02/21/2023 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject -
IZOV
2/15/2023 20:02 Christine Clair Support of Dear SLC City Council, As a sustainable modular home builder based in Salt Lake
City,we write in support of the ADU Text Amendment.These revisions will benefit
homeowners and tenants alike and are a vital part of the strategy to reduce the
housing deficit in our city. By increasing the supply of housing and providing more
affordable options for where people can live,ADUs can provide more homes
without significantly changing the surrounding built environment.ADU legalization
will help address our city's affordable housing crisis,give homeowners a new
source of income,and provide more options for multigenerational families. In
October 2022,we craned in our first modular home into downtown Salt Lake City.
One of the main benefits of modular construction is the speed at which modular
homes can be brought to market.Those benefits are currently reduced by the
permitting process. We support the increased allowable sizes of 1,000 and 1,200
square feet,which would better allow for two bedroom ADUs. We are investing in
a manufacturing facility expansion to better serve the market on modular ADUs
and affordable housing projects.We look forward to being a leading solution for
the residents of Salt Lake City. We applaud your work on loosening restrictions to
address this issue.Salt Lake City again will be seen as a leader in citizen-friendly
policy.Sincerely, Christine Clair VP of Marketing Stack Homes
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Mcc:wr MMEMMEMIPW
2/16/2023 6:36 Anonymous Constituent Rezone East Libert Park from R-2 to Salt Lake City needs more quality affordable housing downtown not less. It makes
SNB no sense to destroy a beautiful landmark building with 4 apartments to rebuild a
single family home •The owner has moved all units to long-term rental and has
complied with all city requests so why is he getting fines of$46,000/year by the city
with no road to resolution?We demand justice for small property owners •The
development agreement proposed by councilman Darin Mano that will require this
property to stay residential and protect this landmark property is the right
approach. I support the request to rezone the East Liberty Park property from a
single-and two-family residential zone(R-2)to Small Neighborhood Business(SNB)
•This property has not been used as a single-family home for over 60 years. It has
operated as a cleaners business,a day-care center,and a beauty salon.The
remodeling by the previous owner into a 4 plex was done 20 years ago so why are
we making it so difficult for the current owner to bring his building back into
compliance?The fines he is getting($46,000)seem completely out of proportion as
he has done everything in his power to comply with city requirements.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name =20r�
2/16/2023 8:30 Jeremy Hughes This is a real problem! Salt Lake City needs more quality affordable housing downtown not less. It makes
no sense to destroy a beautiful landmark building with 4 apartments to rebuild a
single family home The owner has moved all units to long-term rental and has
complied with all city requests so why is he getting fines of$46,000/year by the city
with no road to resolution?We demand justice for small property owners The
development agreement proposed by councilman Darin Mano that will require this
property to stay residential and protect this landmark property is the right
approach. I support the request to rezone the East Liberty Park property from a
single-and two-family residential zone(R-2)to Small Neighborhood Business(SNB)
This property has not been used as a single-family home for over 60 years. It has
operated as a cleaners business,a day-care center,and a beauty salon.The
remodeling by the previous owner into a 4 plex was done 20 years ago so why are
we making it so difficult for the current owner to bring his building back into
compliance?The fines he is getting($46,000)seem completely out of proportion as
he has done everything in his power to comply with city requirements.We need
this building back in compliance. It is a beautiful building that is well maintained.
Let's help this owner contribute to the neighborhood's prosperity rather than
making it impossible for him to operate his rental small business. I have attended
the planning meeting commission and the public hearing on this topic,and it seems
so unfair how people are viciously attacking this poor business owner by spreading
lies about him. For example,they are saying he still does short-term rentals while
all his leases are long-term.The people opposing him are offering no solution
whatsoever. None of their arguments make sense so I am wondering what
motivates them in blocking him to get into compliance. Jeremy D Hughes
Date/Time Opened Contact Name MCEMI" MMEMMEMI"
2/16/2023 8:51 Anonymous Constituent rezoning property located at 704 E Salt Lake City needs more quality affordable housing downtown not less. It makes
900 S near liberty park. no sense to destroy a beautiful landmark building with 4 apartments to rebuild a
single family home The owner has moved all units to long-term rental and has
complied with all city requests so why is he getting fines of$46,000/year by the city
with no road to resolution?I support the request to rezone the East Liberty Park
property from a single-and two-family residential zone(R-2)to Small
Neighborhood Business(SNB)This property has not been used as a single-family
home for over 60 years. It has operated as a cleaners business,a day-care center,
and a beauty salon.The remodeling by the previous owner into a 4 plex was done
20 years ago so why are we making it so difficult for the current owner to bring his
building back into compliance?The fines he is getting seem completely out of
proportion as he has done everything in his power to comply with city
requirements. It is a beautiful building that is well maintained. Let's help this owner
contribute to the neighborhood's prosperity people are saying he still does short-
term rentals while all his leases are long-term.Jason Stevenson (East Liberty Park
Community Organization)'s letter
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/lIL6d9xHzkavw6J2goUWrT9mZOdihUZC/view?usp
=sharing)says it all.This building has to become compliant and the owner has
shifted all units to long-term rental so deserves our support.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject MEMMEW
2/16/2023 9:12 Koby Elias ADU ordinance Hello Amy Fowler, I am a resident of district 7. 1 hope you will vote for the updates
to the city's ADU ordinance. including: 1. Eliminating conditional use requirement-
this is needless administrative waste,get rid of it.2. Removing height requirements
for ADUs-allow them to be above a garage will also help parking congestion
because people can keep off-street spaces below the ADU 3. reducing setback
requirements-many lots in SLC are narrow 10ft setback in not feasible for many
lots.4. maximum ADU size to 1000 sq ft.-I hope you concur with the planning
commission recommendation we need more housing for families in the city.720 sq
ft is not enough 5. prohibiting short term rentals-great idea,could use some
enforcement.Also,this is often used as an argument for why the owner occupancy
requirement should stay. I think that's bogus.It's easier to manage a long term
lease from far away than a short term rental.6. Removing owner occupancy
requirement-This is critical to increasing the number of ADUs in the city. I am a
homeowner in Sugar House and I also own one rental property. It is hard for me to
build ADU's on either property right now.At the rental it's forbidden,and at my
home there is risk that I may need to move for a job or family reasons,then I would
need to evict a tenant or find a buyer willing to purchase the home with a tenant in
the ADU, likely significantly limiting the pool of potential buyers.Also one note on
the politics of this. I was at the city council meeting and gave public comment in
support of these points.The final three comments were from three gentlemen
from Yalecrest objecting to the liberalization of the ADU ordinance.They represent
an anachronistic political force in this city. Let's nudge SLC in the direction of
becoming denser while doing something to address housing affordability.Thanks,
Koby
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- M= -
2/16/2023 9:30 Ale Gicqueau 1/2 In response to last week public Dear councilman Dugan, I was at the last public hearing by phone but Brian Fulmer
hearing where I was prevented from (Salt Lake City Council Staff)had a technical issue and could not get me in(see
speaking due to technical issues attached).As a result, I had no chance to respond to some of the people opposing
the path for compliance for my property located at 704E 900S. First, I really don't
know why some people that I have never met are showing so much antagonism
towards me(it feels personal and irrational),and would go even as far as lying with
conviction in a public hearing meeting.They first claimed that I still run short-term
rentals at this property.This is utterly false. I moved all my units to long-term
rentals. Please see attached all long-term leases.Actually, I have 4 nursing students
that signed a long-term lease for the 4 bedroom apartment which demonstrates
that I am providing quality affordable housing to the community.
https://www.slc.gov/planning/frequently-asked-
questions/#:—:text=Any%20use%20that%201eases%201 iving,zoning%20d istricts%20
around%20the%20city.The City does not currently have regulations or allowances
for land use known as"short-term rental."Currently,the City generally categorizes
short-term rentals,such as Airbnb or Vrbo,as hotel, motel,or bed and breakfast
uses because the lease period is less than 30 days.Any use that leases living space
for less than 30 days cannot be considered a residential dwelling. Hotel, motel,and
bed and breakfast uses are permitted in multiple zoning districts around the city.
Hotel, motel,and bed and breakfast uses are generally not permitted in residential
zoning districts.Though I am trying to get away from AirbBnB,the city allows it for
stays 30 days or more(see above). Unit#2 is rented for 30 days,unit#3 is rented
for 57 nights and unit#4 is rented for 81 so they all qualify as long-term rentals
according the city definition.As you can see, my smaller units are listed on zillow to
get even longer one year leases. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/704-E-900-S.
2-Salt-Lake-City-U T-84105/2059781760_z p i d/?view=p u b l i c
https://www.ziI low.com/homedeta i Is/704-E-900-S-3-Sa It-Lake-City-UT-
84105/2059934448_zpid/?view=pu bl is
Date/Time Opened Contact Name MEMMEW
2/16/2023 9:30 Ale Gicqueau 2/2 CONTINUEDI I In response to last Then they claim that"I am a rich out-of-state developer,and should be punished
week public hearing where I was for building illegal units".This could not be further from the truth. First,though it is
prevented from speaking due to really not relevant, I am not rich. I have nothing invested in the stock market,and I
technical issues have put all my hard earned savings towards the acquisition to a few houses,and I
have big mortgages on those.Secondly, I never built any illegal units.This was done
by the previous owner Barbara Brisco and I bought this property from her back in
2017. 1 have been working very hard over the last 2 years to legalize my units which
have been there for 20 years.While this building has never been used as a single
family home over the last 60 years, I am getting fines of$46,000 a year for things I
have absolutely no control over.This all thing has been so unfair and created so
much distress for me and family.Third, I live in Salt Lake City. I reside at my house
in the REDACTED.Again I am at loss to understand why people that don't know me
are circulating these lies.Other people are stating that no commercial building
should be allowed on this location. I have already accepted to sign a development
agreement limiting the use of this property to residential.Other people are saying
that SNB zoning would allow me to destroy this building.Again, I have already
accepted to sign a development agreement that would prevent the destruction of
the building.Actually,not changing the zoning would force me to destroy the 4
plex and build a single family home. I really don't want to do this as I am very
attached to this property which is the pride of the neighborhood and I have taken
very good care of it.Salt Lake City needs more quality affordable accommodation,
not less. Preventing the rezone will lead to the destruction of 3 additional units for
Salt Lake City in a prime location, right across Liberty Park. Please vote yes for this
rezoning on the Feb 21st SLC council meeting. It is a win for all parties involved.
Your support is greatly appreciated Sincerely,Ale Gicqueau
2/16/2023 12:24 Josie Fife ADU size restrictions ive been waiting for 8 months to start building my ADU.im currently living with my
brother at 1522 Lincoln street,84105. his house is on one of his two adjacant lots.
the lots extend to the alley in the middle of the block,so there will be offstreet
parking. id like to build a 750 square foot ADU.Thank you.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject —A MEMEEMW
2/16/2023 14:15 Reginald Cherenfant D1-Mobile Business Ordinance Reginald Cherenfant came by the office after visiting with the Business licensing
division about a starting a mobile massage business. He would like to start a mobile
massage business. He was informed that personal services are not permitted as a
mobile business by business licensing. He would like to see if there is appetite for
changing the ordinance. Reginald is an Army Veteran who is about to purchase a
home in Tooele but in the mean time would like to see what can be done. He
requested and was provided with a copy of the mobile business ordinance. His
address is on Morton Dr.
2/16/2023 16:21 Jeremy Hughes This is a real problem! Salt Lake City needs more quality affordable housing downtown not less. It makes
no sense to destroy a beautiful landmark building with 4 apartments to rebuild a
single family home The owner has moved all units to long-term rental and has
complied with all city requests so why is he getting fines of$46,000/year by the city
with no road to resolution?We demand justice for small property owners The
development agreement proposed by councilman Darin Mano that will require this
property to stay residential and protect this landmark property is the right
approach. I support the request to rezone the East Liberty Park property from a
single-and two-family residential zone(R-2)to Small Neighborhood Business(SNB)
This property has not been used as a single-family home for over 60 years. It has
operated as a cleaners business,a day-care center,and a beauty salon.The
remodeling by the previous owner into a 4 plex was done 20 years ago so why are
we making it so difficult for the current owner to bring his building back into
compliance?The fines he is getting($46,000)seem completely out of proportion as
he has done everything in his power to comply with city requirements.We need
this building back in compliance. It is a beautiful building that is well maintained.
Let's help this owner contribute to the neighborhood's prosperity rather than
making it impossible for him to operate his rental small business. I have attended
the planning meeting commission and the public hearing on this topic,and it seems
so unfair how people are viciously attacking this poor business owner by spreading
lies about him. For example,they are saying he still does short-term rentals while
all his leases are long-term.The people opposing him are offering no solution
whatsoever.None of their arguments make sense so I am wondering what
motivates them in blocking him to get into compliance.Jeremy D Hughes
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subj- -
2/16/2023 22:16 Anonymous Constituent Rezoning of 704 E 900 S in SLC Salt Lake City needs more quality affordable accommodation,not less. Preventing
the rezone of this unit to multifamily housing or Small Neighborhood Business will
lead to the destruction of 3 additional units for Salt Lake City in a prime location,
right across Liberty Park.The govenor and legislature have expressed a desire to
improve access to affordable housing in Utah.This needs to include more options
than just building more apartment buildings.This beautifully restored building
already functions well as multi-family housing and has for decades. It would be
contrary to the needs of the city and the state to reduce it to a single family
homeor even with the inclusion of a single accesory unit. It would also result in two
tenants being turned out of their home due to a biased law.
2/17/2023 0:34 Anonymous Constituent How to prevent the natural disaster of Have you ever considered building a PVC pipeline to pump salt water from the
the Great Salt Lake evaporating Pacific into the Great Salt Lake at a rate that will increase it's size back to where it
used to be in order to avoid the natural disaster of dust storms kicking up all sorts
of fungus and other potential allergens and perhaps diseases?If the federal
government can spend all that money on the largest computer data center in the
world to support their surveillence for the NSA,surely local,state and federal
governments and perhaps private or public companies could design and build this
solution.Why do people sit by and do nothing while a slow moving train wreck is
headed toward their local environment?I would think that environmentalists
would support replenishing the Great Salt Lake with salt water. I would.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name dkL-- Subject I MEMEEMW
2/17/2023 9:31 Trevor Oven ADU Ordinance update Hello Council Member Dugan,Thank you for supporting the changes to the ADU
ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission. Removing the Conditional
Use requirement will remove a large, unnecessary barrier for homeowners who
want to build an ADU. I understand that the Council is not particularly interested in
removing the owner-occupancy requirement altogether, but have you considered
creating a pathway for removing it after a year or so?In theory,this wouldn't be
very hard to administer. Homeowners could request to remove the owner
occupancy requirement after a set period of time by updating their rental dwelling
business license. Planning staff could easily look up the Civil Enforcement records
for the property to confirm that the owner has not received any substantiated
complaints from neighbors regarding short term rentals,noise,trash,etc. Planning
staff could then update the homeowner's business license to state that they have
met the criteria to remove the owner occupancy requirement.An alternative to
this would be to make non-owner-occupied ADUs a Conditional Use(preferably an
administrative Conditional Use)to add an additional layer of discretionary review.
This could ensure that ADUs are being built by homeowners rather than
corporations,and may be more palatable to for you and your constituents.Thank
you for your time,and for being a great representative for our City.Trevor
Ovenden
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
2/17/2023 14:14 Kate Bowman Support for ADU Text Amendment Hello, I am writing to express my support for the proposed changes to the city's
ADU ordinance. I live in Yalecrest,and I love the neighborhood for its friendly
community,greenery and proxity to parks,walkability,historic charm,and
accessibility to both downtown and the University. I am also saddened to see how
unaffordable it has become to live here,and I know that many people are priced
out of the neighborhood. My house was built in 1913 and has stood through 100
years of changes and progress,and it's important for the neighborhood to continue
to evolve to meet the needs of communities who live here. I am excited about the
potential for more ADUs in the neighborhood to offer more flexible housing
solutions and increase the diversity of folks who are able to live here,from multi-
generational families to students,staff,and faculty at the U who are looking to cut
down on their commute. I also support the provision that prohibits the use of
ADUs for short term rentals,in order to ensure that ADUs actually increase housing
available in communities rather than just driving up prices.Thank you for your
consideration of this important matter, Kate Bowman
2/17/2023 18:37 Garry Blake Changes to ADU Requirements PLEASE maintain the requirement that the owner live on a lot that contains an
ADU.We live near Westminster college,and we had a terrible experience a few
years ago.A California couple bought the home next to us for their daughter to live
in while she attended Westminster.Soon the house was packed with students,
including in a detached garage behind the house.The noise was incredible,and
students frequently urinated in the alley and onto our own garage.This went on
for the two years the daughter was in school.One evening,the police were called
to break up a loud, late-night party. Kids came out of that little house like clowns
out of a clown car.They insulted the police,threw beer bottles at the police as they
left,and they left garbage in our yard and neighboring properties. Many young
children lived on our block. Neither the parents nor the college took any interest in
mitigating this problem.That's one example of what we could expect if houses AND
ADUs could be rented out without an owner on site--especially near Westminster
College.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject MEMMEW
2/18/2023 9:31 Erika Wiggins Plan Support Hello, Both personally,and as Co-chair of the Sugar House Chamber, I support the
proposed OF plan. In specific, I support adding ample trees to our underserved
(previously redlined)neighborhoods. Doing so will not only benefit those residents,
but also will mitigate the negative impacts on public health caused by the lack of OF
in those areas. Erika Wiggins
2/19/2023 8:55 Anonymous Constituent 704e 900s Jason Stevenson (East Liberty Park Community Organization)'s letter summarized
the issue well.This building has to become compliant and the owner has shifted all
units to long-term rental so there is no reason to deny his request especially that
this building has really never been used a single family home. It feels to me that the
owner is discriminated against because he was not born in the USA.
2/19/2023 9:00 Anonymous Constituent Save historic house I have attended the planning meeting commission and the public hearing regarding
the landmark building across Liberty Park,and it seems so unfair how people are
viciously attacking this poor business owner by spreading lies about him. For
example,they are saying he still does short-term rentals while all his leases are
long-term.The people opposing him are offering no solution whatsoever. None of
their arguments make sense so I am wondering what motivates them in blocking
him to get into compliance.The whole thing seem fishy. Maybe some developer is
trying to run him out of business with the help of corrupt officials in the city's
office.
2/19/2023 9:38 Anonymous Constituent Need more housing not less in SLC!!! Salt Lake City needs more quality affordable housing downtown not less. It makes
no sense to destroy a beautiful landmark building with 4 apartments to rebuild a
single family home!!!Approve the compliance of this building. I also heard the city
is giving the owner insame amount of fines to drive out of business.Why???
Date/Time Opened Contact Name MCMMMF�`l MEMMEW
2/19/2023 9:40 Anonymous Constituent Approve rezoning to preserve historic The development agreement proposed by councilman Darin Mano that will require
building this property to stay residential and protect this landmark property is the right
approach. I support the request to rezone the East Liberty Park property from a
single-and two-family residential zone(R-2)to Small Neighborhood Business(SNB).
his property has not been used as a single-family home for over 60 years. It has
operated as a cleaners business,a day-care center,and a beauty salon.The
remodeling by the previous owner into a 4 plex was done 20 years ago so why are
we making it so difficult for the current owner to bring his building back into
compliance?The fines he is getting($46,000)seem completely out of proportion as
he has done everything in his power to comply with city requirements.
2/19/2023 9:44 Anonymous Constituent Need compliance We need this building back in compliance especially considering it has been a 4 plex
for over 20 years. It is a beautiful building that is well maintained. It is senseless to
destroy it to build a single family home instead. Let's help this owner contribute to
the neighborhood's prosperity rather than making it impossible for him to operate
his rental small business.The owner has moved all units to long-term rental and
has complied with all city requests so why is he getting fines of$46,000/year by the
city with no road to resolution?We demand justice for small property owners
2/19/2023 15:35 Anonymous Constituent 704 E 900 S SLC Property Hello,This is in regards to the property located at 704 East,900 S in Salt Lake City:
The owner has moved all units to long-term rental and has complied with all city
requests,so why is he getting fines of$46,000/year by the city with no road to
resolution?We demand justice for small property owners.We need this building
back in compliance. It is a beautiful building that is well maintained. Let's help this
owner contribute to the neighborhood's prosperity rather than making it
impossible for him to operate his small rental business. Please approve the
rezoning of this property.Thank you,Caroline
Date/Time Opened Contact Name MENEEkL___ Subject—A I mcz��
2/21/2023 9:12 Margaret Holloway Drought fee is just a money grab. Why don't you just call it what it is?More money for the less water usage.So it hits
the west side the hardest if you are looking to punish the east side.Then up their
charges.AFTER.The city fixes the leaking pipes under the city loosing 10 percent of
all processed water..the mayor said in today's article. It is to make up the cost of
what we are not paying.Then call it what it isl I?A hike in price. NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE LAKEII 1,Why do you guys have to keep lying about this?The meter is
processed water coming from the reservoir.Yet the west side already has brown
lawns.Do not say this is about the lake. It is not.Why are we keeping our golf
courses then???They use the water that GOES.To the lake.According to the city
own water district the amount of watering leaking underground and blowing up
water mains.Needs to be addressed aggressively.If the city cares and not making a
public statement.Oh look.At what we are doing.. but the trees are going to die.
The people will be paying more for their gardens..the east bench will still. Use the
water.So yes let's just be HONEST it is an additional tax on us who already
conserve and are trying to keep the trees alive grow some food.Who don't qualify
for the MINI GRANT.yeah I want to see where and how you are going to enforce
this?So why are the golf courses who use water that GOES STRAIGHT to the lake
being allowed to do so. But the rest of us are told pay up. Flip your strip.Just to
say.Oh look what we are doing.. it doesn't cost anything to stop watering it. How
much?So yes this new FEE is a new tax on us you don't have to ask permission
for.. I wish I had not voted for the park tax bond.You would have found a way to
fee is anyway..The trees are going to suffer and people trying to grow food.Why
do we have to apply to grow food?.Seriously.This is wrong for what you are selling
it as.Water for the lake. It is about the money pure and simple. More for the city.
Otherwise the airport wouldn't be flushing 100 gallons per flush . But is money for
the city isn't it. Not about the lake. Margaret So when is the next election ????
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- - -
2/21/2023 9:14 Caroline Henry 704 E 900 S SLC Property Hello,This is in regards to the property located at 704 East,900 S in Salt Lake City:
The owner has moved all units to long-term rental and has complied with all city
requests,so why is he getting fines of$46,000/year by the city with no road to
resolution?We demand justice for small property owners.We need this building
back in compliance. It is a beautiful building that is well maintained. Let's help this
owner contribute to the neighborhood's prosperity rather than making it
impossible for him to operate his small rental business. Please approve the
rezoning of this property.Thank you,Caroline H
Date/Time Opened Contact Name 0�=`�
2/21/2023 9:17 Turner Bitton 1/2 Support for ADU Policy Changes and Salt Lake City Council Members, It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of
Removing Owner Occupancy SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors in support of the proposed ADU policy changes.
Requirements We are also reiterating our desire to see owner occupancy requirements
eliminated for ADUs.ADUs are a critical part of establishing neighborhood scale
infill housing and affordable units as called for by most master plans in the city.
Code changes permitting increased construction of ADUs therefore number among
the many important policies that must be passed for Salt Lake City to meet its
urgent housing needs. I won't belabor the benefits of ADUs because I know that
the council recognizes them. I would, however, like to draw attention to the
potential that ADUs provide for healing our historically divided city.Salt Lake City
has a long history of deep divisions between East and West due to the pernicious
legacy of redlining and deliberate policy choices designed to keep highly desirable
neighborhoods out of reach for many residents in the city. Everyone should have
the opportunity to live in our city and the benefits of ADUs go far beyond housing.
They're an investment in the social capital of our city, in the strength of
neighborhoods,and they are a physical representation of our commitment to
inclusion and equity.Among other benefits,ADUs provide the opportunity for
seniors to age in place,for adults with disabilities to live with family,and for
students to pursue an education in stable,affordable housing.You have an
opportunity tomorrow to tip the scales away from historic division and toward
inclusive,equitable neighborhoods.ADUs alone will not undo the legacy of
decades of housing policy aimed at keeping certain users out of high opportunity
neighborhoods. However, removing barriers to their construction can tip the scales
away from powerful interests and toward a more equitable city.The purpose of
land use policy should be to regulate land use;not users.As the attached letter
elaborates, removing the owner occupancy requirement for ADUs(coupled with
the proposed policy changes)will add energy to the emerging market for ADUs.An
energized ADU market will lead to a more equitable, inclusive,and sustainable city.
Here's how:
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject -
2/21/2023 9:17 Turner Bitton 2/2 CONTINUED!! Support for ADU Policy 1) Removing the homeowner occupancy requirement will increase the production
Changes and Removing Owner of ADUs and build opportunity for residents in every neighborhood of our city.
Occupancy Requirements Thus creating access to the highest opportunity neighborhoods in the city.2)
Removing the homeowner occupancy requirement is a matter of equity and access.
ADUs have proven to be more affordable and accessible to communities that
historically have been excluded from high opportunity neighborhoods.3)
Removing the owner-occupancy requirement is not likely to result in more short-
term rentals and more investors buying properties. Each of the points above is
reinforced by the attached letter supporting the removal of owner occupancy
requirements.We encourage you to stand on the side of data and evidence, not
scare tactics designed to demonize an incremental, neighborhood scale housing
intervention that is proving successful in communities across the country.Thanks,
Turner Bitton (he/him)
Date/Time Opened Contact Name MCCEIrr MC:M:3MW
2/21/2023 9:18 Jen Colby 1/4 Please vote to deny a rezone from R-2 Dear Councilmember Valdomoros and Mano,fellow councilmembers,and staff,
to SNB at 704 E 900 South or simply Please vote to deny a rezone from R-2 to SNB at 704 E 900 South, listed as C1,
legalize as non-conforming Potential Action Items,on the February 21st meeting agenda.The unanimous
negative recommendation and record from the Planning Commission should have
been sufficient to convince you. If it has not, I submit the following additional
comments for your consideration. Unfortunately, in my opinion,the council staff
report failed to clearly convey the additional information provided by the public
and the owner or the discussion and rationale of the negative recommendation
from the October 12th Planning Commission meeting. Instead, it largely relied on
the planning staff report,which at best had a highly conditional and tepid
recommendation that many members of the public took issue with.All speakers at
the PC hearing opposed the rezone to SNB according to the posted meeting
minutes. Under code,yes,owners have the right to a city council review and vote
on a zoning amendment petition regardless of a negative PC recommendation. But
that in no way means they are entitled an outcome in their favor. I spoke at the
February 7 public hearing in opposition to the proposed zoning amendment and
remain steadfastly opposed to this action. If anything,the proposed development
agreement and motion sheet as written only make such a rezone worse.They do
not meet the stated goal of any council action and actually undermine it.The
cleanest action right now would be to simply vote to deny a rezone.Alternatively,
please move to defer action to a future meeting until the report and motion sheet
can be amended to a more effective set of actions if you feel compelled to find a
way to legalize the current unit count. I have drafted an alternative"adopt" motion
for your consideration that you will find at the end of this comment.The current
motion sheet right now does not actually meet the stated goal of the proposed
ordinance. It fails to specify'4 units'(or any number at all)and therefore could
potentially result in the loss of most or all housing units.This is an oversight that
could lead to unintended outcomes beyond those already anticipated from an SNB
zone.
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject -
2/21/2023 9:18 Jen Colby 2/4 CONTINUEDH Please vote to deny a The Planning Commission seemed particularly concerned about potential loss of
rezone from R-2 to SNB at 704 E 900 housing due to the weak Housing Loss Mitigation standards and use options under
South or simply legalize as non- SNB. I hope you are,too,given the Council's repeated and vocal commitment to
conforming meeting our city's housing needs.There is an excess of commercial property right
now due and any rezone from residential to commercial is not appropriate.
Development agreements are already a dubious policy strategy that should be
subject to substantive review and formal comment prior to any vote.Once again,
proposed terms have become public just days before your possible action,buried
in a staff report released just before a long weekend holiday.This is poor public
involvement and administration. Moreover, it is problematic for the Council once
again to simply re-state existing city code in a development agreement.Two of the
4 proposed conditions do this:that proper building permits will be obtained and
that rentals less than 30 days("short term rentals")are prohibited.This is a tacit
acknowledgement of the owner's lack of compliance with current code and the
city's apparent inability to meaningfully and consistently enforce the rule of law for
rental property owners. It is also an insult to any rental property owner who
actually follows current code banning short-term rentals and requiring licensing
and permitting.Of the two, I find the extensive track record of short term rentals
by the current owner at this property the most concerning.Will you really reward
this with a rezone?Affirmative proof of compliance and settlement of any citations
should be required prior to any council action.An amended motion could reject a
zoning amendment as the wrong tool to meet the goal. Instead of a spot rezoning
with a weak development agreement,the Council could simply grant a non-
conforming residential unit legalization for the 4 units that the owner says existed
at the time of his purchase. Unit legalization is per Chapter 21A.38.075,
https:Hcodel i bra ry.a mlega I.com/codes/sa Itla kecityut/latest/saltlakecity_ut/0-0-0-
80129. Unfortunately,instead of including a rolling date,such as"10 years prior to
application,"the code specifies a fixed date,April 12, 1995,
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject --' 0���
2/21/2023 9:18 Jen Colby 3/4 CONTINUEDI I Please vote to deny a that is now effectively impossible to meet.Given the Council's legislative authority,
rezone from R-2 to SNB at 704 E 900 you may simply override the now-illogical fixed prior existence date at this location.
South or simply legalize as non- [Also please take future action to amend this section of code to a rolling rather
conforming than fixed date.There are certainly more structures with excess units needing
legalization citywide.] Unit legalization in the existing residential zoning is a much
better solution for multiple reasons. 1. It complies with the existing Central
Community Master Plan 2. Non-conforming use legalization far better protects
historic structures than rezones,especially rezones from residential to commercial
categories.The extra units are tied to the structure, not the zone.a.The proposed
development agreement for a 50-year preservation clause does not specify"in
good repair and contributory condition"so a future owner could simply heavily
modify or even board up the building and wait out the timeline to demolition,or
even create such a nuisance this would be changed after public clamor.Sadly,this
is not uncommon. Rezoning+development agreement is the wrong preservation
tool.3.This preserves all units as housing,not conversion to some or all other
commercial uses as allowed by right in SNB.The Small Neighborhood Business zone
would allow other uses such as offices, medical clinics,retail sales and services,art
studios and galleries,group homes,and day cares.Any SNB rezone should specify
in the development agreement that housing is the only permitted use.4. It does
not grant an otherwise significant valuation increase that would result from a
rezone to commercial,therefore helping to stabilize the ongoing land and real
estate price inflation that is making housing un-affordable for the majority of
residents of Utah. In conclusion,the proposed motion sheet action for a zoning
amendment to SNB with a development agreement as written does not meet the
stated goal of the action, i.e.to create a way to legalize the existing 4 units,
including the 2 currently unpermitted excess units for housing. Further,it will put
the structure at risk in the long term and also allow for commercial uses with are
not compatible with neighboring properties or the current master plan.
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject -
2/21/2023 9:18 Jen Colby 4/4 CONTINUEDH Please vote to deny a Please either vote to deny the zoning amendment and retain the R-2 zoning,
rezone from R-2 to SNB at 704 E 900 potentially with a conditional unit legalization agreement rather than the one
South or simply legalize as non- currently drafted.As an alternative, here is my proposed alternative motion (much
conforming as I dislike development agreements)if you wish to take a compromise action
rather than simply a flat denial of the petition for a rezone: MOTION 1(adopt) I
move that the Council adopt an ordinance to legalize up to 4 dwelling units as non-
conforming legal uses in the existing R-2 zone with a requirement that the
petitioner enter a development agreement with the following conditions as
outlined in the ordinance:the owner shall: •Document the existence of the units
prior to the owner's acquisition •Obtain and complete all necessary permits for
construction work to meet current life-safety and other building codes•Comply
with the requirement that all dwelling unit rentals be 30 days or longer with
affirmative proof provided to city officials upon request• Retain the existing
structure in good repair and unboarded as housing for a minimum 50-year period.
An owner's violation of any of these terms may lead to revocation of the excess
unit legalization.Sincerely,Jen Colby, MPA,personal comments District 4 resident
2/21/2023 9:19 Byron Marchant Capitalism Do you support capitalism?This is Capitalism Taxation Policy:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation/Principles-of-taxation If you do, how
do you justify your trickle-down Liberty Park Tennis facility(which eliminates
Central City residents in benefiting from its existence and has done so since 1969)?
2/21/2023 9:21 Sonja Chesley Affordable Hosing Incentive/City Attention SLC Government Representatives:We are totally against the City
Zoning Ordinances changes in zoning codes in the Yalecrest Community area.We do not want
developers changing the heights,reducing parking requirements,and adding
additional living quaters on lots.We are against the demolition of intact,stable,
historic homes.Also,we are against changing the neighborhoods with 4-plexes and
other higher lot density housing.The City's serious consideration of these issues is
critical for honoring and respecting the citizens in the entire Yalecrest area.
Sincerely,Sonja E.Chesley and Errol P. EerNisse
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subj- -
EEW
2/21/2023 9:29 Cathy Cunningham Laird Heights LHD in process—ADUs, Hello Dan, My name is Cathy Cunningham.I have lived on Uintah Circle for many
AHI years. I am part of an organizing group for the Laird Heights LHD.The City has
announced that we successfully submitted our LHD application.We are in the City
process of obtaining(hopefully)a Local Historic District LHD designation. I am
aware that District 6 has several Local Historic Districts. I am writing to ask you to
support the Laird Heights LHD and the other LHDs while making decisions and
voting for/against stipulations regarding ADUs and AHI. Please represent us by
insisting that ADUs in LHDs follow the City's Historic District building guidelines.
Please represent us by protecting the in-process LHDs in the same manner the
designated LHDs are protected from demolishing single family homes to be
replaced with 4 plexus in the AHI overlay. I will plan on talking with you in person
during one or more of your Discussions with Dugan events.Thank you,Cathy
Cunningham
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject Description
2/21/2023 9:32 Lynn Pershing ADU Ordinance I noticed the following in the modified ADU Ordinance ADU Parking:1.The number of
parking stalls provided for the principal use shall not be reduced below the minimum
identified in Chapter 21A.44 of this Title in order to accommodate an ADU.One parking stall
is required for the ADU,except as indicated below:a.The property is in a zoning district with
no minimum off street parking requirement;b.The property already contains at least one
accessible stall above the minimum parking requirement for the principal use;c.The
property is within a 1/4 mile radius of a public transit stop;d.The property is within 1/2 mile
of a city-designated bicycle lane or path;or e.The City allows on-street parking along the
street frontage of the property and there is a minimum,uninterrupted curb length which
meets city requirements to accommodate at least one on-street parking stall.Regulation of
Decks,Patios,and Outdoor Space for Detached ADUs:Rooftop patios on a detached ADU are
prohibited.Yes!Patios are permitted.A patio may be covered with a roof provided the
square footage of the roof is no larger than 120 square feet and the covered patio complies
with the setbacks required of the ADU.A covered patio shall not count towards the
maximum square footage requirement of the ADU,but does count towards the total building
coverage of the lot.Roof over patio-how tall?Balconies on ADUs:a balcony is permitted on a
building containing an ADU provided the balcony does not extend into a required ADU
setback and extends no further than 5 feet from an exterior wall of the ADU.No This"asset"
on a tall ADU will nonetheless impact abutting property owners privacy,sight lines unless it is
oriented to face the principal bldg on the property and avoid facing side yards of rear yards.
No negotiation?Just prohibit Alley ADU An ADU located on an alley that exists on the
recorded plat maps or Atlas Plats of the city but has not been used for vehicular access or is
otherwise blocked by encroachments such as fences or vegetation are exempt from this
requirement.What about 3'utility access areas in rear yards and alleyways.Will these
impact ADU placement in properties??Utility/Telecommunication companies must have
access to utility lines Second story windows:doesn't stipulate that all electrical lines into
primary residence and ADU must be at least 6'from a second story window on All bldgs on
property Lynn
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject Description
2/21/2023 9:36 Ann Busico 1/3 Opinion on proposed 2023 ADU MR.DUGAN:We are Ann and Joe Busico.We live at REDACTED, previously Ann's
grandmother's home and have been here since 1985.Ann grew up on Herbert Ave.
...1752..and has lived in this neighborhood (most gratefully)for 66 years.We have
good neighbors all around us who take good care of their homes and take pride in
keeping their yards and property well maintained.We love this neighborhood for
the quiet,safe, happy family environment that it is and raised our family to
adulthood here.... First....We support a previous email that was sent to you by Jan
Hemming,stating many issues with the new ADU codes.Second,we are adding our
stern objections to ADU's going forward at all and especially with these new codes.
As follows: 1. It is no secret anywhere that more density of population-ie
cramming more and more people into a confined neighborhood-increases crime
exponentially.2.Our Mayor wants to spend tax payer dollars to increase and
develop'green space'in our city-normally a great idea for many reasons-so how
much sense does it make to allow neighborhoods to demolish trees and other flora
and fauna that beautifies our neighborhood to put up structures that impacts the
carbon imprint and deplete open areas,breathing room if you will.3.We were
implored over and over again by city government to decrease or even eliminate
watering our lawns with a reminder that we live in a desert state and that water is
a precious resource that is easily depleted.We have been in a draught for several
seasons and are at the mercy of our snow/water fall every year.We find it
hypocritical that the city has allowed over building when water is a big concern
especially for those of us who tried to comply. More people, more water required.
Examples: 2 summers ago the cities of Kamas and Oakley Utah put a moratoruim
on any more building, including those in progress,as their wise city leaders realized
that until they found new water sources,they could not support more population
going in to their cities.Another example:a decade or so ago,Tooele city allowed
uncontrolled building with little thought to the strain it would put on water
supplies. Many houses went empty and communities complained about no water
pressure in their homes-
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject -
2/21/2023 9:36 Ann Busico 2/3 COMPLETED!! Opinion on proposed residents who have lived all their lives out there.We experienced this for months
2023 ADU at a time in our business that we operated in Tooele that required water on a daily
basis to run our business.Our business struggled as a result.4.The regulations and
codes that have been in place up to this point in our quiet,safe family
neighborhoods are in place for a reason and have been working relatively well Why
does the city see the need to'fix'something that is not broken?.....except to say
that those codes seem to be selective.We are surrounded by garages on all 3 sides
of our backyard.All 3 are 17'plus in height.The previous neighbor behind us put in
an'illegal'(at the time)garage that exceeded current code with an ADU apartment
on top. How were these approved?We have been trying to replace a delapidated
1940's garage.We have turned in 2 different plans that comply with the strict code
and would not impede or detract from current style of our neighbors garages and
yet we cannot get a permit. But the city wants to allow building for ADU'S ON
DEMAND?Our house footprint is only 1000sf.An ADU would be like building
another house just like ours in our backyard essentially allowing for no open space.
We once had a great view of the east mountains from our back porch.We no
longer get that view.We need to build a garage.Once again the standards are
contradictory,inconsistent and hypocritical.5.We live in one of the highest tax
brackets-property tax-in the city and yet our streets are awful-patched,
potholes,deteriorating for years and yet we can't even get them replaced.The
street of 1600 east between Harrison Ave.and 1700 south was totally resurfaced
nice and new and that street was not even close to the damage that is on our
street of 1800 east and also Legrand (which feels like a cobble stone street to drive
on-without the charm!)All of our voices in our neighborhood have gone
unheard....ignored. But let's tear up our neighborhood to build ADU's on top of
each other....WHAT?6.ADU's are NOT the answer for"Affordable Housing"in the
name of"equity". I am not sure what that means.We have worked very hard for
what we have and where we live. Has there even been any talk of RENT CONTROL
for affordable housing?
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject MEMEEMW
2/21/2023 9:36 Ann Busico 3/3 COMPLETED!!Opinion on proposed My daughter has friends,educated working young people,who have had to move
2023 ADU several times as the rent in these high rises going up keeps going higher and they
can't afford to stay.There seems to be so many other solutions in the name of
affordable housing.This list could actually be a lot longer with concerns, but we will
stop here. It seems as though these ADU'S are a smokescreen that feels politically
motivated,gives advantage to developers or those with cash to run rampant,that
will ruin quiet family neighborhoods and therefore relationships and community
with neighbors.The hypocrisy at our federal government level seems to be running
rampant in our city as well! My brother and his family just moved here from a nice
neighborhood in California that started to implement some of these same policies.
It was ruining their part of the world so they moved back to Salt Lake(where they
both grew up).....only to find Salt Lake City becoming more of the worst of
California.And then Governor Cox referred to them in a quote as California
refugees.Wow! hypocrisy once again.We used to love Salt Lake City.....the
wonderful view of the majestic mountains as one drives into the city from the
freeway and now that view is being obliterated by high rises going up everywhere.
We are loosing the very structure and essence as to what made Salt Lake City
great! Please consider that we are good citizens and community members!There
are neighbors who feel the same way we do but may not express it as they also feel
it lands on deaf ears.We look forward to hearing from you Ann and Joe Busico
Date/Time Opened - -
2/21/2023 13:07 Margaret Holloway It made the Tribune today I am glad it did after the mayor's article yesterday.A drought fee?Thanks for the
insult,SLC leaders The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake City residents were asked to cut
back in 2021 to save the reservoir for 2022.We cut back 2.2 billion gallons just by
asking.Then again in 2022.We responded again. But for 2023 we are being told
that the mayor and City Council are going to enact an additional new drought fee.
The baseline being winter usage.So anything above that usage will have an
additional charge.The reason given:"because other cities do it."Which cities
mayor?The insult here is we are responsible citizens.We voluntarily cut back. Now
the gardens and trees we have will cost more, many already gave up their lawns.
The ones who abuse the water and can pay won't care. But the west siders who are
just trying to feed their families will be punished,We are told group gardens are
exempt. If you are chosen. How many trees am I allowed to save?But we are
already paying for the treatment plant, new parks bond and increased city budget.
And we face raised housing costs.The mayor is promoting the new investment in
trees and grow-your-ownfood programs. Does she mention, "By the way just don't
use the water"?The city loses 10%of all treated water to leaking underground
pipes. Flip the strip program is a waste of money since you can simply not water it.
Thank you,mayor and City Council for insulting the hard-working,underserved
people of the city again.This money goes where again?Margaret Holloway
Date/Time Opened Contact Name --dMMM1-- Subject MEMMEW
2/21/2023 16:40 Rich Wilcox Oppose Rezone/D4 I am a resident of SLC District Four,and I oppose the zoning change proposed for
this property. Please follow the negative recommendation from the Planning
Commission and vote to deny rezoning.The property should remain in a residential
zone to protect housing.The adjacent properties are all lower density residential
and R-2 is appropriate for this lot.900 South is a historic dividing line for land use.
The north corner commercial buildings are the wrong zoning model to follow. Key
city goals are to preserve, improve,and stabilize existing housing stock.A rezone to
a commercial use is contrary to this principle.The SNB Small Neighborhood
Business zone would allow other uses such as offices, medical clinics, retail,art
galleries,group homes,and day cares.The city needs the housing, not more space
for these other uses. If the property were used for these other commercial uses it
would also cause negative impacts to neighbors.The owner has also been using the
house for short term rentals as he admitted to the Planning Commission. He said
this was due to the 40%more income he got. Rentals less than 30 days are not
allowed in Salt Lake City.They reduce available housing for residents.They also
often negatively affect neighbors due to parking, noise,activity levels,and more.
An owner doing short term rentals should not be rewarded with a rezone.Why
would the owner follow a development agreement re-stating existing city code
against short term rentals when he has ignored the rules for years and made
excess profit?Rezoning to commercial would also increase the land value.This
gives owners a windfall and harms affordability.A rezone to commercial makes it
more likely the historic house would be torn down and replaced with a new
commercial building in the future. Please vote to deny a rezone.Thank you. Rich
Rich Wilcox
Date/Time Opened Contact Name d=- Description2/21/2023 16:50 Matthew Carmody SLC/Sugar House Park Electric Vehicle Greetings, My name is Matthew Carmody,a resident within the Sugarhouse
Charging neighborhood,and given today's announcement of federal government initiatives
regarding electric vehicle infrastructure, I believe it's important to point out
Sugarhouse Park may be a strategically important location for the city to build out
electric vehicle charging capabilities. Due to it's unique positioning along a major
highway,Sugarhouse Park would be a perfect destination for people within the city
(or those traveling along the 1-80 corridor)to charge their vehicle as they enjoy the
park's outdoor recreation,amenities,and accessibility to Sugarhouse's downtown
businesses.Although charging stalls could be built out within the park's existing
parking lots,the parcel of land at the SE corner of 13th E&21st S(former Sizzler)
offers a unique opportunity for: • Easy access to/from the interstate • Direct access
to the park•Access to downtown Sugarhouse through the developed Hidden
Hallow path •Access to multiple bus stops• Beautiful unobstructed views of the
mountain range for those who wish to remain by their cars It would be ideal if the
city could use funds to purchase this land from the private owner and incorporate
it into the park,given the buildout of such a project may be subsidized. If not
possible, perhaps the city could attempt to broker a deal between parties who may
be willing to use this land for such a purpose.Thank you for your time. Matthew
Carmody
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject MEMMEW
2/22/2023 9:23 Judi Short 1/2 704 S 900 East Rezone This is a request to rezone a home zoned R-2,to SNB—Small Neighborhood
Business. I object. I have spent a lot of time over the past few years with various
committees, reviewing all the Text Amendments the city has written regarding
housing.This is the city's attempt to do something about increasing the number of
available housing units in the city since we are some 50,000 units shy of what we
require as a community.Over time,we have seen great numbers of affordable
housing units torn down,several at a time,or many at a time, because someone
wants to rezone a parcel to use that would allow very expensive housing or
business use.The cumulative impact is causing lots of problems,such as the
number of homeless individuals.We have no empty affordable units in this city.
The Planning Commission voted on October 12,2022,to deny this rezone.
Everyone who spoke at the hearing was not in favor of the rezone.The written
comments in the PC Staff Report are against the rezone,with a few exceptions.This
is a great example of why we are losing affordable housing in Salt Lake faster than
we can build new,very expensive rental housing. Investors are interested in profit,
and the city will do anything to make them happy.Older buildings are being torn
down right and left.Commercial businesses are having a hard time staying afloat in
this economy. I think it is because we don't have enough people in the
neighborhoods with money to spend on "stuff",whether it be meals out,or
clothes,or beer, because they are spending so much of their income on housing,
whether rent or a mortgage.We don't need more businesses in this area,this
building doesn't need to b SNB.That benefits the property owner, but really does
nothing to benefit the residents of Salt Lake City.Supposedly,we have a housing
loss mitigation ordinance. Hal The Mayor's Housing Report in 2021 says the
Ordinance is being worked on.Yet, it is not on the City Council website as a project
they are working on,and I have never seen a draft. It is stuck in the ether
somewhere.So,there is no penalty for the applicant, if he sells the building or
tears it down.The applicant has been using this building as a Short-Term Rental.
Even after he was told these were not allowed in Salt Lake City,
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Subject -
2/22/2023 9:23 Judi Short 2/2 CONTINUED!! 704 S 900 East Rezone and fined for doing this after professing his innocence,he continues to this day. I
see it when I drive by.And,there is a For Sale in the yard,and if you google the
address, he is asking a hefty price.And if you look further down the list of what
Google gives you, he is trying to rent out apartment#3,a one-bedroom apartment
for$1500.This City Council staff report says that the city thinks the SNB zone is a
better fit for this corner.Are you aware that a Bed and Breakfast is an allowed use
in the SNB zone.You should not reward bad behavior,or talk out of both sides of
your mouth. Deny this request.You have taken forever to get some ordinances
written that might help solve this problem. He has the parcel for sale,it has been
for sale for months now. If he gets good money,he will walk all the way to the
bank.The new ordinances may change the math required to put four units into this
building.And if it takes long enough,a Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance might be
well on its way, requiring a$100,000 fee to remove a housing unit in Salt Lake City.
Just say no. I've seen the development agreement language.The language is good,
as long as the building retains four long-term rental apartments. But the agreement
doesn't quite say that.The apartments should be brought up to city code,and you
don't need to rezone to SNB at the same time.There is no desire to put retail on
the first floor,and to do that, limits the number of units that can be renovated in
the existing building.And there is no desire to try to put another building on the
property to provide space to bring the total to four units. Please vote no on this
rezone, it benefits no one except the landowner. It doesn't further the goals of Plan
Salt Lake.Judi Short
Date/Time Opened Contact Nam- Description
2/22/2023 9:53 Nigel Swaby Ordinance: Rezone at approximately Dear Council Chair Mano,I am writing to share my opinion on the rezone and removal of the
130 North 2100 West property at 130 North 2100 West from the airport overlay zone.First,I'm concerned about
the optics of removing a"safety"protection from a vulnerable class of people who will reside
in the 94 proposed deeply affordable units.I think the City should be considering removing or
modifying barriers like the airport overlay zone altogether.This country hasn't had a major
airline crash since 2009.Airports like La Guardia in Manhattan have 71 flights per hour over a
highly dense population without major incident.The airport overlay zone doesn't promote
safety,it prohibits residential development.It's very concerning the exception is for this
poorer population who have extremely limited choices.Secondly,the continued existence of
the airport overlay zone limits development choices in other areas.Right now you're
considering the Northpoint small area plan which suggests an upzone from agricultural to
business park or manufacturing/warehouse.The overlay is one of the artificial barriers which
prevents you from considering housing as an option.Remove the overlay zone or allow a
waiver to be instituted for those developers who will build housing.It makes no sense to
upzone from agricultural to manufacturing when the surrounding properties are residential
and the surrounding residents are opposed to manufacturing.Finally,I'd like to return to the
subject property at 130 N 2100 W.While I admire the work the operator of the property
does,I'm concerned how nearly 140 units of deeply affordable housing came into being with
zero community engagement.The former Airport Inn became a"temporary"homeless
shelter behind closed council doors with no public feedback.Then Switchpoint purchased it
to become permanent deeply affordable housing with residents of a similar demographic to
those who used it as a temporary shelter.The same thing is happening at this current subject
property.I'll restate that Switchpoint is a good operator,but what happens to neighborhoods
when a less savory operator uses these precedents to make their case?We're seeing what
that looks like right now at the former Ramada Inn on North Temple.In summary,I support
removing the airport overlay or creating a waiver system for all housing within its
boundaries.Thank you for your consideration.Nigel Swaby