Loading...
11/16/1989 - Minutes /4 X-- Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee of the Whole November 16, 1989 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room 325 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 In Attendance: Wayne Horrocks, District Two ; Alan Hardman, District Four ; Tom Godfrey, District Five; Roselyn Kirk, District Six; W.M. "Willie" Stoler, District Seven, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director, Palmer DePaulis, Mayor; Emilie Charles, Mayor's Assistant; Councilmembers-Elect Ron Whitehead, Nancy Pace and Don Hale; other City and Council Staff members. The meeting was called to order by Chairman W.M. Willie Stoler, and the Committee convened officially as the Board of Canvassers to approve and certify the abstract of votes constituting the canvass of the municipal election November 7, 1989, for Councilmembers of District 1,3,5, and 7 and the Olympic Referendum question. The canvass was approved, and the Board of Canvassers was adjourned. (Official minutes of the meeting were taken and officially recorded.) INTERVIEW FOR CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Eugene Chapman was interviewed for consideration of appointment to the Civil Service Commission. He indicated he was recruited for the appointment and stated that as his primary reason for making application. He stated he was not fully aware of the time commitment required, but understood it would not be burdensome. He stated his 30 years experience in Human Resources Management in the private sector as qualification for the position on the commission. Councilmember Stoler questioned Mr. Chapman as to his interest in serving on and knowledge of the commission--its history and purpose, stressing that the commission was originally formed to protect the employee and the citizenry from political interference, and that many people have forgotten this purpose. Mr. Chapman indicated he views the role as one of maintaining balance, and that he would view himself as an ombudsman for employees. Councilmember Kirk commented she felt his experience in the private sector was valuable. Councilmember Horrocks expressed his appreciation to Mr. Chapman and others that volunteer to serve the city on the boards and commissions. Councilmember Stoler added that cases that are presented before the commission have tremendous effect on the city, and agreed that the volunteers have a heavy responsibility in serving in this capacity. SIDE YARD / REAR YARD-BACK REQUIREMENTS Allen Johnson from Planning presented information from the Planning Commission Staff Report regarding legislation which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without building permits and do not have the proper side yard and or rear yard setbacks. The proposed ordinance provides procedures and establishes conditions under which certain such structures could be legalized. Councilmember Horrocks expressed a concern about people who have made a garage into an extra room. He suggested an amnesty date as the only criteria. Brent Wilde noted that a related problem is the resulting parking problems. It was pointed out that this ordinance does not address the problem with garages that have been made into rooms. He suggested the two issues be addressed together. Councilmembers Godfrey and Kirk indicated this issue is different from the garage issue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated she felt that Council should get back on the track of policies that encourage good public policy and not try to meet each individual 's needs. She felt that the current Council was beginning to undermine the work of past Councils. Councilmember Kirk reminded the Committee of the situation with the handicapped individual who was forced to move from his residence because of this issue, when his garage had to be torn down to comply with the zoning requirements. Councilmember Hardman raised the question of the importance of the element of who built the structure when considered against the date the structure was built--that both criteria may not be necessary. Brent Wilde was asked what problems would exist if points 1 & 2 were eliminated from the criteria. Mr. Wilde stated that those were points added because of the previous input he received from Councilmembers. Bruce Baird advised the ordinance could be structured any way Council requested, but if significant changes were made, the changes would have to be presented before the Planning Commission again. Mr. Baird additionally did not recommend a "piggy-back" of either ordinance. Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director asked Council for clarification that there was consensus that point #1 would be changed to eliminate the wording starting with the word "or". The Council concurred the wording on page 2 of the ordinance, item B-1 , should be changed to read "The petitioner shall establish that the existing illegal structure was not constructed while the property was owned by the petitioner. or, prior 1., Lit iuner, by d I t lcLive of L11C peLiLiunr; Ms. Gust-Jenson announced that the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Council would remain scheduled for Monday, November 20th at 6:30 p.m. , at the Planning Commission's request because other arrangements could not be made to accommodate everyone's schedule. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Submitted by Janne Nielson, Staff Assistant SIGNED: M I W.M. 'WILLIE" STOLER, COUNCIL CHAIR ATTESTS __ Y HALL, CITY ECORDER ff.! Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee of the Whole November 16, 1989 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room 325 City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 In Attendance: Wayne Horrocks, District Two; Alan Hardman, District Four; Tom Godfrey, District Five; Roselyn Kirk, District Six; W.M. "Willie" Stoler, District Seven, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director, Palmer DePaulis, Mayor; Emilie Charles, Mayor's Assistant; Councilmembers-Elect Ron Whitehead, Nancy Pace and Don Hale; other City and Council Staff members. The meeting was called to order by Chairman W.M. Willie Stoler, and the Committee convened officially as the Board of Canvassers to approve and certify the abstract of votes constituting the canvass of the municipal election November 7, 1989, for Councilmembers of District 1 ,3,5, and 7 and the Olympic Referendum question. The canvass was approved, and the Board of Canvassers was adjourned. (Official minutes of the meeting were taken and officially recorded. ) INTERVIEW FOR CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Eugene Chapman was interviewed for consideration of appointment to the Civil Service Commission. He indicated he was recruited for the appointment and stated that as his primary reason for making application. He stated he was not fully aware of the time commitment required, but understood it would not be burdensome. He stated his 30 years experience in Human Resources Management in the private sector as qualification for the position on the commission. Councilmember Stoler questioned Mr. Chapman as to his interest in serving on and knowledge of the commission--its history and purpose, stressing that the commission was originally formed to protect the employee and the citizenry from political interference, and that many people have forgotten this purpose. Mr. Chapman indicated he views the role as one of maintaining balance, and that he would view himself as an ombudsman for employees. Councilmember Kirk commented she felt his experience in the private sector was valuable. Councilmember Horrocks expressed his appreciation to Mr. Chapman and others that volunteer to serve the city on the boards and commissions. Councilmember Stoler added that cases that are presented before the commission have tremendous effect on the city, and agreed that the volunteers have a heavy responsibility in serving in this capacity. SIDE YARD / REAR YARD-BACK REQUIREMENTS he would like the City to look at the jailing procedures. City Attorney Roger Cutler advised that a meeting had been held last week with the Sheriff for this purpose. Mr. Cutler reviewed some corrections in the language of the parties, gatherings and events ordinance, explaining that the revisions would leave the broad interpretation that was desired regarding the definition of "host". The briefing session was concluded in preparation for the regular Council session. Signed: _____ g7 411/1/4. W.M. "WILLIE" STOLER, UNCIL CHAIR Attested A H M L, CITY R CORDER : 1. SAW jelteCHAVONI OFFICE.,OF THE;CITY,COUNCIL 'SULTE .324 SOUTJi,STATE.STREET'; A tI :1 TYI, Agenda Posted: November 15, 1989 5:00 p.m. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OE THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: November 16, 1989 TIME: 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Conference Room City & County Building, Room 325 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah The City Council will interview Eugene Chapman for appointment to the Civil Service Commission. The City Council will discuss issues regarding a proposed ordinance outlining side yard and/or rear yard setback requirements. cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl, Emilie Charles, Roger Cutler, Kathie Marshall, Department Heads, Press SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER ROOM 315, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING 451 SOUTH STATE STREET Thursday, November 16, 1989 5:00 p. m. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Canvass tJrL and OlymicpRinion Quesrjon Consider convening as the Board of Canvassers and adopting a motion approving and certifying the abstract of votes constituting the canvass of the municipal election held November 7, 1989, for CouncilTemhers of District 1, 3, 5, and 7 and the Olympic Referendum question. (U 89-2) Staff recommendation: Convene and approve. H. ADJOURNMENT "FINAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AND/OR ORDINANCES ADOPTED CONCERNING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA DATED: (1/P1-114&"jkJ /CI_ ./.qS49 BY: 4000"/AK 74( L. . . . 11 STATE OE UTAH ) COUNTY OE SALT LAKE ) sr-;. On the 15th day of November, 1989. I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and pcGred copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City and County Building, 45] South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah: J . At. 5:00 p. m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p. m. in the Newsroom, Room 343. itai; 1 . 411 .a. • CITY Rkw,1. R --- ---. - III Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15t.h day of November, 1989. ,,---i 1 . 4. r p ims= I swat 3 • • — •• Al PJNI. I _ ilia •. ....., ..,, ._,, ). ! ' otary Public t _sq. the I SP I 00Ind '1+:4 - .-t.-- a State of Utah L. .1 My Commission Expires: _1776' 5 APPROVAL: _ . _ ._ .SX____. V .... EXECU I'VE D RECTOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION CANVASS OF MUNICIPAL ELECTION November 15, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATION BY: Kathryn Burrows ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL: Convene as Board of Canvassers and approve the abstract of votes cast for the municipal election for Council Members of Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7, and Olympic Games Opinion Question held November 7. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a technical legal requirement. The Council and Mayor together make up the Board of Canvassers. STAFF ANALYSIS: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Convene, approve, adjourn. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: 1. I move we adjourn as the City Council. (Council Members vote) 2. I move we convene with the Mayor as the Board of Canvassers. (Council Members and Mayor vote) 3. I move we approve and certify the abstract of votes cast in the municipal election held November 7, 1989, for Council Members of Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 and the Olympic Referendum question. (Council Members and Mayor vote) 4. I move we adjourn as the Board of Canvassers. (Council Members and Mayor vote) 5. I move we reconvene as the City Council. (Council Members vote) ANTICIPATED OPPOSITION: None. sm ' aJ Jk1Ir�U,;C� �, tI_,iNi ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT City Recorder KATHRYN MARSHALL 415 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING PALMER DEPAULIS CITY RECORDER 451 SOUTH STATE STREET MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 - (801) 535-7671 November 16, 1989 To: The Board Canvassers From: KathrymMa shall, City Recorder Recommendation: That the Mayor and City Council meet November 16, 1989 during the regularly scheduled Council meeting to ap- prove and certify the abstract of votes constituting the canvass of the Municipal election held November 7, 1989 for Council Members in Council districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 and the Olympic Games Opinion Question in all Council Districts. Discussion: Attached are the results of the total votes cast for the Municipal election for Council Members for Council districts 1, 3, 5 and 7, and the Olympic Games Opinion Question in all Council Districts held November 7, 1989. This canvass must be approved and certified by the Mayor and City Council acting as the Board of Canvassers. COUNCIL DISTRICT #1 SLC 1989 MUNICIPAL CANVAS NO. OF NO. DISTRICTS VOTERS REG. BITTNER WHITEHEAD WRITE-INS YES NO ( 1 ) 2001N 20 145 8 12 3 17 ( 2) 2002 & 2003 564 1378 203 348 3 322 242 (3 ) 2049 139 319 54 85 79 59 (4) 2004 255 406 91 163 1 114 141 ( 5 ) 2006 213 389 69 140 4 121 92 ( 6 ) 2008 & 2010 481 768 209 267 237 244 (7 ) 2014 197 329 97 97 90 107 ( 8 ) 2016 & 2074 318 978 159 150 1 163 155 (9 ) 2030 & 2040 531 837 302 228 1 241 290 ( 10) 2042 179 342 68 109 77 102 ( 11 ) 2034 & 2036 561 928 304 255 245 313 ( 12 ) 2038 207 566 115 89 85 122 ( 13) 2044 & 2058 366 797 166 198 154 210 ( 14) 2072 75 197 35 40 44 31 ( 15) 2050 162 466 58 99 91 71 ( 16 ) 2051 95 287 50 42 36 59 ( 17) 2052 & 2056 423 884 168 250 155 265 TOTALS 4786 10016 2156 2572 10 2257 2520 COUNCIL DISTRICT #2 SLC 1989 MUNICIPAL CANVAS NO. OF NO. DISTRICTS VOTERS REG. YES NO ( 18) 2001S & 2202 125 485 45 80 ( 19 ) 2212 & 2222 275 786 95 180 ( 20) 2204 & 2216 252 757 106 146 ( 21 ) 2206 71 265 35 36 ( 22) 2214 & 2226 229 696 81 148 ( 23) 2220 126 631 59 67 ( 24) 2224 & 2244 336 796 127 209 ( 25) 2246 151 352 43 108 ( 26) 2228 & 2256 348 833 142 206 ( 27) 2230 66 227 20 46 ( 28) 2242 & 2248 214 578 75 137 ( 29 ) 2252 & 2254 311 930 137 174 (30) 2260 94 318 46 48 (31 ) 2264 234 612 96 138 (32) 2442 112 344 41 69 (33) 2462 141 257 57 84 (34) 2464 125 365 58 67 TOTALS 3210 9232 1263 1943 COUNCIL DISTRICT #3 SLC 1989 MUNICIPAL CANVASS NO. OF NO. DISTRICTS VOTERS REG. BARRETT PACE WRITE-INS YES NO (35) 2018 & 2066 299 829 141 150 2 136 159 (36 ) 2068 181 397 82 90 114 67 (37 ) 2020 & 2022 369 654 183 175 244 125 (38 ) 2142 133 329 47 81 1 88 45 (39 ) 2064 253 461 114 123 160 88 ( 40) 2102 & 2103 551 894 137 401 4 390 161 (41 ) 2104 & 2128 374 615 164 196 2 207 167 ( 42) 2122 199 323 57 135 3 127 70 (43) 2126 284 454 129 150 158 126 ( 44) 2132 292 531 137 132 1 167 125 (45 ) 2134 & 2146 401 753 195 194 1 189 211 (46 ) 2136 262 434 73 184 1 196 66 ( 47) 2143 & 2144 345 698 180 151 184 159 ( 48 ) 2156 & 2178 304 696 153 136 174 127 ( 49 ) 2152 & 2154 427 921 186 225 256 169 ( 50) 2158 140 303 72 59 71 69 ( 51 ) 2160 172 345 78 88 97 71 ( 52) 2164 & 2182 459 878 192 252 1 271 186 ( 53 ) 2184 & 2186 330 578 95 225 197 133 ( 54) 2166 & 2314 519 1191 135 366 374 145 ( 55) 2320 179 435 64 105 101 78 ( 56 ) 2174 245 653 116 . 115 161 83 ( 57 ) 2180 117 260 38 72 1 68 49 TOTALS 6835 13632 2768 3805 17 4130 2679 COUNCIL DISTRICT #4 SLC 1989 MUNICIPAL CANVAS NO. OF NO. DISTRICTS VOTERS REG. YES NO ( 58) 2302 198 647 131 67 ( 59 ) 2306 74 266 38 36 ( 60) 2308 134 418 85 48 ( 61 ) 2310 & 2318 255 712 131 124 ( 62) 2330 & 2332 170 605 79 91 ( 63 ) 2312 99 320 56 43 ( 64) 2334 88 238 42 46 ( 65 ) 2336 109 333 62 47 ( 66 ) 2340 161 330 64 97 ( 67 ) 2346 & 2362 134 453 58 73 ( 68 ) 2348 & 2350 245 843 114 130 ( 69 ) 2380 96 285 39 56 ( 70) 2352 & 2364 257 741 137 119 ( 71 ) 2388 149 370 86 63 ( 72 ) 2354 137 340 70 67 ( 73 ) 2356 & 2366 262 572 126 136 ( 74) 2370 & 2402 184 485 75 109 ( 75 ) 2422 92 272 35 57 (76) 2374 128 467 68 60 ( 77) 2376 99 274 54 45 ( 78 ) 2378 117 350 58 59 ( 79 ) 2384 102 263 58 . 43 ( 80) 2390 202 419 99 103 ( 81 ) 2404 154 388 73 81 ( 82 ) 2424 109 287 49 60 TOTALS 3755 10678 1887 1860 COUNCIL DISTRICT #5 SLC 1989 MUNICIPAL CANVAS NO. OF NO. DISTRICTS VOTERS REG CAHOON GODFREY WRITE-INS YES NO ( 83 ) 2368 & 2392 159 597 68 78 119 40 ( 84 ) 2382 & 2502 287 609 101 173 152 133 ( 85) 2406 185 420 34 142 1 105 78 ( 86 ) 2426 157 340 41 112 76 81 ( 87) 2432 143 327 78 63 43 98 ( 88) 2436 & 2438 492 915 264 226 239 253 ( 89 ) 2444 177 484 84 91 85 92 ( 90) 2448 & 2450 536 932 281 245 257 279 ( 91 ) 2468 & 2474 422 807 180 236 190 232 ( 92) 2466 179 376 82 90 99 79 ( 93 ) 2470 174 335 105 67 64 110 ( 94) 2472 162 348 67 84 4 73 88 ( 95) 2476 109 227 56 53 54 55 ( 96 ) 2506 243 360 100 140 158 85 ( 97 ) 2508 257 483 92 155 162 89 (98) 2510 252 435 81 161 147 105 ( 99 ) 2512 & 2514 456 777 179 265 226 230 ( 100) 2530 & 2532 401 739 176 215 186 215 ( 101) 2516 & 2534 417 739 124 286 3 268 149 ( 102) 2536 301 505 92 203 174 127 ( 103 ) 2540 179 369 90 83 76 102 ( 104 ) 2542 & 2544 407 682 154 . 238 194 213 TOTALS 6095 11806 2529 3406 8 3147 2933 COUNCIL DISTRICT #6 SLC 1989 MUNICIPAL CANVAS NO. OF NO. DISTRICTS VOTERS REG YES NO ( 105) 2358 64 332 46 18 ( 106 ) 2360 108 520 86 22 ( 107 ) 2394 74 350 45 29 ( 108 ) 2520 & 2524 492 774 330 162 ( 109 ) 2522 350 590 226 124 ( 110) 2538 219 350 133 86 ( 111 ) 2546 & 2630 439 790 274 165 ( 112) 2556 & 2558 433 761 235 193 ( 113 ) 2560 & 2572 412 782 200 212 ( 114) 2570 174 317 84 90 ( 115) 2602 163 218 97 66 ( 116 ) 2604 310 497 192 118 ( 117) 2606 192 315 136 51 ( 118 ) 2608 231 399 133 98 ( 119 ) 2612 257 500 179 77 ( 120) 2614 346 621 260 86 ( 121 ) 2620 229 388 159 70 ( 122 ) 2622 141 257 62 79 ( 123 ) 2624 & 2626 320 607 141 179 ( 124) 2636 250 421 173 77 ( 125) 2628 351 557 291 59 ( 126) 2632 & 2634 371 679 192 . 175 ( 127 ) 2640 & 2642 447 784 247 200 ( 128 ) 2650 & 2652 333 585 157 174 ( 129 ) 2644 & 2654 404 756 225 179 ( 130) 2646 272 501 181 91 TOTALS 7382 13651 4484 2880 COUNCIL DISTRICT #7 SLC 1989 MUNICIPAL CANVAS NO. OF NO. DISTRICTS VOTERS REG. HALE STOLER WRITE-INS YES NO ( 131 ) 2480 156 335 69 79 3 66 90 ( 132 ) 2482 211 494 127 78 88 123 ( 133 ) 2492 172 1210 71 99 80 92 ( 134) 2494 & 2580 497 943 223 263 259 238 ( 135 ) 2582 177 355 106 61 1 76 101 ( 136 ) 2496 & 2586 385 746 215 158 145 240 ( 137 ) 2594 142 264 75 63 58 84 ( 138) 2550 155 328 75 75 77 77 ( 139 ) 2552 & 2554 256 541 140 94 4 141 115 ( 140 ) 2562 166 350 80 82 76 87 ( 141 ) 2566 & 2680 502 797 175 323 248 254 ( 142 ) 2568 154 289 75 76 85 69 ( 143 ) 2584 220 356 74 137 126 94 ( 144 ) 2588 205 303 131 74 102 103 ( 145) 2590 & 2596 443 746 255 177 2 226 217 ( 146 ) 2598 117 242 74 40 72 44 ( 147 ) 2660 215 317 157 52 98 116 ( 148 ) 2662 198 291 149 43 1 107 91 ( 149 ) 2664 & 2666 386 540 257 120 259 123 ( 150 ) 2668 279 418 216 59 2 183 95 ( 151 ) 2670 & 2672 331 677 222 92 1 199 132 ( 152 ) 2674 304 503 169 . 124 231 73 ( 153 ) 2678 192 372 133 45 2 124 68 ( 154) 2682 177 305 105 66 87 90 ( 155 ) 2684 314 491 184 124 145 168 ( 156 ) 2686 282 404 232 48 1 212 70 ( 157) 2692 & 2694 454 747 282 161 255 198 ( 158) 2912 201 389 21 23 102 99 ( 159 ) 2722 7 19 1 6 4 3 TOTALS 7298 13772 4093 2842 17 3931 3354 GRAND TOTALS 39361 82787 21099 19620 STATE OF UTAH ) ) ss CITY AND COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) WE THE UNDERSIGNED, APPOINTED AS THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY, IN THE STATE OF UTAH, ON TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, A. D. 1989, FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER FOR COUNCIL DISTRICTS 1, 3, 5 AND 7, FOUR YEAR TERMS, AND THE OLYMPIC GAMES OPINION QUESTION IN ALL COUNCIL DISTRICTS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED FOREGOING ARE A TRUE AND CORRECT CANVASS OF SAID ELECTION, AS THE SAME APPEARS FROM THE OFFICIAL RETURNS MADE BY THE JUDGES OF ELECTION IN VARIOUS ELECTION DISTRICTS IN COUNCIL DISTRICTS 1, 3, 5, AND 7 IN SAID CITY, AND THE PERSONS RECEIVING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES FOR SAID OFFICE ARE HEREBY DULY ELECTED. AND ALSO CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED FOREGOING ARE A TRUE AND CORRECT CANVASS OF SAID ELECTION, AS THE SAME APPEARS FROM THE OFFICIAL RETURNS MADE BY THE JUDGES OF ELECTION IN VARIOUS ELECTION DISTRICTS IN ALL COUNCIL DISTRICTS FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES OPINION QUESTION. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEAL THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1989 W. M. "WILLIE" STOLER, CHAIRPERSON WAYNE HORROCKS, COUNCILMEMBER FLORENCE BITTNER, COUNCILMEMBER TOM GODFREY, COUNCILMEMBER SYDNEY FONNESBECK, COUNCILMEMBER ALAN HARDMAN, COUNCILMEMBER ROSELYN KIRK, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER DEPAULIS, MAYOR ATTEST: KATHRYN MARSHALL, CITY RECORDER r• • SA T� @J G`I Y C,,�OLMO - =F I-01 OFFICE OF;;THE :CITY;COUNCIL i! 1;'.;SUITE 300,:CITY. HALL 324..SOUTH-STATE STREET k .d SALT.-LAKE>;CiTYrAJTAH;841J Tentative Agenda SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: November. 16, 1989 TIME: 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Council Conference Room City & County Building, Room 325 451 South State Street Salt. Lake City, Utah The City Council will interview Eugene Chapman for appointment to the Civil Service Commission. The City Council will discuss issues regarding a proposed ordinance outlining side yard and/or rear yard setback requirements. cc: Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Mike Zuhl, Emilie Charles, Roger Cutler, Kathie Marshall, Department Heads, Press CC IIJUI - Nkl• S2? 1 E 79a3 SALT LAKE CITY P.OUNCIL ROGER F.CUTLER CT'ATTORNEY UTLER � A`Q ���iCK� `��Qjv��1 ma RAASSISTANT L.MONTGOMERY STEVEN W.ALLRED GREG R.HAWKINS DEPUTY WY ATTORNEY - - LAW DEPARTMENT - - LARRY V.SPENDLOVE CHERYL D.LUKE BRUCE R.BAIRD CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING FRANK M.NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,SUITE 505 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS SALT IAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 CECELIA M.ESPENOZA RICHARD G.RAMP TELEPHONE(801)535-7788 GLEN A.COOK FAX(801)535-7640 MEMORANDUM TO: Allen C. Johnson Planning and Zoning ✓Cindy Gust-Jenson City Council Office FROM: Bruce R. Baird Assistant City Attorney PYI • DATE: September 15, 1989 RE: Garage, Carport Amnesty Ordinance Pursuant to the Council's hearing on Tuesday, September 5, 1989 I have drafted an ordinance providing for a limited amnesty for existing garages, carports and patio covers which violate front, rear or side yard requirements. Based on the Council's discussion, and a report from the Planning staff, the originally contemplated requirement of "architectural compatibility" was dropped. Since the existing structures have to be more than 15 years old the imposition of the difficult to define requirement of "architectural compatibility" appeared to be fairly irrelevant. It is my understanding that the draft ordinance will be considered by various neighborhood councils and, possibly, also the Planning Commission. After receiving final input from these bodies we will, of course, draft a completed ordinance. BRB:rc Attachment DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1989 (Enacting Section 21. 80.290 of Title 21 to Provide a Procedure for Legalizing Existing Violations of Side Yard and Setback Requirements for Existing Garages, Carports and Patio Covers ) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 21.80.290 OF TITLE 21, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROVIDING A PROCEDURE AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR LEGALIZING EXISTING VIOLATIONS OF SIDE YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING GARAGES, CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony concerning the issue of legalizing existing violations of side yard and/or front or rear yard setback requirements for existing carports, garages and patio covers; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it appropriate to provide certain procedures and conditions for the legalization of those existing conditions; THEREFORE, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, hereby adopts the following amendments to Chapter 80 of Title 21 . Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 21. 80.290 Of Title 21, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 21.80.290 Legalization of existing garages, carports and patio covers. i 1 • In all residential districts, existing garages, carports, patio covers and similar structures which violate the zoning provisions for applicable side yards and/or front or rear yard setbacks may be legalized by the Board of Adjustment subject to the following procedures and conditions: A. In considering legalization petitions under this section, the Board of Adjustment shall follow the provisions and rules set out pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title 21 for the consi- deration of variances, including those provisions regulating notice to affected persons, filing fees, hearing procedures, appeal procedures and all other applicable procedures. B. If the Board of Adjustment finds that all of the following conditions have been met the Board shall issue an order legalizing the existing structure: 1 . The petitioner shall establish that the existing illegal structure was not constructed while the property _.-- was owned by the petitione for, prior to the ownership by ])the petitioner, by a relative of the petitioner; 2. The existing structure must have been constructed prior to 1975 as established by the City' s aerial photo series of April, 1975; 3. At the time of the purchase by the petitioner • there was no recorded notice of violation or certificate of noncompliance concerning the illegal structure recorded in the chain of title of the property; -2- 4. The existing structure must be no closer to the front property line than the primary structure on the property or twenty feet, whichever is greater. 5. The existing structure must maintain a minimum of three feet of landscaped side yard open space to the property line; 6. The existing structure must meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code in effect at the time of the construction of the property. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 1989 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor' s action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER -3- (SEAL) Bill No. of 1989 . Published: BRB:rc -4- x• • • . J / DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON 114 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111, 5$5.7777 TO: Salt Lake City Council July 19, 1989 RE: Side Yards and/or Rear Yard Requirements Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing on September 5, 1989 at 6:40 p.m. to discuss a proposed ordinance outlining conditions and a overlay zone to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without the proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. Availability of Funds: Not applicable Discussion and Background: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the Zoning Ordinance not be changed to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize building additions. The Planning and Zoning Staff report supports this Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions the Board of Adjustment could use if you wish to pursue this issue by adopting the appropriate ordinance changes. These conditions are designed so that the Board of Adjustment can verify the hardships imposed by those structures having been erected by previous owners as well as the Board can verify that the additions meet building code and reasonable separation from neighboring structures and property lines. After reviewing the staff report, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, t believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coup] ing the following proposed conditions to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment with an overlay zone: 1. Proof that the offending structure was not built by the petitioner or relative. 2. Proof that the offending structure existed prior, to 1975. 3. The offending structure must maintain a 10-foot minimum distance to any adjacent dwelling. . 4. ThP petitioner purchased the property without notice of violation, meaning a Certificate of Non -compliance had not been recorded against the deed of the property. 5. The offending structure must be no closer to the front property line than the primary structure or 20 feet, whichever is greater. 6. The offending structure must maintain a minimum of 3 feet of landscaped open space to the property line. 7.- The offending structure must meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code. 8. The structure must be architecturally compatible with the primary structure and the neighborhood. The overlay zone process is simple. It places the responsibility for its enactment on a consensus within the neighborhood and requires a legislative action by the City Council. A recommendation is required from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This process ensures neighborhood involvement and the Planning Staff conditions verify the presence of hardship and the compliance with building code standards. Should you concur with the recommendation after the public hearing, the City Attorney with the Planning Staff should be directed to prepare the necessary overlay ordinance that can then be enacted should a specific neighborhood request it. • Legislative Action: No ordinance has been prepared due to the complex issues that can not be resolved until a public hearing has been held. Submitted by: CRAIG E. Pi TERSON Director lf/ • 1 Mgr r4ti HEY ,n,` A 111.001 I _i DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CRAIG E. PETERSON :11'44 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841111 July 17, 1989 Mayor Palmer DePaulis Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mayor DePaulis: Attached please find the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation concerning the City Council's request to change the Zoning Ordinance so as to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, car ports and patio covers which were built without the proper permits and do not adhere to the present side yard and/or rear yard requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the Zoning Ordinance not be changed to authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize these building additions. The Planning and Zoning staff report supports this Planning Commission position but does propose certain conditions if the City Council wishes to pursue this issue by adopting the appropriate ordinance changes. These conditions are designed to verify the hardships imposed by those structures having been erected by previous owners as well as to verify that the additions meet building code and reasonable separation from neighboring structures and property lines. After reviewing the staff report, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes and following numerous discussions with the Planning Staff, I believe the desires of the City Council can be achieved by coupling the proposed conditions contained in the Planning Staff report with an overlay zone similar to the one I have proposed to deal with the recreation vehicle parking issue. The overlay zone process is simple. It places the responsibility for its enactment on a consensus within the neighborhood and requires a legislative action by the City Council. A recommendation is required from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This process ensures neighborhood involvement and the Planning Staff conditions verify the presence of hardship and the Mayor Palmer DePaulis July 17, 1989 Page Two • compliance with building ,code standards. Upon receipt of your comments concerning this recommendation, I will request the City Attorney's office work with the Planning Staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and schedule briefing and public hearing dates before the City Council. Sincerely, Craig E. Peterson Director C'FP:skm • ALLEN C.JOHNSON.AICP PUNNING AND ZONING PUNNING DIRECTOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: WILLIAM T.WRIG HT,AICP COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RALPH BECKER DEPUTY OlRIGH PLANNING DIVISION DAN BETHEL SUPERVISOR LONG RANGE PLANNING Planning and Zoning Commission CINDY CROMER AND URBAN OESIGN THOMAS A.ELLISON 451 SOUTH STATE STREET LAVONE LIDDLE-GAMONAL SANDRA MARLER RICHARD J.HOWA sscREraRr ROOM 406,CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING RALPH P.NEILSON SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 GEORGE NICOLATUS TELEPHONE 535-7757 JOHN M.SCHUMANN July 7, 1989 Mr. Craig E. Peterson, Director Community & Economic Development Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street, Room 218 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Craig: The Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed City Council legislation intent which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without permits and do not have proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Staff has analyzed the existing ordinance and potential alternative changes to address the issues raised by the City Council and has recommended not to enact such legislation. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 1989, the Cmmnission voted unanimously to recoimlend to the City Council not to change the existing Zoning Ordinance prohibiting accessory structures in the side and rear yards without adequate setbacks. The Planning Commission and Planning Staff believe the existing City urban design policies and standards governing accessory structures are proper and all residents should abide by these standards unless a legitimate hardship is associated with a specific site. In those cases, the Board of Adjustment presently has the authority to grant variances. While studying possible alternatives, the staff concluded that in order to abide by the Uniform Building Code (for health, safety and welfare of City residents), the ordinance would need to contain a host of conditions and provisions. Most, if not all, of the existing situations which the City Council is trying to address, would not be able to be granted because those structures could not comply with the Uniform Building Code provisions. Mr. Craig E. Peterson July 7, 1989 Page Two The Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the City Council not pursue a new ordinance authorizing the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain existing garages, carports and patio covers built without proper side and/or rear yard setbacks. The Planning Commission Einds that the existing ordinance and City zoning enforcement procedures assure compliance with master planning goals for Salt Lake City's neighborhoods. Applying consistent standards of development will assure aesthetic design of our residential neighborhoods and provide standards for health, safety and welfare of Salt Lake City's residents. If the City Council should decide to proceed with a new ordinance, the Planning Staff would recommend eight conditions for approval of any legalization. The staff requests the opportunity to discuss these conditions with the City Council. Attached are the Planning Staff report and Planning Commission minutes for their review. If you have additional questions, please let me know. Respectfully submitted, • Allen C. Johnston, AICP Planning Director ACJ:skm attachments • PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 r Page 6 Mr. Allegro from UI'A explained that this first phase was simply to obtain the preference on type of system and that technical details involved in the 4Y implementation and actual location of the system would be covered during the / next phase of the study. Following the detailed and lengthy discussion, Mr. Neilson moved to recommend the loop system as the preference of the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Commission to the Transportation Implementation Committee. Mr. Nicolatus seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Discuss Northwest Community Plan Update. Mr. Johnson informed the Planning Commission that in 1980, the Planning Commission and the City Council adopted the Northwest Community Master Plan. Ms. Jardine asked if any of the Planning Commissioners had any questions on the update which they were already familiar with, and requested a hearing date for this matter to be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nicolatus moved to schedule this hearing for June 22, 1989. Ms. Liddle- Gamonal seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. Discuss legislation which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and _patio covers which have been built without building permits and do not have the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. Mr. Merrill Nelson presented the staff report and stated- that enforcement procedures taken against many illegally located garages, carports and patio covers in the Yalecrest and Rose Park areas in 1986-1987 have revealed that often the present owners were not the persons responsible for the illegal construction. Many cases have developed were the present owner has unwittingly purchased property without the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks and the length of time that has past preempts the reasonable recourse the owner may have against the original seller of the property. The present owner is, therefore, subject to a real property loss if the zoning enforcement were to proceed. In order to protect the many citizens who become victims of other owners who built structures without the proper building permits, the City Council has proposed legislation which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers. Mr. Nelson stated that the Uniform Building Code requires garages and carports to have a "one-hour" fire wall when the structure is located within three feet of the property line. This is a life-safety requirement designed to prevent the spread of fire from one property to the next. Most of the enforcement cases involved structures which were built on or near the property line and would be subject to this Building Code requirement. PC MINUTES May 25, 1989 Page 7 The propriety of legalizing a structure simply because it already exists must also be considered. If a variance _is granted because the structure already exists and not because of a hardship related to the property, the obvious motive for the variance is economic. Much evidence exists in case law which indicates that economics are not to have a role in considering a zoning variance. If the city were to pursue legislation that allows a legalization process, the staff would recommend the following conditions be met by the petitioner: 1. Proof that the offending structure was not built by the petitioner nor a relative. 2. Proof that the offending structure existed prior to 1975. 3. The offending structure must maintain a 10-foot minimum distance to any adjacent dwelling. 4. The petitioner purchased the property without notice of violation, meaning a Certificate of Noncompliance had not been recorded against the deed of the property. 5. The offending structure must be no closer to the front property line than the primary structure or 20 feet, whichever is greater. 6. The offending structure must maintain a minimum of 3 feet of landscaped open space to the property line. 7. The offending structure must meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code. 8. The structure must be architecturally compatible with the primary structure and the neighborhood. _ _ Mr. Nelson said that separating dwellings in residential zones, by requiring minimum landscaped side and rear yard setbacks, is a significant planning objective. The proposed ordinance would substantially reduce this desired separation. Also, required side and rear .yard setbacks contribute highly to the quality of life as these setbacks_buffer noise and activities from one neighbor to the next. Mr. Nelson added that the City Master Plans are supportive of open space, visual compatibility, and urban design developed to the property line is not consistent. Mr. Nelson stated that the Planning Staff believes the proposed legislation would be detrimental to the master plan for residential areas resulting in visual incompatibility and would encourage eventual conversion into living space. By opposing this legislation, we realize that some innocent people may suffer some financial loss; however, the quality of life for neighborhoods is, in our opinion, a higher priority. The staff recommends that the city does not create ordinances that would authorize the Board of Adjustment to legalize carports, garages and patio covers in required yard areas. • PC NINNIES May 25, 1989 Page 8 Ms. Liddle-Gamonal asked if property owners are informed of the conforming/nonconforming status of the property they are purchasing at the time they purchase the property. Mr. Nelson responded that it would be possible to buy a piece of property that is nonconforming since the title report only deals with the deed of the property against financial encumbrances and not Zoning Ordinance issues. Mr. Johnson stated that the staff is recommending the ordinance not be revised because the majority of the violations would still exist and need enforcement even after the ordinance revision. Mr. Johnson added that enforcement is usually on a complaint basis due to a shortage of enforcement officers and when one neighbor has a complaint filed against him, he in turn, complains about everyone else in the neighborhood who is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson added that he did not feel changing the ordinance, instead of the way the enforcements are handled, is the best alternative. Mr. Nicolatus stated he feels the citizens who comply with the Zoning Ordinance, or those who are adjacent to someone in violation of the ordinance, need to be acknowledged. Mr. Howe moved to accept staff"s recommendation to recommend that the City Council not create legislation regarding authorization for the Board of Adjustment to legalize certain garages, carports and patio covers which have been built without building permits and do not have the proper side yard and/or rear yard setbacks. Mr. Becker seconded the motion; all voted "Aye." The motion passes. OI}iER BUSINESS Informal R/UDAT Meeting Mr. Schumann stated that Mr. Chuck Davis of R/UDAT will be in town on Friday, June 16th, and is desirous of meeting with the Planning Commissioners at 9:00 a.m. to discuss R/UDAT. It was suggested the secretary make reminder calls on Thursday, June 15th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ;11/<7/ 4-,0) ecretar -_ Y 1., r ROGER FT CUTLER $»+'` _i� Q� ti ���i j�w=fi,© � RAY L ASSSMONTGOMERY TANT ATTORNEYS CITY ATTORNEY 1 , ' �r j STEVEN W. ALLRED GREG R. HAWKINS V. SPENDLOVE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY LAW DEPARTMENT LARRYBRUCE R. BAIRD CHERYL D. LUKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING FRANK M. NAKAMURA CITY PROSECUTOR 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 505 ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 CECELIA M. ESPENOZA RICHARD G. HAMP TELEPHONE (801) 535-7788 GLEN A. COOK FAX (801) 535-7640 CARLOS ESOUEDA MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Peterson, Director Development Services /� FROM: Bruce R. Baird /jC Assistant City Attorney (/ DATE: July 16, 1989 RE: Overlay Zones for Recreational Vehicles and Garages On Wednesday, July 26, 1989 LuAnn brought me your memos dated July 19 and July 20, 1989 addressed to the City Council regarding proposed "overlay zones" allowing for amnesty for illegal garages and for recreational vehicle parking in side yards respectively. I understood from LuAnn that you needed comments on these two proposals quickly. This letter provides those comments. Given the brief amount of time this memorandum does not purport to be an in-depth discussion of the two proposals but merely the first preliminary opinion from our office. General Concerns. Administration of the various overlay zones co`Ld become -- bureaucratically difficult and confusing for both the City administration and our citizens. To the extent that a court might determine that due to the proliferation of these zones no reasonable citizen could figure out the exact status of their 'Craig Peterson, Director July 26, 1989 Page -2- property we might have difficulty enforcing certain provisions related to the various overlay zones. Additionally, the overlay zone process contains the potential for discrimination in favor of "squeaky wheels. " That is, those citizens with an axe to grind and the ability to use the system may succeed in having the overlay zones applied where other citizens with less effective access to the process may simply give up in frustration despite justifiable claims. Obviously, to ease both of the above problems it would be simpler for the ordinances, assuming without deciding that they are useful from a planning standpoint, on a city-wide basis. Specific Problems. Creation of the actual overlay ordinances, except as noted above, is not terribly difficult. However, when the time comes to apply the "overlays" to the zoning maps great care would need to be taken to determine that the district overlaid with the zone met the rational relationship test for zoning ordinances. That is, planning reasons would need to be articulated why the district furthered the City' s comprehensive land use plan. It is not sufficient to meet the comprehensive planning objectives to simply say "the people of one particular area want it. " The line drawing, in applying the overlay zones, must rationally further the City' s comprehensive land use objectives. Another specific problem concerns the "amnesty" overlay zone for garages, etc. Condition No. 8, of "architectural compatibility, " is a very discretionary determination to place with the board as written. It would probably require more specifics (e.g. matching colors, matching building materials, etc. ) . Concerning the recreational vehicle overlay zone, it would be necessary before drafting the ordinance to come up with definitions for a great number of terms in the proposal. Speci- fically, "motor home, " travel trailer, " "recreational vehicle" and other terms. Condition No. 4, requiring approval from the affected, abutting property owners, is almost certainly impermissible. The Utah Supreme Court has already held that granting of variances and other zoning functions requires a comprehensive plan and cannot be conditioned upon neighbor approval. r ' Craig Peterson, Director July 26, 1989 Page -3- Even should these other concerns be dealt with the process of drafting the ordinance for recreational vehicles will be long and complicated due to the great number of considerations which must be specified. If you have any further questions please let me know. I apologize for the rough nature of this memorandum but ask you to remember it was written on very short notice pursuant to your request. BRB:rc cc: Roger F. Cutler Allen C. Johnson