PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983, AT 4:45 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD PALMER DEPAULIS GRANT MABEY ALICE SHEARER SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK IONE M. DAVIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Dean L. Gustavson and Associates and the Ehrenkrantz Group presented the preliminary report on the restoration of the City and County Building.
The policy session adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted L. Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Wally Miller, deputy city attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and Councilmember Palmer DePaulis conducted the meeting.
Invocation was given by Police Chaplain Greg James.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, September 6, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
(M 83-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 321 of 1982 submitted by West Properties.
RE: The vacation of a portion of 1600 South Street at approximately 400 West.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss this request.
FUNDS: The petitioner is required to pay a $35.00 advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: The petition has been reviewed by Public Utilities, Finance, Planning Commission, City Engineer, Transportation, Fire, and the City Attorney’s Office. Each has recommended that the petition be granted, subject to the following: A. The petitioner shall pay the City the fair market value of the street to be vacated. B. The petitioner shall pay the appraisal costs incurred to determine the fair-market value of the petitioned property. C. The petitioner shall prepare engineering drawings and specifications in accordance with the City’s requirement describing the improvements necessary to shorten the street and that said improvements be installed at the petitioner’s expense.
The street improvements shall include the installation of curb and gutter on the remaining portion of 1600 South which abuts the petitioner’s property. D. The petitioner shall install a cul-de-sac at the west end of 1600 South, in accordance with the engineer’s specifications. E. The public utilities easements be retained for all existing utilities with the understanding that no structures are to be constructed over these easements and that access shall be available to the easement holders at all times.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, October 18, 1983 at 7:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 321 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 83-480)
Petition 400-3 of 1982 submitted by Boyd Stevens and Gertrude Edwards.
RE: The petitioners are requesting the vacation of portions of two alleys. One alley runs east and west parallel to Kensington and Emerson Avenues just east of 1300 East; the second alley runs north and south between 1300 and 1400 East, approximately 150 feet east of 1300 East.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss this request.
FUNDS: Mr. Stevens has paid the required $35.00 advertising fee.
DISCUSSION: Originally the alley ran from Kensington to Emerson, in 1951 a major portion of the alley was vacated leaving open the section of the alley covered by this petition. The petition has been reviewed by the Public Utilities Department and Finance, each concur that the alley should be vacated. The petition was also reviewed by the Fire Department, Engineering, Transportation, and the Planning Commission. These departments have recommended that the petition be denied because not all of the abutting property owners have signed the petition. A second basis for denial is that a property owner to the west of the petitioner currently uses that portion of the alley requested to be vacated as a turnaround so she can have access to her garage. It should also be noted that if the alleys are vacated the alley running east and west is in the Liberty Heights Subdivision and would revert back to the property owner in said subdivision.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, October 18, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss Petition 400-3 of 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 83-266)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY ATTORNEY
#1. RE: A resolution supporting Colorado Midland Railway Corporation in its efforts to provide passenger rail service between Denver, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah. Councilmember DePaulis referred the resolution supporting Colorado Midland Railway Corporation to the unfinished business section of the Council agenda for September 20, 1983; referred without objection.
(R 83-17)
#2. RE: A resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County establishing a health department. Councilmember DePaulis referred the resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County to the consent agenda for September 20, 1983; referred without objection.
(C 83-325)
#3. RE: An ordinance closing and narrowing portions of 200 West from South Temple to 100 South Street to accommodate the Salt Palace Expansion Project. Also an ordinance closing Folsom Street in Block 78, Plat A, at approximately 50 South from 200-275 West, to accommodate the Salt Palace Expansion Project. These two ordinances were pulled from the agenda by the Council and referred to the Thursday, Committee of the Whole meeting.
(R 82-9)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: A resolution implementing Section IV, Subsection 4 of the Bylaws of the Utah League of Cities and Towns concerning appointment of voting delegates to the Utah League of Cities and Towns annual conference by the City Council and Mayor.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to adopt Resolution 77 of 1983 implementing Section IV, Subsection 4 of the Bylaws of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
(R 83-18)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Interlocal cooperative agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and State Judicial Council.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Information Management Services Division of Salt Lake City Corporation and the State Judicial Council.
FUNDS: The State of Utah has allocated funds for this purpose and agrees to pay Information Management Services each month, 1/12 of the total sum of $668,850 which was included in the 1983-84 Information Management Services’ anticipated revenue budget.
DISCUSSION: This interlocal agreement will provide data processing services, including hardware, software, communications and personnel to the Fifth Circuit Court. This agreement will be in effect for a period of one year, beginning June 30, 1983 and automatically renewed for each successive year until canceled by either party. Councilmember DePaulis referred the resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement with the State Judicial Council to the consent agenda for September 20, 1983; referred without objection.
(C 83-324)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Automatic and mutual aid agreements between Salt Lake City Corporation Fire Department and South Davis Fire District.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the automatic and mutual aid agreement so that the parties cooperate and assist each other in times of emergency or disaster when called upon to do so.
FUNDS: Financial obligations as to men and equipment are stipulated in the agreement.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City Fire Department feels that the automatic and mutual aid agreements will allow maximum fire protection and will allow more fire fighters to be called upon in case of emergency. Councilmember DePaulis referred the resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement with South Davis Fire District to the consent agenda for September 20, 1983; referred without objection.
(C 83-323)
#2. RE: Interlocal agreement with Salt Lake City and Sandy City for dispatch services.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the interlocal agreement with Sandy City for dispatch services in Salt Lake City Fire Dispatch Center.
FUNDS: Sandy will be paying a set fee for services.
DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City Fire Department is already dispatching for Sandy City. This is merely an update to an agreement already in existence. Councilmember DePaulis referred the resolution authorizing the execution of an interlocal agreement with Sandy City to the consent agenda for September 20, 1983; referred without objection.
(C 82-44)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Civil Service Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Patricia Freston to the Civil Service Commission.
DISCUSSION: There is presently a vacancy on the Civil Service Commission caused by the resignation of Margaret Boevers. It is recommended that Patricia Freston be appointed to fill that vacancy. Ms. Freston is manager of personnel services for Mountain Fuel Supply Company and has a Ph.D. in industrial psychology.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to approve the appointment of Patricia Freston to the Civil Service Commission, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
(I 83-20)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Industrial Revenue Bond for James R. Savage.
RE: An inducement resolution for an Industrial Revenue Bond for James R. Savage in the amount of $5,000,000 to finance the acquisition of approximately 3.167 acres of real property at the Salt Lake International Center and the construction of a facility for the manufacture and servicing of high technology electronic circuit boards.
A public hearing was held at 6:00 p.m. to consider this Industrial Revenue Bond. Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, recommended approval of this IRB. Councilmember Shearer said that the Budget and Finance Committee also recommended approval. No one from the audience spoke on this issue.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing and adopt the inducement resolution, Resolution 78 of 1983, for an Industrial Revenue Bond for James R. Savage in the amount of $5,000,000, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
(Q 83-21)
Petition 400-51 of 1983 submitted by Taylor Animal Hospital.
RE: Requesting that the zoning ordinances of Salt Lake City be amended to allow as a conditional use the establishment of veterinary out-patient clinics in Business “B-3” districts.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to discuss this request. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, indicated that the Planning Commission recommended a change in the zoning ordinance which would permit a pet grooming facility and/or small animal veterinary out-patient clinic as a conditional use in a “B-3” district. A “B-3” district includes neighborhood-type shopping center facilities. No overnight boarding of animals would be allowed and activities would have to be conducted entirely within the confines of a completely enclosed and air-conditioned building. The type of facility proposed would not be a full-service kennel. Since this would be a conditional use each request would be considered individually. Currently pet stores are allowed in a “B-3” district but animals cannot be kept overnight.
Dr. Sharp, petitioner, said that he has a similar facility in Murray. It is not an overnight facility and business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Animals would be kept entirely inside the building. Or. Vanderhoof said that this type of facility would not be a dog kennel with outside runs. He has two out-patient clinics and has never received any complaints from the neighbors. No one from the audience opposed this issue.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve Petition 400-51 of 1983 and adopt Ordinance 63 of 1983, amending Section 51-21-8 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965 as amended, relating to conditional uses in a Business “B-3” district, by allowing as a conditional use the establishment of veterinary out-patient clinics, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Parker who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 83-421)
Petition 400-31 of 1983 submitted by Salt Lake City Airport Authority.
RE: A request that the Land Use Policy Plan for the Salt Lake City International Airport with the revised avigation easement be adopted and appropriate revisions be made to the zoning ordinances, Chapter 11, Airport Zoning Height Regulations.
A public hearing was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss this request. Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, said that this issue has been reviewed on several occasions by the Planning Commission and he referred to his letter dated August 8, 1983, which outlines the basic recommendations of the Commission. This letter is on file in the Office of the City Recorder. Mr. Jorgensen said that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the plan as part of the official planning documents of the City. He then outlined the proposed Airport Restriction Zones A, B, and C and the incompatible uses within those zones. Mr. Jorgensen said that the proposed conditions would be required on new construction and would not apply to repair, existing buildings, or construction in existing, approved subdivisions.
Craig Peterson, director of development services, listed the items before the Council for consideration. First, approval of the Land Use Policy Plan; second, adoption of the noise attenuation standards as stated in the Land Use Policy Plan and preparation by the City Attorney of an amendment to the Uniform Building Code; third, adoption of the amendments to the zoning ordinance with the addition of an overlay zone entitled “Airport Restriction Zone” and preparation by the City Attorney of the necessary amendment; fourth, adoption of an ordinance requiring avigation easements within the new overlay zoned areas.
Mr. Peterson addressed the issue of avigation easements and said that these easements are recommended for all new development in airport noise impact zones A, B, and C. Development is defined as subdivision of property and as construction of buildings on vacant property which has not been subdivided. The avigation easement would be required as a condition for development. Mr. Peterson said this easement could be compared to a utility easement, a drainage easement, or an open-space easement which permits access to the foothills.
Mr. Peterson said that airport noise has become a major national problem and Salt Lake City is fortunate because residential and business growth has not yet encroached on the airport. The use of the easement provides an extra measure of airport protection from lawsuits due to noise and it is intended for areas where it would generally be unreasonable and impractical for the City to buy land or restrict development. The easement protects the consumer by providing notice to prospective property buyers that the area is subject to moderate airport noise and also helps protect the City from lawsuits due to damage allegedly caused by airport operations.
Mr. Peterson reiterated that only undeveloped property with no present city services will be affected by the easement. If it is determined by the City Council that the easement has unnecessarily impeded development the easement can be revoked. Expansion into the Northwest Quadrant is encouraged but should not jeopardize the City for any damage caused by the airport, which has been a great economic success for Salt Lake City. Don Mackey, representative of the Airport Authority Board, indicated that in other parts of the country increasing numbers of legal actions against airports, because of noise and nuisance of flight operations, have resulted in sizeable monetary awards being made to individuals living near airports.
Although the noise and nuisance are caused by aircraft, it is the airport proprietor who is liable and must pay the award. Salt Lake City, as the owner of the airport, would become liable for any judgments against the airport. Mr. Mackey explained that the study of land use in the area was performed in order to develop a means by which land usage compatible with the airport could be identified and incorporated into the planning process for the airport. This would allow compatible development of the land in the airport vicinity and help preclude future claims against the airport on the basis of noise and nuisance interference. Mr. Mackey indicated that a technical advisory committee, including aviation personnel and developers, reviewed the study. Although there was not unanimous concurrence with all the recommendations, there was general acceptance and agreement to proceed through the implementation process.
Mr. Mackey reiterated that the two major recommendations were the establishment of the restrictive zones and the implementation of an avigation easement for all new development within these zones. These measures will provide a substantial level of legal protection to the airport and future airport development as well as to the citizens in the area surrounding the airport. Mr. Mackey indicated that the plan had been presented at public meetings to neighborhood councils in close proximity to the airport. Questions raised included potential devaluation of property and the effect of financing residential development as a result of the avigation easement.
An MAI appraiser determined that there would be little or no impact on the value of the property because of the easement. A letter from the Federal Housing Administration indicated that the easement would not be objectionable to them providing the residences were in an area below 65 Ldn limit (average noise level which is the commonly accepted upper limit for residential usage). Mr. Mackey noted that in Zone C, where primary concern has been expressed, it is below the 65 Ldn noise level.
Regarding the secondary mortgage market, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) has stated in a letter that the avigation easement would not be objectionable to them. Mr. Mackey referred to development around Airport No. 2 which has taken place under a restrictive avigation easement and he said that the sale of these properties and subsequent refinancing has not been impeded by the avigation easement. Mr. Mackey concluded by saying that the Airport Authority supports the conclusion of the land use policy studies. It is felt that the adoption of the plan in its entirety is mandatory for the protection of the Salt Lake City International Airport and the recommended revisions to the ordinance, as outlined in the plan, should be adopted. (A copy of the Land Use Policy Plan is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Fred Sanford, 1046 West 600 North, past chairman of the Greater Rose Park Community Council, read a letter from A. Edward Speight, chairman of the Rose Park Council. The letter is on file in the Office of the City Recorder.
This letter stated opposition to the avigation easement as proposed for area C. It was felt that if 65 decibels is a tolerable noise level then it would appear no legal permission to that level should be needed. The community could not support the imposition of a devaluating restriction upon private property. Robert S. Campbell, Jr., attorney representing George Katsos, et al, opposed the avigation easement. Mr. Campbell referred to Article 1, Section 8 of the state constitution which provides that private property cannot be taken or damaged without the payment of just compensation.
Mr. Campbell indicated on a map the location of the Katsos’ property, partially in Zones A and B. It was Mr. Campbell’s opinion that the use of their property would be impaired by the avigation easement because improvements could not be made to the existing homes nor could they be rebuilt if destroyed by a natural cause. He indicated that the possibility of future development on this land would be impaired because of the restrictions imposed by the easement. In regard to Zone A, Mr. Campbell felt the proposal constituted the confiscation of property. The due process clause of the 14th and 5th amendments provide that private property cannot be abused without the payment of just compensation.
Mr. Jorgensen indicated that rebuilding a totally destroyed home does not become a nonconforming use under the proposed avigation easement. He reiterated that development is defined as a subdivision of property and construction of new buildings on vacant property. John McNamara, director of the Air Transport Association of America, expressed his support for the Land Use Policy Plan. He said that in today’s environment, aircraft noise and obstacle encroachment problems being faced by airport sponsors are the result of local planning that has allowed uncontrolled residential growth to develop adjacent to the air transportation hub serving the community.
The Land Use Policy Plan provides guidelines to ensure that prudent zoning and notification measures are taken to foster compatible land uses. Mr. McNamara felt that this was an important step in ensuring that the airport and its neighbors can coexist in the years ahead. Mr. McNamara said that the airlines serving Salt Lake City strongly support the adoption and implementation of the Land Use Policy Plan. Richard Maxfield, citizen representing 41 property owners, opposed the avigation easement. He felt the land use plan, the noise attenuation, and zoning overlay would accomplish the desired effect without the proposed avigation easement. He said that the residents would resist the imposition of the restrictive easement. Dave Handley, executive vice president of the Salt Lake International Center and vice president of Triad Utah, opposed the avigation easement. He referred to a 1978 airport noise control study and indicated that the size of the noise impact zones increased appreciably after the new study was conducted. He showed a map illustrating the difference between the 1978 study and the 1982 study.
The increase consisted of 21,600 acres in Zone C or 33.7 square miles. Mr. Handley said that the proposed easement was viewed as a relinquishment of property rights for land that has been previously free from such an encumbrance. He felt that an easement would decrease existing property values and there would be a tremendous psychological impact attached. Mr. Handley suggested that if the easement was implemented it was doubtful if plans for a major residential development in the Northwest Quadrant could be completed by the Salt Lake International Center.
Councilmember Whitehead asked why the impact zone was broadened after the 1982 study. Louis Miller, airport director, said that the 1978 study addressed areas only 65 Ldn and greater, the current study addressed areas below 65 Ldn. Zone C extends to the east, west, and south further because there are aircraft operating in that area and the reason for the easement is to avoid nuisance suits. Mr. Miller showed a chart displaying the overlay zones of the flight tracks for clarification. Marvin Steadman, Beneficial Development Company, agreed with the need for avigation easements as long as there are proper limitations.
Mr. Steadman said as a developer he did not want to take any chances that would cause trouble in the secondary mortgage market. He felt that presently a stigma is attached to the Northewest Quadrant and he did not want to see future development inhibited by an irrational adoption of Zone C in the avigation easement. Mr. Steadman opposed the Zone C as proposed. Mr. Steadman said he understood that FNMA will accept the easement on their mortgage documents but they are not the entire secondary market.
He indicated that the Housing Committee has opposed the easement in Zone C because of the possibility of the negative effect it may have on the development in the Northwest Quadrant. Mr. Steadman indicated that in Zone C if the noise level goes beyond 65 Ldn then the easement does not give the City any protection. Mr. Steadman felt that lawsuits may or may not materialize but if development does not occur in the Northwest Quadrant it was his opinion that the City would lose more money by lack of development than they would lose through lawsuits.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck felt that the easement would protect future buyers as well as the airport. Future buyers should be aware of the situation with buying a home in this area. Councilmember Mabey agreed that people need to know they may be living in an area where planes will fly over and there may be a certain amount of noise. Mayor Wilson said that the easement protects the City on the nuisance side of 65 decibels. The ordinance is attempting to establish a reasonable test in court so the judge has a guideline. Floyd Thompson, 816 Gladiola Street, distributed a letter to the Council indicating that he feels the only prudent course the Council can take to protect the City, minimize its future liability, and maintain a viable airport, is to adopt the proposed ordinances including the avigation easement as proposed by the committee. A copy of this letter is on file in the Office of the City Recorder.
John Hafen, air commander of the Utah Air National Guard, supported the proposed avigation easement. He felt that it is easier and less expensive to solve the problem now instead of waiting after the area has been developed. Carl Child, 3001 West 5th South, opposed the easement and felt that if a nuisance is caused then compensation should be given. Douglas Albert, manager of Salt Lake properties for Western Airlines, supported the proposed land use policy. He said that the present isolated location of the airport presents the citizens, the airport authority, and the City with an opportunity to avoid the noise problems which have become expensive and controversial issues in other cities. He said that Western endorses the acceptance of the policy.
Linda Tracy, citizen of the area, complained about noise from small planes taking off at the airport and control of this traffic. She felt that this problem was due to sloppy management and the broad Zone C would contribute to the situation. Phil Hallstrom, chairman of Housing Development Committee, expressed support for noise attenuation and zoning but was concerned about the Zone C easement. He felt that this action was the next strongest action to taking title to property. Mr. Hallstrom indicated that there would be time in the future to attain the easement if there is a trend toward litigation since development in the Northwest Quadrant will probably be a 10 or 20 year program.
Mr. Hallstrom encouraged the passage of the noise attenuation and zoning but felt that if the easement request is denied nothing will happen. If the Council felt in the future that the easement is in fact needed, then it could always be reactivated. Mr. Jorgensen said that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the plan, the overlay, and the zoning without the easement because they felt additional information was needed. They gave no recommendation on the easement. Tom Fitzwater, project manager for the land use study, said that Zone C is large but the aircraft flight tracks cover substantial areas over that zone. The planes flying over this area are large commercial aircraft and in the future the number of flights may increase substantially. Consideration should also be given to future development at the airport. Mr. Fitzwater said that the study should be viewed as an opportunity to avoid future problems. The goal of the easement is to provide protection from future development as the airport grows. Lou Miller, airport director, addressed the issue of property values. He referred to property by Airport No. 2 which has been residentially developed under an easement similar to the one proposed for Salt Lake International and indicated that the value of the property has not been impacted. Mr. Miller presented a chart to illustrate the extent of development. He said that out of a total of 331 lots, 162 lots have been developed and sold and 26 lots are under construction. Councilmember Whitehead asked if flight patterns would change after the new west runway is built at the airport.
Mr. Miller referred to a chart and indicated that there was not a substantial difference between current flight patterns and future patterns. He indicated that the future runway had been planned for in the development of the size of Zone C. Mr. Miller reiterated that the easement would only apply to new development. He felt that the only way to solve the nuisance problem is through avigation easements. Mr. Miller indicated that the easement presents no problem with the secondary money market and the Sr. Vice President for Real Estate at Zions First National Bank has indicated that the avigation easement would have no affect on their lendability of money.
Mr. Miller felt the easement was a matter of notifying the prospective buyer of the existence of aircraft operations prior to the purchase of the property. A delay in passing the easement would be costly to the airport and to the City, it is less of a financial impact if the easement is later changed.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Shearer suggested a wording change to the easement. She referred to the end of the third line on the first page which states “...for good and valuable consideration paid by the Grantee to the Grantor...” and felt there was confusion about the word paid. Money will not actually be paid to anyone, instead a person will be allowed to build on property. She suggested that the word “extended” be used in place of the word “paid” so that the line reads “...for good and valuable consideration extended by the Grantee to the Grantor...”
Councilmember Shearer viewed the Land Use Policy Plan as a key issue in the long-range planning process of Salt Lake City. She felt that the Council should make sure that with responsible operations at the airport the City will not be sued for nuisance. Ms. Shearer urged the Council to take this responsible step to preserve the financial integrity of Salt Lake City. Councilmember Mabey agreed with Councilmember Shearer but felt that if compromises to the avigation easement can be made those compromises should be considered. Councilmember Whitehead also agreed with Ms. Shearer but felt that the integrity of the Northwest Quadrant is a factor. He felt that perhaps the easement would stifle growth. Mr. Whitehead felt that there were unanswered questions surrounding the easement so a decision on the easement should be postponed. Councilmember Parker said a question concerning him was whether or not the Northwest Quadrant will grow with or without the easement. He felt that the area would grow regardless of the easement. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Miller if there were any parts of the easement with which he did not feel comfortable and would make changes if given more time. Mr. Miller indicated that he felt very comfortable with the proposed easement. Mayor Wilson supported Councilmember Shearer’s position. He indicated that the easement will probably create a nuisance to the developers but he did not think at this point an alternative to the easement was available.
The Mayor said either there is a threshold upon which the City can be sued for nuisance or there is not. The ordinance sets a standard by which nuisance can be measured. The Mayor suggested that the Council could pass a separate resolution indicating that the easement will he examined in a reasonable period of time. Councilmember Whitehead reiterated that presently development was not ready to take place in the area covered by Zone C so he felt that it would not be detrimental to delay a decision on the easement. He said that the people in his area are concerned with the size of the zone. Councilmember Mabey suggested that the Council delay the passage of the easement for 30 days and if a better way cannot be found then adopt the easement.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt the Land Use Policy Plan, including the avigation easement, and amend the easement by changing the word “paid” to “extended”, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Council Members Whitehead and Mabey who voted nay.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt the changes to the zoning ordinances, as specified in the Planning Director’s letter dated August 8, 1983, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Council Members Whitehead and Mabey who voted nay.
(P 83-430)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Bruce Tanner was scheduled to address the Council but was not present when called upon to speak.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.