PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER ALICE SHEARER.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Report of the Executive Director.
Arlo Nelson discussed policies relating to CDBG and CIP. Report on City/County Building Committee.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER ALICE SHEARER.
Mayor Ted Wilson, Albert H. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer and Roger Cutler, City Attorney, were also present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and Councilmember Grant Mabey conducted this meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, October 5, 1982, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(M 82-2)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. Re: Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Draper City to provide that Salt Lake City Fire Department shall perform all fire and medical emergency dispatch services for Draper City for a three year period.
Recommendation: That this agreement be approved.
Discussion: Salt Lake City Fire is already dispatching for Sandy City, West Valley City, and Riverton City. Draper is to pay for all installation costs and pay a sum to the City for dispatching.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 94 of 1982 authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Draper City to provide that Salt Lake City Fire Department shall perform all fire and medical emergency dispatch services for a period of three years, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(C 82-598)
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
#1. Re: Additional funding required for bridge replacement at 500 North and the Jordan River.
Recommendation: That $11,200 of the 1981-82 Capital Projects Contingency be transferred to the Public Works Department’s budget for replacing the bridge at 500 North and the Jordan River.
Discussion: The 1981-82 appropriated budget included $250,000 for replacement of a bridge at 500 North and the Jordan River. Of that amount, $200,000 was to be received from the Federal Government through the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and $50,000 was appropriated from General Funding Sources within the Capital Projects Funds. The Utah Department of Transportation has now completed the final cost estimate. The total project cost is now estimated to be $306,000. Federal funds of $244,800 will be available for the project, but the remaining $61,200 must be provided from City funds.
Therefore, in order to sign the attached Cooperative Agreement allowing UDOT to proceed with the project, it is necessary that an additional $11,200 be appropriated for the project. As of this date, $341,078 remains in the Capital Projects Contingency fund. Of that amount, $250,000 is “earmarked” for specific projects and $91,078 remains available for allocation as deemed necessary.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 93 of 1982 approving the appropriation and transfer of $11,200 from the Capital Projects Contingency Fund to the Public Works Department to supplement other funding for replacement of a bridge at 500 North and the Jordan River, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(C 82-599)
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
#1. Re: Change in ordinance covering employee appeals board elections.
Recommendation: That the Council consider repealing Sections 25-11-4 and 25-11-5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah and adopt the attached as Section 25-2-1.
Availability of funds: Not applicable.
Discussion: The current ordinances covering employee appeals board elections do not meet the needs of the City under its new form of government or under the current grievance procedures as outlined in the Memoranda of Understanding. The proposed ordinance will allow the flexibility to structure elections to meet the employees’ needs as well as not tie up the administration with details and time constraints.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Ordinance 80 of 1982, repealing Section 25-11-4 and 25-11-5 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City relating to Employee Appeals Board, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 82-22)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. Re: Resolution to schedule a Board of Equalization and Review for Curb and Gutter Special Improvement District No. 38-535 on non-contiguous streets.
Recommendation: That the attached resolution to schedule Board of Equalization meetings for the above SID’s be adopted.
Availability of Funds: Property owner SID assessments.
Discussion: These projects have been completed except for various repairs and property owner assessment rates compiled. The resolution will set dates for Board of Equalization and Review, and establish a Board of Equalization comprised of the City Recorder or designate; City Engineer or Public Works Director; and City Attorney or designate. A letter listing items of concern to the local property owners, that will be resolved before the project is finalized, is on file in the Office of City Recorder. The items of work do not affect the rates which will be charged to the property owners.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to amend the resolution by changing the dates set for Board of Equalization to November 8th, 9th and 10th and adopt Resolution 92 of 1982 to schedule Board of Equalization and Review of Curb and Gutter Special Improvement District No. 38-535 on non-contiguous streets and name members of Board of Equalization and Review, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(Q 82-30)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Group Homes
Re: Continuation of a hearing from August 10, 1982, to discuss amending zoning ordinances to allow group homes as conditional uses in all residential areas.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this matter. Bart Lower addressed the Council and asked what classes or groups of people would reside in these homes. He further asked if these homes were to be used by alcoholics or criminals, to which Councilmember Mabey stated that the majority of these homes were for handicapped individuals, however, other groups of people may be included. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the state controls regulations on where halfway houses are built; city zoning ordinances do not control where these facilities are located.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to continue the hearing to January 11, 1983 at 6:15 p.m. regarding the amendment of zoning ordinances to allow group homes as conditional uses in all residential areas, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(O 82-44)
Salt Lake City’s 201 Plan
Re: Adoption of Salt Lake City’s 201 Plan for the construction of treatment facilities and to amend Section 37-6-2, Schedule 3 Rates, of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to sewer service charges.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this matter. James Waters addressed the Council and stated that the $102,000,000 is a lot of money and there should be careful consideration of the actual cost of the proposed improvements and new construction. He further stated that Salt Lake City has been impacted by all the energy projects that are coming to Utah. He stated that the Triad projects, the larger shopping complexes and hotels should share the burden in the cost. Mr. Waters further stated that he felt an alternative may be that the legislature appropriate money for this project from the funds that are coming into the state.
Mr. Waters further stated that it was impossible to raise the sewer costs to the citizens of his district; some of those people have no income at all and are totally supported by the government, or are on fixed incomes. Bob Donkin addressed the Council and asked why the present plant was not adequately designed to handle the influx in growth, to which Councilmember Mabey stated that the plant was planned to handle the growth for 15 to 20 years but it has outreached its usefulness as far as the capacity is concerned. Mr. Donkin also stated that the hotels in the downtown area should pay a portion of the increase, to which Councilmember Mabey stated that they were being charged proportionately on what they use. Mr. Donkin further stated that because of the recent increase in all utility rates the citizens would not be able to pay this increased rate. He stated that he strongly objected to the sewer connection increase that would be a deterrent to purchasing new homes.
Dorothy Pulley addressed the Council and stated that she felt the property taxes were being raised. She further stated that for renters rates were being doubled because the landlords generally do not pay water or sewer, but charge the tenant as though he did. She stated that some landlords in her area have already raised rents as much as $25 in anticipation of sewer rate increases. Ms. Pulley stated that she feels the developers need to plan for long-term growth and plan these expenses into their budgets; the citizens cannot continue to pay rate increases. She stated that to raise rates from $2 to $4 is doubling the taxes; license plates, drivers license fees and water rates have all doubled.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council does not like to raise taxes, however, the Council has been told that if something is not done to improve the existing plant and construct a new one there will be no growth in Salt Lake City. Councilmember Mabey stated that he had made a recommendation to the Council that whenever a development is built the developer has to produce and build their own sewer plant. Ms. Pulley stated that many citizens are going without other utilities because they can not afford to pay for these services; people are not growing, they are existing.
She stated that many of them do not have jobs, they are losing their homes; however, developers have the money and tax credits to assist in their projects. She stated that the developers should plan for these plants and/or improvements as they are planning their projects. Councilmember Mabey stated approximately 50% of his constituents are senior citizens on fixed incomes. He further stated that when the plant in Rose Park was built it would handle a growth of 200,000 in the valley. He stated at that time the population was approximately 185,000; the population now is 164,000. He stated that if the plant is enlarged it will be able to handle 56 million gallons of sewage and probably support up to 185,000 people.
Councilmember Mabey stated that during the day there is an influx of 250,000 or more coming into the city which creates a big impact on the treatment plant. Dee Jensen addressed the Council and stated that the citizens that have lived in the area most of their lives and paid for one sewage plant should not be taxed for a new one. He stated that the hotels, shopping centers and developers should be paying the total cost of renovating the old plant or constructing a new plant. Mr. Jensen further stated that he felt this issue should be voted on by the citizens. Mr. Jensen stated that he felt the $102,000,000 cost of the project was too high and that there must be other alternatives. He stated that in Canada a system of open ponds is used eliminating the treatment of the sewage. He stated that there is no odor and it is a sanitary means of treating the waste. Mr. Jensen further stated that the proposed rate increases are misleading because they are proposed to be increased from $2 to $4 and he is already paying $7 for his bill. He further stated that he feels the sewer rate should be based on current use.
Peter Maier addressed the Council and stated that last year he had an opportunity to look at the technical memorandum with regard to the modification of the existing facility. He stated that because he is an engineer in this field he was interested in what the proposals were. Mr. Maier stated that after studying the document he concluded that the modification, as proposed, could jeopardize the existing plant performance and could create an odor problem.
Mr. Maier stated that he attended meetings with the engineers and Public Utilities but felt that they were not productive and decided not to continue attending the meetings. He stated that he prepared some technical information and had received an answer. Mr. Maier read from his statement, Existing Treatment Plant Performance and Capacity. “The purpose of this type of sewage treatment is to reduce the exertion of an oxygen demand caused by carbon and nitrogen components in the sewage. Due to the lack of nitrogen data the performance of the Redwood Road treatment facility cannot be evaluated properly. Without this information it is not possible to determine the actual performance and the actual capacity”.
Mr. Maier stated that he felt it is not justified to make any modification without this information. Mr. Maier further read from the Manual of Practice prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Water Pollution Control Federation stating “because the BOD test is based on utilization of available free oxygen for the decomposition of organic waste the presence of plentiful autotrophic organisms can cause a potential high error where the BOO five data is used as a means of evaluating plant performance”.
Mr. Maier read responses he had received from the Utility Department and the engineer. He read from the engineer’s response, “Mr. Maier’s statement that any modification to the plant are not justified unless nitrogen data is available is false”. He then read from the response from LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, that EPA preliminary data indicates that “warm water effluent carbon BOO five concentration typically rates 10% to 75% less than the measured BOO five, therefore your statement has academic value.
But it appears to have no relevant meaning in regard to the performance measurements at the city’s treatment facility in view of the existing permit requirement and testing criteria”. Mr. Mater also stated that EPA is soliciting comments in regard to the new permit requirement and new testing criteria because they realized that if the sewage is not tested properly you can actually penalize a plant for treating too well, which is what is happening. Mr. Maier stated that if the Council follows the 201 study the plant will be modified and its treatment performance will be jeopardized. He stated that by modifying the plant the existing permit requirements will be met. He further stated that hearings will be held by EPA which will generate new requirements and new testing procedures which will have to be followed in the new treatment facility in which case you will not meet the new requirements. He further stated that in three or four years from now there will have to be more modifications done to the plant.
Bernice Cook addressed the Council and stated that she feels the Council is being blamed for poor planning in the past. She further stated that she feels there is no other alternative than to proceed with the project because during the recent flooding the treatment plant was over capacity. Mr. Waters addressed the Council stating that he felt because of the high costs involved with this proposal every effort should be made to research the proposal to make sure that all parts of the proposal are necessary and that no other means of funding is available. He further stated that if rates are increased the citizens will generate class action litigation for excessive taxation.
Mr. Jensen addressed the Council and stated that he felt other alternatives should be investigated. He stated that in some desert areas, water is taken into the area, used for washing, toilets, and drinking and then recycled for use. He further stated that the citizens have been paying an increased fee for water and sewer services and that sufficient money should have been set aside from this money. Mr. Jensen suggested that people on welfare could be trained in construction trades and then could be put to work building a new plant.
Melvin Morris addressed the Council and stated that he felt it was obvious that everyone was committed to growth. However, he felt the Council needs to explain, to the declining number of houseowners, why they should subsidize the growth and costs of building a new sewerage plant. He further stated that the comments made regarding the gross errors of past administrations in not sufficiently planning for the growth is incorrect. He stated that Charles Wilson, past Water Superintendent, was an outstanding superintendent recognized throughout the United States. He stated that at the time the plant was built the city administration consisted of the most capable people available in this community.
Councilmember Shearer stated that the combination of the sewer treatment and the water department is a recent development. She stated that the many long years that Mr. Wilson was in charge of the water department, with the exception of the last two years, he had nothing to do with the sewer plant; although when he took over he ran it efficiently. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that a Blue Ribbon Committee was established to find an alternative to funding these necessary projects without coming back to residents. She stated that the city is presently in litigation because the Council recently passed an innkeepers tax to help compensate for the influx of people coming into the city and contributing to the problem.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(C 82-56)
Petition 269 of 1982.
Re: Petition 269 of 1982, submitted by Gordon S. Sloan requesting that the zoning for the property owned by the Ambassador Club located at 145 South 5th East street be changed from its present “R-7” zoning to a Commercial “C-3” zoning.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:45 p.m. to discuss this matter. Vernon Jorgensen, Planning Director, addressed the Council and outlined on a map the area that Mr. Sloan is requesting to be rezoned. He stated that the petitioner has plans prepared for the construction of a multi-use building consisting of apartments, stores and rebuilding the Ambassador Club. He further stated that when the Ambassador Club was built it was a permitted use in the R-6 and R-7 zone. When the zoning classifications for R-6 and R-7 were revised private clubs were not included, therefore, the Ambassador Club is now a non-conforming use.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that they can continue to operate, however, if they tear the Ambassador Club down they could not replace the club in the existing R-7. Mr. Jorgensen explained that a C-3A permits any general business type activity, C-3A requires a 15-foot landscape setback and the R-7 requires the average of the existing buildings. He further stated that this situation is unusual because the adjoining building, which is in C-3, is required to have the same setback if it adjoins a district requiring a setback.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that there is also a difference in the side yards and height calculations. He explained that the R-7 requires a 75-foot height with an increase of two feet for every one foot of yard area; the height in a C-3A district is one and a half times the width of the street on which it faces. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the Planning Commission recommended changing the zoning as requested by the petitioner. David Brems, Edwards and Daniels, addressed the Council and explained the designs and proposal.
He explained the project would consist of a new Ambassador Club, 160 to 180 dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of office space and three levels of underground parking that would accommodate approximately 600 cars in the complex. He further stated that the building will be 15 stories tall and terraced back with the bulk of the housing rising over the top of the Ambassador Club which will be located in the center of the structure. Councilmember Davis asked if the Ambassador Club was listed on the historic register, to which Mr. Brems stated that it was not. Councilmember Davis asked if the proposed structure would be taller than the building located at 1st South and 5th East, to which Mr. Brems answered that the floor to floor height in the proposed building is 9-feet which would make the structure approximately 30 feet lower. Councilmember Parker asked if the number of dwelling units would be increased significantly in the proposed structure, to which Mr. Brems stated that it would.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what the streetscape would look like from 5th South, to which Mr. Brems stated that to a certain extent you will be looking into a parking terrace, however the plan is proposed to have a berm that would prevent an eye level view into the building. Trees and other shrubs will be planted in the front of the project and he stated that parking will not be a visual part of this project. Councilmember Shearer asked what safety precautions are planned for the parking area, to which Mr. Brems replied that parking will be treated in two different ways, 1) public parking for the office building for the offices located in the building and the Ambassador Club, and 2) the condominium parking which will be secured, and restricted to only those who own units, by the use of a card entry system or radio controlled door.
Councilmember Shearer stated that she felt entry could be obtained from the side yard, to which Mr. Brems replied that the two lowest levels would be designated primarily as condominium parking and the openings would have a security grill. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked what other variances must be obtained to adapt this building in an R-7 zone, to which Mr. Brems stated that the bulk of the building would be beyond the setback line required under R-7. He stated they would ask for an underground parking variance so that the parking structure could extend out underground. He further stated that the building was designed with R-7 zoning in mind and it does have a problem with the front yard and the height.
Mr. Brems stated that whether the area is zoned C-3A or R-7 they would propose a 15-foot front yard. Ron Simmons, Edwards and Daniels, addressed the Council and stated that the Council’s concerns on what the parking structure will look like are valid. He stated that he felt pushing a bad parking structure back 15 feet from the property line is not going to do much good. He stated that there are ways to berm and landscape and ways to build planters into the openings as part of the exterior wall creating a sense of landscaping at two or three levels. He also stated they could raise the wall high enough to hide lights from parking cars.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if there was a possibility that the ground floor could be designated strictly commercial and eliminating parking on that floor, to which Mr. Simmons stated that they have found that parking does not work well at the street level. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that they could ledge each level and landscape the ledge. Mr. Simmons stated that he felt they could step it up in 15 feet. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that in combining both residential and commercial use in the area it is important that the streetscape be maintained as more residential. Bernice Cook asked if the offices to the east of the proposed project would be closed, to which Mr. Brems stated that they would not. Ms. Cook asked if the exit to these offices would be blocked, to which Mr. Brems stated that there is currently a cross easement for the Ambassador Club and the offices that will be protected.
Dan Eastman, President of the Ambassador Club, addressed the Council and stated that the Ambassador Club as it stands today is in poor condition and costs a fortune to keep operating. He stated that the 585 members considered spending approximately $10,000,000 to restore it to its original condition; the club is completely equity owned by the members and most of the members want to leave something of beauty to the community.
Councilmember Davis aksed if any federal funds were being used to finance the project, to which Mr. Eastman stated that it is a joint venture financed solely by the club members. Mr. Eastman stated that the zoning would have to be changed to C-3A if the project is to be completed as planned. He further stated that the members are proud of the project and feel it is very well planned. Gordon Sloan addressed the Council and stated that he felt a sense of urgency in approving the request to rezone because the financial market is good right now.
Russell Scott addressed the Council and stated that he owns the property to the east of the project and further stated that he was in agreement with the project and has been working with the developers. He feels that this project will beautify the area and benefit the community.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to refer to the Landuse Committee and to the agenda for October 19, 1982, Petition 269 of 1982 requesting that the zoning for the property owned by the Ambassador Club located at 145 South 5th East street be changed from its present R-7 zoning to a Commercial C-3 zoning, which motion carried, all members present voting aye.
(P 82-265)
CITIZENS COMMENTS
#1. Re: Art Hurry to discuss items relating to affirmative action. Mr. Hurry asked to be placed on the agenda for Tuesday, October 19, 1982.
#2. Kelly Hamster, Co-chairman of the MX Information Center, addressed the Council and stated that sometime this week Jake Cam will christen a nuclear submarine launched in Connecticut to be named the USS Salt Lake City. She stated that the MX Information Center and other groups are against the nuclear submarine carrying the name of our city. She stated that polls show that 48% of Utah residents are in opposition to nuclear arms. She stated that her organization is asking that the Council adopt a resolution of disapproval of naming this ship. Councilmember Mabey stated that her request did not come before the Council as an agenda item, therefore no official action can be taken.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.