PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4 1987
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1987, AT 5:00 P.M. IN SUITE 300 CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at the meeting.
BRIEFING SESSION
#1. Linda Hamilton, Council Office Executive Director, briefed the City Council on the evening’s agenda. She indicated that the ordinance on reimbursable payments for extension of water mains had been redrafted to make the repayment schedule clearer.
#2. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, briefed the Council on changes made to the proposed ordinance concerning residential handicap facilities. He indicated that the ordinance had been changed to include “R-l” zones in the areas affected and to eliminate the requirement for 600 feet of rear-yard landscaping. Council Member Stoler asked what definition of “handicapped” was assumed by the ordinance. He indicated his concern was with a specific stipulation against violent tenants and he wanted to know what guarantees would be provided to prevent such tenants being placed in neighborhoods.
#3. Larry Livingston then briefed the Council on the public hearings scheduled for the evening.
#4. The City Council set a date for a tour of Redevelopment Agency areas on August 13, 1987, at 3:30 p.m.
The briefing session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1987, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SUITE 300, CITY HALL, 324 SOUTH STATE.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: FLORENCE BITTNER THOMAS M. GODFREY GRANT MABEY ROSELYN N. KIRK SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK WILLIE STOLER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Mike Zuhl, Chief of Staff, Roger Cutler, city attorney, Lynda Domino, chief deputy city recorder, and Doc Kivett, deputy recorder, were present.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis and Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, were absent.
Council Chairperson Kirk presided at and Councilmember Bittner conducted the meeting.
The prayer was given by police chaplain Donald Goodheart.
The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meetings held Tuesday, July 7, 1987, Tuesday, July 14, 1987, and Thursday, July 16, 1987, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(M 87-1)
Special Recognition
The Salt Lake City Council welcomed Aklo Tsubota, assistant director - planning division, and Akira Shimamura, staff to the urban development department, who were visiting from Matsumoto City, Japan. Randy Taylor, Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Department, introduced Mr. Tsubota and Mr. Shimamura and said they were from our sister city and were interested in finding out more about our government. He said they had a gift for the Council which they would leave with the Council Staff. Mr. Tsubota greeted the Council and said they were happy to be in Salt Lake City. He said they were impressed with our beautiful city and were doing their best to understand Salt Lake City government and promote sister city relations.
PETITIONS
Petition 400-277 by Sugar House Community Council and 400-344 by Dan Miller.
RE: Rezoning certain property between 900 East and 1100 East between Hollywood Avenue and 2100 South from Commercial “C-3” to Residential “R-5”.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 49 of 1987 rezoning certain property between 900 East and 1100 East between Hollywood Avenue and 2100 South from Commercial “C-3” to Residential “R-5”, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(P 85-239 and P 85-240)
Petition 400-406 by Stott, Inc.
RE: An ordinance extending the expiration date of Bill No. 68 of 1986 from August 15, 1987, to September 1, 1988, relating to the closing of Pioneer Road at approximately 2565 West California Avenue.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 51 of 1987 extending the expiration date of Bill No. 68 of 1986, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(P 86-167)
Petition 400-487 by Melvin Simon and Associates.
RE: A request to lease property directly south of Trolley Square’s main building to provide access to a new service area and to purchase additional property 7 feet wide and 665 feet long along the south building line paralleling 600 South.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to set a non-advertised public hearing for Tuesday, August 11, 1987, at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(P 87-202)
Petition 400-490/Legislative Action by Councilmember Hardwick.
RE: An ordinance vacating a portion of an alley that borders on the east boundary line of Richmond Park in Salt Lake City, Utah.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 50 of 1987 vacating a portion of an alley that borders on the east boundary line of Richmond Park, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(P 87-30)
Petition 400-493 by Banj Investment.
RE: An ordinance vacating Lemon Place and Trinidad Court and closing Brazier Court.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Ordinance 48 of 1987 vacating Lemon Place and closing Brazier Court, two streets located in Blocks 14 and 15 of Salt Lake City, and vacating a private easement known as Trinidad Court, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(P 87-129)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement with the National Guard Bureau, United States Property and Fiscal Office for Utah for the National Guard, to paint stripe airport runways, taxiways, and ramps on an annual basis.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 100 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the National Guard Bureau, United States Property and Fiscal Office for Utah for the National Guard, to paint stripe airport runways, taxiways, and ramps on an annual basis, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-388)
#2. RE: An interlocal agreement with the United States Department of the Army for an eighteen-month right of entry for construction on airport property.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 101 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the United States Department of the Army for an eighteen-month right of entry for construction on airport property, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-389)
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance relating to compensation and benefits for Salt Lake City Corporation 400 series employees.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 52 of 1987 amending Section 25-1-1.3 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to compensation and benefits for Salt Lake City Corporation 400 series employees, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(O 87-5)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: An interlocal agreement amendment with Riverton City Fire Department for fire and rescue dispatch services.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to adopt Resolution 102 of 1987 authorizing the execution of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Riverton City Fire Department for an amendment to the previously executed interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and Riverton City for providing fire and rescue dispatch services, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(C 87-390)
MAYOR’S OFFICE
#1. RE: An ordinance adding Section 42-6-5.1 to the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to surety bonds for subdivision public improvements.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to refer the ordinance to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(O 87-20)
#2. RE: The reappointment of Stephanie Cannon to the Salt Lake City Library Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this reappointment to the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-12)
#3. RE: The reappointment of Ralph Nielsen to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer this reappointment to the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-8)
#4. RE: The appointments of George Allen III and Jeanne Le Ber to the Tracy Aviary Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer these appointments to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-13)
#5. RE: The reappointments of Lloyd Siegendorf and Orson Gibb to the Urban Forestry Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to refer these reappointments to the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-15)
#6. RE: The appointments of Barbara Jean Ray and Ester Truitt to the Urban Forestry Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to refer these appointments to the Committee of the Whole, which motion, carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-15)
#7. RE: The reappointment of Edith Roberson to the Salt Lake Art Design Board.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this reappointment to the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(I 87-4)
PUBLIC UTILITIES
#1. RE: An ordinance enacting Chapter 6 of Title 49 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, 1965, by enacting Section 49-6-76 and 49-6-76.1, relating to refund of expenses in Salt Lake City and return of City’s expenses for installation costs associated with water mains.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer this ordinance to the Committee of the Whole, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
(O 87-21)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Residential Zoning Ordinance for Handicapped Facilities.
RE: A public hearing at 6:20 p.m. to obtain public comment concerning a proposed ordinance providing procedures for permitting residential facilities for handicapped persons in all zones permitting residential dwellings.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Hardwick who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 53 of 1987 enacting Section 51-6-17 and amending Section 51-13-1 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to zoning; providing for the procedures for permitting residential facilities for handicapped persons in all zones permitting residential dwellings, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Fonnesbeck and Hardwick who were absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, explained that at the last meeting of the State Legislature they adopted a statute outlining criteria that cities and municipalities would adopt as standards for allowing residential facilities for handicapped individuals in districts that were occupied mainly by single-family dwellings. He said the Legislature allowed municipalities to adopt an ordinance in keeping with this statute and indicated that they could use a conditional use process in those zones that were mainly single-family dwellings.
In keeping with the legislation, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to adopt an ordinance which would allow these residential facilities for the handicapped and treat them the same in both the “R-l” and “R-2” zones by not requiring a conditional use permit in the “R-l” zone. He said the city attorney prepared an ordinance in keeping with the statute and the Council had been briefed on it. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the Council had previously gone through the ordinance item by item. Councilmember Bittner said if this ordinance was adopted she wanted to reconsider the role of the citizen committee as outlined in the ordinance and possibly amend it. She said in the ordinance as drafted the citizen committee had no power or authority and she was concerned with the possibility of poor management of these residential facilities. She suggested implementing an appeal process.
Roger Cutler, city attorney, said they could look at this item specifically. Councilmember Stoler referred to a section of the ordinance stating that no person being treated for alcohol or drug abuse or who was violent would be placed in a facility and he expressed concern with the definition of handicapped person and who would be considered. He suggested that they consider adding some definitions if possible. Mr. Cutler said they could research and address specific concerns. Councilmember Mabey expressed the same concern as Mrs. Bittner. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
(O 87-17)
Petition 400-510 by James Ritchie.
RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request for permission to construct a skywalk across First South connecting the ZCMI center with the parking structure on Regent Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Stoler seconded to give approval to the proposed location by affirming that in the judgment of the Council an aerial walkway in this location has the ability to meet the required standards of the adopted city policy governing such walkways, and in addition that a covered walkway at street level could also meet the required standards; and withhold specific approval of the plan until the petitioner has the opportunity to explore further design possibilities; and request the Mayor to provide a recommendation from Real Property Management placing a value on the air rights which would be sold or leased for an aerial walkway at this location.
Councilmember Stoler asked for clarification of the motion and Mrs. Kirk said she was asking for approval of the skywalk. Councilmember Mabey asked if she was considering the street-level walkway and Mrs. Kirk indicated she was not. Councilmember Godfrey asked for further clarification and Councilmember Kirk said she was not asking for conceptual approval she was asking for approval with the possibility that if other people wanted to contribute to the design she would not object. She said she was not asking for a 60-day period.
Councilmember Godfrey asked Mrs. Kirk what she meant by asking to withhold specific approval of the plan until the petitioner had the opportunity to explore further design possibilities. Mrs. Kirk said that if other people wanted to discuss other designs with the architect she did not oppose but thought the Council should give approval without a 60-day approval period.
Councilmember Kirk restated the motion and Councilmember Stoler seconded to give approval to the proposed location by affirming that in the judgment of the Council an aerial walkway in this location has the ability to meet the required standards of the adopted city policy governing such walkways; to give approval to the specific design plan submitted and if Zion’s Securities wishes to explore further design options that would be acceptable; and request the Mayor to provide a recommendation from Real Property Management placing a value on the air rights which would be sold or leased for an aerial walkway at this location, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmembers Fonnesbeck and Godfrey who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Larry Livingston, Council Staff, briefly explained that there had been 5 proposals over the last 10 years for aerial walkways: Trolley Square at 600 South (which was constructed before a policy was adopted), a walkway between ZCMI and Crossroads Mall across Main Street, a walkway at the Expo Mart, a walkway at the Triad Center over 300 West, and the current proposal. He said the City Council passed a policy in 1985 to evaluate proposals to determine if the city should accept and promote aerial walkways or deny them. He said when this type of structure was built over city property in effect they were taking a public asset and using it for private purposes. The Council’s policy stated that the public benefit derived from one of these walkways must be equal to or exceed the value to the public in retaining an unobstructed right of way. He said the policy further stated that the public benefit might take the form of increased public safety, overall economic advantage to the community, enhancement of urban design, traffic flow improvement, and other benefits including payment for rental or sale of the air rights. He said in order for the Council to grant an aerial walkway, they must decide there is a public benefit that outweighs the benefit of retaining the unobstructed air space.
He said from an urban design point of view In deciding where to have these types of walkways, the general rule was that city officials would look more favorably on proposals in areas of initial development or of large-scale redevelopment where a total design or redesign was taking place and would tend to be adverse to grant approval for proposals in developed areas with an established character. He said historically the Triad overpass got conceptual approval because it was in an area where massive redevelopment was taking place.
The current proposal was in a developed area with an established character, however, the policy did not say walkways would not be granted in these areas, it said the Council would take a closer look at these requests to determine if from an urban design point of view they ought to be put in established areas. Mr. Livingston then briefly described the design of the walkway. He said it was 18 feet high by 12 feet wide and was on pylons providing a 22-foot clearance over the street. He said the top of the walkway was translucent and the lower portion was a curved metal panel in a soft natural color.
He said about four feet of the lower portion of the walkway contained the mechanical equipment which serviced the walkway. He said one of the historical street lights would have to be relocated. Kent Money, on behalf of Zion’s Securities (petitioner), said they were making this request in response to the constant and growing pressure from the office tenants and retail merchants who lease space in the ZCMI Center and the ZCMI Center block. He said their concern was that the lack of adequate convenient parking was hurting their businesses. He said retail tenants were losing customers to the suburban malls where parking was easier and office tenants were concerned when clients had difficulty finding parking.
He said both were having problems with employees, especially women, who had to go to their cars after dark. He said convenient retail parking for both the ZCMI Center and Crossroads Mall was inadequate. He said experience showed that there needed to be 4 parking stalls for every 1,000 square-feet of retail space and 3 stalls for every 1,000 square-feet of office space. Based on this criteria the ZCMI block was 1,500 spaces short even if all surrounding available parking was included. He said the economic impact of this shortage was real and their studies showed that each retail shopper car visiting the ZCMI Center resulted in an average purchase of $26.79. He said if by constructing the walkway they could better and more fully utilize the Regent Street parking facility they estimated an annual increase in downtown retail sales of approximately $840,000. He said without improved parking the sales would continue to go to the suburban malls. He said they were currently constructing a 415-stall addition to the ZCMI Center parking which was the most they could do in this block and with this addition they would maximize all of the parking possible.
He said the Regent Street parking facility was the next logical place to expand but they needed the walkway to make the parking work for their needs. He said it would allow them to move as many of their monthly office tenant parkers as possible to the Regent Street facility which would free up additional spaces for retail shoppers. He said each stall they could make available for retail shoppers would turn over three or four times each shopping day so the impact on retail shopping would be significant.
He also said the walkway would make it convenient for retail shoppers who use the Regent Street parking and said the added convenience and safety of the walkway were the key factors in convincing customers and tenants to use this parking. He said they have tried for years to encourage the use of this parking but have been unsuccessful. He said they feel, as do their tenants, that the walkway would make a difference. He said they would light the structure and include security patrols and cameras which would overcome reluctance by some people to use the facility.
He said they met with the Mayor who confirmed that the First South crosswalk was one of the most hazardous in the city so this walkway would also benefit pedestrians. He said the Planning Commission approved their project and he said this project met the requirements in the city’s written policy. He said there was also wide-spread support for the project among the ZCMI merchants, the Salt Lake Retail Merchants Association, and the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Money addressed criticisms and opposition which had been expressed. He said there were some architects who opposed the project but there were many who did not and said they selected the same architect for this project who designed the Eagle Gate tower and plaza as well as the proposed South Temple streetscape. He said another argument was that the views and vistas of downtown would be spoiled but he said one walkway would not spoil the entire downtown area.
He said they were taking great care to enhance the area and not detract from it. He said the most common argument was that if this walkway was approved there would soon be walkways all over the city but he said the city’s policy on walkways was specific and each request would be considered individually. He said another argument was that the walkway would reduce or eliminate foot traffic in the area. He said it was their plan to transfer monthly parking to Regent Street so nearly all the people using the walkway would be workers and not retail shoppers. He said they had tried for years to place retail shopping on Regent Street without success. He also said they would not have pedestrian foot traffic unless they could provide shoppers with a parking stall.
He asked the Council to consider the following points: The project was in response to pressure from tenants who were hurting economically, the project had been studied and approved by the Planning Commission, inadequate parking was hurting downtown sales, better utilization of Regent Street parking could increase downtown sales by approximately $840,000 per year, security and safety would be improved by this project, there was wide-spread support for this project, great care would be taken with the design, approval of the project was an individual matter and other similar projects would be approved based on their own merits. He asked the Council to approve this request.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked how many people presently worked in the ZCMI Center and parked in Regent Street. Mr. Money said approximately 70%. Mrs. Fonnesbeck asked how many parking stalls in the ZCMI Center were used for non retail parking. Mr. Money said approximately 800 or 900 stalls. He indicated that they had about 130 vacant stalls in Regent Street and if they could fill these with monthly parkers that would add 100 stalls to the ZCMI Center, which would turn over three to four times a day and would essentially mean an additional 400 stalls available to retail shoppers.
Councilmember Stoler asked for further explanation about the security in the skywalk. Mr. Money explained that there was a command center located in the ZCMI Center manned by operators and security 24 hours a day. He said they proposed to install cameras in the skywalk and parking to monitor traffic and currently had regular patrols in the parking facilities which would be extended to the bridge. Mr. Stoler asked what hours the skywalk would be open and Mr. Money said the same as the mall.
Councilmember Godfrey said that Mr. Money said the ZCMI block was 1,500 parking spaces short and asked why more spaces weren’t added when the new Eagle Gate offices were built. Mr. Money said the parking for Eagle Gate was constructed on Social Hall Avenue and had about 650 stalls. He suggested that the parking shortage had been a problem from the conception of the ZCMI Center and said adequate parking was built for Eagle Gate but not for the overall area.
Councilmember Godfrey asked if this project was approved when they would begin construction and Mr. Money indicated it would be next spring. Mr. Godfrey referred to previous discussions with Mr. Money who had indicated that the proposed design wasn’t necessarily final and he asked Mr. Money if he would be willing to work with various groups, such as architects and the Urban Coalition, to discuss the design. Mr. Money said their concept was for an aerial walkway and he said the proposals he had seen were for a street-level walkway which was covered. He said his concern was that this type of design would not solve the issues before him because it would not provide the convenience of a controlled environment, would not address security since he wouldn’t be able to monitor it, and would not consider the safety issue since people would still have to cross a busy intersection. He said if the concept of an aerial walkway was approved they would work with groups on the design.
He said they would want to work with groups within 60 days and they would also have to consider the cost of different designs. He said their cost estimate for the proposed design was $869,000 and they would have to stay within this amount. Councilmember Kirk clarified that Mr. Money would work with architects and others opposed to the design but only on an aerial walkway. Mr. Money indicated this was correct. Councilmember Stoler asked what other projects had been built by Zions Securities and Mr. Money said they built the new Eagle Gate apartments and office building. He said the walkway was a phase in a long-term plan to continue to develope and revitalize the downtown area.
Councilmember Mabey expressed concern that if the tenant didn’t get what he required, he would move to the suburbs and Mr. Mabey said the city needed to do everything they could to keep tenants downtown. He said they worked hard to get new developers and needed to try harder to keep the present tenants in Salt Lake City. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said this request would not create new parking, people would just be relocated. Councilmember Kirk said this would be more efficient for the retail businesses.
Mr. Money said that the people who would park in Regent Street would mainly be monthly parkers who worked in the area and they would still walk downtown during lunch hours. He added that they needed to get people downtown and once they were there everyone benefited. Gary Hansen, Government Affairs Director for the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, said Mr. Money’s proposal had the support of the Chamber of Commerce. He said they heard pros and cons about this issue on July 28 and after taking the matter under advisement, approved a position of support. Initially there was some concern that the sky bridge may discourage pedestrian access to Block 57, however, the construction was explained to the Board’s satisfaction and it was noted that the bridge would not hinder pedestrian traffic to the south.
Mr. Hansen then read a resolution from the Chamber of Commerce supporting the sky bridge. Roger Borgenicht, Director of Assist, said that Salt Lake City was unique and the wide clean streets and view of the mountains and significant buildings and monuments were critical to the character of downtown Salt Lake City. He said his main concern was the long-term vitality of downtown, how sensitively it was developed and how rationally traffic, parking, and transportation problems were solved. He expressed concern that Salt Lake City develop balanced transportation and circulation systems for downtown and the whole valley and not just accommodate cars. He referred to the proposal of the Urban Design Coalition and said they had met with Mr. Money and some of the Councilmembers to try and deal with the whole issue of parking on a macro scale. He said they needed to come up with a solution that would help all the merchants and other areas of downtown with the parking problem. In brief he said their proposal was to solve the problems on a large scale and suggested they widen the area in front of the south entrance to ZCMI Mall and create a covered pedestrian terrace thereby making an amenity out of a problem.
He said a covered walkway could go part way down Regent Street and connect into the parking. In reference to the development of Block 57 he said one of the keys ought to be a large amount of underground parking with the area heavily landscaped. Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. Borgenicht if he could still work on the parking problem on a macro scale if the Council gave conceptual approval to an aerial walkway. Mr. Borgenicht said that a key was a well designed and planned pedestrian network including some covered areas, landscaping and lighting, and security.
He said security in cities came from activity on the Street and an aerial walkway in this place was not appropriate because it removed people from the street. He said many people had expressed concern to him about using an aerial walkway. He thought this walkway would kill a key element in having a rational macro solution to parking and he didn’t think negotiating on just an aerial walkway was the way to deal with the problem and long-range solutions. Councilmember Mabey said in New York there were a lot of people on the Street and also a lot of problems because of it.
He said currently Salt Lake City had problems during the day with transients on the streets and he thought the aerial walkway would be more secure and said he would like to see connections between more buildings so people could stay inside if they wanted to. Mr. Borgenicht expressed his opinion that the sky bridge would not be safer. Councilmember Kirk asked how long it would take for the Urban Coalition to get their planning done. She said she served on the CBID Board and had heard many concerns from the business people who said they couldn’t wait for a planning process.
Mr. Borgenicht said he thought their plan could be developed by next year because there had been a lot of work done already. He thought if the entire community worked together they could get the plan developed quickly. She asked if he would be willing to compromise on the aerial walkway and Mr. Borgenicht said he thought it was a short-range solution. Councilmember Mabey said there had been several studies done regarding parking problems and he asked where the city would get the money to implement a plan. Mr. Borgenicht said the whole community would have to work together.
The following people spoke in support of the aerial walkway: Craig Case, Coldwell Banker; Gaylon Murdock, Naturalizer Shoes in ZCMI Mall; John Longaker, Coldwell Banker; Rich Potashner, E. F. Hutton; Jay Nielson, 444 So. 300 West; Michael Adduddell, Property Manager Eagle Gate Plaza and Tower; Richard Coles, Zions Securities; Rich Nordlund, Commerce Properties; Dan Jones, Johnson and Higgens; Richard Schubach, Standard Optical; Mike Mihiberger, 36 South State; Jerry Moore, 349 South 200 East; Jeff Katsilas, 349 South 200 East; James Ritchie, 139 East South Temple; Bill Zimmerman, Coldwell Banker.
These people expressed concern that retail tenants were moving to the suburbs because of the downtown parking situation and they supported the proposal because It would have a positive effect on parking. They also supported the safety aspect of the walkway. Mr. Murdock said that many times when he worked in the Naturalizer Shoe stores in the suburban malls, people would tell him they would not go downtown because of the parking situation.
Mr. Longaker said that he had been leasing buildings downtown for seven years and said that the major brokerages in downtown Salt Lake did a study that showed 848,000 square feet of office space was leased but only a third went to downtown. He was concerned that unless something was done to stop the tenants from leaving, the tax base would be eroded. Mr. Adduddell said that downtown Salt Lake City had a supply of office space to last 5 years and the suburbs had enough to last only 1.5 years. He said the city needed to be revitalized and needed convenient parking.
Mr. Coles said he felt the proposed sky bridge fulfilled the requirements of the Council’s policy and believed it would have an economical and safety impact. Mr. Nordlund expressed concern because the periphery and suburban market was getting more attention in terms of office occupancy and he thought this was because of parking. He said the suburbs could build parking structures at significantly lower cost than in Salt Lake City and the city was not competitive with the suburbs.
Mr. Jones said they decided to open their branch in Salt Lake because they thought it was a good place to grow. He said their clients had complained about parking and he said when their lease expired he didn’t know if they would stay in the downtown area. Mr. Ritchie said he thought the parking deficiency was caused because a standard was set in the suburbs and imposed on the urban area.
He Indicated when they designed the sky bridge they tried to be sensitive about its impact to Salt Lake City and the view corridor and he said they would welcome assistance. Mr. Zimmerman said the office tenants were the underlying economic interest in this situation since the retail businesses provided services to them and he said the office tenants needed to be supported.
The following people did not speak but expressed their support: Gary Felt, Felt Electric; Keith McKnight, 1047 McClelland Street; Joseph Anderson, 4394 Adonis Drive; Dorothy Pleshe, 800 Kennecott Building.
The following people spoke in opposition to the sky bridge: William Richardson, Architect; Joel Morris, 215 South State; Elizabeth Hallstrom, 587 12th Avenue; Harden Whitney, 600 Deseret Plaza; Chris Clark, 1026 West 400 North; Eleanor Nichols, 777 East South Temple; David Milne, Salt Lake Chapter American Institute of Architects; Stephen Smith, 175 South Main; David Brems, President of the Utah Society of Architects; James Christopher, Mayor’s Urban Design Task Force; Michael Stransky, Utah Society of American Institute of Architects; Michael Wagreich, 1097 Bonneville Drive; Kermit Johnson, #9 Exchange Place; Mustafa Kanishka, AIA; Stephen Goldsmith, 325 Pierpont; Hermoine Jex, Land Use Committee of SLACC.
These people were opposed to the sky bridge because they wanted to keep people on the street and they were concerned with the character of Salt Lake City. Mr. Richardson suggested that walkways be extended underneath the street. Mr. Morris suggested that they move the long-term tenants to the Regent Street parking, provide better security for the parking terrace, and see if the 100 parking stalls in the ZCMI Center would produce the revenue they anticipated.
Ms. Hallstrom said she gathered Information about the successes and failures of sky bridges and said the bridges that connected retail with parking usually did not work. She said the people she talked to in various cities with sky bridges said if strong measures were not taken at the street level, street activity would die off and the retail businesses not directly linked with the sky bridge at the Street level would die off. She thought people would still continue to cross at street level since the sky bridge would connect at the parking structure.
Mr. Whitney said that constructing the sky bridge and freeing up 100 parking stalls would not solve the overall problem. Mr. Clark said about five years ago Mayor Wilson established an urban design group consisting of representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Zions Securities, the local architectural community, and neighborhood residents. He said one of their major recommendations was to promote on-grade pedestrian activities for an active, healthy, safe business environment. He asked the Council to act on the Urban Design Element before they approved this request.
Ms. Nicholes expressed her concern that if this was approved additional sky bridges would be constructed in the downtown area. Mr. Mime said this bridge represented a small part of an overall issue and he suggested that it be tabled and researched since this sky bridge would have long-lasting effects. Mr. Smith said he supported business but opposed the concept of the bridge because in his opinion it was not for the public benefit. Mr. Brems endorsed the plan by the Urban Design Coalition for an at-grade crossing and said they were willing to donate services. He thought approval of this bridge would set a bad precedent and asked the Council to give them a chance to show the possibilities of an at-grade crossing. Mr. Christopher said approval of this bridge would violate the essence of the Urban Design Element which he thought would be presented to the Council in the next few weeks. Mr. Stransky said they endorsed the compromise proposed by the Urban Design Coalition and said that streets filled with people were safer.
He said the only beneficiaries of this sky bridge would be Zions Securities and the ZCMI block and thought there would be a significant impact on Block 57 if this bridge was constructed. Ms. Jex said the city needed to adopt the urban design ordinance and said the loss of downtown business could not be remedied by a sky walk since the problem was decentralization of the retail trade.
The following people did not speak but expressed their opposition: David Holz, 2320 East Garfield Avenue; Ranch Kimball, 276 Wall Street; Kathryn Mackay, 123 2nd Avenue; Janet Goldsmith, 325 Pierpont; Carleen Jimenez, 730 West 400 North; Rocy Pearsone, 780 West 400 No.; Kristin Hopfenbeck, 466 East South Temple; Wendy Moseley, 261 East Broadway; Nancy Boskoff, Salt Lake Arts Council; Jim McPherson, 184 4th Avenue; Floyd Thompson, 816 Gladiola Street; Carol Edison, 321 Edith; Mrs. G. W. Peterson, 313 Edith; Renee Fitzpatrick, 1424 Harrison Avenue; Katherine Ehranz, 4765 South 1175 West; Ann Jennings-Settle, 4511 Russell.
Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. Murdock if he thought the skywalk would solve the problems at ZCMI. Mr. Murdock said he thought It would help because it would encourage the employees to park in the Regent Street parking. Mr. Godfrey asked if the parking structure was safe. Mr. Murdock said he thought it was and reiterated that security would be improved in the parking terrace. Councilmember Godfrey asked Mr. Mime if his group would work with Zions Securities on the design if the Council approved the request and Mr. Milne said yes they would want to help but wanted to discuss the sky bridge as one alternative rather than the only alternative.
Mr. Godfrey asked Mr. Breins if he would help work on the design and Mr. Brems said he thought their members would get involved but he didn’t see any reason unless their help was requested. Mr. Godfrey asked Mr. Christopher if the information regarding the Urban Design Element had been presented to the Planning Commission and Mr. Christopher said he tried to present it at the Planning Commission hearing but they cut off discussion.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she had serious concerns about this- matter. She thought if the Council approved this in concept they should maintain their right to review and have input about the design and said the Council had not seen a concept of how the structure would interface with the ZCMI wall and the parking terrace. She was convinced that parking was a problem in downtown Salt Lake and thought it was urgent that the city look at this situation. She said she was opposed to this bridge and said if she believed it would solve the problems she would vote for it but she felt like there were two different issues. She reiterated that this project would not add parking spaces and she thought this was an issue of convenience. She said she was not convinced that people should be encapsulated and felt that people should be part of their environment.
She said she didn’t see an advantage to this structure because it would not shorten the distance to the parking, would not add parking, and said it would take people off the Street. She said she believed in the vitality of downtown but thought a sky bridge would detract from that. She said that the parking issue should be dealt with but didn’t think this bridge would solve the problem. Councilmember Kirk agreed that this project would not solve all the problems of downtown but she said as a member of the Mayor’s Salt Lake City Tomorrow Committee a part of their recommendation was to have the Mayor form a committee of business people and experts in economic development to see what they thought should be done about the city.
She said it seemed that the Council had a good idea of what these professional people were saying and she didn’t think there was any more time to wait for studies because the merchants were facing real problems downtown. She also reminded the Council that they had adopted a sky bridge policy which said there wouldn’t be sky bridges on certain streets in this city. She added that she was not committed to sky bridges as an over all policy but thought this one had merit and would be helpful in retaining the economic base downtown.
Councilmember Stoler said the Council needed to send a signal of support to the downtown businesses. He said the crosswalk between Regent Street and ZCMI was the most dangerous one in the city and also said that there couldn’t be shoppers unless they got out of their cars and the only way to do this was to have parking. He said he was not aware of any project that Zions Securities had done that was not a high quality project and he supported it.
Councilmember Hardwick said the downtown merchants were a neighborhood and they should have a key part in the destiny of the downtown area. He also supported the project. Councilmember Mabey said that each block’s problems needed to be addressed and he didn’t think there was time to wait to find money in order to implement a plan. He felt this bridge would help solve a problem and would help those tenants.
Councilmember Godfrey said he believed they could get a better solution if they waited. He was concerned that they were coming up with a short-range solution in order to benefit one group and said one element of the Council’s policy was to have a sky bridge for public benefit. He said this would only benefit Zions Securities tenants because there wouldn’t be access to the bridge from the street so only a limited number of people would use this and pedestrians would still have to cross at First South. He also agreed with Councilmember Fonnesbeck that people should be a part of their environment. He said the Salt Lake City Tomorrow project talked about a city of excellence and he said they needed to look at the whole city when considering this problem. He urged the Council to reconsider and defeat the motion.
Councilmember Bittner said one of her frustrations was that they saw problems and plans but little action, very often because there was no money. She said this bridge would not solve a major problem but would help solve one problem. She felt there was a real danger in the viability of the downtown business district and said parking would be a problem until they could convince people to use mass transportation. She supported the project.
(P 87-177)
Petition 400-516 by Gene Rose/Loftus Inc.
RE: A public hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request that the Council rezone property located at 865 South and 200 East from “C-3” to “C-l”.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Hardwick moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the request and refer the matter to the consent agenda for August 11, 1987, to adopt the ordinance, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said three weeks ago the Council had a hearing to consider rezoning the corner at 9th South and 2nd East from “B-3” to “C-1” and at that time it was recommended that the adjoining property be rezoned from “C-3” to “C-1”. He said at that public hearing the Council changed the zoning on the property at 9th South and 2nd East but couldn’t rezone the other portion because the public hearing had not been advertised correctly. He said this rezoning was logical and Loftus owned the property. The petitioner had no comments and there were no comments from the audience.
(P 87-131)
Petition 400-532 by Smith’s Food King.
RE: A public hearing at 6:50 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request that Windsor Street (850 East) be closed from 800 south to chase Avenue to make possible an expansion of the parking lot for the existing store located just east of Windsor Street.
ACTION: Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 54 of 1987 closing Windsor Street from 800 South to Chase Avenue subject to the petitioner making the street improvements necessary to cul-de-sac Chase Avenue, ask that the petitioner work with the Urban Forestry Board on landscaping, and instruct the City Recorder not to publish the ordinance until directed by the City Attorney, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded that in accordance with the generous offer of contribution by Smith’s Food King to the East Central neighborhood, the city accept the $25,000 contribution on behalf of the neighborhood, direct Capital Planning and Programming to meet with the neighborhood involved and establish priorities and boundaries for spending, and return the recommendation to the City Council for final action, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said the purpose of the request was to allow expansion of the parking lot. He said the neighborhood council supported the request and the Planning Commission recommended the street closure with the following conditions: 1. That Smith’s Corporation hold in fee simple all abutting Windsor Street properties and agree to purchase the street right-of-way from the city at fair market value;
2. That Smith’s Corporation construct a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac at the east end of Chase Avenue with setbacks and landscaping as required by the city and that Chase Avenue cul-de-sac meet all street design standards set by the city engineering office and be dedicated to the city upon completion; 3. That the petitioners pay all costs associated with the street closure including removing and/or rerouting of utilities and the construction of the Chase Avenue cul-de-sac; 4. That they provide no service entrance or automobile access to the Smith’s Food King Store from the Chase Avenue cul-de-sac (pedestrian access may be provided).
He said without the street closure the parking lot could not be enlarged. He added that the parking 1t was a conditional use that went before the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission. Tom Welch, petitioner, said they started this process the last part of January in meetings with the neighborhood councils trying to get input. He said they were faced with a dilemma that had significant impact on the neighbors and the businesses to the south.
He said when they enlarged their store they envisioned that they would go from $210,000 to $350,000 per week but sales rose to over $500,000. He said instead of having 150 employees total they had 150 employees in the store three days a week. He said they encouraged employees to park on the street but this had a devastating impact to other businesses so they decided to enlarge the parking lot to accommodate the employees and the customers. He said their company committed to making a $25,000 grant to the neighborhood to help improve and maintain the housing in that area. He said this didn’t replace the eight homes being taken out but it showed the intent of the company to try and benefit the community. He said they have tried to respond to the neighborhood’s concerns and the majority of those people directly impacted were happy with this request.
Councilmember Godfrey asked if Smith’s was interested in expanding their parking lot to 8th East. Mr. Welch said there were no plans in the foreseeable future to expand to 8th East. Mr. Godfrey asked if they were seeking any parking any where in the area for employees other than the proposed lot. Mr. Welch said no. Kerry Faigle, 923 Browning Avenue, supported the request.
David Temme, 809 E. 800 South, opposed the request and said Smith’s justifications for this parking lot expansion had been that business was greater than expected, they petitioned the neighborhood and got support, and the neighborhood councils supported the request. He said at the one hearing he went to there was no documentation of proof that there was a problem. He said the decision to tear down housing was Irreversible and any decision to tear down old houses for parking lot expansion should be done very cautiously.
He said he hadn’t seen any alternatives such as having the employees car pool or giving incentives to customers to shop at different times. He said he was never personally asked if he was in favor of this request and was not contacted about the neighborhood council meetings. Robert McQuarrie, chairman of the East Central Community Council, said that residents of East Central had voted on two occasions to support the project. He said the greatest concern of the residents was the resolution of the parking problem that had been generated by the extra business at Smith’s.
He said Smith’s was sensitive to the impact on the neighborhood and had offered $25,000 to mitigate that impact. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the neighborhood was satisfied with the plan for the cul-de-sac and landscaping. Mr. McQuarrie indicated that they generally seemed to be satisfied. Charles Peters, 830 East 800 South, John Dykstra, 832 East 800 South, Rosemary Grim, 773 East 1300 South, and Jane Rogers, 2126 East 900 South, supported this request. Mr. Peters said that Smith’s had dealt fairly and honestly with the neighborhood and Ms. Grim said this would be an improvement.
Ms. Rogers said Smith’s had been a good neighbor and thought the area should support them. Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned what was meant in the ordinance by requiring guarantees from the petitioner for completion of the conditions. Larry Livingston, Council Staff, explained that guarantees could be in the form of a bond to insure that the conditions would be fulfilled. Councilmember Godfrey said Smith’s offer of $25,000 would set a precedent and perhaps other neighborhoods could do the same in the future when dealing with developers whose projects would have a negative impact. He suggested that the city accept this money on behalf of the neighborhood until the neighborhood and the capital planning and programming department decided how to spend the money. Council- member Bittner suggested that SLACC accept the money since they were set up to do this and she wondered if the city would be usurping SLACC. She wondered if the city could do this.
Councilmember Godfrey said he wanted the city to accept the money since it was itended to be used for this particular neighborhood and not for neighborhoods in general. Councilmember Hardwick said he wanted to assure that the money would stay in this neighborhood. Councilmember Bittner asked if this idea had the support of the SLCC Board. Mr. McQuarrie said they did not discuss it with SLACC but he said their executive committee discussed it and formulated a policy.
Craig Peterson, director of development services, said he understood that both the city and the neighborhood would work together regarding which projects could be implemented with the money and he understood that the neighborhood agreed to work with the city staff. Councilmember Mabey asked if any of the money would go to administrative fees and Councilmember Godfrey said no, they wanted to make sure the money was safe and in an interest bearing account. He said Smith’s concern was that the money go to the city for the neighborhood.
(P 87-178)
Petition 400-479 by Kathryn Diamant.
RE: A public hearing at 7:00 p.m. to obtain public comment regarding the request that a portion of an alley located between Edith Avenue and 1300 South and 200 and 300 East be vacated.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent for the vote.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Hardwick seconded to adopt Ordinance 55 of 1987 vacating an alley between Edith Avenue and 1300 South and 200 and 300 East, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Mabey who was absent for the vote.
DISCUSSION: Vernon Jorgensen, planning director, outlined the area on a map and said the Council had approved this request in concept at a previous public hearing but because the notice had been advertised incorrectly they couldn’t adopt the ordinance. He said there was no objection to this request. No one from the audience addressed this issue.
(P 87-32)
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.