PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 15, 1988, at 5:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.
Council Chairperson Godfrey presided at the meeting.
The Council interviewed Ms. Jan Graham prior to consideration of her appointment to the Central Business Improvement District. Ms. Graham said she was an attorney who practiced in the downtown area.
Linda Hamilton, Executive Director reviewed the agenda. She said the time of the hearing for the Mixed Use Transitional (MUT) Overlay District was incorrect and should be 6:30 instead of 5:30 p.m. and someone would need to make a motion to correct the item so it could stay on the consent agenda. Councilmember Kirk agreed to make the motion. Councilmember Horrocks questioned the boundaries on the MUT as he thought they went all the way to the freeway. He said that the people in that area had been promised protection from increasing commercial use.
Allen Johnson, Director of Planning and Zoning, said he hadn’t heard about extending the boundaries but would look into it. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said if the area was zoned R-2 it was already protected from further commercial development. Doug Wheelwright, Planning and Zoning, said the area was already zoned for commercial use and that the MUT district was not designed to go over an existing commercial area. Mr. Johnson said the MUT was for residential areas that were turning into commercial areas to help ease the transition.
Councilmember Horrocks suggested pulling the item from the agenda until the boundaries of the new MUT were clarified. Ms. Hamilton suggested passing the current item with the option of extending the MUT into the new area after clarification. Mr. Johnson said it would be best to pass this item as it stood and look at the policy question of putting a MUT over the top of a commercial zone. He said that as the current policy stood, a MUT was used in residential areas and not commercial.
Mr. Wheelwright briefed the Council on the amendments to the Dunford’s subdivision plat regarding Petition 400-303 submitted by Clissold Investment. He said that the orientation of the lots would be changed from fronting on K and L streets to fronting on 12th Avenue and that this would improve the marketability of the lots. He said the developer was willing to put in about $17,000 worth of street improvements in the area which would include improvements to an alley that split the subdivision, handicapped access points on the corner, and a fire hydrant. He assured the Council that money for the improvements was available and work could start immediately. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the height of an existing house in the subdivision had caused a lot of problems with the neighbors and Mr. Wheelwright said a restriction could be placed on the height of the buildings and it should be brought up in the public hearing.
Ms. Hamilton told the Council there had been some changes in the new Urban Forestry Ordinance and the new version required that Utah Power and Light (UP&L) obtain a permit before trimming any trees, and that the fee schedule had been modified. Councilmember Stoler asked how the utilities felt about the changes and Mr. John Bryner, UP&L, said he had not seen a copy of the ordinance so he couldn’t respond.
Councilmember Stoler said that he was uncomfortable taking action on the ordinance before the utilities had a chance to respond to the changes, and Ms. Hamilton said the Council could close the hearing without taking final action and allow for written comments to be submitted afterwards. Upon questioning the idea of a grandfather clause in the demolition ordinance regarding the R/UDAT petitions, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, said the important question was when would the ordinance take effect.
He the date would have a lot to do with the ability to win lawsuits and whether or not the landowners were vested under the old law or the new one. He said the safest course of action, from a legal standpoint, would be to have the law take effect on adoption, even though it might not achieve the Council’s policy goals. The Council discussed the projects that would be affected by the ordinance change and whether the city could win a lawsuit if it became necessary to go to court in that particular instance. Mr. Baird said that each company had applied for a demolition permit at a different time so each case would get different consideration in a lawsuit.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 15, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in Suite 300, City Hall, 324 South State Street.
The following Council Members were present: Florence Bittner Wayne Horrocks Sydney Fonnesbeck Alan Hardman Tom Godfrey Roselyn Kirk Willie Stoler.
Mayor Palmer DePaulis, Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn Marshall, City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present.
Councilmember Godfrey presided at and Councilmember Stoler conducted the meeting.
OPENING CEREMONIES
#1. The invocation was given by Alice Kasai, Bahai Faith.
#2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#3. Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, November 8, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
#4. The Council and Mayor recognized George Michael and representatives of the Salt Lake Jaycees for their contribution to the 1988 Leaf Bag program. Mayor DePaulis said the leaf cleanup program was begun in the flood years when the city would ask residents to sweep their leaves into the gutter for city trucks to pick up later. He said this was not only expensive but there were accidents from children playing in the leaves and being hit by automobiles. He said they changed the program and it was now very successful, as it was done almost totally by volunteers.
He said the Jaycees had joined with the city in helping to distribute the bags, and volunteers picked up the bags from the street. He said last year the streets division spent $4,042.35 for staff to deliver the bags and this year they had spent $82.56. He said there were 105 volunteers from church groups, youth groups, scouting organizations and community councils, who spent 475 hours assisting with the distribution of bags.
He thanked Gordon Nichol, Fire Department, Craig Poselli, Streets Division, and Tamara Wharton, Community Affairs, for their help in the program. Councilmember Godfrey recognized Gary Cartwright, Jaycees President, for his contribution towards the program. Mr. Cartwright thanked two people from his organization, Terry Wooley, director in charge, and Dave Cornell, chairman. Councilmember Godfrey also recognized George Michael, a citizen volunteer and retired businessman who donated much of his time to the crime prevention program and had been recruited to be supervisor on the leaf bag program.
COMMENTS
There were no citizen comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to approve the consent agenda, as amended by changing the time on Item D-5 from 5:30 to 6:30, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Set a date for a public hearing for Tuesday, December 13, 1988, at 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment concerning proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 1988/89 budgets.
(B 88-5)
#2. RE: Adopting Resolution 138 of 1988, authorizing the execution of an application for an agreement with the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Secretary’s Discretionary Fund Grant (Special Projects Program) under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
(T 88-32)
#3. RE: Adopting Resolution 139 of 1988, authorizing the execution of an agreement with Murray City amending the previous agreement for providing fire and rescue dispatch services.
(C 88-649)
#4. RE: Adopting Resolution 140 of 1988, authorizing the execution of an agreement with West Valley City amending the agreement for providing fire and rescue dispatch services.
(C 88-648)
#5. RE: Set a date for a public hearing to be held Tuesday, December 13, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. to obtain comment on applying the Mixed Use Transitional Overlay District over the existing Residential R-6 District in the West Temple Gateway Redevelopment Project area. (The R-6 is generally located between 800 and 900 South and between West Temple and 300 West).
(T 88-31)
#6. RE: The reappointment of Jennifer Harrington to the Urban Forestry Board.
(I 88-15)
#7. RE: The appointment of Jan Graham to the Central Business Improvement District Advisory Board.
(I 88-9)
#8. RE: Adopting Resolution 141 of 1988 authorizing execution of an offer for the purchase of the Canterbury Apartments from the Federal National Mortgage Insurance Association for $1,600,000; and that the amount of $10,000 be transferred from the properties acquisition fund to secure the purchase.
(T 88-29)
NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS
#1. RE: An ordinance closing approximately .0732 acre triangular portion of Old Pioneer Road, at 1320 South, pursuant to Petition No. 400-618.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance 76 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 88-364)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1 RE: A public hearing scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain comment concerning Petition 400-303 submitted by Clissold Investment Company, regarding a proposed amendment to the Dunford’s subdivision plat covering lots 1-6 and 17-22 located on the south side of 12th Avenue between K and L Streets and consider adopting the resolution relating thereto.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Resolution 142 of 1988, amending the subdivision plat on the condition that the height limitation be lowered to 25 feet, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Doug Wheelwright, Planning and Zoning, outlined the area on a map and said the Dunford Subdivision had been platted in 1890 and consisted of the entire block between K and L Streets and 11th and 12th Avenues. He said only the portions of the subdivision that fronted on 11th Avenue had been developed but the remainder, approximately two- thirds of the block, had remained undeveloped.
He said there had been a house built on the corner of K Street and 12th Avenue but the permit had been stopped pending a decision by the Council, as state law required the Council’s approval on amendments to subdivisions. He said there were originally twelve lots, each thirty feet wide, and this would now change to six lots, and the orientation would change from K and L Streets to 12th Avenue. He said the Planning Commission had required street improvements consisting of installing a sidewalk, handicap approaches at corners, street lights, a fire hydrant, and paving the alley north of the existing homes on 11th Avenue.
Mike Workman, 693 West Kensington, Farmington, Utah, said he was a general contractor and had built the home on the corner of 12th Avenue and K Street for a developer who had since gone bankrupt and he now had a contract with the original developer to build six twin homes on the property. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Workman if he was aware of the complaints they had received regarding the height of the home on the corner and wanted to know if the planned homes would be the same, and Mr. Workman said he was open to suggestion and that he was not made aware that he needed to go before the Council. He said they were issued a building permit so went ahead with building the home, then later were required by the city to determine the height of it. He said he had hired an independent engineer to measure the home and it was within the prescribed city requirements.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said the home was out of character with the neighborhood. The following people spoke in opposition to the issue: Pat Reed, 686 Hilltop Avenue; David Thomas, 737 11th Avenue and Stephen Reed, 686 Hilltop Avenue. Ms. Reed said she owned the properties at 565 and 567 K Street and she was concerned about the alley that would be used as a driveway as it would directly affect her property. She said it was a city street that had never been maintained and the residents of the proposed homes would have to use it to get in and out and she felt it would be a hazard for school children. She said if the ordinance was adopted the traffic should be funneled to L Street which would be more advantageous.
She said the home was too high for the area and she felt six homes were too many for the property. Mr. Thomas said the neighbors were all concerned about the height of the present home and the proposed homes. He said he wanted the alley closed and would petition the city to do so because if the alley could be paved it would become a thoroughfare rather than just a driveway for the new homes. Mr. Reed said he managed the properties at 565 and 567 K Street and he opposed the height of the proposed duplexes.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Wheelwight what height he would recommend for the proposed homes to better match the existing homes in the neighborhood and he said the present R-2 zoning allowed a 35 foot height, but a 25 foot height would allow a two story residence with a gabled roof and he felt that would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said they should grant the petition on the condition that the height restriction be lowered to 25 feet and any improvements on the alley should wait for one year to give the adjoining property owners the opportunity to make a decision on whether the alley should remain open or closed. She said they should also be extremely careful that anything built in the area would not be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.
(P 88-363)
#2 RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 2.26 of the Salt Lake City Code to be entitled “Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Ordinance.”
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 75 of 1988, amending Chapter 2.26 of the Salt Lake City Code to be entitled “Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Ordinance, which motion carried, all members voted aye, except Councilmembers Bittner and Stoler who voted no.
DISCUSSION: Steve Schwab, Urban Forester, said the ordinance was a culmination of a two-year planning effort by the Urban Forestry Board with input from the public and private sector, from tradespeople, tree-service companies, etc., to establish guidelines and specifications as to how city trees should be planted, maintained and removed. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if Utah Power and Light had been notified of the hearing and Mr. Schwab said all the utility companies had been notified.
The following people spoke in support of the issue: Peter Lassig, 50 E North Temple; Lloyd Siegendorf, 1998 S 1400 E; W. Richard Hildreth, State Arboretum, U of U; R. L. Bliss, 27 University St; Julia Rossi, 380 E Street. Mr. Lassig said he felt the ordinance was overdue and would give a sense of order and cohesion they had not had before. He pointed out some of the advantages of the ordinance: it would prevent publicly owned trees from being mistreated or being planted in areas where it would cause problems or they would have no chance for survival; it would help to create greater tree diversity and inhibit monocultures; it would provide proper authority, define responsibility and establish standards and specifications urgently needed to manage and protect a valuable community resource; and it would ensure long-term uniformity and consistency of urban forestry management.
Mr. Siegendorf said he was chairman of the Urban Forestry Board and felt the ordinance was not perfect but was one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation they would see for some time. Mr. Hildreth commended those who had worked on the ordinance and said he felt it would be a major step for Salt Lake City as a tree city and it would confirm the convictions of the pioneers who carefully nurtured the trees we enjoy today. Mr. Bliss said he represented the R/UDAT Urban Design Subcommittee who strongly endorsed the urban forestry program.
Ms. Rossi said she had grown up in Evanston, Illinois, where they had a large population of trees at one time but they had suffered from Dutch Elm disease and most of them were lost and she didn’t want to see that happen in Salt Lake. There were four persons who favored the ordinance but did not wish to speak. The following persons spoke in opposition to the ordinance: Jim McDuff, 1822 W 14200 S and John Bryner, Utah Power & Light.
Mr. McDuff said he owned a tree business and he could foresee some problems with the ordinance such as: Section 2.26.210(C), the permit fee charged to companies doing tree trimming was too high; Section 2.26.230(1), the meaning of ‘insect infestation’ was too broad and needed more explanation; Section 2.26.240, responsibility for a public nuisance should not be spread out between so many persons but should be pinpointed to one person or it would make it difficult for a property owner to get something done; Section 2.26.270, the 14 day period for notice to abate was not a long enough period; and Section 2.26.290, it should not be unlawful to transplant a tree if it would be more feasible. John Bryner, 40 East 100 South, said Utah Power & Light (UP&L) did approximately $2 to $5 million dollars worth of tree trimming, and he felt obtaining permits for that volume of work would create a lot of work for the city. He also said that residents would not want to pay a permit fee to trim their own trees.
Councilmember Bittner said she was concerned about the impact the ordinance would have on UP&L as they had not been able to evaluate the ordinance or have input into it. Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. Schwab if he had received input from UP&L and Mr. Schwab said he had been contacted by Ron Crockett who scheduled power-line clearance and tree-trimming, asking him to participate in a training session for UP&L’s three districts in the valley to help train their linemen in more proper techniques to trim trees.
He said that $75 per year was not an amount that UP&L should worry about. He said there had been 14 drafts of the ordinance up to now. Councilmember Godfrey said that although Mr. Bryner was concerned about the permit tracking, this was to ensure they could track who was doing what to the urban forest. He said he didn’t think the $15 permit fee required of residents was too high.
(O 88-27)
The following two public hearings were combined:
#3. RE: A hearing at 6:40 p.m. to obtain comment concerning Petition No. 400-647 submitted by John Pingree for the R/UDAT Steering Committee, requesting Salt Lake City to change the C-4 zoning ordinance to make surface parking a conditional use; and consider adopting the ordinance relating thereto.
#4. RE: A hearing at 6:50 p.m. to obtain comment concerning Petition No. 400-648 submitted by John Pingree for the R/UDAT Steering Committee, requesting Salt Lake City to require approved drawings for new construction before demolition permits are issued; and consider adopting the ordinance relating thereto.
ACTION: Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Bittner moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to refer the ordinance back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional consideration.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to consider a substitute motion, which motion carried, all members voted aye, except Councilmembers Bittner and Stoler who voted no.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to approve the two ordinances in concept, and that the Council review them for correct wording at the Committee of the Whole meeting on Thursday, November 17, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye, except Councilmembers Bittner and Stoler who voted no.
DISCUSSION: Fred Ball, 809 16th Avenue, representing the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce (CC), said the CC made its policy statements and positions through its Executive Committee and Board of Governors and its input came from volunteer committees who looked at the pros and cons of issues then made its recommendations to the Board. He said they had two different committees look at the issue and one of the results was 14-2 in favor of the ordinance and the other was 14-0 against the ordinance.
Gary Hansen, 535 4th Avenue, representing the CC, read a letter from the CC which said they felt strongly that it was important to preserve the urban fabric, vitality, property values, and social and business climates in the downtown area and the proposed ordinance had far-reaching implications to the future of the city. He said their committee felt that if the ordinances were adopted it would interject government into making decisions for business.
He said because of the serious ramifications of the ordinance the executive committee was desirous of investigating in depth the final wording of the ordinance and apparently it was only completed yesterday or today. He said that having an ordinance with such deep ramifications surely would deserve great input, feedback, study and review, and for the Council to vote on it tonight would not be tenable with the CC. He said the ordinance was functionally confrontational and to approve it tonight would result in winners on one side and losers on the other, and they hoped that a better solution could be reached.
Councilmember Kirk said the CC had requested more time a week ago and everyone was telling them to wait a little longer and she questioned whether one week would solidify the position of the CC. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that at the hearing one week ago there had been 23 persons in favor of the ordinance and 5 opposed and she felt that consideration should be given to those who showed up and let the Council know how they felt.
Gretta Spendlove, representing Newspaper Agency Corporation (NAC), requested grandfather status for NAC for the following reasons: while in the midst of a $37 million modernization of their publishing plant they were encouraged by city officials to purchase additional property to facilitate a better truck queuing area, necessitated by a Board of Adjustment review; before closing the purchasing deal for the Tampico Restaurant in September they inquired from building officials if there would be a problem in obtaining a demolition permit and were told there would be no problem; upon applying for a permit in November they were told it could not be granted because of the moratorium on demolition permits as a result of consideration of the ordinances; NAC needed the additional space of the Tampico property for storage of construction equipment during their modernization; NAC’s modernization would benefit the city; and NAC was concerned over the time element involved should they have to adhere to the ordinance and go through the hearing process. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Ms. Spendlove if she was aware of the city’s intention to use Regent Street as a pedestrian link between the ZCMI Mall and Block 57, and Ms. Spendlove said they would be willing to work with the city. Councilmember Godfrey said he had met with Ms. Spendlove and Alan Johnson of Planning and Zoning and Mr. Johnson indicated that both the consideration of the demolition and the conditional use could be resolved by early January if the ordinances were passed. He asked how NAC felt about the ordinances.
Mike Brennan, NAC Director of Operations, said the Deseret News had editorially supported the ordinances but he did not think the Tribune had taken a legal position. Councilmember Bittner asked if the Council could legally grandfather in companies or whether it had to be done on a case by case basis. Bruce Baird, Assistant City Attorney, said the Council could choose among a series of options for an effective date of the ordinance, which would: 1) grandfather everyone 100%; 2) grandfather no one; or 3) make a rational decision based on the dates of application and grandfather some of them.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if they could elect not to involve the Council but leave the grand- fathering question to the Planning and Zoning process, and Mr. Baird said they could by either of two ways: 1) adopting one of the ordinances that had a grandfathering provision that had parts of the ordinance applying to those business that had already applied; or 2) by not grandfathering anyone.
The following persons spoke in favor of the issue: John Schumann, 10 W 300 S; John Pingree, 1389 Harvard; Lee Caputo, 147 S State; Cheryl Tower, 110 W 300 S; Christopher Nelson, 257 E 200 S; Marilyn Oakey, 145 S State; John Williams, 60 Post Office P1 and Michael Stransky, 59 Hillside Av. Mr. Schumann, Chairman of the SLC Planning Commission, said the present ordinance had been modified in order to be workable to all parties. He said the Planning Commission would be willing to accommodate anyone who wanted to accelerate the process of demolition if the ordinance passed.
Mr. Pingree, petitioner, said his original intent in filing the petition was so the community would begin to address the deterioration and tearing down of the city and using parking lots to landbank land. He said the R/UDAT study was very strong in its recommendation that this should not be done. He said the city needed a strong Central Business District and he was trying to contribute to that. He said he was committed to public transit because he felt it was in the best interest of the community to get a balanced transportation program, and at present, for every two feet of commercial space, one foot was committed to parking so there was ample parking in the downtown area.
He said the ordinance did not say you could not put in parking and it did not prevent demolition, but could be done by a hearing, thus letting the community and the Planning Commission review and decide. Mr. Caputo said he was in favor of the issue but was opposed to the grandfather clause because if one business was granted exemption it would create a legal and constitutional problem, and he would request an exemption for his business if others were allowed. Ms. Tower, representing Paradise Parking, said she was opposed to the grandfather clause. Mr. Nelson, representing the Capitol City Committee, said that the committee recommended approval of the ordinances and that those applicants who filed demolition applications prior to November 14, 1988, be exempted from the proposed demolition ordinance change but not from the proposed surface parking as a conditional use change.
Ms. Oakey said she was opposed to exempting big business from the ordinance and said it was wrong. She said she felt the ordinance was good because it asked that each issue be reviewed. She said she had heard they were going to tear down all the businesses in Block 57 ‘for future development’, and she questioned why businesses couldn’t remain instead of closing them down until there was a plan for the block, as those businesses were contributing something. She said small businesses were slowly being forced to leave. She said she felt those in opposition just wanted to wear people down by asking them to wait. She said the ordinances only asked that we plan for the future and she urged the Council to act on the ordinances now.
Mr. Williams said it had been two years since the Council had allocated money to the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) for a study of Salt Lake City, and one of the things SRI recommended was that the city create an advisory committee for downtown. He said tonight was the first time the Capitol City Committee had taken a position and acted in an official capacity. He said he felt a lot of the problems they were seeing now were because the city didn’t have a constituency looking out for its interests for too many years, too many things were developer driven and the economy was driving the decision making process.
He said the R/UDAT team stated that if all of the city could unite behind one plan it would make them successful in the future, and he hoped they could participate and unite with the Capitol City Committee in helping to develop a singular plan for everyone. Mr. Stransky said he didn’t think that anyone could guarantee the development of downtown by implementing the ordinance, but he questioned how many surface parking lots the city needed.
He said where they had been had not worked, and they only had where they were going and he felt the ordinance was a small step to help get there. He said the ordinance did not say you couldn’t tear down a building, build a parking lot, develop a piece of property, or landbank property; it wanted each situation looked at individually and certain conditions followed.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the issue: Reuel Ware, 5791 Whitewater Dr; Heber Jacobsen, 265 E 100 S; Steven Hyland, 200 South Main; Kenneth Knight, 1762 Countryside; Robert Barnes, One Main Street; Clyde Heiner, 180 E 100 S and I. J. Wagner, 524 Kennecott Bldg. Mr. Ware said the Downtown Retail Merchants Association did not want to take an official position regarding demolition but if parking lots were put in they should be adequately landscaped and be public, and they urged the Council not to act in haste on such a vital decision. Mr. Jacobsen said he was concerned that if the Council adopted the ordinances it would have momentous effect on the city’s future development. He said that as a developer, the first question asked by prospective tenants was what the lease rate was, and the second question was how much free parking was involved.
He said tenants had the option of moving somewhere else and parking was a tremendous cost for tenants. He said there had been very little development downtown in the past two years because of the competition in the suburbs and the Council needed to consider the ultimate direction of the city as to whether it would have a dense development pattern or more of a suburban development pattern. He felt it was too soon to act on an ordinance that was only finalized today. He said he was opposed to the Redevelopment Agency and felt the city should only be in the development business as a zoning controller and let the market determine what happened in the city.
Mr. Hyland, representing Continental Bank, said the proposed conditional use ordinance would make it difficult to dispose of foreclosed properties and it interfered with free enterprise by limiting the number of players to only extremely sophisticated investors and developers. He said the result might be discouragement of new investment capital at a critical time in the city’s economic cycle. He said pollution levels in the valley were approaching unacceptable levels according to Environmental Protection Agency standards and maybe the Planning Commission should be focusing on a Master Plan that would address the related long- term transportation and resultant parking issues.
He said the system was never the solution---only people and plans were the solution, and if the ordinances were enacted it would set up a system to force a study instead of conducting the study then acting on the findings. Councilmember Horrocks asked how a parking lot created an atmosphere conducive to business and how it would draw investment capital downtown. Mr. Hyland said they were not for or against parking lots but an empty lot or park might have greater land and economic value than the same property with a decrepit building on it.
Councilmember Horrocks said he had a strong interest in improving the downtown area and would love to see private capital flowing into the city and the bankers and developers lead the way in doing it. Mr. Hyland said the way to do it would be to let the free market work. Mr. Knight said he represented one of the largest property owners downtown and he felt the ordinances would have some bearing on what they would do with their property. He said he was concerned about some of the provisions of the ordinances, especially of having no egress or access to parking off Main Street which would put a severe restriction on what could be built on a ten-acre block. He said they would not have been able to build Little America Hotel with the present ordinance. He said he was concerned about the inconsistencies regarding setbacks for parking. He said he felt there were some occasions when it did make sense to landbank land and use parking, and that it was important to have parking close to a business or office.
Mr. Barnes, representing Zions First National Bank, said they were committed to keeping downtown alive and vital and had invested over $1 million to restore the bank building on 1st South and Main as an historical landmark, and through land acquisition by Zions the J. C. Penney building on 3rd South and Main was built. He said they were planning construction of a major office building and main floor retail in back of and around the bank on 1st and Main, along with parking to accommodate the bank, future offices and the Kearns Building.
He said the proposed change in the ordinance would limit and restrict development by private enterprise and would stifle private investment in the area and send more investment to the outlying areas. Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned why the merchants were in favor of the ordinance and the bankers were opposed to it, and Mr. Barnes said it placed a limitation on what you could do with property.
Mr. Heiner, representing Questar, said the newspapers were inaccurate in stating that they were requesting an exemption from the ordinance. He said they were opposed to the ordinances because they felt them to be contradictory to the interests of the city and they would not contribute to the success and well-being of downtown. He said a lot of the constituency were in the outlying areas and we needed to find ways to entice them to the city core.
He said we needed to assess what potential users wanted in order to get them downtown. He said they supported R/UDAT but R/UDAT’s recommendation was only one point of view and it might not be the right point of view. He said if the ordinances were passed it would destroy downtown and the bankers were trying to warn of this. Councilmember Kirk asked Mr. Heiner if he could suggest a better way to go, and Mr. Heiner said they should put the ordinances on hold then classify buildings that had historical or architectural significance. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said this had been done two years ago, and Mr. Heiner said there was no need for the ordinances then.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck questioned why the ordinances would be the downfall of the city when this type of ordinance was a part of every successful city in the United States that she was aware of. Mr. Heiner said that SLC was oriented to going to the outlying malls and you couldn’t mandate that people and businesses come to the city, you had to attract them. Mr. Wagner read a letter from the Bamberger Investment Company which stated that they strongly opposed the proposed ordinance as they felt it would destroy the necessary flexibility of potential property development downtown. He said he had been parking downtown for 22 years and people wanted to park near where they were doing business. He said he was in favor of most of the ordinance but felt that free enterprise should not be taken away from the owners. He said strict code enforcement was vital, then people either had to have the money to bring a building up to code or sell it.
Registration cards were received from two persons who did not wish to speak; one favored the issue and one opposed it. Alan Johnson, Director of Planning and Zoning, said that after listening to the issue the past two weeks at the hearings, he found that the common interest was that all parties were interested in the vitality of downtown and the differences were in how they could make it dynamic. He said the city was in the process of planning, centered on public participation and dialogue.
He said as planners, they were supportive of the ordinance because it promoted public dialogue and participation in the planning process and he felt it was consistent with the direction he had received from the Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, the SRI report, and the master planning process. He said the residents of SLC were open and receptive to innovation and the current ordinance was prescriptive so it made it difficult to be innovative.
He said his staff and the Planning Commission were actively involved in: coordinating and streamlining the permit process; participating in infrastructure improvement programs through the Redevelopment Agency; submitting for the adoption process of preservation building code; reevaluating code enforcement priorities; financing strategies for purposes of rehabilitation loans in the downtown area; trying to secure state legislation for tax abatement for purposes of renovating historically significant buildings; completing a comprehensive downtown parking and circulation plan; establishing a long-range transportation plan; and participating with property owners for block redesign plans. He said they needed to work together to secure the future of SLC.
Councilmember Stoler said the Council appreciated all those who had taken the time to attend the hearings and offer input, regardless of whether they were for or against the issue. Councilmember Bittner said they were all aware that downtown was under severe stress and most of the forces they were faced with were out of the control of government. She said no matter what ordinances they passed they could not build buildings, that only money and investors could do that, and they needed to figure out how to attract them.
She said they needed restrictions on how long a building could be boarded up. She said the large landowners had expressed some very legitimate concerns and she felt they needed to go back to the drawing board. She said there were lots of buildings in the city that needed to be demolished and that empty buildings created a police problem. Councilmember Kirk said she felt the issue had been through all the phases of planning and she felt they had talked enough. She urged the Council to vote on the issue. Councilmember Hardman said he felt the Council needed more time to review the ordinance before voting as they had received a rough draft over the weekend, then tonight had received Drafts A, B, and C, and he felt it would be irresponsible to make a decision tonight. He said he was in favor of the basic concepts of the ordinance, that it was reasonable to impose restrictions on property owners downtown, but he was not in favor of the grandfather clause.
Councilmember Godfrey said they had received drafts of the ordinance last summer during sessions with the Planning Commission and he felt they had all the information necessary to make a decision on the issue. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she felt strongly about not waiting any longer to adopt the ordinances and she felt that some of the people who were asking them to wait were some of those who said they never did anything on a timely basis. She said they had spent a great deal of time on the issue and felt the few would-be developers would appreciate a decision rather that have it drag on longer.
Councilmember Horrocks said he had a lot of apprehension but in essence he favored the ordinance. He said they needed to do something to get the city moving again and he was concerned that property owner’s hands not be tied if a building needed to be demolished for economic reasons. He said he was uncomfortable with some of the wording of the ordinance and he would like them to set a date certain for reviewing it.
Councilmember Stoler said he had concerns about the proposed ordinances because he felt that human rights and property rights were sacred in our country and he was concerned about specifically directing people in what to do. He said Councilmember Bittner had mentioned the question of vacant buildings and safety and in his opinion a vacant building was much more hazardous than a vacant lot with an open view. He indicated that he felt people were in agreement about revitalizing downtown Salt Lake City but couldn’t agree on the best way to accomplish the goal.
(P 88-289, P 88-290)
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.