05/11/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
SPECIAL LIMITED FORMAL
MEETING
May 11, 2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s
Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Amy Fowler, Chair
District 7
James Rogers, Vice Chair
District 1
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Generated: 13:31:32
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Chair’s determination.
As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City
Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety
of those who may be present at the anchor location. Due to the local state of emergency
from the earthquake in March 2020 and attendant damage to the building, I find that
conducting a meeting at the anchor location under the current local emergency constitutes
a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they
feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
•Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an
email:
•24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes
and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All
agenda-related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the
Council Members and added to the public meeting record. View comments by visiting the
Council Virtual Meeting Comments page.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.
Council Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NONE.
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
NONE.
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1. TENTATIVE – Ordinance: Electronic Meetings
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would repeal Chapter 2.86
and amend Section 2.06.030.E of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to electronic
meetings of the City’s public bodies.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
NONE.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include
alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least
two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
1
7
8
1
8
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
Deputy Director
DATE:May 11, 2021
Item E1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
RE: Ordinance: Electronic Meetings
MOTION 1 –Approve –
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance repealing Chapter 2.86 and amending Section 2.06.030.E of the
Salt Lake City Code, relating to electronic meetings of the City’s public bodies.
OR
MOTION 2 – DECLINE TO
I move that the Council not adopt the motion.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
1
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2
No. ______ of 2021 3
4
(Electronic Meetings) 5
6
An ordinance repealing Chapter 2.86 and amending Section 2.06.030.E of the Salt Lake 7
City Code, relating to electronic meetings of the City’s public bodies. 8
WHEREAS, the State Legislature amended the Open and Public Meetings Act (the 9
“OPMA”) during the 2021 General Session which granted additional flexibility in how public 10
bodies host their meetings and engage with the public, which law became effective on May 5, 11
2021. 12
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Section 13
2.06.030.E and repeal Chapter 2.86 of the Salt Lake City Code, to further promote flexibility in 14
hosting public meetings of City public bodies and to ensure consistency with the OPMA. 15
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 16
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.86 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to electronic meetings is 17
hereby repealed. 18
SECTION 2. Section 2.06.030.E of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to electronic 19
meetings of the City Council, is amended as follows: 20
E. Electronic Meetings: For purposes of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, the The 21
Council may hold an electronic meeting in accordance with the Open and Public Meetings Act. if 22
only if a majority of a quorum of the Council is physically present at the physical location from 23
which the electronic meeting originates or from which the Council members are connected to the 24
electronic meeting. However, if a proclamation of local, State or national emergency is in effect, 25
a majority of a quorum of the Council need not be physically present at the physical location 26
from which the electronic meeting originates or from which the Council members are connected 27
to the electronic meeting in order for an electronic meeting to be held. 28
29
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in 30
accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713.31
2
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________, 32
2021. 33
____________________________ 34
CHAIRPERSON 35
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 36
37
___________________________ 38
CITY RECORDER 39
40
Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 41
42
Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 43
44
45
____________________________ 46
MAYOR 47
48
49
50
___________________________ 51
CITY RECORDER 52
53
54
(SEAL) 55
56
57
Bill No. ______ of 2021. 58
Published: _____________________. 59
60
61
62
63
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: _______________________
Paul Nielson
Date: __________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 7, 2021
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Hello,I am writing to urge the city council to drastically reduce funding to the police and redirect this
funding into resources which actually address the root cause of most crime:poverty.We want
resources without barriers for our most impoverished community members.We do not support
organizations like the other side academy which places serious barriers to access and severely exploits
labor for profit.I urge the council to please read the report and demands recently published by
Decarcerate Utah here:https://www.decarcerateutah.org/2021/05/03/defund-slcpd-demands-details-
resources.html I fully support the following demands,and urge the council to be bold and make the
meaningful changes that our community is demanding of you:I Reduce the number of police and
administrative personnel in the SLCPD by 50%,from 711 full-time employees(FTEs)to 356.0 Reduce
the police department budget by 50%,from$79 million to$39.5 million.0 Take steps to eliminate the
funding from the non-departmental budget and other departments reserved for policing operations.I
Invest the funds diverted from the police department into supportive community programs.Thank you,
5/5/2021 10:27 Liz DeFriez Liz DeFriez Police Funding
I am not happy to hear that funds allocated for road repair were given to the police department.I
know that we need the police to be there for our community but that is not want the money was for.
This time can we fix our city roads?The potholes on 11th east going through Highland drive are awful
and have been there for about two to three years.That is only an example,roads in the Sugar House
area have been forgotten and property taxes go up every year.Please get out and see what is going on
5/5/2021 10:30 Harriet May before spending money on something that sounds cool.Harriet May Sugar House Resident Police Funding
This caller did not leave her name,but would like the Council to know that she is very upset with the
5/5/2021 10:41 Anonymous Constituent purposed utility rate increase.She would also like to see City Hall opened. FY21 Budget
How can we learn more about your plans for development and affordable housing in District 5?Will
plans include a mix of affordable and market price housing to create mixed income neighbors and
protect property value?How are you attracting smaller independent businesses to make State Street
more appealing to locals and create a more walkable neighborhood feel?Instead of only large
corporations like Starbucks and the planned Inn—N-Out Burger.Thank you,Danielle Granahan and
5/5/2021 10:52 Danielle Granahan Chris Morin Affordable Housing
Helen is upset with the conditions of the roads and park strips.She would like to see something done
5/6/2021 9:46 John Doe about that.She is not proud of our City. FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 1
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
To my Councilman Chris;I have read in today's Tribune about the proposed Tiny House Community.
Not that I oppose the concept but I have concerns:The size—400 to 500 houses with probably more
residents is big in fact huge.I think too big for a monolithic development of any demographic,
anywhere.In this case I am particularly afraid that it will become like the failed"Projects"in larger
cities.It will not be a conventional subdivision but a place only for"those people"and a way of
segregating and isolating them from resources and the rest of us.I think the Tiny Home idea and the
managing organization is very good.Hopefully funding can be helped with cuuren Federal Rescue Plan
funds.The project should be dispersed throughout Our City.Small clusters the size of a walk-up
apartment development in and around all neighborhoods within the City.I know this will engender
NIMBY opposition but not so much if the burden is shared by all.To this end Tiny Homes for people in
distress should be encouraged for any resident with the space and interest in helping.This would
require zoning and code adaptations.There are many areas of the city that can accommodate more
5/6/2021 13:20 Chuck Richardson density.Let's not build a future ghetto.Chuck Richardson Homelessness
City Council,I am writing you because of a huge problem in our city that is not being addressed.The
homeless and drug problems are out of control and the police aren't willing to do anything about it.
We have the commercial property at the above address.I was mugged at the property last month.I
called the police when I was witnessing drug transactions,but the dispatch said a police officer would
have to get back to me.I never heard back from the police.We installed a camera system two days ago
and I have witnessed at least 30 drug transactions and people using drugs on our property.I have hired
a security service at great expense.Dealers and users return after the patrol service leaves.Below is
one of many photos from this morning.Drug use is out and in the open.Would it help to give these
photos to the news media?What else can we do?Are the police too overwhelmed?We can't keep our
property clean,and we will be losing tenants if something isn't done.Our property is also used as a
5/6/2021 13:58 Jared Smart public restroom.I have numerous photos of individuals defecating and urinating in the back. Homelessness
5/6/2021 16:00 Anonymous Constituent If there is to be a budget for anything it show go to the unemployed,homeless and children. FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 2
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
Dear City Council Members,My name is Lucy Le Bohec and I'm a Salt Lake City resident contacting you
today because we have reached a year since the Salt Lake City Police Department budget was
restructured.I want to take this opportunity to voice my concerns once again.The changes to the
SLCPD budget last year were simply not enough.In fact,the changes were mostly symbolic;the$2.5
million allotted to social workers was moved off the police department's ledger and$2.8 million were
just placed into a holding account,not taken out of the budget.However,I do appreciate that body
cameras were provided to every officer and that the Commission on Racial Equity and Policing was
created.Still,these measures do not provide the safety that Salt Lake City residents and community
members have been calling for and deserve.If significantly reducing the SLCPD budget and
redistributing those funds into a wider variety of public resources(such as mental health services,
negotiation/de-escalation resources,etc)is not something you are willing to do,then you must address
police brutality some other way.While I am still advocating for defunding the police as I've outlined
above,I also urge you to at least demilitarize SLCPD.Having a police force that does not carry or have
access to lethal weapons is of utmost importance in showing the public,particularly Black and brown
people who are most affected by police brutality,that you value the lives of your constituents and that
they are not at significant risk of dying when interacting with the police.Lethal weapons should be
reserved for SWAT teams only,as they are specifically trained for situations in which lethal force is
5/7/2021 11:51 Lucy Le Bohec appropriate or necessary*Continued 1/2* FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 3
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
*Continued 2/2*Police officers do not need such weaponry when carrying out day to day duties such
as traffic stops,accident management,and domestic issues.The absolute majority of what police
officers should be doing,according the motto"serve and protect"is de-escalation and facilitation or
negotiation;officers should be a positive addition to the community,not a constant threat,especially
when most of their day to day activity does not require force of any kind.Ideally,there should be other
public services that address the specific needs of the community as they arise,which would lessen the
overwhelming array of responsibilities police currently carry out,as I've mentioned above.But,again,if
this is not something you are willing to do,you must at least decrease the amount of damage police are
able to do to your fellow community members'lives.It is reasonable to ask that the city not sanction
violence and death against its constituency.Please consider my and many others'request for a safer
city,especially in light of the of the many brutal police shootings that have occured in the last year all
Lucy Le Bohec over the country.Thank you for your time and consideration,Lucy Le Bohec
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 4
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Dear Councilmembers,I am a resident of Salt Lake City,living at 130 S and 800 E.I am writing to
express my concerns about the city's proposed budget for the coming fiscal year.I notice an increase in
over$4 million for the police department compared to the 2020-21 fiscal year.I call on the city council
to fight this increase and to defund the Salt Lake City Police Department.We do not need more
militarized cops on our streets.We do need more community services to address homelessness,mental
health,addiction,poverty,and racial inequity.The city's historic response to homelessness has been
especially atrocious.Ruthlessly breaking up homeless camps and arresting residents who protested
such activities is an unpardonable response to our city's homelessness crisis.Defunding and
demilitarizing the police would allow for more humane,equitable,and effective solutions to this and
other problems our city faces.The proposed budget provides funds for the establishment of a Police
Officer Mental Health responder.However,while it recommends increasing the number of mental
health officers to 6,it does not allocate funds to do so.Such moves suggest that the proposed budget is
making small gestures towards addressing our policing crisis while being unwilling to radically
reimagine how we think of public safety.This is a pivotal moment in history,and we must capitalize on
its energy.We must defund police departments and not simply make small tweaks to an inherently
flawed system.This is the only path towards a just and equitable society.I implore the Salt Lake City
5/7/2021 15:14 Alyssa Quinn Council to take these concerns into account in their upcoming budget review.Sincerely,Alyssa Quinn FY21 Budget
Good morning,I would like to bring to the council's attention the condition of the road between 500
and 700 South at approximately 48th West.This section of road is nearly unusable.The railroad tracks
go over this section at a diagonal.The 500 South section has been nicely done with concrete,and the
700 South section was recently done,also very nicely.There is just the connecting road that is awful.It
is narrow and full of potholes.Please drive down this section and see for yourself.I would like you to
consider this road when deciding on budget items.The area seems to attract abandoned motorhomes
and other vehicles,and redoing the road may help alleviate this problem if curbs are put in place,along
5/7/2021 15:19 Joni Williams with proper signage.Thank you for your time.Joni Williams FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 5
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
As far as I could discern,there were no increases in salary or pay for personnel other than those who
helped with the pandemic and relief.Keep it that way,please.YES PAY INCREASE for police and
firefighters who have given so much to the frontline during the pandemic and beyond.NO PAY
INCREASE for salaried staff,council members or council staff,mayor or mayor's staff.It would be a
great disservice to the people of the city of Salt Lake who have given so much during the pandemic.It
would let the people of SLC know you appreciate them.There is no clear plan for"growing"SLC.It
seems the council lets the developers build however and wherever they want--all planning and
maintaining neighborhood integrity is lost.Most council members have been on the council during this
lack of planning time.Please STOP and help preserve our city with thoughtful planning not what you
5/7/2021 15:20 Diane Florez are allowing to go on now.Thank You.Diane Florez FY21 Budget
The budget mostly looks decent but there are a couple areas where I worry that we're spending money
on frivolous things when we have urgent unment needs in core city functions(housing and
transportation).1.There's an incredible proliferation of community outreach and HR people.Are they
really needed?I'm sure you know them and they're nice people who you want to have jobs,but at the
end of the day the council needs to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars.I love the idea of community
outreach but in practice my interactions with community outreach people have been about as
productive as my interactions with call center people whose entire job is to mollify angry customers,
not to actually know what they're talking about.In general I worry that we're seeing a lot of
administrative bloat in the city and I would urge you to ask whether each and every one of those
positions are truly necessary.Do we really need to keep the census coordinator around now that the
census has finished?Yes,I'm aware that you changed the title of the position.2.Diversity and Inclusion
stuff.I'm not saying it isn't important but we already have a state division of multicultural affairs.Does
every single office at the City really need to be working to advance this goal?It's a huge amount of
redundant effort and personnel.Is funding for racial equity in the arts really an urgent crisis facing the
city?Surely one diversity czar for the city government ought to be enough?3.Homeless services.The
budget looks like it's basically the status quo there.The status quo is not working;I've had to tell
friends moving to SLC that they should not expect to take public transit because it isn't safe to walk
from trax to their workplaces due to homeless camps(specifically the one under the 1-215 bridge over
5/7/2021 18:49 Anonymous Constituent North Temple).*Continued 1/2* FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 6
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
*Continued 2/2*Build a tiny house village,purchase apartments for them,involuntarily commit the
people who can't take care of themselves,start a workhouse out by Saltair and give them free food and
shelter in exchange for canning peaches,send death squads after the drug dealers.I don't know,you're
the ones whose job it is to study these issues.But do SOMETHING!The status quo is,chiefly,downright
inhuman and,secondly,will in the long run drive those people who can leave out of downtown and
into the suburbs.4.Transit.We're not where we need to be on transit and you know it.Judging by this
budget the city has plenty of money so let's see some trax lines in Glendale or the warehouses west of
the airport(where people work)or up by the zoo.Maybe build us a real train station instead of the
intermodal hub.I can think of all sorts of things to fund here.Bike lanes,EV charging,you name it.
Reroute through traffic on 1-80 along SR-201 to unclog 1-15.Lots of options here if money is burning a
Anonymous Constituent hole in the City's pocket.
Darin:I think additional funds should be directed to recreation activities,if the budget allows.In
particular,Salt Lake City could use another pickleball complex.The facilities at the Avenues and
Fairmont Park are both well used,often crowded;both seem to have been a wise investment.We all
want our residents to engage in healthy outdoor exercise.However,as interest in this sport continues
to grow(and there's no expectation this will change anytime soon),we need to keep up with current
and future needs.Another six court complex somewhere in the city would certainly help.I did try to get
the Sugarhouse Park authorities interested,but they were tied up with the continuing Rose Garden
situation.Perhaps there is space available elsewhere:for example,Liberty Park,which is centrally
located;and on the east side,Congress Park,Sunnyside Park,or even an expansion of the pickleball
complex at Fairmont Park.I'm not familiar enough with west side sites to offer any specific ideas.I'd be
5/10/2021 9:30 Gil PODOLSKY happy to discuss this issue with you further,if you wish.Thank you,Gil Podolsky FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 7
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Dear Mayor Mendenhall,Mr.Echeverria and City Councilman Wharton,Subject--Change from R-3
Zoning to FB-UN 1 We are residents of the Upper Avenues area and are absolutely opposed to this
Ivory request for rezoning.Nothing about the proposed zoning changes includes any benefit
whatsoever to the established residents of this area,only great assistance to maximizing developer
profitability.The specific reasons why rezoning is not a good or fair proposal are abundant.We think
the fact that so many of the current residents voted against this proposal should be reason enough to
deny approval if any action resembling democratic process is applied.We respectfully request that you
do not approve this proposed rezoning in the name of precedence,good governance,democratic
5/10/2021 12:59 Janet Mancinis process and simple fairness.Vincent P.and Janet E.Mancini Ivory Homes Rezone Request
To:Mayor Erin Mendenhall,Council Member Chris Wharton,Senior Planner Daniel Echeverria Re:
Objection to Ivory Homes Petition to Rezone 675 North F Street Ivory Homes is proposing a bold zoning
change to its parcel at 675 F Street in the Avenues.While admirably trying to embrace some of the
city's new innovative housing initiatives,approval of the proposed FB-UN1 zoning in this location is not
in the best interest of current adjacent homeowners in this predominantly residential neighborhood in
terms of preserving character.While I understand and applaud the city for encouraging innovative
solutions to its housing crisis,I also know that it does not intend to throw away its commitment to
preserving the very character of this beautiful city which is attracting so many new residents.To keep
this crisis in perspective,I would like to remind you that while Salt Lake City remains less affordable
than a place like Boise,ID,it is far more affordable than a place like Boulder,CO and most of the east
coast cities.This is a national issue and not a problem that can be solved with a single solution of
flooding the market with any and all kinds of new housing.It's also a reflection on education,jobs,
wages,and many more social and market factors not unique to Salt Lake City.The solution must be
multidimensional.The proposed FB-UN1 zoning would not maintain the architectural and
environmental protections that the FR zoning currently does,given its proximity to the sensitive foothill
5/10/2021 13:01 Beth Chardack area nearby.*Continued 1/4* Ivory Homes Rezone Request
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 8
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Nor would it supply the kind of results that the relatively new FB-UN1 zoning intends.FB-UN1 is a
more urban zoning designation,such as we see in the Central 9th Neighborhood,a close to downtown,
mixed use,walkable neighborhood with good public transportation and services.FB-UN1 is a perfect
zoning designation for parcels adjacent to the Trax line or downtown,but not appropriate for a parcel a
block away from protected open space with very limited services and transportation nearby,which 675
F Street is.The parcel at 675 F Street currently has a"Foothills"zoning designation(FR-3/12000),which
is intended to allow a maximum of eleven houses on the lot,and"to promote environmentally
sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not less than twelve thousand square feet."The
proposed Form Based Urban Neighborhood zoning designation does not by definition preserve the
residential character of this foothill neighborhood and is completely incompatible with the original
logic and intent of the current master plan and zoning ordinance.The jump from requiring 12,000
square foot lots per house to potentially 1,500 square foot lots is significant,and would have a sizable
negative impact on the adjacent properties in the neighborhood.The Salt Lake City Comprehensive
Housing Policy aims to"respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts."The
residents of the neighborhood surrounding 675 F Street almost unanimously oppose the proposed
zoning amendment specifically because the increased density is higher than any other existing
development in the neighborhood,and would not"respect the character and charm of the
neighborhood."Residents,however,encourage the development of the parcel at the current allowable
Beth Chardack zoning,also not opposing the eleven ADUs allowed.*Continued 2/4*
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 9
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
According to the"Building an ADU"Handbook,written by the Salt Lake City Planning Department,"An
ADU is allowed on any property in a residential zoning district that includes a single-family home,
townhome,or rowhouse,that is located on it's own individual lot."(p.4)My interpretation of the code
is that there must already be an existing home on the lot before the ADU can be applied for and built,
thus the term'accessory'.The Handbook also says that,"If the property is in an FR or R-1 zoning
district,then conditional use approval is required."(p.4)Since the property at 675 F Street is located in
an FR zone,without the change in zoning,Ivory Homes would need to have conditional use approval
for each proposed ADU connected with each individual house they build on this parcel,which would
normally be done by each homeowner after Ivory builds and sells the original homes,and not as new
original construction.With the proposed change in zoning,Ivory would theoretically be able by right to
build an ADU for each home,allowing a much greater density in development given the additional
density allowed by FB-UN1 plus the added allowable ADUs that go alongside that increased density,
taking the current zoning of eleven homes allowed to 35 units allowed.This,as Ivory declares in its
introductory statement in this zoning change application,is'charting new territory'.I don't know of
any other project where ADUs are allowed to be built as new development,without an existing home
already on the property.It is an easy way for developers to increase and potentially double or more
allowed density(and thus profit).I caution the City on setting this precedent,as other developers may
argue building ADUs by right with new development should be allowable on any open parcel.
Beth Chardack *Continued 3/4*
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 10
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
*Continued 4/4*This kind of thinking will most definitely alter the existing character of residential
neighborhoods,starting with the neighborhood adjacent to 675 F Street.At the starting price of
$800,000,no one can pretend to call these homes affordable(including Professor Nelson).If the
housing goals of the city are to be met,the developers need to engage in real and innovative
partnerships that produce the kind of housing Salt Lake needs.As it stands,the main result from this
proposed zoning change is that Ivory Homes is setting itself up to make a substantial profit,without
producing enough of what Salt Lake is looking for in its housing projects in terms of affordable homes
close to transportation and services.And they would be doing so at the expense of the integrity of
character of this long established Avenues neighborhood.It's important for Salt Lake to maintain the
charm and beauty of the city as it builds housing for more people.It's a complex project,and I applaud
Ivory for taking a stab at it,but I don't believe its contributions to the housing solution with the
granting of this potential zoning change are substantial enough to offset the impacts to this
neighborhood in question.We need to maintain a balance between preserving property rights and
values of current homeowners,and developing housing solutions that really work for the people that
need them,without just allowing the developer to make off with a tidy profit.Unlike Professor Nelson's
background that seems to be more pro-development and market-driven,I come from a background
which is more environmentally protective,aware of potential impacts of new projects to existing uses,
preservation of what is in place that makes our cities desirable by honoring long-standing documents
that protect the integrity of the makeup of our cities(such as master plans and zoning ordinances),but
also from a socially conscious background where public hearings and public input matter.When a city
says it wants to take down barriers that slow down the cumbersome red tape that goes with building
new housing,I see developers jumping to attention to take advantage of relaxed regulations.I see
them looking to maximize profit,largely by pushing the limits and increasing density.Unless the city
Beth Chardack requires these developers to'give back'in return for these relaxed regulations.
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 11
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
Daniel Echeverria Senior Planner,Salt Lake City Planning I am voicing my opposition to changing the
zoning of the referenced property.I live across the street from the property and have some serious
concerns about the traffic on Capitol Park Avenue if the proposed development is approved.First of all,
the proposed development does not fit the character of the established neighborhood.Secondly,
Capitol Park Avenue is a private street that is not adequate to accommodate the increased traffic if the
zoning is changed,especially when residents travel west down Capitol Park Avenue toward Penny
Parade Drive.The street is narrow and has blind spots that can be dangerous driving around the bend,
especially when cars are parked on the street.The number of homes the developer proposes will
5/10/2021 13:03 Boyd Baugh exacerbate the problem.Please keep the existing zoning in place.Boyd Baugh Ivory Homes Rezone Request
Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission,My name is Melanie Rogers and my address is 743 Sunrise
Ave.I have been a resident of the Avenues for 20 years.I am writing today to share my thoughts about
the Capitol Park Cottages proposed development by Ivory Development.The developer seems to have
envisioned a project that sensibly fits with the current development in this neighborhood.I love living
in the Avenues because of the broad mix of housing.Literally,an apartment can be next door to a
multimillion-dollar home.I feel like this proposal builds on this unique aspect of our neighborhood.The
current Utah housing market has me extremely concerned about the ability for families to be able to
afford a home.This doesn't require a complex solution,we just need more housing.As the Capital City
and one of the state's oldest neighborhoods,we have to part of the solution and welcome more
housing developments.The Avenues is home to probably hundreds of rental units or even just rooms.I
appreciate that the proposal from Ivory Homes seeks to plan for this type of activity from the beginning
to not just accommodate different family needs,but also ensure that there is adequate parking and
green space for these new residents.I urge the Planning Commission to support this project and other
projects that help create housing inventory and affordability in Salt Lake City.Thank you,Melanie
5/10/2021 13:04 Melanie Rogers Rogers Ivory Homes Rezone Request
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 12
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
To All Who Are Looking at Changing the Zoning for 675 F Street,I can write a simple statement of
objection,however,when the Greater Avenues Community Council takes a vote on an issue coming
before Planning,they have been asked to list the concerns and agreement that the residents have
shared and not just the vote tally.So,simple statements of concern are bolded while my reasons are in
the paragraph.Read what you what and need to know.I could refute with my own experience most of
the claims,that Ivory makes but I won't take your time and only fill one sheet of paper.I am opposed
to the RE-Zone.My husband and I are landlords.He was born and raised on-Street
and I joined him on the Avenues when we married in 1966.In1969 we bought his mother's duplex and
we have owned rental properties on the Avenues ever since.Right now we own a 6-plex at
Avenue.We are certified"Good Landlords."We've watch the many changes.We experienced the
illegal"red lining"in 1971 when we tried to buy our first home.We discovered you could get a loan for
a tear-down to build multi-family dwelling,but it was very difficult to get a loan to buy or remodel a
property in which you planned to live.By the mid-1970s things began to change and loans became
available to repair and remodel as well as build above 11th Avenue.I was so glad to see that the City
was finally able to stop destroying our heritage of homes built in the late 1800s and early 1900s.We
found a spec home and moved to in January 1977.The Avenues has become a very
popular place to live.We know that people would like to and need to live here.Rentals changed over
the years.It sometimes took 2 weeks to get an apartment rented but now people come to us to ask if
we have a vacancy.We are well aware that housing market is tight.The Avenues is a convenient place
to live and has so may perks.The Avenues is only a walkable community from 4th Avenue and below.I
have been part of the planning committee for the Annual Avenues Street Fair since 1996.The format
was to place the stage on a relatively flat corner in the lower Avenues so that people could easily walk
the four-block spokes.It could not go above 3rd Avenue because the northern spoke would be too
steep for many people to comfortably walk and the venders who were assigned to that spoke would
complain that people ignored them.In 2000 we tried a linear plan which put a stage at either end of 5
5/10/2021 13:14 Jill Van Langeveld east-west blocks.*Continued 1/3* Ivory Homes Rezone Request
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 13
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
The plan worked wonderfully so now we can move the Fair anywhere between South Temple and 11th
Avenue although we are still restricted by the width of the streets which are not all the same band
available electricity.The east-west Streets are relatively flat,but we still have to watch because some
streets'grade gets steeper as you go east.What I'm trying to say here is that as you start getting above
4th Avenue,you will find that the Avenues get less and less walkable and you need a car.Lots of people
walk,but the majority will walk the horizontal streets.You get people who like to walk/hike the
Bonneville Shoreline Trail,but most drive to the trailheads and then begin their walk.Talk to the
neighbors and you will find that there are cars parked all over the streets close to the trailheads.On the
weekends 18th Avenue has cars parked on both sides of the street for blocks as well as in the church
parking lot.It's not so fun or easy to hike up a steep paved street even if you are in top condition.Bus
Service is not convenient for those of us who live above 11th Avenue.My stop is Avenue at I
Street--5 Avenue blocks from my house.On weekdays we can catch it to go downtown approximately
once an hour starting at 7:45 am but coming home we'd need to find the#11 bus going to the
University Hospital by 7:00pn if we don't want to walk.There is no service on Saturday or Sunday.
There is no way we can take a bus downtown for dinner and a show—lunch is possible.It is difficult to
ride a bus to connect with TRAX to the airport.Once downtown taking TRAX to the airport is very
convenient but I've needed to drive my husband to a TRX stop from our home to use the service.Our
tenants in our 6th Avenue 6-plex can easily use both the 6th Ave and the 11 Ave bus routes.The buses
come twice as often at the corner of 6th Avenue and B Streets but,still not after 7pm or on weekends.
Ivory has said that they need the rezone to be able to build a community of homes with attached ADUs
Jill Van Langeveld which will increase Salt Lake City's housing stock.*Continued 2/3*
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 14
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
*Continued 3/3*They do not need a re-zone to build homes with attached ADUs because ADU's are
already approved to build in the existing zone.Granted they could only build 11 homes and 11 ADUs
rather than 20 homes with 15 ADUs so they won't make as much money as they would like to make.
However,they will still come out in the black.They are businessmen with contingency plans.I really
don't think a neighborhood should need to make concessions in air quality to a multi-million-dollar
business to help them make more money.I am asthmatic and I like to breathe.33 to 44 more cars
could be added to Avenues streets with full development in the existing zone or 55 to 70 more cars
could be added with the rezone.My lungs and my children's lungs say please reject the rezone
application.Public transit in the upper Avenues is not good enough to keep most of those cars off the
streets running errands and polluting our air.Please find an area close to suitable public transportation
for housing plans such as this.I know that eliminating 26 potential cars from our streets won't make a
big difference in our air quality,but every little bit each of us does will help our air be cleaner and help
Jill Van Langeveld us to breathe better.Please plan accordingly!Jill Van Langeveld
See the attached letter.Opposition to Ivory Homes Amended&Supplemented Rezoning Application
for 675 North F Street Petition Number:PLNPCM2020-00334/00335
https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/05/29/fr-3-to-fb-unl-zoning-and-master-plan-amendment/I
strongly oppose any rezoning of the property purchased by Ivory Homes.Thank you for your support in
5/10/2021 13:15 M I Larriva this matter.M L Larriva*See Corresponding Attachment* Ivory Homes Rezone Request
Dear Mr.Echeverria,Please find attached a letter from the Preserve our Avenues Zoning Coalition with
regard to ivory's revised application to apply for SR-1 zoning.Best regards,Peter Wright*See
5/10/2021 13:22 Peter Wright Corresponding Attachments* Ivory Homes Rezone Request
Chris-I probably should have cc'd you on this.Here's the letter we sent to Planning on the rezone
application.It'll be included in the packet that goes to the Planning Commission.Dave*See
5/10/2021 13:22 David Alderman Corresponding Attachment* Ivory Homes Rezone Request
Can you include some"weed and feed"in the budget?Right now it looks like the dandelion is the state
5/10/2021 16:37 Lois Williams flower!!(Not a very good statement to the tourists who visit the City and County Building) FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 15
Public Comments 05.05.2021-05.11.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Good Afternoon,I am Cecilia Anthony and I received a notification from SLC public Utilities that they
are requesting an increase in services:18%Sewage 10%Water 8%disposal While I understand certain
increases are necessary to keep up with costs,I am not in favor of such a dramatic increase when it
comes to sewer and water.Most people do not see their own cost of living income increase beyond 3%
annually.And after a pandemic year when so many families and communities are struggling to make
ends meet how are we supposed to manage a 36%total increase in utilities?It's beyond
comprehension.I would ask the Council to diligently reconsider the proposal and approve something
5/10/2021 17:14 Cecilia Anthony more in keeping with the income of the people.Sincerely,Cecilia Anthony FY21 Budget
Constituent is concerned about the condition of the tennis courts on Sugarmont Drive and 9th East and
would like to see them repaired.In addition,constituent also does not support defunding of police and
5/10/2021 17:27 Anonymous Constituent would also like to see more local manufacturers in Salt Lake County. 'Police Funding
Hi,I received a postcard in the mail regarding the city council's meetings to approve the mayor's
budget.Below are my comments.On a near weekly basis,I have witnessed the police harassing and
displacing our unhoused neighbors in Salt Lake City.It's disgusting.Not only is this terrorism inhumane,
it's also highly ineffective.The last raid I saw was on 2000 West and North Temple on Thursday,May 6
around 10am.Multiple police cars were disbursing a camp in a mostly non-residential area and pushing
the victims east towards downtown.Why?So that when you kick them out of wherever they settle
next it is a more public display of the city's bravado?It's heart breaking and absolutely enraging at the
same time.I have also seen tents being destroyed by a bulldozer with DOZENS of unmasked cops
nearby.If cops are really interested in protecting our community,the first thing they could do is cover
their faces,not destroy what little means of survival others may have.What a pathetic sign of the
times.The city's handling of the housing crisis makes me embarrassed to live here.Anyone implicit in
this cruelty should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.Mayor Mendenhall has lost my vote.My
opinion on the budget is to defund this money that the police spend harassing and terrorizing our own
community members and put it towards actual services that will help and prevent homelessness.Thank
5/11/2021 11:16 Katie Lawson you for your time,Katie Glendale,SLC FY21 Budget
12:09 PM 5/11/2021 Page 16
GREATER The Greater Avenues Community
A EIBRIMEle Council
PO Box 1679
COMMUNITY COU NCI L Salt Lake City, UT 84110
www.slc-avenues.org
Daniel Echeverria
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Dear Mr. Echeverria
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning application for 675 N. F Street.
The Greater Avenues Community Council is opposed to the rezoning. We had presentations from the
applicant and from a group opposing the proposal at our March meeting, and per our bylaws, held a
vote at the April meeting.The vote was 1244 opposed to 25 in favor.
Between our March and April meetings,the rezone proposal was changed from FB-UN1 to SR-1. We did
not change our voting process for several reasons. Primarily,we took our lead from the City Planning
Division,which did not restart the public comment period or otherwise change their process or timing.
Also, the basic layout did not change. Although the latest zoning proposal was not officially voted on,
the results from this vote and the one last year(688-4) indicate that the community supports retaining
the current zoning(FR3).
We allowed vote by email due to the 500 person maximum on our Zoom account.To confirm eligibility,
each voter had to provide their name and address in the email.
As expected with so many voters, many different issues were raised. However, the most common
concerns raised by those opposed include:
Density: Either zone being considered would allow twice the number of units as the current zoning.The
current zoning allows 11 homes to be built(with ADUs, if desired). The latest proposal would add 20
homes, plus 15 ADUs, although the zoning regulations would allow more.This density is much greater
than most areas of the Upper Avenues.
Traffic: Doubling the density would also double the traffic.The effect would be concentrated because
the latest design has only one entrance into the development,from Capitol Park Avenue, an already
undersized private road. Concerns were also raised about large vehicle access, especially fire trucks,
garbage trucks, and snow plows.
AirBnBs:There is concern the ADUs will be used as short term rentals, which would increase the traffic
problems and do nothing to help the city's housing stock. Technically,this use is prohibited in SR-1,
although it would be allowed in the FB-UN1 zoning. However, enforcement of this regulation is already a
problem in the Avenues.
There is also considerable resistance to the idea that$800,000 houses would contribute to solving Salt
Lake City's affordable housing problems.
GREATER
A cipmmon
COMMUNITY COU N C I L
Per the Salt Lake City Zoning webpage: "The purpose of the Foothills Residential district is to promote
environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development, suitable for foothills locations as
indicated in the applicable community master plan."The FR-3 zoning is already the smallest lot size of
the Foothills Residential zones. The residents of the Greater Avenues Community Council support
retaining the existing zoning.
Dtt td'1f. Aldev'vnc i
David H. Alderman
Chair, Greater Avenues Community Council
Attachment 1
Ivory Plot and Adjacent Block
".""211S41146.' 111.tisi
1111
Ihr
«1Ai
0
Ile 11111
13TH AVE
Ivory plot Adjacent block
Analysis of the Density of the Block East of the Ivory Property Zoned SR-1A
In requesting for SR-1 zoning, Ivory will try to argue that their development is no denser and no
different than much of the upper Avenues zoned SR-1A.
This simply is not true!
Below is an analysis of the lot sizes and density of the block across F Street from the Ivory
property. This adjacent block is bounded by N F Street, E 13th Avenue and N G Street. The
analysis below is based on data from the Salt Lake County Assessor interactive map that
provides acreage for each plot.
There are 12 plots, one plot has been combined with a single house (473 & 475 E 13th Avenue)
and one has two condos (678 N F Street). So, there are 12 plots and 12 dwellings.
The details are as follows:
688 N F Street 0.41 acres
701 N G Street 0.20 acres
685 N G Street 0.77 acres
678 N F Street 0.26 acres
668 N F Street 0.41 acres
671 N G Street 0.14 acres
669 N G Street 0.12 acres
461 E 13th Ave 0.31 acres
473 E 13th Ave 0.11 acres
475E 13th Ave 0.11 acres
655 N G Street 0.11 acres
483 E 13th Ave 0.22 acres
TOTAL 3.17 acres
• The FR-3 standard is 12,000 sq ft per lot minimum or 3.63 dwellings per acre.
• The adjacent block has 12 dwellings on 3.17 acres, a density of 3.79 dwellings per acre,
almost equal to FR-3.
• Ivory desires to build 35 dwellings including ADUs on 3.21 acres, which is a density of
10.94 dwellings per acre - almost 3X the opposite block and FR-3 density
• If you discount Ivory's ADU's to a 0.5 unit of density they have 20 Primary dwellings and
15 ADU's - 27.5 units, giving a density of 8.57 dwellings per acre, still 2.3X the adjacent
block and FR-3 density.
• SR-1 prescribes a min lot size for single-family homes of 5000 sq ft, this equates to
approx. 0.11 acres. Although three of the lots on the adjacent block are at this minimum
the majority of lots are much larger. Two of the smaller 0.11 acre lots 473 & 475 E 13th
Avenue have been combined to produce a single lot, so only 1 lot out of 12 lots is at the
minimum lot size of the ordinance.
• By comparison, 75% of Ivory's lots (15 out of 20 lots) are at, or close to, the minimum lot
size.
April 19, 2021
To: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Copy to:
Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall
City Council Member Chris Wharton
RE: Ivory Homes Application to Rezone 675 North F Street
Dear Mr. Echeverria,
Following Ivory Homes' request to apply for SR-1 zoning instead of FB-UN1, we
have spent some time analyzing the SR-1/1A ordinance and how the Ivory Homes
proposal fits both with this ordinance and with existing construction in the upper
Avenues SR-1A zoned blocks. We ask that you please take these considerations into
account in determining your recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
SR-1 is a zone that is not currently used in the Avenues; SR-1 blocks in the
Avenues were changed to SR-1A in 2006 in a unanimous City Council vote. Ivory
Homes would be tightly concentrating fifteen 5000 square foot lots to create their
"enclave lots" for their proposed Capitol Park Cottages. This concentration of minimal
size lots is very uncharacteristic of the block patterned neighborhood of the upper
Avenues and very different from the surrounding FR-3 zoned housing. And then, Ivory
would add an ADU on each of those fifteen lots. This level of density is not compatible
with the nearby neighborhood and we maintain that the rezone should be denied by the
City. In this letter we develop these arguments in more depth and provide a summary
at the end to clarify our concerns.
SR-1 versus SR-1A
As you are well aware, the bulk of the Avenues below the FR-3 zone is zoned
SR-1A, not SR-1. Although these zones both contain a 5000 sq ft minimum lot size, SR-
S allows considerably taller buildings, 28 foot roofs compared with 23 feet and wall
heights of 20 feet versus 16 feet for pitched roof buildings, such as those proposed by
Ivory. These are sizable differences and residents are concerned about the impact of
these taller buildings, particularly the close neighbors who will be most affected.
In addition, bunching so many tall structures in very close proximity to each other
causes a bulk effect that is not at all compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Northpoint residents are also concerned that such tall buildings, with what currently
appears to be a minimal 4-6 foot setback from their property line, will block views and
sunlight and impinge on privacy.
By way of background, prior to 2006 the current SR-1A zone in the Avenues in
common with much of the City was zoned SR-1. After a very detailed review conducted
by the Planning Division, assisted by the GACC, which involved extensive mapping of
existing structures throughout the Avenues, the City adopted SR-1A as the most
appropriate designation for the block pattern section of the Avenues. In large part this
change was made to prevent new buildings adversely impacting older established
homes by overwhelming them. Individually, Ivory's cottages may not be overwhelming,
but the close grouping of them on a sidehill will be so. It is also our understanding that
few SR-1 zones exist throughout the City.
We see no logic for granting SR-1 zoning and request that the Planning Division
recommend against this zoning.
Almost all of Ivory's cottage lots will be close to the minimum 5000 square foot lot
requirement
Examination of Ivory's concept plan shows that most of their cottage lots will be at, or
very close to, the minimum size allowed in the ordinance. For a number of these lots it
appears that the minimum lot size requirement will likely only be met by utilizing space
from the enclave's internal street. While permitted for private streets, this approach is
most definitely not the norm for the Avenues and further adds to the density of this
development.
The majority of Ivory's 15 enclave lots are at the minimum permitted size and they
then add an ADU to every one of them.
Density of the SR-1 blocks in the upper Avenues and the adjacent block across F
Street
The Avenues SR-1A zone is not uniform in density from top to bottom. In
general, the density decreases as you move north from the flatter sections to steeper
inclines, until the grade makes building in such a pattern impractical, at which point
zoning changes to the less dense FR-3 zoning. While blocks do exist in the lower
section of the Avenues where all, or almost all, of the lots are at minimum, this does not
exist in the upper sections of the Avenues above 11th Avenue. The minimum lot size of
5000 square feet is not typical of lot sizes in the upper Avenues.
To illustrate this we conducted an analysis of the lot sizes and density of the
block immediately across F Street from Ivory's property, which is zoned SR-1A. This is
the block bounded by North F Street, East 13th Avenue and North G Street. This
analysis was done using the Salt Lake County Assessor Interactive Map which gives
acreage for individual plots and has an excellent measurement tool.
Attachment 1 shows a visual of this block together with a detailed analysis of lots
sizes and density. Examination of this block reveals:
1) there is a very wide range of lot sizes,
2) only 1 lot from 12 is at the minimum lot size of 5000 square feet,
3) although zoned SR-1A, the density of this block is almost identical to the FR-3 level,
and
4) Ivory's density including ADUs is 3X either the FR-3 standard or that of the adjacent
block.
This block is slightly less dense but not atypical of all the blocks in the northern SR-1A
section of the Avenues above 11th Avenue.
Only one out of twelve of the lots in the adjacent lot is at minimum lot size and
the density of this block approximates FR-3 zoning.
Inspection of all of the blocks north of 11th Avenue
Using the Salt Lake County Assessor Interactive Map, we reviewed all of the
blocks north of 11th Avenue which might be considered the boundary of the upper and
middle Avenues. There are no blocks in this entire section that approximate Ivory's
development in terms of all the plots being at the minimum lot size or in terms of density
when the ADUs are included.
Ivory's development, if approved, will be the most dense property in the upper
Avenues
The surrounding properties all meet FR-3 density with the exception of The Meridien
and its Annex
In earlier notes and with your help, we have established that Northpoint to the
north of Ivory's property meets FR-3 density, that Capitol Park to the west and south
meets FR-3 density requirements, and, as just explained, that the adjacent block across
F Street, although zoned SR-1A, approximates FR-3 density. The only exception in the
immediate area is The Meridien and its Annex, which were granted a special exception
to preserve a neoclassical building listed on The National Register of Historic Places.
After being empty for sixteen years these buildings had become derelict and the
conversion to condominiums in 2006 was welcomed by the neighborhood. Also the
Meridian, being a five-story building with underground parking, has a lower footprint on
the land which allows for much larger setbacks and extensive landscaping and allows it
to blend into the surrounding FR-3 zoned neighborhood.
The surrounding properties predominantly meet FR-3 standards. Ivory's overly
dense development is not compatible with either the FR-3 zoned or SR-1A zoned
neighborhoods of the Avenues.
Roads and City owned property impact density
Most roads in the Avenues are 30+ feet in width compared to Ivory's 26-foot wide
proposed road and have approximately 10 feet of City owned land between the
individual lot boundaries and the outside edge of the road, plus a 20 foot setback to the
homes from the lot line. Thus, spacing between front facades on either side of a road is
approximately 90 feet in existing blocks. With a 26-foot wide road and a 20 foot setback,
Ivory's homes are approximately 66 feet apart across their road, considerably less than
the norm for blocks in the Avenues. This will not show in a calculation of density
confined to the number of plots and plot size within a block but has a considerable
impact on overall density and street appearance.
Not only are lot sizes smaller, Ivory's homes are closer together than the
established development in the upper Avenues.
Not in Accordance with the SR1/1A Purpose Statement
Utilizing the minimum lot size for almost all of the units in a multi-unit
development, particularly in the upper section of the Avenues, would seem to be
contrary to the language of the Purpose Statement, "Uses are intended to be
compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood." or "..to
preserve the existing character of the neighborhood."
All the more so when Ivory then seeks to add an ADU to 15 of 20 units, still further
increasing density.
Ivory's proposed development does not meet the SR-1/1A Purpose Statement.
Community opposition
The level of community opposition to Ivory's proposed development has been
remarkable:
• In July 2020 over 2100 Avenues residents signed a petition opposing a rezone.
• From Ivory's first filing in May 2020 to today, over 200 letters have been written
to the Planning Division in opposition to this rezone.
• Attendance at the GACC meetings on this rezone has been at sell-out levels,
requiring an increase in Zoom attendee limits.
• At the August 2020 GACC meeting, considering the application for FB-UN1
zoning and the first concept plan with 25 primary dwellings and 20 ADUs, the
vote was 688 against rezoning and 4 in favor.
• At the April 2021 GACC meeting considering the application for SR-1 zoning and
the second concept plan with 20 primary dwellings and 15 ADUs, the vote was a
staggering 1244 against rezoning and 25 in favor.
As can be seen from the above, the level of opposition has not been weakened by
either the revised concept plan or the change in zone being requested. In fact, it has
strengthened as the community has gained a better understanding of Ivory's proposal.
This level of sustained opposition is not an expression of NIMBY'ism, but a reaction to
the unreasonable increase in density being proposed by Ivory with disregard to the
character of the neighborhood.
We would respectfully suggest that densification cannot be successfully achieved
in the long haul by brute force and that to be successful change must be at a level that
is accepted by the community.
Avenues residents are well aware of the City's housing shortage and are
prepared to accept a reasonable increase in density. Ivory's request for a rezone to
almost double the number of lots on top of utilizing the ADU ordinance to add 15 ADUs
is a step too far.
The Avenues community has expressed unprecedented disapproval of Ivory's
application for a rezone.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
The City fought a long and controversial seven-year battle with the populace on
ADUs culminating in the 2018 ADU ordinance. Ivory proposes the concept of an ADU
village proclaiming this to be, "the first of its kind in Utah". Many well informed residents
express consternation at this construct, believing that ADUs are intended to be an
addition to existing homes by individual homeowners where the increase in density is
dispersed and can be absorbed over a large area with minimal impact.The ADU
Ordinance specifically allows creation of ADUs as original construction but is silent on
the subject of large groupings of ADUs, a practice which would dramatically add to
density. If it is the City's goal to create dense islands of ADUs as Ivory proposes, they
have not communicated this to the public.
We would suggest that to link a radical and unpopular rezone to the first such
ADU village would not be wise and may serve to further damage the public's perception
of ADUs.
Our coalition has consistently maintained that we are not opposed to
development of this property or to the addition of ADUs in accordance with the
ADU ordinance -- we are, however, firmly opposed to a rezone.
Summary
Ivory's proposed development does not conform to the standard of SR-1/1A residential
development established over decades in the Avenues.
• SR-1 as opposed to SR-1A zoning does not exist in the Avenues and the request
for this zoning designation should be denied
• Ivory's proposal does not meet the Purpose Statement of SR-1/1A
• Ivory's proposed development utilizing the minimum lot size for almost all lots is
not consistent with the established neighborhood in the upper Avenues, AND
they then seek to add an ADU to 75%,15 from 20, of these lots
• All of the surrounding properties, with the exception of the Meridien and its
Annex, even the adjacent block zoned SR-1A, meet the density requirement of
FR-3.
• Based on topography, pattern of building, proximity to open land and surrounding
property density, this plot should remain zoned as FR-3, as decided by the
professional planners who earlier chose this designation for the entire section
that was redeveloped with the closure of the Primary Children's Hospital complex
when it was moved to the University campus.
• For the ADU village Ivory is seeking to build, the 2018 ADU Ordinance effectively
gave Ivory an up-zone by allowing an ADU on each lot. It is unreasonable to
seek a second up-zone to further increase the number of lots from 11 to 20.
• Ivory may build 11 single family homes and 11 ADUs on this property under
current zoning. They may have their "proof of concept" for an ADU village without
a rezone. If this does not work for them financially or if they elect not to do so,
that is their choice.
Ivory has offered no compelling argument for a rezone of this property. A rezone is not
intended as a subsidy for a developer, but to bring substantial benefit to the community.
The addition of a few more million-dollar homes and 4 ADUs does nothing to provide
affordable housing and is not sufficient benefit in increased housing options to grant a
rezone against the wishes of the community.
Thank-you for your consideration.
On behalf of the Preserve Our Avenues Zoning Coalition.
Peter Wright
Alan Hayes
Jan McKinnon
Maria Mastakas
Jim Bach
March 18, 2021
To:
Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, Planning Division
Chris Wharton, District 3 Council Member and City Council Chair
Opposition to Ivory Homes Amended & Supplemented Rezoning Application for 675 North F Street
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00334/00335
https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/05/29/fr-3-to-fb-unl-zoning-and-master-plan-amendment/
I have lived at Drive for 20 years.
My home is from the 675 North F Street Rezoning application.
I very adamantly oppose the rezoning of 675 N. F Street property from FR-3/12,000 to FB-UN1
or any other zone other than the existing zoning.
I recommend Ivory Homes develop their"new-build, in-fill, planned community that incorporates
Accessory Dwelling Units" under the current foothills zoning goals.
Any zoning change will result in an overly dense and possibly a high elevation development.
No zoning change is needed to develop The existing zoning adequately allows for ADUs while also
limiting over-dense construction.
This amended plan contains misrepresentations, for example transportation:
-Automobiles will be for each unit. Bus transportation cited on Appendix F, pages 26-27, is only
available Monday-Friday, during the day to early evening. Evenings,weekend and holiday
transportation is not available by bus.
-RM-35 zoning for Meridian a special consideration to restore an historic building and so is not
comparable to this new development
-Northpoint Estates is FR... density
The traffic evaluation is suspect as it was funded by the developer and as well was conducted during the
COVID pandemic so vastly underestimates traffic and is possibly'directed' by the payor, ie Ivory Homes.
This amended concept does not represent a substantial difference in creating a development consistent
with the existing foothills neighborhood density; nor does it commit to a specific build density.
As a resident and very concerned citizen, I urge you to oppose the Ivory Homes rezoning proposal for
675 North F Street. It is deleterious to my home and community.
I look forward to your continued support in this matter.
M Lisa Larriva, directly adjacent resident
Salt Lake City, UT 84103