Council rejects a moratorium on Sugar House demolitions

A bid to temporarily stop buildings in the Sugar House Business District from being demolished or significantly altered in the name of historic preservation was quashed Tuesday night by the Salt Lake City Council.

Councilman Soren Simonsen was the lone proponent of an ordinance to revise land-use regulations for the area between 1700 South and 2700 South, and 700 East and 1300 East. The ordinance, which didn't even make it to a vote of the council, called for a six-month moratorium on any demolitions or exterior alterations on buildings more than 50 years old.

The goal was to "preserve the look at feel of the Sugar House Business District as a unique place," according to the ordinance, and ensure that new development "respects the district's historic development and architectural patterns."

In the end, City Council members concluded they did not have enough information about which buildings met the 50-years-old criteria to necessitate a moratorium. Simonsen's motion to approve the ordinance died for lack of a second.

"I don't believe the temporary restriction tonight is the solution," Councilwoman Jill Remington Love said.

A public hearing Tuesday night featured strong opinions on both sides of the issue.

Sugar House resident Patricia Sanders, who spoke in favor of the ordinance, called it a "quality-of-life issue."

"You can't put a dollar amount on that," Sanders said. "I'm not against new buildings per se, but I think we need to maintain some connection to our past, and historical buildings are one way to do that."

Others argued that the Sugar House Community Master Plan already addresses historical preservation and that imposing a moratorium would threaten the livelihood of some property owners.

"There are people who have invested a lot of money in development in the district," said Jim Johnson, a property owner.

The city has hired a consultant to conduct surveys of historic buildings within in the district and to develop design guidelines based on those findings.

Love expressed concern during a work session earlier Tuesday about placing temporary land-use restrictions in the district without having those findings in hand.

"To stop development for six months in an area where development is booming is a pretty serious thing," she said.