Loading...
05/11/2021 - Formal Meeting - City Council Comment File 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