The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, October 6, 1998, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Carlton Christensen Joanne Milner Tom Rogan
Deeda Seed Roger Thompson Bryce Jolley
Keith Christensen
Mayor Deedee Corradini; Roger Cutler, City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Bonnie Ferrin, Deputy City Recorder, were present.
Councilmember Jolley presided at and Councilmember C. Christensen conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council meeting held September 1, 1998, September 8, 1998, and September 22, 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 98-1)
#3. Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the minutes for the joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings held on July 16, 1998 and August 13, 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(H 98-3)
#4. Adopting a joint resolution with the Mayor honoring the USS Salt Lake City.
ACTION: Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember K. Christensen seconded to adopt Resolution 61 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley read the Joint Resolution with the Mayor honoring the USS Salt Lake City and declaring October 16th as USS Salt Lake City Day.
Councilmember C. Christensen said he and Councilmember Milner attended the Change of Command on the submarine. He said the crew was grateful to have them come and was proud to bare the name on their vessel. He presented the resolution to Senator and Mrs. Garn and Mr. Dan Heikes.
Councilmember Milner said crew members were pleased to have the affiliation and association with the City. She said anytime the City had memorabilia she hoped the City would share it with the crew members.
Senator Garn said he felt the men who served on the USS Salt Lake City, and the role it played in national defense, needed to be recognized.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Setting the date of November 3, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning property located at approximately 1235 South Glendale Drive from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High density multi-family), pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-3.
(P 98-72)
#2. RE: Setting the date of November 10, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance vacating an alley located between 800 South and Indiana Avenue (830 South) and between Emery Street (1170) and Glendale Street (1140 West), pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-33.
(P 98-73)
#3. RE: Adopting Ordinance 69 of 1998, amending Chapter 12.64, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to the City Parking Permit Program. (To transfer responsibilities for the review, oversight and approval of new parking permit areas from the Community and Economic Development Director to the City Transportation Division Director.)
(O 98-24)
#4. RE: Adopting Resolution 62 of 1998 authorizing the approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for cost sharing on the Goggin Drain System #18 located at approximately 4000 West - 800 South to 500 South.
(C 98-720)
NEW BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing a loan from Salt Lake City's Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund to Diamond Lil's, Inc. to purchase adjoining land to expand the parking lot, pave the parking lot, building renovation, new roof, new air conditioning system, new kitchen equipment, working capital and refinance an existing loan.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Thompson seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution 63 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(R 98-7)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting an ordinance closing a portion of an alley located between Folsom Avenue and 100 South at 900 West, pursuant to Petition No. 400-97-11.
ACTION: Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to not adopt the ordinance, but requested that the Administration continue to focus increased Police and enforcement attention on the area, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 98-3)
#2. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing adoption of Salt Lake City's Empowerment Zone Initiative Strategic Plan and its submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
ACTION: Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember Rogan seconded to adopt Resolution 64 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(T 98-3)
#3. RE: Adopting a legislative action item asking the Administration to draft a new ordinance regarding parking regulations.
ACTION: Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember K. Christensen seconded to adopt and refer to Community and Economic Development and City Attorney, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 98-25)
#4. RE: Adopting a resolution expressing the official intent of the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, to reimburse certain capital expenditures from the proceeds of one or more obligations to be issued by the Authority. (The resolution states the City's intention to issue debt for the construction of Steiner Ice Sheet; maximum principal amount of bonds to be issued is $18,000,000 to produce a net construction budget of $15,000,000.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen 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 K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Resolution 60 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adjourn as Municipal Building Authority, and reconvene as City Council, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 98-4)
#5. RE: Adopting a resolution authorizing the approval of an interlocal agreement amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and the State of Utah Department of Community and Economic Development to provide grant money to the City from the Olene Walker Housing Trust Fund for the rehabilitation of transitional housing at 872 North 1500 West.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Thompson seconded to adopt Resolution 66 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(C 98-53)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of 700 West Street between 100 South and South Temple Streets, pursuant to Petition No. 400-97-67.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Thompson seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 70 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 98-21)
#2. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance to amend the fiscal year 1998-99 budget.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Rogan seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Thompson seconded to adopt Ordinance 71 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(B 98-6)
#3. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending certain sections of Division II of Title 17, relating generally to wastewater control and the City's sewer system; establishing more effective enforcement remedies; providing for the establishment of local limits of the Administrative level; clarifying certain provisions relating to rates and fee; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Thompson seconded to adopt Ordinance 72 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(0 95-13)
#4. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah ("Participant") approving the form of the interlocal cooperation agreement regarding Mission Health Services refunding, authorizing the execution and delivery of said interlocal cooperation agree-ment; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Rogan seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Resolution 59 of 1998 was adopted on September 8, 1998.
(C 98-39)
#5. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning properties along the Jordan River Parkway at approximately 1000 North Cornell Street from R-1/7000 Single Family Residential to OS Open Space, pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-41.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to adopt Ordinance 73 of 1998, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Peter Lassig, 1576 West Talismen Drive, said he was in favor of the ordinance because it was a final link to complete a green-belt which ran through the City. He said it was the last wild section which could be used for educational opportunities.
(P 98-31)
#6. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning properties located at 1575 South 900 West from RMF-35 to a) Office or Neighborhood Commercial; b) Special Residential SR-1; c) remain Residential Multi-family RMF-35 with a development agreement requirement; d) Residential Multi-family RMF-30; or e) other zoning districts and to amend the West Salt Lake Master Plan as needed, pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-23.
ACTION: Councilmember Rogan moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Milner moved and Councilmember K. Christensen seconded to adopt Ordinance 68 of 1998, rezoning properties at approximately 1575, 1595 South 900 West, from residential multi-family RMF-35 to single-family R-1/5000, and amending the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan, which motion carried, all members voted aye, except Councilmember Thompson, who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Adam Nash, 4376 South 700 East, said he was the property owner who was subjected to the moratorium. He said with the zoning rewrite in 1995 the property was zoned from R-2 to RMF-35. He said he purchased the property in 1996, with the knowledge of the new zoning. He said he brought Hedman Properties in as a proposed developer. He said they brought in a plan for a 74 unit multi-family residential project. He said the project met a lot of resistance from local community and Community Council. He said this developer dropped the project. He said he worked with the Planning staff to create a development package which would be more appealing to the community. He said subsequently he brought in Knight Construction Company to try to develop a 62 unit project. He said he had gone to great length to work with City staff to bring a good project to this location.
Ruth Little, 1533 South 900 West, said she lived west of the proposed property which once belonged to her father. She said she did not feel condominiums were the proper thing to put on the property because the area already had a lot of apartments. She said there was a portion of property from 700 to 800 West which was not closed. She said she wanted to see a road go over the conduit. She said this would take the traffic off 900 West.
Mike Moore, 1580 South 900 West, said he lived across the street from the proposed project. He said there had been 4 meetings with the people in the community and no one wanted to see the condominium project put in. He said the neighborhood wanted the area zoned R-1/5000 for single family homes. He said he had a business at 1820 South 900 West and had to put fencing around the property because of thievery. He said he thought there were approximately 500 apartments in the area already. He said neighbors were against the height of the proposal. He said there would be 2 1/2 levels above the ground and there was a ground water problem.
Dera Dietzel, 964 West 1820 South, said she was more supportive of single family homes than of a larger complex. She said she wanted to see the property owner-owned, and only the owners could reside there.
Mark Mascaro, Attorney for the Petitioner, said the proposals presented to the Planning Commission were important because they indicated a need for lower density in the area. He said the RM-35 would have allowed 74 units on the property. He said Mr. Nash started with a 74-unit development. He said now the proposal was down to 40 units. He said as the project was presented to the Planning Commission a committee was set to meet with them. He said the committee's proposal was for the development agreement to limit the number of units to 40. He said the 1995 rezone rewrite stated that the purpose was to provide a transition between the R-1/7000 zone on the north and west and the M-1 zone on the south and east. He said he tried to accomplish this, and had the support of the Planning Commission. He said the Community Council did support it with a vote of 11 to 4. He said there were neighbors who did not support the proposal. He asked the Council to follow the support vote of the Planning Commission to keep the zone at RMF-35, and finalize the development agreement with the City. He said he felt they could address the concerns of the citizens with respect to the height and buffer zones.
Greg Probst, 9 Pepperwood Drive, said he would be going together on a joint venture development of this project with the Wardley organization companies. He said they had revised the number of units to 40 to respond to concerns and suggestions, and still keep the project economically viable. He said the concept was primarily to address the needs of seniors. He said they were trying to develop a project which had green space and would be bracketed into an economic market in that part of town. He said they could not build fewer units without significant economic viability of the project. He said this would be a gated community with high security and not have amenities such as a swimming pool. He emphasized this would not be apartments, and security was an important consideration.
Gil Iker, Planning Commission, said he had served on the Planning Commission subcommittee which analyzed this issue. He said he was concerned over the economics of the issue. He said Mr. Moore had gone to a great deal of trouble to create a proposed subdivision which would create space for about 18 homes in that area.
Mr. Iker said he was concerned about the cost of the proposed homes in relation to the cost of the other homes in the immediate area. He said these homes would probably have to sell for 2 to 2-1/2 times as much and he did not think it was economically possible. He said the Planning Commission concluded, despite the concerns of some of the neighbors, that the proposed development had a possibility of working. He said if the proposal failed he was concerned the neighborhood would deteriorate and would be encroached on from industrial zones to the immediate east.
Councilmember Thompson said the City had just rezoned this area. He said it was a policy issue which concerned him. He said he had seen small developments where they had been owned and rented out again. He said these developments were also not maintained very well. He said the condominium format had a better likelihood of maintaining the property and would make a better transition between the warehouse in the area on the east and the residential area.
Councilmember Milner said even though rezoning took place only a few years ago, the Planning Commission said this property had problems to begin with. She said it was not uncommon to have residential property adjacent to industrial areas. She said the area was already saturated with rental units. She said she was an advocate of affordable housing. She said the City was continually plagued with problems which occurred as a result of density. She said the real consideration should not be economics, but what was best for the neighborhood. She said people who lived in the neighborhood had a vested interest. She said she hoped the Council would not be swayed by whether or not the developer would benefit financially, but how it would provide viability, strength, and support to the neighborhood. She said the Community Council had a lot of challenges, one being that they were not representative of the community and did not reflect the demographic population of the people who lived in that community.
Councilmember Milner said another concern she had with the proposal was the poor design. She said the neighborhood needed and wanted single-residential property owners. She said she was upset at the proposal for a "gated" community. She said "gated" meant exclusion. She said as the Council looked at all the options before them, what needed to be done was to modify the Master Plan in a fashion suitable for the neighborhood.
Councilmember Rogan said after looking at the proposed development and the site, there was a sense among some members of the Council that this was not the right project. He said he thought an effort was made to communicate to the developer the concerns which existed. He said there was opportunity to look at alternative designs to address these concerns. He said there was no follow-up on that opportunity. He said the developers economic consideration had been considered and good-faith efforts had been made. He said he would support the motion.
Councilmember Thompson said he would be voting against the motion. He said he wanted to leave the existing zoning and adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations. He said they had looked at this issue carefully and had a sub-committee look at it. He said he felt they made a wise recommendation which had been approved by the Community Council.
He said the condominium concept, as applied in the agreement, was specific in terms of the owner-occupied require-ment, maintenance requirements, and would have more open space than small lots would have. He said there was a due-process issue on the zoning and an issue with property rights. He said for those reasons he proposed not adopting the motion.
Councilmember Seed said she supported the motion. She said the City needed to discuss how to deal with issues of multi-family housing. She said it was important to remember that all multi-family housing was not bad. She said there were poorly designed multi-family housing projects which existed in many communities. She said there were also good designs. She said the Council needed to start looking at how multi-family could be done in a way which was compatible with community values.
Councilmember K. Christensen said the Planning Commission had a recommendation and the Planning staff had a different recommendation before the Council. He said the developer seemed to be unyielding to how he might be flexible with respect to what Planning staff was recommending. He said he did not believe the proposed development was suitable to this neighborhood. He said people would buy these units based on speculation and would rent them out. He said he believed there were too many multi-family units concentrated in certain areas in the City. He said it was for this reason he would support the motion.
(P 98-24)
#7. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the East Bench Master Plan with the adoption of the Arcadia Heights, Benchmark and H Rock Small Areas Plan, and rezoning portions of the Arcadia Heights, Indian Rock and Scenic Heights Subdivisions from Special Residential SR-1 and Residential R-1-12000 to Foothill Residential FR-3, pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-37.
ACTION: Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember K. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 75 of 1998, amending the East Bench Master Plan with the adoption of the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/H-Rock Small Area Plan, with the following amendments to the Small Area Plan: Amend the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Recommendation No. 3, Page 12, to read "A Class 1 or 2 trail adjacent to Wasatch Drive, through the Bonneville Golf Course. Amend the definition of a collector street on the Major Street Plan map in the Small Area Plan to be consistent with the definition of a collector street in the text of the City Transportation Master Plan, by removing the words "and commuter traffic". Amend the Major Street Plan map in the Small Area Plan to denote Wasatch Drive as a local street. Amend the development constraints map to include the following statement: This map is provided for conceptual illustration of existing conditions and is not intended to portray the recommendations of the plan. He further moved that it was the intent of the City Council that the City Transportation Master Plan and major street plan map be updated to include the recommendations in the adopted Arcadia Heights/Benchmark/and H Rock Small Area Plan. Language was excluded with respect to the 30% slope ordinance and he proposed leaving existing language present, as currently in place in the City, until the Council had the opportunity to further receive briefing from staff with respect to the full nuance between the two proposed languages, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember C. Christensen said there had been a mistake in the publication regarding the zoning portion. He said a decision would not be made tonight regarding the rezoning portion, but he would welcome comments about the Master Plan. He said an additional public hearing for the rezoning would be noticed.
Craig Hinckley, Environmental Planner, said in late 1996 Planning received an annexation petition within the study area established. He said there had been on-going conversations with the Community Councils along with other development pressure. He said the decision was made to do a Small Area Master Plan. He said this process started in April 1997 with the establishment of a steering committee. He said the committee continued to meet until March, 1998. He said in March, 1998 there was an open house held to present the draft document to the community. He said in June, 1998 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the issue. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the document with a few changes, one of which was fairly controversial. He said this dealt with the determination of slope and whether Planning staff should continue with the City's policy and interpretation of slope on the hillsides or if it should be changed. He said at the September 10, 1998 briefing, Planning staff was asked for additional information and clarification on the policy. He said in the Council packet there was a memo from Planning staff outlining the policies and procedures the City had been following for the last 17 years since slope standards were established in 1981.
Mr. Hinckley said the Council staff report suggested alternative motions, and the Council might want to include their explanation to policies and procedures of slope in the plan. He said it might be better in a separate document. He said it was Planning staff intention to take a comprehensive look at the site development ordinance where these provisions were included and begin the process of evaluating, updating, and/or amending them.
He said Planning staff had revised some of the maps in order to clarify what the intent was.
Councilmember Rogan asked him to articulate what the policy reasons would be for not stating that hillside development was restricted on slopes equal to or greater than 30%, whether man-made or natural.
Mr. Hinckley said he believed the way the City had interpreted the policy in the past gave the City the ability to evaluate unique situations. He said an example would be if there was a natural slope, less than 30%, and for some reason it was disturbed and created deeper slopes, it was good to have the ability to evaluate those situations and restore those slopes to what they were before. He said the City would want to allow revegetation or open space, if other development standards permitted development. He said if a steep slope was disturbed, there had been instances in the past where the City had used the policy to require the sub-divider to restore slopes to their original condition, and revegetate them and maintain them as open space. He said there were also cases of isolated slopes. He said if there was a site in the foothills with an area of steep slope and everything else was less steep, the City would not consider this a significant area of steep slope. He said it would not be significant because it was different than all the rest of the surrounding slope. He said in this case, they would allow the area to be disturbed.
He said areas with significantly steep slopes of over 30%, Planning staff would review the area first and then the Planning Commission would make the final determination. He said they would delineate on a map where those areas were. He said the problem with saying that any slope that showed up red on a map, or 30% or greater, could not be touched, was not reasonable. He said this did not give them the ability to allow evaluating unique conditions on the site.
Councilmember Rogan asked if he was saying that the 30% requirement did not work and Planning staff wanted the discretion to work around it.
Mr. Hinckley said the procedures developed over the last 17 years had worked well. He said it gave the Planning Commission the ability to look at each site individually and evaluate the characteristics of the site, and determine what was significant and what was not. He said to change the ordinance to say anything over 30% would not be touched did not allow a reasonable approach.
Councilmember Rogan asked if there was any way someone could be prevented from building on a slope which was less than 30%.
Mr. Hinckley said if there was a slope less than 30%, and it qualified as a developable site, based on the policies that site could be built on.
Doug Wheelwright, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner, said the possibility existed that there could be a natural area which was less than 30% slope, which could not be accessed without crossing a steeper area. He said there were many places in the foothills where land was less than 30% slope, but the land could not be accessed without crossing those steep slopes. He said the ordinance which was originally created in 1981 envisioned that the City would not allow access across the steep slope areas to get to the flatter areas. He said this was the situation on the end of Benchmark. He said the difference was a road was cut sometime before 1950, across that slope. He said it had been a big issue with the subcommittee and community all along. He said the question was asked if there would be loop-holes in the regulations which would allow that to become the access to the otherwise developable area, based on slope. He said slope-mapping was a tool. He said the reason the ordinance fixed on 30% or 40% slope was that it was defensible. He said the City could use police power exercises of authority based on slope. He said the difficulty was to define what the slope was. He said past practices had been to map slopes at a very detailed level at 2-foot contour intervals. He said if they mapped at 10-foot contour intervals it would be more black and white application of the slope rule. He said the practice was to look for patterns of overall slope which they intended to protect under the ordinance. He said the Planning Commission would make the final determination on the findings. He said what staff was recommending through the Master Plan process to the Planning Commission significantly increased the degree in which Planning would deny development.
Councilmember Thompson asked Mr. Hinckley to comment on the issue which the community wanted with respect to the designation of Wasatch Drive.
Mr. Hinckley said there was a recommendation in the plan which changed the designation of Wasatch Drive from a collector street to a local street. He said one of the amended maps showed the recommendation.
Councilmember Thompson asked about the effect of the change and if it had any effect on funding for highways.
Mr. Hinckley said initially the map did not allow traffic calming on collector streets, but the map had since been modified. He said traffic calming could now occur on collector streets, as well as local streets.
Councilmember Thompson asked why it was made a local street.
Mr. Hinckley said the name of a street could be changed, but that did not change the way the street functioned. He said other changes in the general area, such as traffic calming or working with UDOT to increase the volume on Foothill Drive needed to be implemented.
Councilmember Rogan asked what the rationale was for changing the designation of Wasatch Drive from a collector to a local street. He said he wanted the record to clearly show what the reason was. He said there were other streets in the City where residents wanted their streets to be treated as local streets and not be designated as collectors. He said if this policy document was going to contain such a change it was important that the rationale which underlined the policy be clearly stated.
Kevin Young, Deputy Transportation Engineer, said it had been Transportation's recommendation that the street stay a collector street. He said they did not support the change to a local street. He said they felt it functioned as a collector street.
Councilmember Rogan said he understood that for purposes of traffic calming, a collector, which had a 25 mile per hour speed limit, or less, would be treated as a local street. He asked if this was accurate.
Mr. Young said it was. He said they recognized there were differences in collector streets. He said the way the traffic calming plan was written, there were problems, and a need on some collectors to be treated differently. He said rather than get into other issues of classifications, they felt collectors with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour could be treated as a local.
Councilmember Rogan asked if, other than traffic calming, was there any other reason for a street to be designated as either a collector or a local street.
Mr. Young said not specifically. He said this street would be treated no differently. He said this street served as a collector for the neighborhoods and Transportation felt it should remain the same.
Councilmember Rogan asked if it was accurate to say that aside from traffic calming considerations, the distinction between a collector and a local street was a distinction without a difference.
Mr. Hinckley said there were differences, but a lot of times they were unique to the areas, how streets were looked at, and what occurred on them.
Councilmember Rogan asked aside from traffic calming, was there any other reason why streets would be treated differently.
Mr. Hinckley said not specifically on this street.
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director, said with regard to traffic calming and the designation of streets, the Council could schedule a separate briefing on streets since it was related to the Transportation Master Plan. She said anything added to the master plan for the Arcadia Heights/Benchmark area would simply be advisory. She said Council would need to follow it up with a change to the Transportation Master Plan.
Councilmember K. Christensen asked for a clear definition as to what was a collector street and what was considered a local street.
Mr. Young said classification of streets was confusing. He said a local street assumed a certain right-of-way. He said a collector street had a larger right-of-way, with larger arterials. He said this was confusing to people who called to ask when their arterial would be widened, because it was not at the width it was shown on the map. He said Transportation recognized there was a large differentiation between these streets. He said there were many arterials that had only one lane in each direction, and others which had two or three. He said Transportation looked at a hierarchy of what was occurring on the streets. He said local streets served the neighbors in the area, and then funneled into collectors. He said collector streets took traffic to other collectors, or to arterials, and/or to the freeway system.
John R. Hart, 1941 South Wasatch Drive, said he was concerned about the density and increased traffic in the area. He said water pipes had previously broken and were replaced by humans. He said the City had paved over the shut off valves. He asked the Council to request the City Attorney's Office to settle with Mr. Frandsen over the broken watermain.
Councilmember C. Christensen said he also had a letter from Vicky Hansen, property owner.
Steve Klass, 2230 South Belaire Drive, said the area plan proposal was consistent with public policy in terms of the open space plan, East Bench and the master plan. He said foothill access and open space were important. He said there was only one designated open space. He said all easy access points to the foothills between Immigration and Parley's Canyon had been closed off. He said there was only one designated foothill access point currently available to residents. He said the Shoreline Trail had not been completed at the south end. He said the connection to the County was underway and would be completed in May, 1999. He said the proposal for open space and recreation would add to these amenities and was consistent with the East Bench Community Council position and he urged the Council's adoption.
Dean Robinson, 2015 Wasatch Drive, said Mr. Frandsen's house had been condemned and yet his taxes had been increased. He said he wanted some assurance to homeowners that this would not happen again.
Hallie Robbins, 1925 South Wasatch Drive, said in addition to being a homeowner in the area, she was also Vice Chair of the H-Rock Neighborhood Council. She said a petition had just been sent in regarding traffic calming in the area. She gave out additional petitions to those previously collected and given to the Council. She said the open-space issue was a major issue, because of its intrinsic, aesthetic, and recreational value. She said she would support some measure of being able to acquire the funds or set them aside in order to acquire or create a land trust for these lands with the agreement of the current property owners. She said it was the last foothill space on the east side of the City. She said the 30% grade limit instituted in the past should be upheld without blanket grandfathering. She said the October 16, 1997, hillside ravines demonstrated that the area was fragile and could not support further development.
Lorin Brown, 2457 South Scenic Drive, Chair of the Arcadia Heights Benchmark Community Council, said the intersection of Thunderbird, Foothill Drive and Stringham Avenue were part of the master plan. He said it was suggested semaphores should be placed there. He said UDOT said there was not enough justification to have lights and he thought a light at Thunderbird would significantly impact transportation issues. He said there were parts of Wasatch Boulevard which ran right next to Foothill. He said he did not feel there was a need for Wasatch Boulevard to be designated as a collector, because it did not collect local traffic to get to an arterial. He said he wanted to see new development be public and not private streets.
Suzanne Weaver, 2532 Maywood Drive, said she was a member of the Small Area Plan Steering Committee, representing the Southeast Community Council. She said the east boundary of her council area was the west side of Foothill Drive. She said 2100 South was the only street which directly connected Foothill Drive to 2300 East. She said it was the only street, other than Wasatch Drive, that commuters could use to avoid the slow traffic flow which occurred on Foothill during peak hours. She said homeowners on 2100 South had become more concerned about the increasing volume of traffic on the narrow, steep road. She said they envisioned an even greater number of cars using the street if substantial development occurred east of Foothill Drive.
She said she was also concerned about school safety, directly related to the traffic issue, with 3 schools accessed north off of 2100 South, between Foothill and 2300 East.
Tantalisa Clayton, 2730 South Belaire Drive, said she was Co-chair of the Arcadia Heights Community Council. She said she had also sat on the steering committee for the last 1-1/2 years. She urged the Council to adopt the Master Plan as is, with the slope language to read "potential development which would disturb existing 30% grades, either natural or man-made, should not be permitted."
Bob Fisher, 2172 Hannibal Street, said he was for development on the Foothills.
Kent Frandsen, 1865 South Wasatch Drive, said his property was damaged by the broken water pipe. He recommended that the suit be settled out of court and the City purchase the property. He said the 16" watermain going through the H-Rock area needed to be addressed. He said communication was lacking.
Alan Davis, 1925 Wasatch Drive, said once development started it was hard to control. He opposed grandfathering in the previously developed, man-made, less than 30%, slopes.
Jerry Bergosh, 1961 Scenic Drive, Subcommittee member and Neighborhood Council, said he urged the Council to adopt the neighborhood language, because it simplified the situation. He said the memorandum was a complex and difficult thing to understand. He said people in the neighborhoods wanted a local street.
Scott Turville, 3643 South Highland Drive, recommended tabling the issue for further discussion.
Tony Romney, 2361 Berkeley Street, said on October 2, 1998, he posted signs of "no trespassing" on his property. He said he and Bob Carson owned Romney Lumber. He said there were four access points for trails through the property and they had been effectively shut down. He said it was his intent to donate approximately 300 acres to Salt Lake City or to an entity chosen by the City so the land could be preserved. He said he had 20 acres of developed land under the 30% slope, off Scenic Drive, and 15 acres off the Benchmark Drive access point. He said the issue of Benchmark access was that of slope, man-made verses natural.
He said the plan designated the upper 15 acres be open space. He requested that it be given a zoning designation. He said he wanted to grade and retain the existing man-made slope. He said he wanted to regrade the quarry access road. He said regarding the waterline breakage, they would present the City with the opportunity to make sure that, with his development, the water line be addressed so there would not be a reoccurrence of the event which took place on the Turville property. He said his development was originally for 70 lots. He said it had now been reduced to 17 lots. He requested that the Council not adopt the proposals as related to the change of policy implemented by the Administration and Planning Department in times past.
Mel Romney, 2025 Scenic Drive, supported what Tony Romney said.
Mike Zuhl, 2676 Comanche Drive, Chair of the Indian Hills Community Council and member of the City's Open Space Committee, said they discussed the master plan. He said there were compelling reasons why the Council should come up with clear, simple, unambiguous, language on what could and could not be developed. He said he understood the need for flexibility, and the need to treat properties fairly. He suggested that creating ambiguity, to achieve flexibility, would be doing a disservice to developers and to property owners. He said it created inevitable pressure for development. He said he thought the people living in the City were clear that they wanted to protect hillsides and important open space areas.
He said Wasatch Drive should be considered a local road and not a collector because according to the latest traffic calming program, not all traffic calming techniques were available for a collector road.
Bruce Cohne, 2384 South Summit Circle, said the issue everyone was dealing with was growth. He said an overall plan had been developed for growth within the Foothill area. He said developers and those living in the area had rights. He said the City Council had the responsibility to determine where growth ended, where it began, and how much the City would have. He said this was an opportunity, and he hoped the Council did not waste it.
Jane Blackwell, 1881 South Wasatch Drive, said she lived next door to the severly damaged house. She said the Council needed to address the fragility of the land. She said the ravines were not filled in. She said on July 7, 1992 there was a big rainstorm and they had a huge mudslide come down the hill and into her house.
Cindy Cromer, no address given, urged the Council to minimize the number and size of lots. She said there was a document in the Council packet regarding the 30% slope. She said she had looked for this document for years. She said she had never seen it written down before. She said the Council needed to write in the ordinance when that 30% boundary could be crossed.
Bryan Stephensen, 1600 East Laird Avenue, said he looked up to the hills and saw houses. He said he found it interesting that people who had their houses on the hill did not want anyone else to have a house on the hill. He said he did not think this was fair. He said certain areas would look nice if filled in appropriately.
Those who submitted speaker cards, but did not wish to speak:
Caryl Brown, 619 East Garfield Avenue, supported the neighborhood wording in the Small Area Master Plan.
Grace D. Meldrum, 1972 Wasatch Drive, supported the 17 house limit and suggested that the City settle with the flood victims.
Nibs Meldrum, 1972 Wasatch Drive, was in opposition of the ordinance.
H. Thomas Davis, 1852 South Wasatch Drive, was in opposition of the ordinance and suggested reimbursing Mr. Frandsen for his property.
Juliana Szakacs, 2321 South Lakeline Drive, did not support the rezoning, but did support parks and trails with no further building. She recommended not building on any slopes of 30% or greater.
Bob Richey, 1991 South Broadmoor Street, was opposed to further housing development in the H-Rock area due to added traffic impact access to Foothill via 2100 South, impact on heavy rainfall runoff, and impact on outdoor uses such as access to H-Rock trail.
Louis S. Naegle, 1745 South 2600 East, said to stop building and have more open space.
(P 98-25)
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.