The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Regular Session on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 6:00 p.m., in Room 315, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present:
Stuart Reid Deeda Seed Bryce Jolley
Joanne Milner Tom Godfrey Keith Christensen
Sam Souvall
Mayor Deedee Corradini; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and Councilmember Seed conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to approve the April 16, 1996 Regular Council meeting minutes, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 96-1)
#3. Mayor Deedee Corradini presented the proposed Salt Lake City Budget for fiscal year 1996-97.
DISCUSSION: See file M 96-1.
QUESTIONS TO THE MAYOR FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Reid said Mayor Corradini had some creative ideas and a wonderful vision for Salt Lake City. He said several of the Council Members and the Mayor were honored to be invited by Police Chief Ruben Ortega to present awards to citizens and police officers who had served distinguishably in the community. He said he supported the Police Department because they went the extra mile. He said the system shackled the officers because they were not provided resources to house criminals which were arrested.
Councilmember Reid said he felt the City would eventually need its own jail to control the City's destiny.
Councilmember Souvall said he had attended the drawing for the neighborhood matching grants along with Councilmember Godfrey. He said it was exciting to see how many of the projects were funded.
Councilmember Christensen thanked the Mayor for being so energetic and hard working. He said a fiscally sound budget policy was important to everyone.
Councilmember Seed thanked the Mayor for her attention to the housing issue.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Setting the date of May 21, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Budget.
(B 95-1)
#2. RE: Setting the date of June 4, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 21.74.140.B of the Salt Lake City Code relating to historic districts and landmark sites - City Historic Register.
(O 96-12)
#3. RE: Setting the date of June 4, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of Hubbard Avenue near 367 East and closing a portion of 400 East near its intersection with Hubbard Avenue pursuant to Petition No. 400-95-93.
(P 96-46)
#4. RE: Setting the date of July 1, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. for the public hearing on the proposed neighborhood development plan for the West Capitol Hill Project area.
(O 96-13)
#5. RE: Adopting Resolution 25 of 1996 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District amending the drinking water source protection rule delineation and inventory study.
(C 96-209)
#6. RE: Setting the date of May 21, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 16.12.190 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to an increase of fuel and oil royalties.
(O 96-14)
#7. RE: Adopting a motion approving the following decision made by the Planning Director: Sugarhouse Pines Condominium Conversion; to convert an existing 20-unit apartment complex located at 2712 South 1100 East in a residential RMF-35 zoning district. Planning Director's decision: to approve the condominium conversion subject to repairing the cracked sidewalk on 1100 East.
(P 96-47)
#8. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for 300 and 600 Series employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 96-15)
Items D-9 through D-16 were referred to May 21, 1996 for a public hearing and to June 11, 1996 for formal consideration.
#9. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for 700 Series employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 96-16)
#10. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for 800 series employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 96-17)
#11. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for exempt Fire Department 900 Series employees of Salt Lake City.
(O 96-18)
#12. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving the Compensation Plan for executive employees and elected officials of Salt Lake City.
(O 96-19)
#13. RE: Adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement for fiscal year 1996-97, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Associations, Local 75 AFL-CIO representing 500 Series City employees.
(O 96-20)
#14. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1645 of the International Association of Firefighters representing the 400 Series City employees.
(O 96-21)
#15. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) representing the 200 Series City employees.
(O 96-22)
#16. RE: Adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) representing the 100 Series City employees.
(O 96-23)
NEW BUSINESS
#1. RE: Approving a resolution adopting the tentative budgets of Salt Lake City, including the tentative budget of the Library Fund, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 1997. This resolution will also set a hearing date to accept public comment on May 21, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. All budget related ordinances will be discussed at that time.
(B 96-1)
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Souvall seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution 26 of 1996, and set the date of May 21, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. for a public hearing and all related ordinance changes, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 96-1)
#2. RE: Adopting an ordinance repealing the current Section 2.10.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to lost, abandoned or unclaimed property defined - duties of Chief of Police, and enacting a new Article 1.5, disposition of custodial and unclaimed property - rationale.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Souvall seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 22 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 96-24)
#3. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending Section 12.24.100 Salt Lake City Code, relating to driving under the influence of drugs and intoxicants.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 23 of 1996, with an effective date of July 1, 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 96-25)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance of not more than $90,000,000 of the City's airport revenue bonds, and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer back to Item F-1 and adopt Resolution 18 of 1996, with respect to the adjustable rate subordinated airport revenue bonds, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: See Public Hearings Item G-1.
(Q 96-2)
#2. RE: Adopting an ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties in a district known as Salt Lake City, Utah 1995 CBD beautification and street lighting Special Improvement District, Project 106001, for the purpose of paying the costs of certain designated improvements, and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements; reaffirming the establishment and providing for the funding of a special Improvement Guaranty Fund; establishing the effective date of the ordinance; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Souvall seconded to adopt Ordinance 26 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 95-1)
#3. RE: Adopting a motion amending Lot 2, Arlington Hills Plat H pursuant to Petition No. 400-94-9.
ACTION: Councilmember Souvall moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to adopt a motion pursuant to Petition No. 400-94-9 with the recommended staff conditions, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Council Members Milner and Seed who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Souvall said he and his constituents did not want anymore foothill development. He said to make a decision on development because the decision had to be made was a poor way to make decisions. He said all developments should be chosen because they benefited a district. He said he wanted to get the Open Space Trust Fund funded. He said people in the community needed to get involved because this fund needed money. He said next time there was a problem, the City would not be forced or compelled to make a decision. He said the property could be bought for market value.
Councilmember Jolley said he had asked to suspend the voting on this issue for two weeks so he could get further input. He said he wanted to be sure there was no other property which could be traded so the Council could support the zoning ordinance which was in place. He said he was not in favor of further development in the foothills, but Mr. Brockbank had the legal right to develop.
Councilmember Godfrey said he did not want to support the motion, but if he voted against the motion, then he would be saying that elective office could recommend that people break the law. He said that was the wrong message to send.
Councilmember Milner said she was going to vote against the motion. She said legally the petitioner had the right as a property owner, but she said she was concerned about respect for the residents in the area.
Councilmember Christensen said he empathized with the concerns of those who lived next to something they did not want to see take place. He said even people who lived in the valley wanted to look up at the foothills and see them untouched and unaltered. He said he believed there was a broader, more basic principal and that had to do with property rights and the rights of individuals. He said this right was one of the most fundamental rights which citizens of the United States could enjoy. He said property needed to be respected. He said if a citizen owned property and had a vested right in the property, then those rights needed to be honored.
(P 94-227)
#4. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending the Compensation Plan for 300 Series and 600 Series professional exempt and non-exempt Salt Lake City Corporation employees to allow the City to share revenue with golf professionals.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to adopt Ordinance 24 of 1996, but amend the language as follows: allowances for golf professionals, the Mayor may within budgeted appropriations authorize golf lesson revenue sharing between the City and employees classified as golf professionals and assistant golf professionals as business needs and market surveys dictate. Under this option, the Council would still limit revenue sharing to golf lesson revenue but would remove the Council staff recommended language that the City retain at least 20% of the revenue generated, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Souvall who was absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Reid said the Administration had proposed that the City share golf lesson revenue with the golf professionals with the City retaining 20% of the revenue and the professionals receiving 80%. He said the $8,000 to $10,000 annually which the City golf fund would receive as a result of this proposal would be more than offset by increased administrative costs to account for, distribute and track the revenue for purposes of sharing a revenue. He said additionally if the revenue was shared as proposed, accountants would need to monitor the transfers and occasionally the City would need to audit the program to ensure that the program goals were being achieved. He said the real goal of the proposal was to increase the number of lessons taught on City courses and thereby increase the number of golfers playing City courses. He said he wanted to propose that the City Council consider authorizing Administration to let golf professionals maintain 100% of the revenue received from lessons thus generating more business for the overall golf program.
(O 96-26)
#5. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance of not more than $18,000,000 of the City's water and sewer revenue bonds, and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Resolution 16 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 96-3)
#6. RE: The City Council will convene as the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City at their regular meeting place to consider approving a resolution adopting the budget of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City for fiscal year 1996-97.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to recess as City Council and convene as the Municipal Building Authority, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt the motion setting the hearing date of May 21, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. and refer to June 11, 1996 for formal consideration, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adjourn as the Municipal Building Authority and reconvene as the City Council, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 96-2)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment regarding the issuance by the City of not more than $160,000,000 airport facilities revenue bonds.
ACTION: Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 96-2)
#2. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating an alley located between 1200 West and 1100 West and between Ouray Avenue and 500 North pursuant to Petition No. 400-95-22.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to adopt Ordinance 25 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Ralph Francis, 1117 West 500 North, said many of the residents had lived in the area in excess of 40 or 45 years. He said the alley which was shaped in a T was a tremendous hazard. He said gang members or graffiti type people hung out in the alley. He said they wanted the alley vacated for safety reasons. He said one of the neighbors had been graffitied 15 times and there had been stolen cars found in the alley.
Dale Barton said he owned a building in the area and the alley was dangerous for children and their families. He said there was gang against gang and lots of graffiti. He asked that the City close the alley.
(P 96-29)
#3. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of North Bonneville Drive at approximately 957 East North Bonneville Drive and consider adopting a plat amendment motion pursuant to Petition Nos. 400-96-9 and 400-96-10.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Souvall moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve Ordinance 27 of 1996, closing a portion of North Bonneville Drive and further move that the Council approve the request to amend Lot 2, North Bonneville Subdivision as recommended by the Planning Commission subject to modification of the proposed buildable area to be in line with the southern-most edge of the house at 975 North Bonneville Drive, Lot 3; resolution of City Administrative issues i.e. building code and zoning compliance; and encourage the Administration to pursue a resolution of the other subdivision issues identified through this process, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Joel Paterson, Avenues Planner/Subdivisions, said there were two petitions before the Council. He briefed the Council using maps. He said the Planning Commission had prepared a development agreement to allow Susan Mickelsen, Petitioner, to start construction in the buildable area allowed by the Planning Commission. He said Ms. Mickelsen had poured foundations yesterday outside the buildable area, but if the Council did not approve the petition, she would have the cement sawed off.
Mr. Paterson said it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to close the northern 20 feet of North Bonneville Drive, declare the property surplus and sell the property to the petitioner at fair market value. He said the Planning Commission also recommended that the Council adopt the ordinance closing the street and recommended approval of the plat amendment subject to the setback line being moved back approximately five feet.
Ed Garrett, Susan Mickelsen's Attorney, said if the proposed ordinance abandoning the 20 feet was adopted, then the house would be in full compliance with the City's ordinances in terms of setback, side yard and rear yard. He said the fact that a portion of the garage might extend into some arbitrary line which was proposed by the Planning Commission did not meet the ordinance responsibilities. He showed the Council photographs of the proposed house and neighboring lots.
Councilmember Reid asked if there was a development agreement and whether or not this petition was in violation of the agreement. Mr. Pederson said a development agreement was entered into between the City and Ms. Mickelsen. He said the development agreement and the building permits limited construction to the setback line proposed by the Planning Commission. He said the agreement stated that any construction which took place was at Ms. Mickelsen's own risk because this petition had not come before the City Council and the Council could make a decision different than that of the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Reid asked if Ms. Mickelsen agreed to the development plan. Mr. Pederson said she had agreed to the development agreement.
Mr. Garrett said the development agreement said that the City agreed to issue a building permit to allow Lupine Construction Company to proceed with the site development upon signing of the agreement to the satisfaction of all zoning requirements and uniform building code requirements. He said that had happened. He said the Planning Commission motion for approval modified the staff recommendation by allowing the building area of the lot to be repositioned approximately 15 feet closer to the street instead of 20 feet as requested by the petitioner. He said the house would be built exactly in accordance with the drawing and the 15 feet which was allowed. He said the line which was drawn on the map was an afterthought and went beyond the recommendation.
Councilmember Godfrey said he was confused and needed some explanations from staff. Councilmember Jolley asked Mr. Pederson if the setback was suppose to be 20 feet but was granted at 15 feet. Mr. Pederson said the 15 and 20 feet referred to was how far the house would be moved forward on the lot. Councilmember Jolley asked if the land which the City was declaring surplus was already part of the lot before the petitioner brought in the plans, was the home within compliance.
Mr. Pederson explained the proposed home and the setback from a map. He said the house at 975 North Bonneville Drive had been placed wrong on the lot because the contractor did not know there was a 20 foot setback. He said the Planning Commission's recommendation was to extend a line from 975 North Bonneville Drive to the proposed home. He said the Planning Commission recommended the property line be moved from 26 feet to 31 feet behind the proposed property line to bring it in line with the house next door.
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, said there had been a lot of confusion introduced. She said there were three choices before the City Council; 1) not to approve the petition at all, 2) to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation which was to allow an encroachment of 15 feet into what was currently not the buildable area, and 3) to approve the petitioner's request which was to allow an encroachment of 20 feet. She said the 15 foot recommendation of the Planning Commission would keep the property in line with the home next door.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said the development agreement was an agreement between the petitioner and City Administration. She said it was pursued at the risk of the petitioner and was designed not to influence the City Council one way or another.
Councilmember Christensen asked if the setback required by code was 20 feet. Mr. Pederson said that was correct. Councilmember Christensen said before the Council closed the street, there would only be six feet between the home and the curb. He said if the City closed the additional 20 feet, the builder could come back and comply with the zoning ordinance of 20 feet because she would be 26 feet away from the new property line.
Councilmember Reid said the Planning Commission was being lenient in recommending 15 feet. He said the Planning Commission had tried to accommodate the proposed home.
Tom McEntire, 975 North Bonneville Drive, said he owned the house next to the proposed house. He said the corner of his house was 42 feet from the curb. He said the neighbor's house on the other side was 54 feet. He said the petitioner was proposing 26 feet. He said all the houses were in a line.
Larry Gerlock, 950 North Bonneville Drive, said he lived across the street from the proposed house. He said Lot 2 was the last lot to be developed in the neighborhood. He said the house should be built in conformity to both City code and architectural design of the existing neighborhood. He said the developer had insisted on building a predesigned house from the beginning regardless of the configuration of the lot, the aesthetic integrity of the neighborhood and even City Code. He said the Planning Commission had recommended an arbitrary extension based on a previous error. He asked the City Council to insist that the house be built in conformance to existing City codes thereby voiding the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He said after construction of the home, then the City could vacate the 20 foot surplus and apply a level playing field to all of the residents.
Jim Bradway, 962 North Bonneville Drive, said he wanted to bring the Planning Commission's minutes from February 22, 1996 to the Council's attention. He said the minutes reflected that the proposed buildable area be modified to be in line with the southern most edge of the house at 975 North Bonneville Drive. He said that was approved, so the property line was not an afterthought. He said Ms. Mickelsen had mentioned to the City Attorney that she had verbal agreement from all of the neighbors across the street, but all of those neighbors denied agreement with the petition.
Hal Cole, 999 North Bonneville Drive, said the Planning Commission made their compromise in the line that was drawn. He said he saw no reason to make a further compromise so a house which was simply too large for the lot could be built.
Steve Merrill, 1002 North Bonneville Drive, said he was concerned about the house being any further forward than the McIntyres house. He said the setbacks were consistent in the neighborhood and Lot 2 was the last lot. He said a huge concrete stairwell had been added which was 6 1/2 feet in front of the garage and was definitely a visible part of the mass of the house.
Councilmember Souvall requested that Administration give the Council Members notice when a development agreement was going to be processed in the various Council districts. He said people did not understand it was not the Council's agreement.
Councilmember Jolley asked that the Planning Commission visit the lot because there seemed to be some confusion as to where the footage and the property lines were. He said it would be helpful to get a couple of the neighbors to help measure because then the City would know exactly where the property lines were so the house being built was in zoning and permit compliance.
(P 96-34)
#4. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting a motion amending Lots 8 and 9 of the Valley View Subdivision plat pursuant to Petition No. 400-95-74.
ACTION: Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to deny the requested plat amendment and encourage the City Attorney to pursue legal action for the illegal subdivision of the property unless the property was restored to single ownership by July 1, 1996 and there was satisfactory resolution of the legal issues, building code violations and related issues, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Roger Brockbank, 1926 Vintage Wood Court, said Lot 8 had been illegally subdivided before. Joel Paterson, Avenues Planner/Subdivisions, said the City did not know that. He said he was not sure what happened, some research would need to be done. Mr. Brockbank said the lot was not in the original configuration and because of this, the lot had caused confusion with Julia Geiger, the tenant. He said he had purchased the one parcel with two homes on it. He said he had done a metes and bounds description for each parcel and sold one parcel to Ms. Geiger.
Mr. Brockbank said there was only one address now, but there had been two addresses-one for each parcel. He said he could not pay the proper taxes because the County was showing the property as one parcel.
Julia Geiger said she lived in the front portion of 2604 South McClelland. She said her home was built in 1912 and her neighbors home was built around 1940. She said she had lived in the home for the past two years and had experienced all the problems which were going to continue to go along with this home. She said she had tried to meet with Mr. Brockbank to straighten all of this out two years ago when she purchased the home. She said she was angry with Mr. Brockbank and afraid she could lose her home.
Councilmember Christensen said Mr. Brockbank was the seller and had made the mistake for profit. He said this was one lot and he did not want any benefit, consideration or leniency given to Mr. Brockbank in this case because subdividing the property was against the law. He said he would ask the City Attorney to see that the purchaser of the front part of this property be treated fairly and not be harmed.
(P 96-27)
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
bj