South and 500 South.
District “A” allows for two establishments per lineal block frontage; this area is currently classified as District “B” which allows only one establishment within 660 feet of another establishment, there is presently one establishment in this block. Mr. Hafey further stated that the Planning Commission has recommended that the boundaries not be changed at this time because of the extensive study being conducted in the American Cities blocks and the Triad area. It is recommended to leave the status quo until these studies are complete. Mr. Hafey further stated that on May 6, 1982, he spoke with Roger Evans, Building and Housing, who indicated that still no work has been done on the remodeling of the proposed establishment. The original building permit (issued March 26, 1979) expired after 120 days because no work had been done; one year later from the date when the original permit was issued, a final stop order was put on the permit and the petitioner was put on notice that the permit had expired because no work had been done.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that this request seemed similar to spot zoning; a straight boundary would be taken and extended around one block for the purpose of including one establishment. Mr. Hafey stated that this boundary had been originally determined because at that time the majority of the activity was occurring east of 300 West, and to the west there was little or no activity. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that regardless of the Council’s decision, the boundaries need to be studied. She further stated that as the city is looking at development of the American Cities plan, the city is also looking at changing the character of the areas involved.
Mr. Hafey indicated that even if the boundaries of the map are changed, then there would still have to be a further hearing process before the Mayor because of the establishment’s proximity to the parks and the churches in the area. Jerald Sarafolean addressed the City Council and stated that he has been trying to get a beer license at this establishment for two years and he has followed the proper procedures. Mr. Sarafolean briefly outlined past events stating that another petitioner had a meeting before the Mayor and was granted a license but because her establishment was within 600 feet of a park, she was put on a six month probation.
Mr. Sarafoelan stated that he was at that meeting and approached the Mayor stating that he was going to put in a business in the same area; at that time Mr. Sarafolean stated that he was not told about the “A” and “B” Districts. Mr. Sarafolean further stated that he was told he was out of order and he would have to repetition and follow proper procedure, which he did. After he re-applied, he was informed that he would have to wait six months because this other establishment, “Barb Wire”, was on a six month probation. Mr. Sarafolean stated that he applied at the proper time and the License Department informed him that this was District “B” and there could not be two bars within 660 feet of each other.
Mr. Sarafolean stated that his point was that he was not informed from the beginning that this was a “B” District. Mr. Sarafolean stated that he was appearing before the Council in order to get a Class “C” beer license; he further stated that he knew there was going to be future development in the area and he wanted to develop this property. Councilmember DePaulis asked if Mr. Sarafolean applied for a building permit before the “Barb Wire” to which Mr. Sarafolean stated he did; he stated that he applied within four or five days after an establishment to be called “Possum Hollow”. Mr. Sarafolean stated that the builders of “Possum Hollow” did not have enough money to complete the project so they sold out to the owner of the “Barb Wire”. Councilmember DePaulis referred to a letter submitted by Mr. Hafey indicating that a building permit was issued to the “Barb Wire” on March 9, 1979 and a building permit was issued to Mr. Sarafolean on March 26, 1979. Mr. DePaulis further stated that Mr. Sarafolean’s contention was that he was not notified at that time that there was already a building permit issued and this was a “B” District so two pubs could not be built in the same place.
Councilmember DePaulis also read a paragraph from Mr. Hafey’s letter concerning the fact that no work had been done to Mr. Sarafolean’s establishment and the permit was voided. Mr. Sarafolean stated that he had been put on a six month moratorium, because the “Barb Wire” was on a six month probation, and he did not want to expend funds if he was not going to get a license. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Sarafolean when he was notified of the moratorium to which he replied he received notice on December 9, 1980. Councilmember Fonnesbeck then stated that this was after the permit expired so at no time during the 120 days was he stopped from doing work.
Mr. Sarafolean stated that at that time he was not aware that the permit would expire and he was not notified; Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the permit indicates an expiration date. Councilmember DePaulis stated that the point was that the city may have been in error by not informing Mr. Sarafolean that he was in a “B” District, but the city went one year before the permit was voided (the permit was voided on March 2, 1980) and no work had been done. Mr. Sarafolean indicated that he has had to do the remodeling as he can afford to do so.
Councilmember DePaulis stated that he wanted to make sure that the city has met all the legal ramifications if a decision is made that Mr. Sarafolean does not agree with. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she did not feel comfortable about taking the boundary line around one block, but the boundaries need to be studied. Councilmember Davis stated that she did not want to deny this petition if the area to the north is going to be considered for similar future development. The Mayor stated that he felt the “Barb Wire” was definitely an improvement to the area and he was sure Mr. Sarafolean was proposing the same thing. The Mayor further stated that the city will have to be more flexible if the city expects development.
Mr. Sarafolean stated that his establishment would be serving food as well as liquor; he stated that presently he could serve bottled beer but he would need a “C” permit to serve draft beer and the profits are better in draft beer. He stated that presently he meets the criteria for a restaurant. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council needs to review the boundaries and have time to make changes but in the mean time Mr. Sarafolean could start his establishment under the present allowable criteria. She asked Mr. Sarafolean if the boundary changes were made in the future, how much of an adjustment would he have to make to include draft beer. Mr. Sarafolean stated that including draft beer would require a whole interior design to build a draft keg into the bar. Under the “B” permit, this would have to be basically a food establishment; food has to be served before anyone is allowed to drink. The Mayor stated that this boundary change was going to require some time. The Mayor stated that he felt the “B” District was too restrictive based on the future development which will be taking place.
Tony Vina, landlord of the premises, addressed the Council. He stated that part of the issue is economic; with draft beer the percentage of profit is better. With a Class “B” license the customers have to purchase food and 60% of the sales have to be food, this is very limiting. Mr. Vina indicated that Mr. Sarafolean has roughed in plumbing, bathrooms, and some framing has been done.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye. The Mayor stated that it seems that the economy is picking up in that area and the city should be reasonably accommodating to promote development. The Mayor recommended that the Council ask him to refer this issue to Planning and Zoning for review so a recommendation can be brought back before the Council.
Councilmember DePaulis reiterated that even if the boundary is changed Mr. Sarafolean would still need a public hearing before the Mayor to become licensed. Mr. DePaulis suggested that Mr. Sarafolean meet with Mr. Hafey for the necessary information. The Council concurred with Mayor Wilson’s recommendation to refer this issue to Planning and Zoning for review so a proposal can be brought back before the Council.
P 82-48
Compatibility Review Overlay Ordinance.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this ordinance. Leigh von der Esch indicated that the Council Office had not received any calls on this issue and Larry Livingston would appreciate continuing the public hearing until July. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that this ordinance needs to be discussed with the Council as a whole. This is one of the most long-range zoning plans that has ever come before the Council and it needs to be dealt with carefully. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that she believed this ordinance would go back through Planning and Zoning which would necessitate having another hearing because the ordinance would be rewritten.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to return this ordinance to the Land Use Committee, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
O 82-5
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.