The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Lee Martinez Joanne Milner Mary Mark
Deeda Seed Tom Godfrey Bryce Jolley
Keith Christensen
Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Seed presided at and Councilmember Christensen conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council meeting held May 6, 1997, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Martinez who was absent for the vote.
(M 97-1)
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of the first half of Item D-1 and change the language with respect to the Consent, Item D-11, instead of a resolution, the hearing date would be set, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Martinez who was absent for the vote.
#1. RE: Approving the appointment of Denis A. Dragoo to the Land Use Appeals Board for a term extending through December 31, 1999.
(I 97-9)
Approving the appointment of Kent K. Nelson to the Land Use Appeals Board for a term extending through December 31, 1999.
(I 97-9)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Troy David Wihongi to the Youth City Government Advisory Board for a term extending through January 1, 1999.
(I 97-17)
#3. RE: Approving the appointment of Jerry Duke to the Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board for a term extending through July 17, 2000.
(I 97-7)
#4. RE: Approving the appointment of Brent R. Tippets to the Board of Appeals and Examiners for a term extending through March 1, 2002.
(I 97-11)
ITEMS 5-10 WERE REFERRED TO MAY 20, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENTS AND TO JUNE 10, 1997 FOR FORMAL CONSIDERATION.
#5. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Section 9.08.030 pertaining to residential collections of garbage and refuse and thereby approving the 5-year capital improvement plans for the refuse fund including future years' funding requirements.
(O 97-13)
#6. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Salt Lake City Code, Title 15, Chapter 16, relating to fees for park and recreation facilities, including the City's Golf program thereby funding years 1-3 of the Golf Business Plan.
(O 97-14)
#7. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Sections 17.16.670 and 17.16.680 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to water rates and thereby approving the 5-year capital improvement plan for the water fund including future years' funding requirements.
(O 97-15)
#8. RE: Adopting an ordinance repealing Sections 14.32.413 and 14.32.417 and amending Sections 14.08.040, 14.10.040, 14.10.090, 14.32.231, 14.32.365, 14.32.411 and 14.32.501, Salt Lake City Code, relating to work in the public way.
(O 97-16)
#9. RE: Adopting an ordinance adopting the rate of tax levy upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, made taxable by law for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 1998.
(O 97-17)
#10. RE: Adopting the final budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 1998.
(O 97-18)
#11. RE: Approving a resolution adopting the budget of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City for fiscal year 1997-98.
NEW BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Section 2.52.200 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to prohibiting employment of relatives.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 21 of 1997, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Martinez who was absent for the vote.
(O 97-19)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Consider adopting a resolution adopting the consolidated submission for community planning and development programs, regarding 23rd Year Community Development Block Grant funding, HOME Investment Partnerships program funding, and Emergency Shelter Grant program funding (1997-1998) and authorizing the Mayor to apply for and sign a grant agreement with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain said funding.
ACTION: Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Milner seconded to adopt Resolution 26 of 1997, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Martinez who was absent for the vote.
(C 97-222)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting 1) a motion expressing support for the settlement agreement negotiated between Russ Watts, Watts Corporation, and the City Administration regarding the proposed Almond Street Condominium project; 2) an ordinance terminating the moratorium imposed December 10, 1996; and 3) a motion withdrawing the legislative action initiated in November, 1996, requesting an amendment to the Capitol Hill Master Plan and rezoning vacant property south of 200 North between West Temple and Almond Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Milner seconded to adopt Ordinance 22 of 1997, terminating the moratorium imposed December 10, 1996 and a motion withdrawing the legislative action initiated in November, 1996 requesting an amendment to the Capitol Hill Master Plan and rezoning vacant property south of 300 North between West Temple and Almond Street. In approving the motion and lifting the moratorium the City Council neither approves nor disapproves a specific project design as contemplated in the agreement, the Council does not intend to dictate an outcome to the Historic Landmarks process or any appeals process and the evaluation will be conducted under the usual procedures and standards of these bodies. We also encourage Watts to continue to work with the neighbors in addressing remaining issues; which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Milner proposed a "friendly" amendment to the motion. She said some discussion had been held in reference to the ordinance. She referred to the fifth "whereas" in the ordinance which read "whereas, after a public hearing the City Council finds that". She said strike the words "the proposed" and insert the new language "an agreement is in the best interest of the City."
Councilmember Jolley said he would accept the "friendly" amendment.
DISCUSSION: Bonnie Mangold, 326 Almond Street, said for approximately 20 months the residents of the Marmalade Hill neighborhood had provided the City with factual data, research and legal references which they thought were appropriate to participation in the public process and would support a viewpoint which was in opposition to that of the City. She said they continued to submit materials. She said she felt that the zoning and the development were inappropriate and detrimental to the historic neighborhood.
Ms. Mangold said Mayor Corradini had stated the tax base needed to be increased and people needed to be brought back into the City. She said it was wrong to do so at the expense of the oldest surviving historic residential area and at the expense of the people who lived in that neighborhood.
Mike Mitchell, 328 North Center Street, said it would be nice to have development, but he was concerned about the way this project had come about. He said the project had not come about through input of the residents. He said the project was being proposed because of a lawsuit.
Joe Pitti, 325 North Quince, said he lived in a home which was 119 years old. He said tour buses came through the neighborhood all the time. He said he was concerned the project was not a fitting structure for entry into the neighborhood. He asked the Council to protect the neighborhood and to consider what the project would look like within the neighborhood.
Mark Chambers, 325 North Quince Street, said his home was built in 1878. He asked if the area was the right zoning for an historic district. He asked what compensation the homeowners would have if damage was done to their homes during construction. He asked the Council to listen to the residents and help preserve their history.
Chris Hoffenbeck, 333 North Quince, said her home would be 100 years old next year. She said she felt Russ Watts needed to put so many units in to get his money back on the property. She said her home had appraised at $375,000 last year and people with money were moving into the neighborhood. She said Mr. Watts could build fewer units at a higher price and the project would be beautiful.
Councilmember Godfrey asked for clarification on the agreement with Mr. Watts. He said Item 7, Terms, was the anticipation of obtaining the withdrawal of the petition and termination of the moratorium. He read "the City shall preliminarily schedule the project for approval by Landmarks as soon as possible after withdrawal or termination. The City shall use its best efforts to obtain approval by Landmarks of the project subject to the modification specified in this agreement being required before the issuance of a building permit. If there was an appeals filed by Landmarks after Landmarks has approved the project, the City shall schedule an appeal before the Land Use Appeals Board as soon as possible and shall recommend that the Land Use Appeals Board approve the projects as approved by Landmarks."
Councilmember Godfrey asked if the Administration usually took the role of recommending an outcome to Landmarks and to the Land Use Appeals Board. Roger Cutler, City Attorney, said when the word "usual" was used, it was a difficult term because each project was different. He said it was not unusual for the City to take a position regarding land use. He said in this particular case this was an agreement to settle a lawsuit. He said Mr. Watts had given concessions, but the neighbors did not agree with the concessions. He said in Mr. Watt's willingness to drop the lawsuit, he did not want the Administration to advocate against the agreement.
Councilmember Godfrey asked what would happen if the Council changed the wording in Item 7. Mr. Cutler said the deal would be off. He said the agreement was not made with the City Council, but with the Administration. He said staff would make a presentation and a recommendation that the proposal be accepted.
Councilmember Godfrey asked if the Council took action not to make reference to Item 7, would the deal still exist between Mr. Watts and the Administration. Mr. Cutler said that was correct.
Councilmember Godfrey asked if the Council took action different from the agreement, would that undermine the agreement between the Administration and Mr. Watts. He said the Council was saying the issue should go through the process without the endorsement or the support of the Administration or the City. He said because it was such a controversial issue with the neighborhood, the agreement said the City supported this project against the neighborhood. Mr. Cutler said he was surprised that the Council at this stage would say they were not supporting the project. He said the Council had given the Administration the numbers with which to work.
Councilmember Godfrey asked what would happen if the Council took action and used the verbiage which Councilmember Jolley had suggested to not make any reference to the support of the project through Landmarks. Mr. Cutler said he understood the Council was uncomfortable with the legislative body adopting the agreement and with being in a position to recommend adoption of the agreement. He said the Council wanted to delete from the ordinance the "whereas" clause which put the Council in the position of suggesting to Landmarks how they ought to rule. He said the Council wanted to show a neutral stand on the position and let the project go through the process. Mr. Cutler said if the Council withdrew their affirmative support, he did not feel it would violate the agreement nor would Mr. Watts feel it violated the agreement.
Mr. Cutler said if the Council in withdrawing the language, lobbied Landmarks or Appeals it would be a breach of the expectation of the parties. He said if the Council modified the ordinance to stay neutral and then let the process go forward, the Council needed to understand that the Administration planned to make a recommendation and a policy suggestion that the project be adopted both at Landmarks and in the appeal process.
Councilmember Godfrey said Mr. Cutler had heard the language which Councilmember Jolley had recommended. He asked if that language was satisfactory. Mr. Cutler said that language was satisfactory. He said it would be inappropriate for the Council to take an opposition position.
Councilmember Seed said she was concerned with Item 7 of the agreement between the Administration and Watts Corporation. She said it seemed like the City was pushing the project through the process and that was not her intent. She said the Landmarks Commission were experts in architectural preservation and this committee had knowledge which the Council did not possess. She said they had the ability to look at the project and determine from an architectural standpoint its appropriateness for the neighborhood. She said the Council had asked the committee to do that.
Councilmember Seed said the Administration had established some perimeters in terms of density and the number of parking stalls. She said the final component which pertained to whether the project was appropriate from an architectural standpoint for the neighborhood was one that the Council was not qualified to make. She said the process should go forward and take advantage of the opportunity to let the Boards review the project. She said they could tell the Council whether the project now met the standards which were set for historic preservation in the City.
Councilmember Jolley said the reason he made the recommended motion was because it was important that the Council allow the process to continue. He said the process was interrupted with the moratorium with the hope that the Council could hold discussions and dialogue, and receive clarification on vesting issues. He said it was unfortunate the language in the agreement was put there because it had not been proposed to the Council. He said he felt the Council needed to back off where possible and allow the process to proceed.
Councilmember Jolley said he understood the City's policy to endorse or favorably approve a project, but he hoped the Administration would endorse the project, not push the project beyond what was normal and appropriate for those kind of hearings.
Councilmember Mark said she agreed with Councilmember Jolley. She said she wanted to encourage the community to continue to work with Mr. Watts.
Councilmember Christensen said he supported the motion which Councilmember Jolley had made. He said it was important to understand that the Council had participated in the numbers of the agreement. He said it was a compromise which the Council agreed to. He said Landmarks should finish the process.
Councilmember Milner said for continuity purposes in the ordinance, in the third "whereas" it mentioned "whereas the Salt Lake City Administration has now negotiated a proposed agreement". She said the ordinance should be consistent and therefor proposed that for clarification strike the words "the proposed" and insert "an agreement is in the best interest of the City."
Councilmember Jolley asked Mr. Cutler for legal clarification. He asked if the "friendly" amendment changed the integrity of the ordinance. Mr. Cutler said not if the Council was not going to go back and renegotiate the ordinance. He said if the Council voted to adopt the ordinance, they were lifting the moratorium and that would vest Mr. Watts in the existing zoning classification. He said it was the Administration's understanding that the agreement before the Council would be executed and implemented. He said in doing so, the City Administration understood the term "best efforts" was to make an affirmative recommendation, but would not lobby members.
(P 97-17)
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
bj