PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGULAR/BRIEFING SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1988
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, November 8, 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.
Councilmember Bittner expressed reservations about the process by which the Mayor appointed council- members to the Winter Games organizing Committee, (i.e. asking the Chair of the Council to name members to the committee without a discussion by the Council as a Whole). Ms. Bittner said that she had no objections to those named to the committee, but that she was uncomfortable with the process. Councilmember Tom Godfrey said that because of the nature of the committee, the Mayor didn’t have to go through the Council at all. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that appointing members to committees in this manner was not without historical precedent and was a common practice.
Councilmember Stoler said that the committee in question needed to be a joint administrative/legislative effort and that the Mayor couldn’t do anything without the Council. He said that to form two committees would be a waste of effort and time and that the Mayor and the Council needed to work together on forming the committee and directing its efforts. Ms. Bittner said that she wanted the appointments to come before the Committee of the Whole but that if the issue wasn’t a problem with the other Councilmembers, she would drop it.
Councilmember Hardman said that because he was named to the committee he was in a difficult position to comment, but he was willing to discuss the issue if the Council wanted to. Councilmember Godfrey said the issue would be added to the agenda for the Committee of the Whole discussion for November 10, 1988. Executive Director Linda Hamilton passed out a draft copy of a letter to Frank Davis, CEO of Utah Power & Light, asking about the possible impacts on the city economy and job market if Utah Power & Light and Pacific Corporation merged. There was no objection from the Council about sending the letter.
Ms. Hamilton then reviewed the agenda. Concerning item El, Licensing - Marriage and Dating Services, Ms. Hamilton said that this was to reinstate a portion of the City’s ordinance that was inadvertently repealed with the adoption of the new Sexually Oriented Business Act. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked if the City had any Marriage Services. Buzz Hunt, City Treasurer, said there were none licensed to his knowledge, but the ordinance established a method of regulating dating and marriage services as they applied for licensing. Concerning item Fl, Special Improvement District No 38-813, Ms Hamilton said this confirmed the assessments in the SID. Councilmember Horrocks asked if hardship cases were considered in the assessment. Christine Richman, Council Administrative Assistant, said that economic conditions were a part of the criteria used in determining assessments and that abatements were available for those who qualified.
Concerning item F2, 14th Year Community Development Block Grant Fund Budget Amendment, Mr. Hardman asked Rosemary Davis of Capital Planning to explain the mechanics of the Canterbury Apartments purchase. Ms. Davis said the City would purchase the buildings and then transfer ownership as soon as possible to the Redevelopment Agency. She said the RDA would be the owners with the City acting in an advisory position.
Concerning item F3, Special Improvement District No. 38-724, Christine Richman said that the Utah Department of Transportation would actually award the bid to McNeil Construction to do the work. Ms. Richman added that McNeil construction had been certified as low bidder.
The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 8, 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, Roger Cutler, City Attorney, Lynda Domino, Chief Deputy City Recorder, and LaNita Brown, Deputy Recorder, were present.
Councilmember Godfrey presided at and Councilmember Stoler conducted the meeting.
OPENING CEREMONIES
#1. There was no invocation.
#2. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#3. Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the minutes of the Salt Lake City Council for the regular meeting held Tuesday, November 1, 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(M 88-1)
COMMENTS
Terry Phillips, 314 East Stanton Avenue, said he was in the process of making repairs to his house and a Salt Lake City Building Inspector, Mr. Christensen was giving him a difficult time. Roger Evans from the Department of Building and Housing was in the audience so Mayor DePaulis referred Mr. Phillips to speak with Mr. Evans.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Kirk seconded to approve the consent agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Adopting Resolution 134 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for reimbursement of funds to Salt Lake City Corporation for costs incurred to develop a “Database” system for the E911 system.
(C 88-644)
#2. RE: Resolution 136 of 1988 authorizing the execution of an application for a cooperative agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for loan guarantee assistance under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
(T 88-29)
NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS
#1. RE: An ordinance amending Title 5 of the Salt Lake City Code by adding a new Chapter 42 dealing with licensing marriage and dating services.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to suspend the rules and on first reading adopt Ordinance 73 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(O 88-36)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Jerry Fenn to the Board of Adjustment.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred this to the Committee of the Whole.
(I 88-14)
#3. RE: approving the reappointment of Jennifer Harrington to the Urban Forestry Board.
ACTION: Without objection Councilmember Stoler referred this to the Consent Agenda.
(I 88-15)
UNFINISHED COUNCIL BUSINESS
#1. RE: An ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties in Salt Lake City, Utah Special Improvement District No. 38-813 (Non-Contiguous Streets) for the purpose of paying the costs of constructing improvements on certain streets; reaffirming the establishment of a Special Improvement Guaranty Fund; establishing the effective date of this ordinance; and related matters.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Godfrey seconded to adopt Ordinance 74 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(Q 87-4)
#2. RE: A resolution adopting an amended budget for 14th Year Community Development Block Grant funding (1988-1989) to include $1,825,000 from a HUD Section 108 Loan for purchase of the Canterbury Apartments and for park improvements in the North Redwood Road Community.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 137 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye except Councilmember Godfrey who voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Hardman asked Rosemary Davis, Capital Planning and Programming, to explain how the loan process would work. She explained that the application would be submitted in the City’s name upon approval of the application, within one week. The title would then be transferred to the Redevelopment Agency and it would be under their jurisdiction for six years until the loan was paid off.
Councilmember Godfrey said he opposed this issue. He thought the purchase of the Canterbury Apartments was a step in the right direction to solve the problems with the HDC and get a park in the neighborhood but said he opposed this package because he was not in favor of how the two issues were put together. He said there was $150,000 included for the park which would increase the HOC debt. He said to him this didn’t seem very fiscally sound. He said they should purchase the apartments because it was the right thing to do.
(T 88-29)
#3. RE: Consider adopting a resolution conditionally accepting a bid for construction work and, subject to approval of the City Engineer, authorizing execution of a construction contract with McNeil Construction for construction of improvements of Salt Lake City, Utah, Special Improvement District California Avenue Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-724.
ACTION: Councilmember Godfrey moved and Councilmember Horrocks seconded to adopt Resolution 135 of 1988, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: John Naser, Department of Engineering, said the bid opening was held November 1, 1988, and the low bidder was McNeil Construction with a bid of $2,453,966.32. He said the engineer’s estimate was $2,452,800.06 and said engineering recommended awarding the bid to McNeil Construction.
(Q 86-14)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1 RE: A public hearing scheduled for 6:20 p.m. to obtain public 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.
#2. RE: A public hearing at 6:30 p.m. to obtain public 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.
ACTION: Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Bittner seconded to continue the public hearing for Petition 400-647 to November 15, 1988 at 6:40 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Kirk moved and Councilmember Hardman seconded to continue the public hearing for Petition 400-648 to November 15, 1988 at 6:50 p.m., which motion carried, all members voted aye.
NOTE: Because these two public hearings were directly related and since after Bill Wright’s presentation the time was 6:30 p.m., Councilmember Stoler combined the two hearings to get citizen input on both issues at the same time.
DISCUSSION: Bill Wright, Department of Planning and Zoning said the Planning Commission reviewed the requests and held five public meetings. He said in the deliberation with the Planning Commission they broadened the request regarding surface parking to include landscape lots, mini parks, plazas, and structured parking lots. He said these would also become conditional uses along with surface parking.
He said the planning staff and Planning Commission had been charged by the Mayor to broaden citizen involvement in the planning process to include more public participation in planning issues. He referred to the five meetings that the Planning Commission held and said three were public hearings and for one of the meetings notices were sent to all of the property owners in all of the commercial C-4 zoning districts. He referred to a map which highlighted the geography of the C-4 zoning districts and he said the ordinance changes would only apply to the C-4 areas. He said the R/UDAT Steering Committee submitted the requests in response to recommendations of the R/UDAT plan and also in response to concerns that there were existing buildings about to be demolished for surface parking lots. He said the recommendations of the R/UDAT report stressed the need for the city to take charge of the issue of surface parking and parking in general in the downtown area and to also know the amount of demolitions which were occurring and weakening the downtown urban fabric.
He said the Planning Commission evaluated the proposed changes in the context of its downtown plan and the goals and objectives. He said they found that the ordinance amendments would be consistent as implementation strategy for those goals and objectives. He said the primary issues for both petitions related to “land banking”, the need for parking, pedestrian focus, street level activity, the market for space, the liability and upkeep of older buildings, and the process of administering a demolition ordinance and use ordinance in the commercial districts downtown.
He said the Planning Commission at their meetings invited broad participation in these issues and there was much response from the property owners and business community as these were developed. He said the recommendations of the Planning Commission resulted in a review process under a conditional use process that would evaluate specific proposals at specific sites for surface parking, landscape lots, mini parks, etc. against planning, economic and physical condition, and design criteria.
He said the recommendations of the Planning Commission included a structured process for reviewing specific uses which would consist of an application by a developer, evidence related to use criteria and design criteria, an informal hearing process, and finally approval or denial. He said the Planning Commission recommended that the ordinance should include criteria that they would use to judge and evaluate the merits of each case as it related to a specific site and how the development proposal would benefit the development of the downtown.
He said additional items that the planning staff and Planning Commission recommended included a study of the overall parking plan for the Central Business District; study, evaluate, and implement the concept of a Municipal Parking Authority and Municipal Parking District; establish a long-range transportation plan to include the following elements: access to downtown, coordination with parking and other transportation modes and mass transit, inner-city circulation, and an expanded free-fare zone for the CBD.
He said the purpose of this meeting was to receive comments from property owners and concerned citizens. He said the input received at the Planning Commission hearings was valuable in forming the recommendations of the Planning Commission. In summary Mr. Wright said the proposed ordinances would make the uses as outlined conditional uses and said the conditional use was a planning process that evaluated the merits of a specific land use at a specific site with the determination made by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Godfrey asked for citizen input about how the ordinances would affect the flexibility and potential property development downtown and how the ordinances would affect free- enterprise activities.
The following people spoke in general about this issue: Gary Hansen, S.L. Area Chamber of Commerce, asked the Council to continue the hearing so the Chamber could go through their regular procedure and make a recommendation. Lee Caputo, 147 South State (adjacent to Utah/Idaho Supply Building), said that Interstate approached him about his property. He said he was interested in selling but Interstate was not interested in the business but was only interested in the land. He said they offered him property any where outside the city. He said he would only consider property within the city.
Kent Money, President of Zions Securities Corporation, said he felt it was important to keep a balance. He believed there needed to be controls yet property owners needed to retain controls over their properties. He said it was important that the Planning and Zoning Commission be balanced so they could fairly judge the issues and said it was important for the Mayor and City Council to appoint people who would maintain the balance in the future.
He said it was difficult to set an all encompassing policy in a three-page report because of the diverse conditions of downtown. He supported the Planning and Zoning Commission having a flexible plan to use as a guide to look at the issues. He said more tenants left the downtown because of parking than demolitions. He said they were having problems leasing the Eagle Gate Plaza because of parking. He said they were going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for car stackers in the basement of the Eagle Gate to make parking more convenient.
He said buildings proposed to be demolished were multi-story buildings and it was easy to lease the main floor but it was difficult to lease the additional floors. Because of this it was difficult to make older buildings economically feasible to renovate. He said it made more sense to have a nice surface parking lot rather than a boarded up building. He thought that property subsidies and help needed to be given to owners if the public demanded historic preservation.
Councilmember Stoler asked what percentage of multi-level, renovated buildings had to be leased to break even. Mr. Money said it depended on how extensive the renovation was but he thought at least 60 to 80% had to be leased to make the building economically feasible. He suggested that the city use good judgment with these ordinances.
The following people spoke in support of this issue: Tom Ellison, SLC Planning Commission, he said they were trying to create a critical mass including activity and visual interest. He said the issue was whether or not the city would have control over the necessary elements. He said they wanted to preserve the opportunity for the economic development which could occur in downtown in older structures. He said they wanted land owners who were making an investment in good structures to know that the city would control the quality of the neighborhood around them.
He said zoning ordinances controlled free enterprise within approved parameters and took away flexibility within approve parameters. He said that over time they needed to reduce and control parking in order to encourage the use of mass transit which in turn may alleviate traffic and clean air problems, which could shut off long-term economic development in downtown. He said structured parking lots were uneconomical today and he said in the long-term they would increase the value of land by increasing the cost of parking over time. He said there were pockets of parking needs which the ordinance would allow them to consider on a case by case basis.
He said they needed to increase the cost of parking to make mass transit feasible and increase the burden that property owners had to construct three parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of office space. He said it was uneconomical and was a disincentive for people to develop in downtown. He also said they were going to encourage better long-term maintenance of buildings in the downtown area. He said they would not require people to bring buildings up to code in accordance with the current existing code.
He said they may lose buildings in the short run but in the long run they wanted building owners to develop an economically viable use of the building as a better holding strategy than a surface parking lot. Michael Stransky, property owner and lessee in downtown, said he supported maintaining the fabric of downtown and didn’t believe that construction of a parking lot was appropriate in place of an existing building. He said the ordinances didn’t state that developers couldn’t build parking lots or develop property.
They allow community participation in the development of Salt Lake City. He said the R/UDAT study indicated that 50% of downtown was streets and surface parking. He said he didn’t think downtown needed more parking and most of it was empty. Robert Bliss, Chair of the R/UDAT Urban Design Subcommittee, said they were interested in seeing that planning for parking, pedestrian inner-block connections and mass transit were coordinated and started soon. He didn’t think these ordinances would be a great burden.
Marilyn Oakey, Camera Den, 145 South State, said the downtown area needed more retail business. She reiterated that Mountain Fuel currently had no plans for their property and she said if the downtown area only had corporate structures then there would be no reason for people to come there. She said she spoke with the owners of Paradise Parking and at 2:00 p.m. today they had over 600 empty parking stalls within a block and a half radius. She said they weren’t asking people to not tear down their buildings but look at the future of downtown. She said there were a lot of people who would rent space in the Utah/Idaho Supply Building. Steven Schmidt, President of Camera Den, said they had been in the community for 20 years and he thought R/UDAT represented the future.
He said that a stand had to be taken and leadership had to start somewhere; he suggested now. He indicated that Salt Lake was one of the least regulated cities he had lived in. He said that businesses needed other businesses in order to grow. He said there were people who wanted to move downtown. He said their business in downtown has shrunk because other businesses have left. He said he thought future development started now.
Willy Littig, representing the Avenues Community Council, said that any further disturbance to the urban fabric would make it harder for the residents of Salt Lake to shop. He said he didn’t feel comfortable walking by a parking lot and he thought parking lot standards were too minimal. John Pace, Chair of the R/UDAT Steering Committee as well as business and property owner in the downtown area, said the petitions addressed the sole concern of maintaining and encouraging the vitality of the downtown area.
He said its vitality was gained by the grouping of buildings and businesses. He said the city didn’t have a lot of downtown pedestrian traffic because of vacant structures and gaps caused by parking lots. He said 30% of the downtown was hard surface parking. He said the intent of the petitions was to review individual requests and said the procedure was changing and not the zoning. He said there were 20,000 parking places within downtown. He said these petitions were not to prevent parking in favor of mass transit and he said it was not a historic preservation initiative.
He said that at the regular monthly meeting of the CBID, the voting members present voted in favor of the ordinances, with one abstention. Kermit Johnson, 122 So. Main, said he didn’t want to lose the fabric of the city because of gaps caused by parking lots. He said people had the mentality that everyone who worked downtown had to have their own parking place. Cheryl Tower, Paradise Parking, said they had 22 locations and said at 2:00 p.m. today they had 648 empty stalls in the area of the Utah/Idaho building.
She said the additional Questar parkers were from U.S. West and she said U.S. West people didn’t need a place to park because they had a contract with Paradise Parking. She suggested that executives in the Kerns building could have valet parking. She said if there was no retail business to support the parking then the parking lots would be empty. She said the ordinances didn’t prohibit parking, they would just require developers to demonstrate a need. Tom Bacon, representing Gerald Heinz Interests (national real estate developer) said the concepts in the R/UDAT study were viable long-term, long-range planning concepts. He said the petitions were a small portion of a big effort that needed to go on in Salt Lake City. He thought if these petitions were voted down it would take momentum away from the long-term planning issue. He said cities which controlled their growth and had a population aware of their environment, were those cities that had positive growth and built a better environment.
He thought the ordinances would be difficult to administer and in the short run had the potential to hurt some people. He said the people who would have the difficulties would be those who currently owned buildings. He said the important issue was the precedent which would be set and said the precedent that needed to be set was consideration given to ongoing development efforts and consideration given to those owners already in buildings.
David Mime, President of the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said he thought Salt Lake City had the right to develop growth and development in the downtown core. He said Salt Lake City also had the responsibility to protect and represent the interests of the city as a whole. He said the ordinance did not propose to prohibit demolition but to create a vehicle whereby all the users had a voice in creating a decision based on more than economics. He said they needed to take the step to create a vision of higher quality for Salt Lake City.
Margaretta Woolley, President Elect of the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said the ordinances would help give the public a voice in land decisions when partial or non use was being evaluated. She said surface parking in a urban environment was not always an appropriate use and said surface parking in this case could have detrimental effects on the surrounding area. She said with surface parking as a conditional use the city would be able to evaluate the proposed surface parking lot and protect an area if the use was found not to be appropriate.
She said conditional use did not ban the development of surface parking but required an evaluation of all the criteria. She said the revision could help the city avoid potential conflict when planning uses didn’t necessarily conform to the city’s master plan or zoning ordinance. She said both ordinances were a positive action not a reaction. John Williams, property owner at 60 Post Office Place, said he was concerned about the future of downtown Salt Lake City and said it had started to look vacant.
He said the federal, state, and local tax laws made it more economical to tear down a building than save it. He said it was much less expensive to hold land versus holding a building. He said it was time to set a new course for the future. He said parking was important to downtown but it was important to develop parking in an efficient manner. He thought the ordinances needed to be done hand-in-hand with the Redevelopment Agency and a parking authority to help developers construct parking to support the existing structures and to subsidize parking in new development so they can compete with the south end of the valley. He said that R/UDAT was a non- biased group and they were not paid. He said one of the first things they identified was the demolition for downtown parking.
Jim McPherson, Utah Advisor to National Trust for Historic Preservation, said R/UDAT not only talked about economic development and transportation but also addressed the issues of preserving our heritage, designing a livable city, and rehabilitating housing stock. He said they also talked about strengthening historic preservation regulations to prevent the further loss of important community assets in the downtown and residential areas. He said the past needed to be preserved as well as encouraging new construction.
He said the Preservation Strategies Task Force and R/UDAT called for economic incentives for developers and land owners to preserve their historic property and R/UDAT called for stronger demolition procedures because the city was still losing fine older buildings. John Schuman, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, said they felt that this was a critical issue to the future growth of the downtown area and felt it was an integral part of the development of a downtown master plan. He said the Planning Commission built in to the ordinance a process whereby they can hear each petitioner on an individual basis and there was also a built-in appeal process.
Cindy Cromer, 816 East First South, said she was excited to see the city change direction and support people who wanted to renovate their property. She encouraged the Council to act expeditiously because she wanted to see the momentum continue. John Longaker, specialist in leasing office space, said he supported the ordinances but felt they needed to be tempered with good sense. He said parking and view were important to people when they leased office space.
He said there had to be an adequate amount of close parking or people would not come downtown. He said generally people would rather look at a parking lot than the top of dilapidated buildings. He also said it was difficult for fire fighters to fight fires in renovated buildings. He agreed that important old buildings needed to be preserved. He also said that people occupying office buildings shopped downtown. He said there needed to be a cooperative approach between the office and retail users.
Nancy Pace, 1524 Arlington Drive, said the conditional use process would provide for public input. She urged the Council to pass the amendments. The following people spoke in opposition to this issue: I.J. Wagner, 524 Kennecott Building, said he was concerned about what happened to substandard buildings since to bring some of them to code was cost prohibitive and in some cases it was impossible. He said he thought it was better to have a parking lot with landscaping than a vacant, vandalized building, which was a problem on Block 57. He said there was a need for temporary parking and vacant lots in the CBD would not be permanent because of land values. He said until a pedestrian parked his car he did not become a customer. Clyde Heiner, President of Interstate Land and Sr. Vice President for Questar, said they have had a major stake in the downtown area for over 60 years. He said the original purpose of R/UDAT was commendable and could be valuable in conjunction with other needs and points of view of the community.
He asked, for example, if the public in general would support decreased use of personal vehicles for mass transit. He was concerned that the ordinances would represent R/UDAT to exclude other points of view. He referred to the Utah/Idaho Supply Building and said they invested $30,000 to study the feasibility of restoring the building which determined that it could not be done economically now or in the future. He was concerned that the proposed ordinances, if passed, would leave buildings like this one vacant and boarded up.
He said he thought the proposals reflected a selective vision that may not be beneficial to the city, businesses or residences. He said the ordinances could lower property values by lessening the ability of property owners to manage properties in an economical way. He said they supported the City’s effort to improve the fabric of the downtown area but he was concerned about the impact of the petitions on the long-term development potential.
Councilmember Horrocks asked Mr. Heiner about Questar’s long- range plans for the Utah/Idaho building. Mr. Heiner said they did not intend to leave it as a parking lot but at this time had no definite plans because of the economic situation. He said they had a need for temporary parking. He said parking would be included with building development plans.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said she would be interested in the percentage of buildings that could be demolished in the next five or ten years if the current economic situation continued. She asked if they could lose 50% and asked the planning staff for an estimate. She said the ordinance did not state that buildings couldn’t be demolished but stated that a judgment would be made and she saw these ordinances as guaranteeing well-designed parking lots. Mr. Heiner said the city already had ordinances requiring appropriately landscaped parking lots and he said he thought people would rather see a nice parking lot than a deteriorated building.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck named several major cities that had similar ordinances. Mr. Heiner referred to Portland which was effectively controlling parking and he agreed with what Portland was doing and he suggested that the present situation was more than adequate. L. Brent Milne, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Office of Key Bank, said they were not in favor of making downtown more inaccessible to cars. He thought the criteria used to get a conditional use would be difficult and oppressive. He said the parking lot to the east of Triad was an improvement to what had been there. Richard Coleman, President of Key Mortgage Services, said that lenders had difficulty with financing older buildings. He said it was economically difficult to upgrade an older building to attract tenants and charge the necessary rent to pay the cost relative to the quality. He referred to asbestos in older buildings and said owners renovating older buildings were obligated to remove it, which was expensive. He said it was easier for a developer to get financing for “clean” property.
Steven Hyland, Sr. Vice President of Continental Bank, said that due to the economic conditions the City should encourage capital to come into the area as opposed to making it more difficult. He said they needed to attract all kinds of capital and said the proposed procedures may limit the number of investors in this market place. He said the proposed ordinances would make it more difficult for lenders to dispose of properties in Salt Lake which would adversely impact local financial institutions.
The following people did not speak but submitted registration cards expressing their support: Greg Gunn, 175 East 400 So.; D. Kim Anderson, 768 N. Redwood Rd.; Nancy Saxton, 164 S. 900 E. and Blanchard Gaar, 158 So. State. Councilmember Bittner said this morning the Chamber of Commerce asked if the Council could continue the hearing so the Executive Committee could meet and make a recommendation. She said the Council Executive Director polled the Council and indicated that the Council would continue the hearing for a week.
Bill Wright said the ordinance had not been completed yet but would be ready in the next couple of days. Councilmember Hardman supported the delay and said he didn’t want to take any action until he saw the ordinance in its final form. Councilmember Kirk said she agreed with Councilmember Hardman and said she committed to wait another week.
Councilmember Hardman said he wouldn’t mind discussing the final ordinances on Thursday during Committee of the Whole if the ordinances were ready and the Council had time. Councilmember Godfrey suggested that if there were any major changes, the planning staff emphasize those rather than going through both ordinances entirely.
(P 88-289 and P 88-290)
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.