The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members James Rogers, Luke Garrott, Erin Mendenhall, Lisa Adams, Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, and Stan Penfold.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Executive Council Deputy Director; Ralph Becker, Mayor; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Mayor’s Senior Advisor; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Senior Council Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Systems and Project Manager/Policy Analyst; Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney; Allison Rowland, Council Policy Analyst; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Paul Skeen, Eide Bailly Auditing; Michael Mickelson, Eide Bailly Auditing; and Mike Reberg, Salt Lake County Animal Services Director.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:12 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:14:15 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2014, AND THE MANAGEMENT AUDITOR’S LETTERS REGARDING INTERNAL CONTROLS AND COMPLIANCE. View Attachments
Paul Skeen, Michael Mickelson, and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included capital asset ownership, state/federal compliance, pension obligations, reporting procedure changes, compliance audit, accounting entries, deficiencies in internal controls, quarterly reporting not met, and management responses.
Councilmember Garrott thanked the auditors for their report.
#2. 2:33:03 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING OPTIONS AND GIVE THE ADMINISTRATION POLICY DIRECTION RELATING TO HEIGHT LIMITS, COMMERCIAL USES ON UPPER FLOORS, LIMITING BUILDING TYPES ON SOME STREETS AND OTHER ITEMS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED SUGAR HOUSE STREETCAR CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS. (ITEM H1) View Attachments View PowerPoint
Nick Norris, Maryann Pickering, and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with a PowerPoint Presentation/attachments. Comments included unified corridor, pedestrian/transit streets, zoning issues for parcels with multiple fronts, greenway corridor, impact of building mass/heights on smaller structures, preserve existing community characteristics, adequate infrastructure for new development, need for wider sidewalks, reduce commercial impact on residential, affordable housing percentage, developer finance mechanisms, density issues, hotel/motel component, zoning prohibits market development, inclusionary zoning requirements, interface with existing neighborhoods, balance transition/density needs, linier transition, and setback/step back issues.
Councilmember Garrott requested feedback on whether or not impact fees could be utilized for sidewalk widening projects. He asked Council Members if they had anything else they wanted to add to the six options proposed in the attachments. Councilmember Penfold said he recalled a conversation about incentivizing or providing options for allowing more height flexibility for certain types of uses (i.e. residential) but did not see where that was captured in the recommendations.
Councilmember Mendenhall said she wanted incentives for second-story commercial use balconies that faced the greenway, a potential ordinance prohibiting check-to-cash/title loan businesses/smoke shops from being located within a half-mile of schools, churches, etc., and enhanced incentives for inclusion of affordable housing in residential development along transit corridors.
Councilmember Rogers said other cities had a cap-and-replace provision for billboards and suggested utilizing a similar format (square footage/spacing requirement) to limit/control pay-day lenders. Mr. Norris said he would have to review historical data but thought there had been discussions on capping them based on population. He said since title loan companies were exempt from State regulations, discussions needed to include the entire City, not just this proposal. Councilmember Penfold asked if these businesses could be excluded from specific zones. Mr. Norris said yes. Councilmember Adams said she wanted to limit businesses like dance clubs/halls in close proximity to residential and wanted to see the following interfaces: Streetcar Edge at 32’, Transition at 45’ and Core at 75’.
Discussion was held regarding interfacing with single family detached homes. Councilmember Garrott said the Council might want to direct a policy shift where the City was mindful about residential interface. Councilmember Mendenhall said there needed to be a balance between transition and housing density. Councilmember Penfold expressed concern about strict height limits because innovative designs might work for modified transitions and/or increased height. Mr. Norris said the ordinance was written to require that no matter the proposed use, the closer you are to a single family residential home the more the height had to be pushed away. He said it was done at a formula which allowed some flexibility for a developer to be creative but still reduce the height impact. Councilmember Penfold requested examples of how that concept would work.
Straw poll: Council support for a detailed briefing on the current setbacks/step-backs plan. A majority of the Council was opposed. Councilmember Garrott said an opportunity for general discussion on this issue would be held under Option 4.
Discussion was held on Option 1 (Commercial uses on upper floors) Mr. Norris said this meant that commercial uses would be prohibited above certain heights. Councilmember Penfold commented on the perception of how office space looked/functioned versus residential space. Mr. Norris said the City probably did not want a seven-story office building in this area. He said a three-story office building or a mixed-use development with ground floor commercial uses and residential above was fine and was what the regulation was trying accomplish. Councilmember Garrott asked if the Council agreed in principal with Mr. Norris’s comments. All Council Members were in support except Councilmember Garrott, who was opposed. Councilmember Garrott said with design review, a seven-story office building was appropriate.
Discussion was held on hotel/motel issues. Councilmember Adams said she wanted to stay at a 75’ maximum. Councilmember Penfold said he supported 105’ for residential. Councilmember Mendenhall said she opposed 105’ structures that would create shadows on homes located on Redondo Avenue.
Discussion was held on Option 2 (Breaking up building walls on large parcels that have long frontages) Mr. Norris said a provision could be added to the ordinance if the Council wanted to have some portion of building walls stepped back further (require a certain percentage of the building to be built to a maximum setback). He said for the purpose of this zoning district, the greenway was viewed as a street which meant all standards that applied to any street facade would also apply to the greenway facade. Councilmember Penfold asked how much the percentage could differ based on different locations. Mr. Norris said the range was between 10’ and 25’ which only applied along street facing facades. Councilmember Penfold said he would defer to Planning staff. Councilmember Garrott said since 50% of the street frontage was required minimally, would the Council support having Planning return with a requirement that 20% or more should be at somewhere between the minimum and maximum setbacks and this would address the issue of breaking up building walls. All Council Members were in support, except Councilmember LaMalfa who was opposed and Councilmember Mendenhall who abstained.
Discussion was held on Option 3 (Avoid having parking structures next to low density residential uses) Mr. Norris said a proposal which went through the Planning Commission would soon be transmitted to the Council. He said the proposal required up to 75% of a street facing building facade needed to have some type of ground floor use other than parking. He said the current Citywide ordinance was not clear on ground floor parking requirements and other design standards. He said to provide consistency, a design standards chapter needed to be created to identify all standards along with the applicable zoning. Councilmember Garrott asked if 75% was in the current ordinance. Mr. Norris said no but would be added. Councilmember Garrott called for a straw poll that 75% of a street facing building facade be usable space other than parking. All Council Members were in support. Councilmember Rogers requested that Planning talk to developers and other interested parties to obtain/consider their feedback.
Discussion was held on Option 4 (Limiting building types on some streets) Mr. Norris said existing uses would become non-complying and existing buildings would become non-conforming until such time as they were replaced. He said this would also limit the owner’s expansion ability to not more than 25% and uses would also be restricted. The Council discussed the need to review the Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning north of 2100 South between 700 and 900 East.
Straw Polls:
•Council support, in principal, that interfacing with existing single family neighborhoods should have a lower height/intensity zoning similar to the FBUN-1(lower intensity zoning) or a 2.5 to 3 story townhome type product (single parcel buffer). All Council Members were in support except Council Members LaMalfa and Penfold.
•Council support, in principal, for a three-tiered height-intensity buffer concept in appropriate places (to be determined). All Council Members were in support.
•Council support for allowing more height (residential) in appropriate areas (to be determined) than 75’ or 105’. All Council Members were in support except Council Members Adams and Luke who were opposed.
•Council support, in principal, to have Planning work on affordable housing requirements/incentives. Councilmember Penfold said traditionally that was done through financing and was a big jump to say it would be done through zoning. He said he thought that was a much bigger discussion than just this project. Councilmember Garrott said this would be added to the upcoming Council Planning Workshop (retreat)
•Council support for second-story balconies on the greenway (commercial and residential). All Council Members were in support.
•Council support for 200’ maximum wall length (this would allow multiple buildings on a single parcel). All Council Members were in support.
Mr. Weeks asked for clarification on the discussion regarding hotels/motels. Councilmember Garrott said the Council would be silent on this issue but wanted to keep it out there.
Councilmember Garrott asked how Planning would proceed from here. Mr. Norris said this would require extensive work before they would be ready to come back to the Council. Councilmember Garrott asked for an approximate timeframe. Mr. Norris said longer than three weeks but shorter than three months.
#3. 4:41:27 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON CHANGES THE COUNCIL ADOPTED IN MAY 2014 TO SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL, SPECIFICALLY ORDINANCES THAT GOVERN THE ISSUANCE OF MISDEMEANOR CITATIONS. View Attachments
Jan Aramaki, Jaysen Oldroyd, and Mike Reberg briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included disproportionate penalties, reinstate enforcement processes, civil penalties, soften fine impact, enforcement options/flexibility, running-at-large issues, notice of violations, unfenced off-leash issues, and policy shift relating to mandatory versus discretionary enforcement.
Straw poll: Council support to advance the proposal. All Council Members were in favor, except Councilmember Mendenhall who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Garrott asked about holding a public hearing. Ms. Gust-Jenson said a hearing was not required but the Council could choose that option. Councilmember Penfold said since the City was going back to a previous process, he did not think a hearing was needed.
#4. 5:03:16 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING TO DISCUSS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENSURING THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF THE CITY’S GOLF COURSES. At a previous meeting, the Council heard recommendations from the Council’s Golf Task Force, university students, and an outside consultant. (Item C3) View Attachments
Jennifer Bruno and Allison Rowland briefed the Council with attachments. Councilmember Garrott said he wanted to narrow the number of scenarios down to (3-5) that the Council could vote on next week. He said the Council did not need to take immediate legislative or budgetary action but his goal was to produce a statement (formal letter or resolution) expressing the Council’s solution sometime after the February 10, 2015 meeting.
Ms. Rowland said Council was given a worksheet which would help narrow/develop scenarios showing Council Member’s preferences/concerns. She said concepts on the worksheet were meant to be discussion points to help staff identify how Council Members felt about each element. Councilmember Garrott said items on the worksheet were previously identified by Council for further discussion but items could be added, removed, or edited.
Councilmember Garrott asked each Councilmember to take time to present their big picture vision.
Councilmember Luke’s comments included long-term maintenance deferral, immediate shortfall, ensure top-notch golf program, provide competitive costs/quality, infrastructure needs continuously delayed, return courses back to premiere condition/showcase courses, and develop a long-term stainable golf program.
Councilmember Mendenhall’s comments included support for smaller/slower effects on golf fund, opposition to general fund subsidy, and secondary water issues/costs.
Councilmember LaMalfa’s comments included changing recreation needs, caution about General Fund golf subsidy, golf courses being private recreation, large bond needed to convert courses to other uses, capacity to maintain newly created spaces, and General Fund property tax increase would be needed.
Councilmember Adams’ comments included why golf was excluded from other City funded recreation programs, was golf always an Enterprise Fund, converting courses to other uses was costly with no revenue coming in, open space maintenance costs, some General Fund subsidy, and selling a small strip of Glendale property for development.
Councilmember Rogers’s comments included changing recreational needs, disposable income, subsidies for other recreation/cultural programs, $100 million spent on Utah Performing Arts Center, Rose Park being a valuable community asset, golf courses make money, terminate enterprise fund/put courses in General Fund, utilize advertising to promote courses, provide opportunities for youth participation, and bond for secondary water.
Councilmember Penfold’s comments included consider all options, 22% decrease in golfers since 2002, declining trend was a critical factor in ongoing discussions, changing recreational needs/prioritization, more money needed on outdoor recreation, consider community/residents desires, issues involved in converting courses into other uses, and additional financial resources needed.
Councilmember Garrott’s comments included rightsizing golf, improving golf experience, declining number of golfers, support to transition courses to other recreational uses, create win-win situation, support for voter-approved General Obligation Bond, invest in capital needs, create more operating revenue, and past cuts to maintenance budget.
Discussion was held on completing the attached worksheet. Council Members comments/questions included potential to transfer Wingpointe to the Airport, explore if Public Utility funds could be used to purchase part of Rose Park as a buffer for the treatment plant, long-term maintenance for closed courses, cost-per-acre to maintain lawn/grass, determine maintenance costs for natural open space along Jordan River, and what to do about the Energy Services Company (ESCO) proposal relating to Rose Park, Glendale and Bonneville and how those obligations would change should courses be closed/changed.
The Council requested follow-up information about costs to convert courses to open space including ongoing maintenance costs. Councilmember Penfold requested feedback from Public Utilities about exploring a more comprehensive secondary water plan (entire parks system). He said he also wanted to involve them in a process relating to bond capacity with the intent to free up culinary water.
Councilmember Garrott said staff would collect the worksheets and prepare scenarios (including budget implications) based on Council Member responses. Ms. Rowland said during the break, staff would compile results and publish them online for public access. She said staff would bring back a reduced number of scenarios for Council consideration at the next meeting. Councilmember Garrott said during that meeting, Council Members would have the ability to present new scenarios. Worksheet results
#5. 5:02:55 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING A RESOLUTION TO DEFINE THEIR INTEREST IN AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE HOMELESS SERVICES EVALUATION COMMISSION. Throughout 2015, the commission will review homeless services that are currently provided in Salt Lake City and make recommendations for improvements to the Council. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#6. 6:02:28 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION AND RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE CITY THAT ARISE DURING THE 2015 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, INCLUDING POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE CITY’S APARTMENT INSPECTION PROGRAM. View Attachments
Lynn Pace and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Pace said additional direction was needed on apartment inspections and restaurant drive-through legislation. He said he planned to meet with the Council’s Legislative Subcommittee later in the week and asked Council Members to convey any thoughts/ideas to them.
Mr. Pace said a final hurdle existed regarding apartment inspections relating to inspection checklists. He said the City’s current checklist could be used with a footnote allowing additional inspection of life-safety issues or an expanded checklist could be created. He requested the Council deputize the Legislative Subcommittee to work with City staff to develop a checklist that could be recommended to the Legislature. A Straw Poll was taken on deputizing the Subcommittee, with all Council Members in support.
Councilmember Mendenhall requested a list of inspection items that would be removed if the ordinance was updated with a new checklist. Ms. Weaver said staff could ask the apartment association for a clearer list of what they did not want to see inspectors looking at and hold a discussion with the Administration on their concerns about what might be cut. Mr. Pace said he would come back next week with proposed changes at which time the Council needed to take a straw poll expressing support to satisfy the Legislature. He said at the conclusion of the Legislative Session, the Administration would prepare an updated ordinance for Council action.
Councilmember Penfold asked if the City had a policy position supporting the State Fairpark lease. Mr. Pace said he understood the City was in favor of keeping the Fairpark in Salt Lake at the current location and preserving the historic buildings. Councilmember Luke asked if it would be helpful to have a resolution of support from the Council. Mr. Pace said yes. Discussion was held on adding a sports facility/soccer component to the resolution. A Straw Poll was taken with all Council Members in favor. Mr. Pace suggested looking at last year’s resolution and said the Council could reaffirm or add additional components.
#7. 6:21:40 PM INTERVIEW CHRISTINE BOTOSAN PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE AIRPORT BOARD. (Item H3)
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Botosan’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#8. 6:24:27 PM INTERVIEW IRENA EDWARDS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND ADVISORY BOARD. (Item H4)
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Edwards’ name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#9. 6:25:53 PM INTERVIEW ANA VALDEMOROS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD. (Item H5)
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Valdemoros’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#10. 6:28:20 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business. View Attachments
See file M 15-5 for announcements.
#10. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#11. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-205, FOR ANY ALLOWED PURPOSE.
Item not held.
The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio or video for entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held February 3, 2015.
sc