The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Stuart Reid Joanne Milner Sam Souvall
Deeda Seed Tom Godfrey Bryce Jolley
Keith Christensen
Mayor Deedee Corradini; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Bill Wright, Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Avenues Planner/Subdivisions; Janice Jardine, Planning & Policy Analyst; Randy Taylor, Permits & Licensing Services Administrator; Margaret Pahl, Subdivisions; Terry Green, Planning Manager, Utah Division of Parks and Recreation; Mark Elkins, West Salt Lake Community Council Chair; and Bonnie Ferrin, Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Christensen presided at and Councilmember Souvall 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 October 15, 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 95-1)
Randy Taylor, Permits & Licensing Services Administrator, introduced Yoshiaki Sakonji. He said Mr. Sakonji lived in Japan and was on a 3-month study tour. He said he was with a group of 20 individuals with The Academy For State And Local Governments in Washington D. C.
Mayor Corradini welcomed Mr. Sakonji and presented him with a gift from the City.
Councilmember Souvall said he read an article in the latest Newsweek Magazine naming Mayor Corradini as one of the top 25 mayors in the country.
Mayor Corradini said Councilmember Reid was instrumental in pushing the idea of a Youth City Government and introduced students from the Horizonte School:
Michelle Garcia, Youth Mayor; Councilmember Marcos Robinson, District No. 1; Councilmember Kenny Simmons, District No. 2; Councilmember Eli Lothrop, District No. 3; Councilmember Gabe Fernandez, District No. 4; Councilmember Summer Saunders, District No. 5; Councilmember Monica Clark, District No. 6; Councilmember Brittany Baker, District No. 7; Police Chiefs Kandi and Brandy Madrill; Sulia Manu, City Attorney; Justin Madsen, Airport Director; Saul Lopez, Director of Public Utilities; Raymond Chavez, Director of Community and Economic Development; Koloti Naeata, Fire Chief; Jeff Dixon, Director of Public Services; and Som Sengphachanh, Director of Management Services.
Mayor Corradini said these young people would be working with the City to learn about government.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Andrew Shaffer, 1593 West Secret Garden Avenue, said he was a student at the University of Utah and recently went to a Planning Commission meeting to see what light rail had to offer. He said he was a representative of the biking community and Public Transportation Committee in Salt Lake City. He said the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) implemented the use of bicycle racks on buses two years ago and currently all buses had bicycle racks. He said buses took between 90 and 100 bicycles every hour on the UTA.
He said when he inquired about light rail, he learned bicycle racks had been completely over looked. He said there was not enough consideration being taken to address this issue.
Bob Fisher, Salt Lake City, said he thought the Council often had their minds made up about certain issues before the public was able to speak.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Approving the appointment of Bob Bauer to the Salt Lake City Arts Council Board for a term extending through July 1, 1999.
(I 96-7)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Rob W. McFarland to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term extending through July 14, 1999.
(I 96-16)
#3. RE: Approving the appointment of Meghan Z. Holbrook to the Utah Air Travel Commission for a term extending through September 1, 1999.
(I 96-14)
#4. RE: Approving the appointment of Carlton J. Christensen to the Planning Commission for a term extending through July 1, 2000.
(I 96-11)
#5. RE: Setting the date of November 12, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 1996-97 Budget.
(B 96-1)
#6. RE: Setting the date of November 19, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance renaming a portion of 1930 West, located south of 400 North, pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-85.
(O 96-35)
#7. RE: Approving the appointment of Russell C. Widmar as the Executive Director of the Salt Lake City Department of Airports and Airport Authority.
(I 96-21)
#8. RE: Consider adopting a motion approving the following decisions made by the Planning Director:
a. Petition No. 400-96-72: a proposal to amend Lots 9 through 15 in the Sorenson Technology Park, to provide four larger lots, located at 3600 West California Avenue in an Industrial M-1 Zone.
Planning Director's Decision: Approve.
b. Dakota Lofts Condominium Conversion: a proposal by the West Side Stamp Building L. L. C. To convert the Salt Lake Stamp Building into a residential mixed use condominium, including 31 residential units, 5 "live-work" spaces, and a restaurant.
Planning Director's Decision: Approve.
c. Petition No. 400-96-86: a proposal to amend Lot 4 in the Ninigret Park Plat 1, located at 1730 South 4650 West in an Industrial M-1 Zone.
Planning Director's Decision: approve
(P 96-443)
NEW BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting a motion authorizing the Council Chair to sign a copy of the proposed cash budget for the Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary District #1 for 1997, indicating that the Salt Lake City Council has no objection to the proposed budget.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt the motion supporting the proposed budget, thereby authorizing the Council Chair to sign the letter of support, but indicating the Council's concern with the boards policy decision to shift some reliance for the district's funding from user fees to property taxes, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Godfrey said Council policy was to emphasize the use of user fees and not to over burden people with property taxes, if it could be avoided.
(B 96-3)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Setting the date of November 19, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. for the City Council to consider an appeal (by John and Samantha Francis) of the Planning Commission decision for conditional use Petition No. 410-96-238 submitted by Traveler's Aid Society for an overflow homeless shelter to be located at 399 Andrew Avenue in a Commercial "CG" Zone. This case is provisionally scheduled before the City Council pending forth coming legislation before the City Council designating the Board of Adjustment or another body for Planning Commission conditional uses and Historic Landmark Commission appeals. Supplemental notification will be given before the hearing date.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Milner seconded to set the date of November 19, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(H 96-16)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance designating the Board of Adjustment (or another body) as the Appeal Body for Planning Commission conditional uses and Historic Landmark Commission appeals.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Milner seconded to adopt Ordinance 83 of 1996, establishing a Land Use Appeals Board, with the following change: Filing fee to remain at $100, which motion carried, Council Members Jolley, Seed, Milner and Souvall voted aye, Council Members Christensen, Godfrey and Reid voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, Planning Director, said the Planning Commission held a hearing on October 17, 1996 to discuss Council's proposal stating that Council had the authority on State Enabling Legislation to establish where the appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission bodies should be sent. He said the State Enabling Legislation allowed that the Board of Adjustment, or any other body, should be established by the local municipality. He said the 1995 Zoning Rewrite established the City Council to be that body.
He said the Planning Commission held a hearing and had extensive discussion about the options. He said the recommendation, on a 4 to 3 vote, was to establish a Land Use Appeals Board, separate from the Board of Adjustment. He said many felt the Appeals Board should be separate from the established Land Use Appeals bodies. He said the Board of Adjustment had a role designated in the Land Use Appeal procedures for granting variances and reviewing administrative decisions. He said at its potential, the Board of Adjustment could be involved.
Mr. Wright said the Planning Commission recommended that an Appeals Board be established. He said there had been two ordinances prepared, one establishing the Board of Adjustment to handle appeals and another to establish a new board called the Land Use Appeals Board.
He said the Land Use Appeals Board would be a 3 member board appointed by the Mayor with advice and consent by the City Council, with a 3 year term and 2 alternate members. He said the board would meet as necessary to resolve appeals. He said a quorum would be 3 members, have a notice provision with 14 days notice in the newspaper and notice to the appellant, respondent and any party which attended hearings before either one of the bodies. He said the standard of review would be the same and be on the record. He said the procedure would be that the Land Use Appeals Board would have the choice to either accept additional testimony and allow argument to be provided before them or on the evidence which was on the record, or they could choose to review the written record and make their decision. He said the appeal of the Land Use Appeals Board went to District Court, which was the same with the Board of Adjustment. He said members of the Land Use Appeals Board should be compensated for their efforts and a $75 compensation should be established for each case heard. He said they also suggested the filing fee be raised from $100 to $300 to cover the compensation.
Mr. Wright said the ordinance was simple and followed the same procedures which had been followed for the last year. He said there was discussion on the need for staffing for either of the options. He said it was thought that if the Land Use Appeals Board was established, staff would come from the Director's Office of the Department of Community & Economic Development, not the Planning or Housing & Permits Divisions. He said if it went to the Board of Adjustment, there was staff assigned, but he did not anticipate there would be another step recommendation.
He said there had only been 10 appeals in the last 10 years, 4 of which were in the last year.
Councilmember Souvall asked how Board of Adjustment members were trained. Mr. Wright said there was local training through the Utah League of Cities and Towns, and the American Planning Association, Utah Chapter. He said for members to sit on the Appeal Board, staff suggested a workshop be held with the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission to review the new ordinance and standards.
Samantha Francis, Salt Lake City, said she filed an appeal on September 26, 1996 against the Traveler's Aid Society putting a homeless shelter in her neighborhood. She said her receipt stated the appeal would go before the City Council. She said the Council had decided to amend the Zoning ordinance text. She said this was unfair to her, as the appellant, because she was lead to believe the City Council would hear her appeal.
Bonnie Mangold, 326 Almond Street, said she had concerns over both proposals. She said a change either way would eliminate an important check and balance of the democratic system. She said if the fee was raised to $300, it would make it difficult for certain neighbor-hoods or individuals to submit an appeal.
John Francis, Van Buren Avenue, said if the Council choose to adopt one of the two options, he suggested adopting the Land Use Appeals Board.
Councilmember Godfrey said when the Zoning Rewrite was completed, the Council decided to hear the appeals. He said people came to the City Council expecting them to reverse a decision made by the Planning Commission. He said when appeals were heard, Council was only allowed to determine whether individuals had a chance to present their whole case before the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission heard all the points they had to make before making their decision. He said it was never intended to have a rehearing of the whole case. He said it was not within the purview of the Council to overturn the decision of the Planning commission. He said all they could do was determine if individuals had a chance to truly present their case before the Planning Commission. He said if the option passed, he would recommend to the Mayor that there was good training for the people on the Board of Adjustment.
Councilmember Seed said establishing a Land Use Appeals Board had a lot of merit. She said she thought it would be fair to continue to hear the cases pending before the Council and felt the fee should remain at $100.
Councilmember Milner supported the motion and said staff indicated the Land Use Appeals Board would be for the betterment of the community.
Councilmember Reid asked Roger Cutler, City Attorney, if there was a legal obligation for the Council to hear the appeals.
Mr. Cutler said there was not. He said Council could make changes whenever public policy dictated. He said petitioners did not have a vested right to have an appeal heard by Council.
Councilmember Reid said he was prepared to return the process back to the Board of Adjustment, but if a clean process was not in place, he would have to reconsider.
Mr. Cutler said he did not feel there would be a problem. He said the Board of Adjustment would hear the variance where the strict application of a statute would cause unreasonable hardship. He said the appeal from that decision was directed at the courts. He said the Planning Commission would hear entirely different matters. He said it might be the same property but it would be hard to see where they would be ruling on the same issues. He said the issues before the Planning and Zoning Commission were quite different from granting a variance or interpreting an ordinance.
Councilmember Reid said there were questions raised about the appearance of the Council trying to avoid hearing a specific case. He said this was not accurate, because the Council had talked about changing the responsibility back to another body for months. He said he supported a Land Use Appeals Board as long as the Council was not required to hear the pending appeals.
Councilmember Jolley said Council wanted to have input in decisions made by the Planning Commission. He said that way it would be the Council's responsibility to voice concerns of the district in the process. He said he supported Councilmember Seed's motion to recommend the Land Use Appeals Board.
Mr. Cutler asked Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, to advise the Council as to what was done to streamline an appeal.
Mr. Pace said when the ordinances were under consideration there was concern about hearing the Traveler's Aid appeal in a timely fashion. He said the Attorney's Office had taken the liberty of giving an alternate provisional notice of multiple hearings; one before the Board of Adjustment, the City Council, and a Land Use Appeals Board. He said all notices indicated that supplemental notice would be given. He said it was the intention to expedite the process so the appeal would not be measurably delayed in any way.
Mr. Pace said the proposed motion to leave the filing fee at $100 would impact another portion of the ordinance which proposed to pay the Land Use Appeals Board $75 per case heard. He said it was intended that the increase in filing fee would more than cover the compensation to be paid. He said if the filing fee was reduced and Council still wanted to pay board members, the money would need to come from somewhere else. He said Council could reduce the filing fee and not pay them, but one had an impact on the other.
Councilmember Milner said she felt it was important to hear the Traveler's Aid appeal because there was the understanding from those who made the application that it would be heard by the Council. She said her concern regarding the filing fee was that this could be burdensome for those sources who might have a legitimate case. She said this would be tripling the cost, which was significant.
Mr. Pace said the amount was derived because the filing fee was established in an attempt to compensate the City for additional costs incurred by the appeal. He said his experience had been that the costs associated in preparing staff report were far in excess of $100. He said the Land Use Appeals Board was to consist of 3 members, each to be paid $75 per case, totaling $225.
(O 96-42)
#2. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning properties located at 1000 North and Redwood Road, pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-61.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Milner seconded to adopt Ordinance 81 of 1996 rezoning approximately 10 acres of property located at the southeast corner of 1000 North and Redwood Road for public lands to residential R-1 7000 and open space, and further move that this zoning take place upon completion of a formal agreement between the City and State relating to the open space parcel, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Margaret Pahl, Subdivisions, said this was a request by the Utah Division of Parks and Recreation. She said the rezoning was proposed by the State Parks as a result of their Advisory Board declaring the property surplus and directing them to dispose of the property. She said the Utah State Parks & Recreation requested that 8 acres of the property be rezoned for residential development in an R-1 7000 zoning designation which would provide 35 new single-family building lots in the Northwest Community. She said the Northwest Community Master Plan had the property designated as open space, and was zoned public lands primarily because of its ownership. She said over time the State decided they had placed the development of the property as a low priority in their State-wide capital investments.
Ms. Pahl said the State presented their proposal at 2 different Community Council meetings. She said the community identified several issues concerning their request, including graffiti on fencing, maintenance of the park strip along Redwood Road, and a loss of open space to the community. She said the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on August 15, 1996 and included in their review was preliminary subdivision, which granted approval with conditions addressing the communities concerns. She said this included establishing a home-owners association to maintain the park-strip landscaping. She said also included was a condition which required see-through fencing which would address the graffiti concerns. She said those conditions would be included as conditions on the final subdivision.
Ms. Pahl said the Planning Commission also recommended that 2 acres remain zoned for open space use. She said citizens were concerned that the new Rose Park Library, north of the property, should not be surrounded with homes and that the Jordan River Parkway orientation be maintained. She said the library had been landscaped with native vegetation and the Planning Commission included in their motion that the parcel also be maintained in open vegetation, consistent with community concerns.
Ms. Pahl said the State offered to deed the 2 acre parcel to the City for inclusion in the proposed open space land trust which would be encumbered by restrictions which were maintained in open space and in native vegetation. She said maintenance of the parcel was proposed to be organized through a partnership with the City's Parks and Recreation Department as well as the library. She said there was a teachers group organized with a $20,000 grant to promote stewardship. She said the teachers had received cooperation from all area elementary schools and had begun planting on the library parcel. She said the group hoped to develop the property as an outdoor classroom using the library as a neighboring resource. She said the library had voiced enthusiastic support for the proposal.
Councilmember Jolley asked why the State had not turned the property into a park.
Terry Green, Planning Manager, Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, said when the property was acquired, many parcels had to be purchased in total, even though they did not necessarily fit into the master plan. He said the Park Board and Director had deemed that the open space corridor along the river should continue to be maintained by either the City and/or the State. He said due to budget constraints the State was asked to look at all State properties and make transfers and exchanges, to allow other public open space to be acquired. He said in this instance, the property was protected under Federal Regulation 6-F. He said the requirement would not allow the State to sell a piece of property to be used for maintenance or buildings. He said the State was required to reinvest the property in other properties of equal or greater current market value for Parks and Recreation. He said the National Parks Service had selected an appropriate replacement for this property. He said the philosophy of the division had changed in the last 10 years. He said the State had encouraged transition of park ownership to cities along the parkway. He said these cities had done a wonderful job in assuming the responsibilities for the parkway.
Mr. Green said in this case the property was deemed surplus and the set provisions went with the property. He said whether a trust or Salt Lake City held the property, it would still fall under the purview of the Federal Regulation, protecting it for open space. He said it did not have to stay in natural vegetation, as long as it remained public, outdoor recreation property.
Councilmember Jolley said there was a restriction on the parcel stating it should remain in the natural vegetation. He asked if, in the future, it could be turned into a community park, adjacent to the library.
Mr. Green said the State tried to follow the will of the Community Council and the Library and they recommended that it be left in natural open space.
Councilmember Reid said the reason for keeping it in natural vegetation was that it was the last piece on the river, in the City, which had never been changed. He said the Community Council felt this would be a nice adjunct to the library.
Councilmember Seed said she was concerned with the open space land trust ordinance. She asked when it would be completed. Mr. Wright said it was on the Planning Commission agenda for November 7, 1996 for final review. He said the Planning Commission would send their recommendation to the Council on December 10, 1996 for a briefing.
Terrance White, resident of the University Student Housing, said he was currently a student of architecture. He said he visited the library a couple of months ago and imposing a residential subdivision on the site would not do justice to the library or what the designers were trying to do. He suggested that Council not allow a residential subdivision to go in the project.
Kelly Letts, representing the Utah Society for Environmental Education, said their group encouraged students to do a stewardship along the Jordan River. She said they had done 2 activities so far. She said one was funded by the Green Corp. Program from Utah Power & Light in which they received $2,000 to do a planting. She said this planting was completed in September, under the direction of Peter Lassig and Ty Harrison from Westminster College. She said last week the Utah Jazz, the corporate sponsor for the Northwest Middle School, did an additional planting and a creation of animal shelters. She said she supported the two acres as native planting.
Jeff Dixon, 1374 DuPont, Youth City Council, said he lived in the area and supported the two acres being left as native planting.
Brent Carslyle, 1560 Talisman Drive, said he had no objection to the subdivision going in, but thought the City had intentions of developing the area on the east side of the river. He said the State owned the property and did not want to give it up. He said perhaps the State could deed the other part to the City for development. He said to have it turned into a park or recreation area would be beneficial to not only the residents in the area, but also to the children that play in the area.
Peter Lassig, citizen, said the 2 acres next to the library were currently in native grasses and were green year round. He said this was because of the high water table. He said the library was landscaped with native grasses so it looked like the wildness of the river swirling around the library. He said he was the designer of the library landscape. He said he wanted to recommend that the subdivision go in, and that 2 acres be preserved as open space. He asked if there was a way to request funding for at least one water spigot to water the trees.
Mark Mismash, citizen, said it was sad to see so much development going on in the state. He said keeping the open spaces was more important than having 35 residential homes go in. He said there were homes boarded up all over the place. He said zero-scaping was wonderful and if the rest of the land could be left as a park or education facility, it would be beneficial. He said the City should look at the long term, and not the short term for the future.
Carlton Christensen said he was the Vice Chair of the Rose Park Community Council. He said over the last 2 years, the community had planted 150 trees along that section of the river at no cost to any government agency. He said the State had worked with them, but had budget limitations. He said as a community they were willing to accept the subdivision with the 2 acres set aside. He said the Council was looking for some commitment of ownership on the east side of the river. He said it sat across the street from developed houses and indirectly connected to City Park, through the Riverside Park. He said it tied into the rest of it, but was undeveloped and uncared for. He said Mr. Lassig had watered trees from his own home spigot, through an 800 foot hose, but this was not a good long term solution for the neighborhood. He said he wanted to solve the problem and preserve the bend in the river for long term use.
Councilmember Reid thanked all individuals who worked to put together a place for a library. He said the library was the best branch library in the system and was a project of love in the community. He said Mr. Lassig played a huge role in getting the project to completion. He encouraged the State to look at the east side of the river. He said it was not a useful piece of property, and wanted to see it become an extension of the Library on the other side of the river.
Councilmember Jolley asked if it was possible to table the petition in order to work with the State to put together something for the east side of the river.
Councilmember Reid said at this point the community was only interested in closing the deal, with the hopes of doing other things at a future date.
Councilmember Seed addressed the concerns raised about building housing on a portion of the open space. She said the City had some competing interests. She said the City wanted to preserve open space as much as possible, but also were facing a profound housing crisis. She said this plan was a good example of working toward both goals. She encouraged the City to continue to do this type of constructive project where there were both houses and open space.
(P 96-416)
#3. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning property located between Utah and Cheyenne Streets at approximately 1400 South from Residential to Special Residential, pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-58; consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of an alley located between Utah and Cheyenne Streets at approximately 1400 South, pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-59; and consider approving an amendment to the Utah Southern Addition Subdivision.
ACTION: Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Reid moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to table the motion until December 3, 1996, for a future City Council review, which motion carried, Council Members Reid, Milner, Jolley and Christensen voted aye, Council Members Souvall, Seed, and Godfrey voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Joel Paterson, Avenues Planner/Subdivisions, said this was a 4.4 acre site located about 1400 South, south of California Street, between Cheyenne and Utah Streets. He said it was located east of the surplus canal and Redwood Road. He said there was three items the Council was asked to approve. He said the first was a change in the zoning from R-1 7000 to an SR-3 zone. He said the R-1 7000 zone allowed 6.2 units per acre and the SR-3 zone allowed 29 units per acre which would allow a clustering of homes and preserve additional open space. He said the proposed density of the project was approximately 6 units per acre.
He said another issue before the Council was a partial closure of the alley which ran north and south between High Street and California Street. He said the area proposed to be closed was just part of the alley which went through the Wasatch Co-Housing site and would not affect access by other residents in the area who used the alley to access the rear of their properties.
Mr. Paterson said the third item before the Council was a subdivision plat amendment. He said the 4.4 acre site included all or parts of seven different lots in the Utah Southern Addition Subdivision, platted in the 1880's. He said this project would result in a single lot, so the subdivision plat would need to be amended. He said Planning staff would bring back the condominium approval for the site. He said the Planning Commission considered this petition on August 15, 1996 and recommended approval of the development of the site as a planned development. He recommended that the Council adopt the ordinance to change the zoning, close the alley and amend the plat.
Mr. Paterson said the site plan had 26 individually owned condominiums on 4.4 acres. He said the residential units ranged from 1850 square feet with 4 bedrooms down to a 1 bedroom with 750 square feet. He said half of the units would be either 3 or 4 bedroom units. He said 5 of the units were designed to accommodate the low to moderate income with a program which allowed individuals to participate in a lease-to-own plan. He said later their lease would turn into a mortgage. He said the SR-3 zoning allowed the clustering of units on the site and allowed the single-family homes to be attached in various combinations of 2 to 4 units per structure. He said by doing this the developer would be able to preserve up to 62% of the site as open space. He said only 38% would be devoted to houses or hard surfacing for parking and the walkway which went through the site. He said the project would be accessed from Utah Street and Cheyenne Street and there would be no through cross traffic. He said this project would not connect Utah Street with High Street to the south.
Mr. Paterson said parking for the project would be provided on exterior parts of the project. He said this helped to cut down on hard surfacing and preserve open space. He said there was a foot path which would provide pedestrian access to all units within the project. He said it would also allow for emergency vehicle access.
He said there was a concern in the area that there was an abundance of apartments and associated problems which came along with them. He said this was not an apartment project, but a condominium project where units would be individually owned and there would not be a transient problem. He said there was also a concern about traffic which this project would generate and the ability of the streets in the area to handle the traffic. He said the City Traffic Division had reviewed the project and found that a project of this size would not affect the level of service of the local streets and those streets had the capacity to take additional traffic.
Mr. Paterson said there was also concern about the SR-3 zoning proposed for the site. He said this was not to allow for an increase in density, but to allow the developer to cluster the units at the site. He said if for some reason the Wasatch Co-Housing group decided not to develop the site, a subsequent purchaser of the property would not be able to come in and develop the site with SR-3 densities. He said they would be required to use the current R-1 7000 zoning.
Mr. Paterson said there was also concern about attached housing in the area. He said housing would be owner-occupied and would allow for greater preservation of open space at this site. He said there had been concerns that the City would not require any improvements on Utah Street. He said as part of the project, the developer would have to install a 24-foot wide asphalt overlay from California Street down through the project. He said they would also be required to trim back the vegetation on Utah Street. He said because this site was located in the middle of the block, the Engineering Division recommended that the developer enter into a Special Improvement District (SID) waiver agreement. He said this way the developer would not be required to put in curb and gutter on Utah Street along the frontage of their property. He said the reason for this was because if the developer put in gutter, all the run off from the street would hit the gutter, be collected and drain to one end or the other. He said this project could be drained onto the right-of-way where there were no improvements to handle the drainage. He said with the SID waiver the developer would agree that in the future, if the City determined there was a need for curb and gutter, Wasatch Co-Housing would participate in the project.
He said there were concerns with the Brighton Canal, running on the west side of the project. He said the canal provided irrigation water to users north of California Avenue in this area. He said during the summer the flume of the canal collapsed and was no longer able to provide water to the users to the north. He said the canal caused additional problems where it crossed California Avenue. He said the street had to go over the top of the canal so there was a major hump in California Avenue which caused some visibility problems. He said the City was close to coming to an agreement with the canal company to buy out the shareholders, located to the north of the project. He said this would allow the City to remove the hump on California Street.
Mr. Paterson said there was also concern about fire protection on the site. He said the walkway would be an all-weather surface and would allow a fire vehicle to get into the area if needed. He said the City required that a fire truck be able to get within 150 feet of any face or facade of a building. He said the Fire Department would determine during the final design the exact locations of fire hydrants.
He said the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt the ordinance changing the zoning to close the alley, sell the property to the developer for market value, and amend the Utah Southern Addition Subdivision.
Councilmember Reid asked for the Community Council vote on the issue. Mr. Paterson said City staff had generally received favorable reviews. He said the new Chair of the West Salt Lake Community Council had raised a number of issues.
John Major, 1877 Hollywood Avenue, Petitioner, said he had been meeting with the neighborhood for almost a year and had made a lot of progress understanding their concerns and adapting to them. He said this was a condominium unit being developed by the families who would be living there. He said there would be control over the upkeep and what people did with their property. He said the reason they asked for the zoning change was to attach the homes, so they would have more open space in the development.
Councilmember Reid asked how it was determined who would live in the condominiums. Mr. Major said it was self selecting. He said it attracted people who were committed to the idea of community. He said the one common thing was the interest to live in a more cohesive community.
Councilmember Reid asked if someone chose to leave, how they would be replaced. Mr. Major said once this was built, there would be a condominium association.
Councilmember Reid asked if these individuals could bring in anyone they chose. Mr. Major said the association had the concept of right of first refusal. He said the community could make a bid on the unit first, paying market rate.
Keith Baker, Stewart Park Subdivision, said he felt this was a positive thing and many of the neighbors supported the project as well.
Scott Cowley, 1408 Cheyenne Street, said he had been working with the hopes of developing this project for the last 4 years. He said there needed to be some balance between open space and the needs of people. He said the project was designed to support not only the environment and the appearance of the project, but the interaction of the people who lived in it.
Mark Elkins, West Salt Lake Community Council Chair, said there had been concerns. He said Wasatch Co-Housing had worked with the Council to try and answer those concerns about life styles, design, etc. He said the Council was split on the issue and there was more opposition than not. He said the canal on California Street was a great concern. He said the traffic division said the visibility over the canal was adequate. He said to leave the canal as it was would be a danger to the people who lived there. He said if individuals were entering and exiting off Utah Street onto California Street they would not be seen very well until the canal was built.
He said the recommendation for the Utah Street improvement was to let it drain naturally. He said the street had a lot of leaves and branches and was unimproved. He said there needed to be drainage on the street.
Mr. Elkins said another concern was that he was never informed about the lease to own option. He said the community did not want more traffic in the neighborhood.
Ralph Anderson, 1430 Cheyenne Street, said he had lived in the area for 51 years. He said he had prepared a written statement which he wanted as part of the Council file. He said he had spoken to the City Engineer's Office 6 or 7 months ago and was told it would cost approximate $275,000 to take the hump through the canal out. He said by lowering the canal, the value of the houses and properties west of the canal would depreciate. He said this was because there would be a gradual slope to Cheyenne Street.
He said there had been a petition in opposition submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board. He said the petition had approximately 65 names on it. He said it was evident, at the Glendale Community Council meetings, that the plan was opposed by the majority who attended, but the position of the Glendale Community Council did not represent the huge majority of the homeowners in the area. He asked the Council to consider the wishes of residents in the area who would be permanently affected by the zoning change.
Hugh Graham, Colleen Dinsdale, Paul Abe', Donna Abe', Enid Baker, Steven Graham, Jewel Snow, and Marti Major were in favor of the proposal. Ava-Gale Brooks was in favor of the preservation of open space.
Councilmember Seed said the project did a good job of combining housing needs and open space. She said she was impressed by the community spirit of the project.
Councilmember Christensen asked about lease-to-own renting. He asked for clarification from staff if the group could lease portions of the project until it could be sold or if it had to be owner-occupied.
Mr. Paterson said as part of a condominium project, the units would be individually owned. He said the 5 units in the lease-to-own program would be owned by Wasatch Co-Housing. He said after a 15 year period, individuals would have the opportunity to purchase the unit, then the lease would become a mortgage.
Janice Jardine, Planning & Policy Analyst, said the Wasatch Co-Housing covenants, conditions and restrictions included some kind of limiting capability as far as rental was concerned. She said if someone was renting a unit, it would only be allowed for 1 year and would be approved by the homeowners association.
Councilmember Jolley said he liked the idea of allowing a greater consolidation of residences and providing more open space in the process. He said his concerns were that a group could create a community who controlled who could live in that community. He said having the first right of refusal of any housing would create the opportunity for a group to have some sort of discrimination. He said the purpose for the current zoning was to allow individuals to have residences which they could own and no one else could say whether or not they could live in the home. He said it would not be up to the community, but whether the person could qualify to live in the home.
Councilmember Christensen said his concern with first rights of refusal would have a chilling effect on the fair market value of real estate. He said it was sometimes hard enough to find a buyer, but to tell a buyer someone else had the first right of refusal could put a chill on the fair market value of a unit.
Councilmember Godfrey said there were individuals who liked this concept and the idea of community. He said the idea of lease-to-own was a good idea. He said this was an experiment and he was impressed with the number of individuals willing to take part in it. He said the people who had done all the work were the people who would be living there. He said the Council should encourage this program and do what was possible to help with the problems of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Reid said he did not feel the Community Council was given all the information. He said Mr. Elkins said they were not aware of the lease-to-own option as part of the package. He asked staff if they could affirm that this information was not presented to the Community Council.
Mr. Paterson said he was not at the Community Council meetings when the project was discussed, but the lease-to-own program was made part of the public record and was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. He said it was also discussed at the follow-up meetings which Councilmember Milner held with members of the community and with Wasatch Co-Housing people.
Councilmember Reid said because this project was new to the area and had great potential he wanted to table the motion to a future meeting. He said there were more questions he wanted answered and because of time constraints, the Council was not able to hear all of the objections the Community Council had.
Councilmember Seed asked the petitioners what would tabling do to their project. Mr. Major said they were under an arduous process finishing the design and arranging bank loans, and it would have a severe impact on their ability to recruit families and finish the project.
Councilmember Milner said there was need for housing in the City. She said if the project was not supported, something worse could come in and cause worse traffic problems. She said if tabling the matter for a time would address specific concerns, she would support the motion.
Councilmember Christensen said he was uncomfortable tabling the issue. He said a briefing had been held on the issue and if there were questions, they should have been raised at that time.
Councilmember Reid said specific clarification was needed on engineering concerns, when and how issues would be addressed, lease-to-own issues, restrictions regarding the program, and any other issues raised which were not brought before the Council.
Councilmember Souvall said also included should be communication with the Community Councils. He said it would be the Community Council's responsibility to identify and collect all questions.
Councilmember Jolley asked to include clarification on the first right of refusal issue.
(P 96-379)
#4. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating an alley located between Kensington and Bryan Avenue east of 900 East, pursuant to Petition No. 400-96-43.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 80 of 1996, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: George Rosenthal, 921 East Brian Avenue, said the alley was an eye-sore and served as a magnet for thieves, graffiti, gangs, burglaries, and litter. He said it did not provide access to any of the adjacent land owners.
(P 96-380)
#5. RE: Accept public comment and consider authorizing the Mayor to submit and execute a Grant Agreement with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, to receive funds allocated to Salt Lake City under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 96-646)
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
bf