The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, January 8, 2013, at 2:07 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Kyle LaMalfa, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, Charlie Luke, Stan Penfold, and Søren Simonsen.
Staff In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Constituent Liaison; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Eric Shaw, Community & Economic Development Director; Mary DeLaMare-Schaefer, Deputy Community & Economic Development Director; Bill Haight, Information Management Services Director; John Naser, City Engineer; Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Spencer Sanders, Salt Lake County Planning.
Councilmember Simonsen conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:13:31 PM Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2013.
Ed Rutan said the secret ballots used in the past no longer appear to meet the thresholds for open meetings and voting. The Council discussed methods to approach the voting.
Cindy Gust-Jenson outlined these options: using the standard ballot (writing the voter’s name on the top) and reading the votes into the record; conducting a straw poll and ratifying the decision in the regular meeting; or just conducting the vote in regular meeting. She said there was a suggestion to revamp the election process to include expression of those interested in office to state such in a public meeting. Council consensus was to retain continuity with the written ballot process (to include the voter’s name on the ballot cast) and read the votes into the record as part of the nominating procedure; following the election and vote in regular meeting, the newly elected officials could make comments. Mr. Rutan confirmed that process would be in accordance with good policy.
A majority of the Council was in favor of nominating Kyle LaMalfa as Council Chair and Jill Remington Love as Council Vice Chair for calendar year 2013.
Council direction was given for Staff to formalize the voting procedures outlined into draft rules and procedure for further Council consideration.
#2. 2:07:00 PM UTAH OPEN MEETINGS LAW. View Attachments
Boyd Ferguson briefed the Council with handouts. He said there had not been any substantive changes to the law, but annual training was required and beneficial. He said Council discussion only (no action) could occur if a member of the public brought up an item that was not on the agenda. The Council could not bring up new items that had not been properly noticed unless there was an emergency situation.
#3. 2:30:49 PM RESIDENTIAL INFILL. Discuss the City’s current Residential Infill Ordinance and potential changes. View Attachments
Wilford Sommerkorn, Joel Paterson and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with handouts regarding the request for Administration to re-evaluate the City’s residential infill zoning regulations (adopted in 2005) to address issues which continue to be raised regarding major renovation and new construction in residential neighborhoods.
Spencer Sanders briefed the Council on the County process adopted several years ago. He outlined the three options as outlined in the ordinance that had worked well for Salt Lake County:
•Option A – General Standards; Planning and Development Services review. This involved an over-the-counter zoning review and completed thru the building permit process.
•Option B – Deviations from general standards based on neighborhood compatibility. This included a specific set of parameters, rules and criteria staff used wherein the information from six homes was used relative to height, lot coverage, and setbacks to come up with an average. If an applicant could get what they wanted to fit under this average, they could be allowed to do so up to a maximum allowed by ordinance.
•Option C – Special Exception – Planning Commission Review. This allowed anybody who felt they could not meet the requirements to go before the Planning Commission. There were criteria under which the Planning Commission could grant potential approval to those with specific-needs situations (different from Board of Adjustment criteria.)
The Council discussed various options and allowances as well as associated challenges. Inquiry was raised as to neighborhood appearance as a result of this ordinance. Mr. Sanders said that was hard to quantify, but the overall feeling was that the ordinance had reduced controversy and was a good balancing ordinance. He said the ordinance required intense staff time and he encouraged the Council to consider that factor. Inquiry was raised as to whether there had been a change in tear down or rebuild versus additions in Salt Lake County. Mr. Sanders stated it had not prevented large homes but how big they were in relation to surrounding properties.
Discussion followed regarding County building height regulations, the effectiveness of current regulations, requests and process for variance, and the history of demolition versus remodel. Councilmember Simonsen said he received comments from his area that height might be overly restrictive. He said he was interested in exploring other options to reduce the building height or possibly a higher building height.
Councilmember Love asked if Planning felt the process needed work. Mr. Paterson stated since 2005, Staff had identified a number of problems with the ordinance and had modified standards over time through public input and various petitions to address some of those. He said current process included citywide standards rather than area based. He said consideration could be given as to neighborhood-based. He referenced the packet spreadsheet of issues raised over time relative to infill, stating there were still items not addressed. Mr. Sommerkorn said Staff could consider the ability to comprehensively combine the character conservation and historic district regulations for compatible citywide or area-based infill.
It appeared the Council had interest in additional work and fine tuning; they had provided direction of interest and areas for Staff to focus and move this item up on the priority list.
#4. 3:59:52 PM UPDATE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROJECTS. The Council received a briefing from Bill Haight, Director of Information Management Services, on the status of several major technology initiatives for the City. Initiatives include SharePoint implementation; Geographic Information System updates and opportunities for development; options that allow residents to communicate with City Officials; and other projects. View Attachments
Mr. Haight addressed the Council with handouts and a Power point presentation relative to just over 3,500 City users, trouble ticket statistics, active and completed projects. He included update on Kronos, SharePoint, City Codification and Constituent Engagement.
The Council offered praise regarding the recent ranking by the Center for Digital Government of Salt Lake City as number 1 in for municipalities with populations between 125,000 and 250,000. Mr. Haight explained it was an honor to receive; the award was accepted by Mayor Becker at the awards ceremony held in conjunction with the National League of Cities in Boston. He said Salt Lake City has placed within the top ten since they began participating in the survey in early 2000.
Relative to GIS data, inquiry was raised as to why the City server was slower than access via Google Maps or another method. Mr. Haight said it could be due to the amount of information being captured and the level of resolution for aerial photography, etc. Councilmember Christensen said he could see a City user wanting this type of intensive detail, but not the general public. He asked if there was a cheaper web version to offer. Mr. Haight said he would check into this matter.
Discussion followed regarding the Open Data portal, with inquiry being raised as to privacy or personally identifiable information. Mr. Haight said there was currently about 20 different data sets published. He said the policy specifically said no publication of any information that could compromise personal information. It was requested that this policy be provided to the Council.
Councilmember LaMalfa asked if there was any interest to address privacy or cost-recovery issues. It was suggested that sharing information, cost recovery, CIP, financial ramifications and such policy issues could be addressed in the future or as part of the budget process.
Mr. Haight said the Information Technology Steering Committee had a much broader role in the way projects and priorities were set. He said they would initiate a CIP process for these projects by developing a list for Administration and the City Council to review and determine funding priorities.
#5. 5:24:03 PM ELECTRONIC SIGNS. The Council will continue a discussion with the City’s Planning Division on a request that the Council consider amendments to 21A.46.020.B titled defined terms, and 21A.46.070.X titles Electronic Signs. These Ordinance sections were first considered by the Council in January of 2012. (Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00717) View Attachments
Lynn Pace, Wilf Sommerkorn, Russell Weeks and Doug Dansie addressed the Council with handouts. It was noted that Young Electric Sign company had also delivered handouts for Council consideration.
The Council discussed the conformity of historic signs. Councilmember Simonsen said he wanted to find a way to make these conforming. Mr. Pace clarified the definition of electronic signs in this ordinance would not affect these. Discussion followed regarding signs that were mechanically animated as opposed to electronically animated. Mr. Pace said if the Council wanted to legitimize mechanically animated signs, there would need to be language to authorize or specifically grandfather those signs.
Councilmember Simonsen said he would work with staff to coordinate a legislative intent regarding vintage historic signs.
#6. 4:35:14 PM Budget Amendment No. 1 FY 2012-13 – The Leonardo Kitchen Facilities and Related Issues. The Council will continue a discussion regarding Budget Amendment No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2012-13. This item relates specifically to the funding of the Leonardo Kitchen Facilities and related issues. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. (Note: all other items were adopted on either December 4 or December 11, 2012. For a complete list of adjustments, see attached transmittal.) View Attachments
David Everitt, John Naser and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with handouts. She said based on Council direction, Staff had provided three options related to additional kitchen space for a community use such as an incubator kitchen for new small businesses:
Option 1: Funding for a Leonardo kitchen, with requirement to explore a community use kitchen and leverage funding.
Option 2: Funding for a Leonardo kitchen to move forward, with hope to explore options and funding opportunities for a community use kitchen.
Option 3: Hold funding until the design and use of a community kitchen could be drafted, and resource options maximized between the projects.
Discussion followed regarding potential for additional options and whether the Leonardo should be the body that would set up or manage the incubator kitchen relationship, or how this could be accomplished.
The Council discussed options and funding amount. Councilmember LaMalfa suggested the Council fund $250,000 with an additional $100,000 awarded upon a successful partnership agreement with an incubator association. Any capitol costs in excess of the $250,000 related to The Leonardo catering kitchen could be covered within their own budget. With this concept, it would be much less than $350,000 for a full incubator kitchen to stand on its own.
Discussion followed on eligibility for the $100,000 and that it could be available to any entity that wanted to apply, including the Leonardo. Mr. Everitt suggested the City Administration and City’s Food Policy Task Force lead the exploration of partners for the incubator kitchen and development of its use, design and location. It was felt the funds should be used for construction and capitol costs and not administrative costs. Ms. Weaver said staff suggestion was that these funds be allocated from CIP cost overrun from Budget Amendment 3. She said final accounting for all Leonardo Building related funds could shift.
There appeared to be Council consensus to move forward in this manner.
#7. Budget Amendment No. 2 - Street Lighting Enterprise Fund. The Council will receive a briefing regarding Budget Amendment No. 2 for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets. This proposed budget amendment would create a revenue and expense budget of $1.8 million for the Street Lighting Enterprise Fund, including the creation of three new full time employee positions to run the new Street Lighting Enterprise Fund Program. The Council adopted ordinances creating the fund on December 11, 2012. The amendment also includes a Council request to consider funding in support of the Congress of New Urbanism (CNU) 2013 Conference. View Attachments
Item not held.
#8. 5:50:17 PM Master Plan Discussion. Receive an update from the Administration on the proposed next steps in the Master Plan process. View Attachments
Eric Shaw and Nick Norris addressed the Council with handouts and a Power point presentation regarding the planning process and understanding how to articulate and rationalize a consistent process.
Councilmember Penfold said he wanted the Council to see a plan before it went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Norris said there was a process to make the Council aware of what has been drafted.
Discussion followed regarding the current planning process and how this was conceptually different. Mr. Norris said staff would formalize check-ins and updates to boards, commissions, the Council and stakeholders. Further discussion followed regarding how this would allow plans to be done quicker. Mr. Sommerkorn said the steps had not been previously formalized.
Councilmember Garrott said he appreciated efficiencies built into the system but wanted to see the big picture and a schedule for the next 10-15 years. Inquiry was raised as to whether the Council was considered stakeholders. Mr. Shaw said the Council was stakeholders because they were residents of Salt Lake City. Mr. Sommerkorn said he felt the check-in process would provide the Council a role.
Councilmember Simonsen said the Council was welcome to comment and provide additional input; there could possibly be a follow-up discussion scheduled.
#9. Home Occupations (Tentative). The Council will receive a follow-up briefing regarding an ordinance amending the City’s zoning regulations relating to Home Occupations (Businesses operated out of homes). The purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify the current regulations and close loopholes. The proposed amendments would:
•Remove the list of permitted/conditional home occupations and update the list of prohibited uses. (This would allow a range of home occupations to be considered subject to compliance with business licensing requirements and specific zoning standards.)
•Revise the standards and regulations for permitting and terminating home occupations.
Related provisions of Title 21A – Zoning, may also be amended as part of this petition. Petitioner – Mayor Ralph Becker; Petition No. PLNPCM2011-00380.
Item not held.
#10. Liberty Village Property, LLC/Cowboy Partners Housing Trust Fund Loan (Written Briefing Only). The Council will receive a briefing regarding a request by Liberty Village property, LLC/Cowboy partners for a $750,000 Housing Trust Fund loan at 2% simple interest per annum. The 30-year loan would be used to construct the Liberty Village Apartment Building at 2150 S. McClelland Street. The five-story project would consist of 171 residential units – 35 of which would be affordable rental housing units for residents at or below 50% of the City’s area median income and 136 units would be market rate.
Per Council request, to be scheduled for a briefing and review.
#11. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, including a review of Council Information items and announcements.
See file M 12-5 for announcements.
#12. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, including an update on Council interest items and a report on meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair of various City Boards and Commissions.
This item was not held.
#13. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE §52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE ALLOWED PURPOSES.
This item was not held.
The meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio or video for the entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held January 8, 2013.