HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments - PLNPCM2025-01205 (2)Good evening,
I submitted a detailed written objection, but I want to be very direct tonight about what this
proposal actually is.
This is not a land use plan—it’s a workaround.
The staff report explicitly states that the parcel at 2620 North is being used to create access to
otherwise constrained properties. That means this rezoning is being used to solve a private
access problem. The ordinance is clear: zoning amendments are not intended to
relieve hardships or confer special privilege. That is exactly what is happening here.
Second, this creates a classic example of “finger zoning”—a narrow strip of industrial zoning
pushed through agricultural land. That is not cohesive planning. It’s a corridor. And it sets a
precedent that zoning can be shaped around access problems instead of long-term planning
logic.
Third, the Northpoint plan calls this area “Transitional,” meaning it should reduce conflict
between industrial and residential or agricultural uses. This does the opposite. It pushes
industrial activity deeper into the area and introduces an access corridor that will carry that
impact directly through it.
Fourth, there are fundamental gaps in the analysis. The report acknowledges that existing
access is inadequate and that sewer capacity is lacking. Yet you’re being asked to support a
rezone that depends entirely on solving those problems later. That’s backwards. Those
constraints should be resolved before changing the zoning—not after.
And finally, the so-called community benefit doesn’t meet the ordinance. Even the report
admits it doesn’t fit the required categories. Landscaping and fencing are not community
benefits—they’re basic mitigation.
So when you strip this down, what’s left is a parcel-specific solution dressed up as a policy
decision.
If this is approved, you are setting a precedent that zoning can be used to bypass access
limitations and standard subdivision requirements.
I would strongly urge you not to set that precedent. Thank
you.
Chris Souther
801.577.8305
Chris Souther
4.22.2026
Opposition to Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2025-01205)
Properties: 2620 N 2200 W, 2075 W 2670 N, 2025 W 2670 N
To the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed zoning map amendment from AG-2
(Agricultural) to M-1A (Northpoint Light Industrial) for the above-referenced parcels.
While I recognize the importance of long-term planning in the Northpoint area, this specific
proposal does not meet the required findings for approval under the Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance and raises significant concerns regarding land use integrity, process, and
precedent.
1. The Proposal Functions as an Access Workaround, Not a Land Use Plan
The staff report explicitly states that the parcel at 2620 N 2200 W is intended to be
demolished to provide vehicular access to the rear parcels. It further notes that this parcel
was incorporated into the application specifically to provide an alternative means of
access.
This indicates that the primary driver of the rezone is not a cohesive land use objective, but
rather the resolution of a private access limitation.
The zoning ordinance is clear that amendments are not intended to relieve particular
hardships or confer special privileges. In this case, the proposal does both by enabling
access that would otherwise not be feasible under existing conditions.
2. Creation of a Linear Industrial Corridor (“Finger Zoning”)
This proposal does not represent a logical or contiguous expansion of the M-1A district.
Instead, it creates a narrow, linear corridor of industrial zoning extending from 2200 West to
the rear parcels.
This “finger zoning” pattern is widely recognized as poor planning practice. It introduces
industrial use deep into an agricultural area without creating a coherent district boundary,
undermining the integrity of both zoning districts.
3. Undermines the Purpose of the AG-2 District
The AG-2 zone is specifically intended to preserve agricultural uses and minimize conflicts
between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
By carving out a corridor through existing AG-2 land, this proposal fragments the district
and increases exposure of remaining agricultural properties to industrial impacts. Rather
than minimizing conflict, it introduces it.
4. Inconsistent with the Intent of the Northpoint “Transitional” Designation
The Northpoint Small Area Plan identifies this area as “Transitional,” intended to mitigate
impacts between industrial and residential/agricultural uses.
This proposal does not create a transition. Instead, it introduces industrial zoning in a
manner that increases direct conflict, particularly through the introduction of an access
corridor that will carry industrial traffic through the site.
5. Inadequate Analysis of Access and Transportation Impacts
The staff report acknowledges that the existing access via 2670 N is inadequate and that a
new access route must be created via 2620 N 2200 W.
However, no transportation analysis has been provided demonstrating that this parcel can
safely and effectively function as an industrial access corridor.
Approving a zoning change of this magnitude without verifying access feasibility is
premature and inconsistent with sound planning practice.
6. Infrastructure Limitations Remain Unresolved
The report identifies that the area currently lacks sufficient sewer capacity and that future
development will require infrastructure expansion.
Rezoning to significantly increase development potential prior to confirming infrastructure
adequacy is inconsistent with orderly development and may result in unforeseen public
costs or delays.
7. The Proposed “Community Benefit” Does Not Meet Code Requirements
The staff report acknowledges that the proposed community benefit does not fit within the
categories outlined in 21A.50.050.C.
The measures proposed—landscaping, fencing, and buffering—are mitigation
strategies, not true community benefits. These are features that would typically be
required or expected during development and should not be used to justify a zoning
amendment.
8. Loss of Existing Residential Use Without Replacement
The proposal includes demolition of an existing single-family home without
replacement housing. This occurs at a time when the City has emphasized the
importance of maintaining and expanding housing opportunities.
Removing housing while providing no residential benefit is inconsistent with broader City
priorities.
9. Precedent Concerns
Approval of this request would set a precedent for using zoning map amendments to create
access corridors for otherwise constrained parcels.
This could undermine subdivision standards and encourage similar piecemeal rezonings
that fragment zoning districts and weaken long-term planning objectives.
Conclusion
The staff report makes clear that this proposal is driven by access constraints rather
than a cohesive land use vision. It creates a fragmented zoning pattern, introduces
industrial use in a manner inconsistent with transitional planning goals, and relies on
unresolved
infrastructure and access assumptions.
For these reasons, the proposal does not meet the required findings for a zoning map
amendment and should be denied.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris
Souther