The URL can be used to link to this page

Transmittal - 7/22/2021ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925 Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory – Sugar House Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments 850 & 870 E. 2100 South STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner (385)226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the master plan & zoning map as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from “Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale” and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). April 15, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (May 5, 2021 16:34 MDT) 05/05/2021 05/05/2021 The Planning Commission found that there are no specific policies in the Sugar House Master Plan (2005) that support the proposed future land use map amendment nor are there any specific policies that would prohibit the proposed amendment. The basis for the request for the zoning map amendment is based on additional building height (15’) that cold be realized should the amendment be approved. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on December 16, 2020. In addition, the Sugar House Community Council was also provided notification. ● Sugar House Community Council – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council meeting on January 6, 2021. Planning Staff was in attendance. A letter from the Sugar House Community Council is attached in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 24, 2021 (Exhibit 3b). The SHCC is in favor of the proposed amendments. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On February 24, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation regarding the proposal on to the City Council for decision. The staff report and minutes of the February 24, 2021 Planning Commission are found in Exhibit 3b & 3c respectively. EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION a) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK – February 12, 2021 b) NEWSPAPER NOTICE – February 12, 2021 c) STAFF REPORT – February 24, 2021 d) AGENDA & MINUTES – February 24, 2021 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST 6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 (Amending the zoning of the properties located at approximately 850 and 870 East 2100 South Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) and amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the properties located at 850 and 870 East 2100 South Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00906 and amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00925. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 24, 2021 on an application submitted by Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC to rezone the properties located at 850 and 870 East 2100 South Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-20-129-023 and 16-20-129-009) (the “Properties”) from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00906, and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those parcels from Mixed Use - Low Intensity to Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00925; and WHEREAS, at its February 24, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Sugar House Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Mixed Use - Low Intensity to Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2021. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 201x. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending zoning and MP 850 and 870 E 2100 S APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney April 14, 2021 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description for the Properties to be Rezoned and Subject to the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment: Address: 850 E. 2100 South Tax ID No. 16-20-129-023 0610 BEG S 0^21'12" W 203.50 FT FR THE NE COR OF LOT 10, BLK 44, 10 AC PLAT A, BIG FIELD SUR; S 0^21'12" W 67.10 FT; N 89^50'35" W 727.89 FT; N 0^20'03" E 115.16 FT; E 139.31 FT; N 145.* Contains 130,244 sq feet or 2.99 acres more or less. Address: 870 E. 2100 South Tax ID No. 16-20-129-009 0505 COM 9 RD W & 10 FT S FR NE COR LOT 10 BLK 44 10 AC PLAT A BIG FIELD SUR W 4.59 RD S 142 FT E 4.59 RD N 142 FT TO BEG 6090-1450 6754-1107 8361-2124,2118 Contains 10,890 sq feet or .25 acres more or less. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK – February 12, 2021 B) NEWSPAPER NOTICE – February 12, 2021 C) STAFF REPORT – February 24, 2021 D) AGENDA & MINUTES – February 24, 2021 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST 6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory – Sugar House Community Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925 November 12, 2020 Petitions received by the City. December 10, 2020 Petitions assigned to and received by Lex Traughber. December 10, 2020 The Sugar House Community Council was emailed notification of the proposal. December 16, 2020 Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject property boundaries. January 6, 2021 The applicant formally presented the proposal to the Sugar House Community Council at their regularly scheduled monthly meeting. February 10, 2021 Property posted with signs for the February 24, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. February 12, 2021 Notice of the Planning Commission’s May 22, 2019 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites February 12, 2021 Newspaper notice appears in the newspaper. February 24, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation regarding the requests on to the City Council for a decision. March 1, 2021 Sent a draft ordinance to the City Attorney’s Office for review reflecting the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the master plan & zoning map amendments. Requested review of the draft ordinance. Received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. March 12, 2021 Transmittal submitted to CAN. 2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925– Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory – Sugar House Community Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments – Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use - Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale" and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The intent of the request is to change the zoning of the property to allow more flexibility to develop future multi -family residential, office or mixed-use development. This project requires both a Master Plan and a Zoning Map amendment. The subject property is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com). As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at (385) 226-9056 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com The City & County Building is an accessible facility. 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. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Original Notice & Postmark February 12, 2021 3. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Newspaper Notice February 12, 2021 Order Number: Referral Code: From:Rankins, Marlene To:Traughber, Lex Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Order modified confirmation. Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:33:05 AM Hey Lex, This is the type of confirmation they provide us with now for your file. Thank you, MARLENE RANKINS Administrative Secretary Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-6171 Email marlene.rankins@slcgov.com www.OurNeighborhoods.CAN.com www.slc.gov/planning/ www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/ Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: legals@deseretnews.com <legals@deseretnews.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:24 AM To: Rankins, Marlene <Marlene.Rankins@slcgov.com> Cc: ltapusoa@utahmediagroup.com Subject: (EXTERNAL) Order modified confirmation. THANK YOU for your business. This is your confirmation that your order has been changed. Below are the details of your transaction. Please save this confirmation for your records. Job Details DN0010647 Classification: Other Notices Package: Legals Order Cost: $126.92 PC 2.24.21 NOTICE Account Details Planning Division PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480 801-533-6171 marlene.rankins@slcgov.com Planning Division Schedule for ad number DN00106470 Fri Feb 12, 2021 Deseret News Legals All Zones 3. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Staff Report February 24, 2021 1 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION _____________ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Lex Traughber – Senior Planner (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com Date: February 24, 2021 Re: Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory – Sugar House Community Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925 MASTER PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 850 & 870 E. 2100 South PARCEL IDs: 16-20-129-009 & 023 ZONING DISTRICT: CC – Commercial Corridor MASTER PLAN: Mixed Use – Low Intensity REQUEST: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from “Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale” and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The following two petitions are associated with this request: a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House Community Master Plan currently designates the subject properties as "Mixed Use – Low Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to " Business District Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Scale ". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925 b. Zoning Map Amendment - The subject properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial Corridor District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the properties to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906 The Planning Commission’s role in these applications is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who has final decision making authority. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation regarding the proposed amendments on to the City Council for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Maps B. Applicant Information 2 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 C. Analysis of Standards D. Public Process and Comments E. City Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from “Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale” and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The intent of the request is to change the zoning of the property to allow more flexibility to develop future multi-family residential, office or mixed-use development. The map below indicates the approximate area to be potentially affected by the proposals. The applicant has submitted detailed rationales for the proposed amendments in their applications. This information is attached for review (Attachment B). Potential master plan and zoning amendment approvals would allow for residential, commercial, or mixed-use type land uses in the future. A specific development plan has been submitted to the City for “Design Review” (Petition PLNPCM2021-00025) consideration, and will be presented to the Planning Commission for a decision at a later date. The task at hand for the Planning Commission at this time is to consider whether or not an amendment to the Future Land Use Map adopted as part of the Sugar House Master Plan, and a rezone of the subject property, is appropriate based on adopted City master plan policies and the adopted standards for entertaining rezone requests. 3 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 PHOTOS OF SUBJECT SITE: The Snelgrove property as viewed from 2100 South looking southwest. Another view of the Snelgrove property as viewed from 2100 South looking east/southeast. 4 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 View across the street from the subject property on 2100 South. View of the southwest corner of the property from the 800 East and Commonwealth Avenue intersection looking east. 5 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 View of the southeast corner of the property along Commonwealth Avenue looking northwest. View looking east down Commonwealth Avenue opposite the rear of the Snelgrove factory. 6 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 The garages that front on Commonwealth Avenue opposite the Snelgrove factory building. Looking west down Commonwealth Avenue; Snelgrove factory building on the right hand side of the photo. 7 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 The corner of 900 East and Commonwealth Avenue looking west. ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned “Corridor Commercial” and is a parcel of property approximately 3.23 acres in size located between 2100 South and Commonwealth Avenue, and between 800 and 900 East. Please refer to Attachment A – Vicinity Maps. An abandoned factory and vacant office buildings are currently sitting on the property. Surrounding zoning includes CC (Corridor Commercial) to the north, CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) adjacent and to the east, FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District) adjacent and to the west, and R- 1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and FB-SE to the south. With the exception of the residentially zoned property located to the south, all surrounding adjacent property is used commercially. Planning Staff notes that abutting residentially zoned property to the south of the subject property is separated by Commonwealth Avenue, a city street. Commonwealth Avenue essentially functions as an alley in this case, with garage access for the homes on Elm Avenue located on Commonwealth as demonstrated in the above photos. A home located on the southeast corner of 800 East and Commonwealth is oriented toward 800 East. The requests for the master plan future land use map amendment and the zoning map amendment are reasonable requests based on consistency with surrounding land use and zoning. Comparison of the Existing CC (Corridor Commercial) and the CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) Zoning Districts The subject property is zoned CC – Corridor Commercial. The purpose of the Corridor Commercial zoning district is: The purpose of the CC Corridor Commercial District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive commercial development with a local and regional market area along arterial and major collector streets while promoting compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through design standards. This district provides economic development opportunities through a mix of land uses, including retail sales and services, entertainment, office and residential. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that 8 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary. Access should follow a hierarchy that places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and automobile third. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to promote a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment to all users. The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to CSHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. The purpose of the Sugar House Business District is: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District. The major difference, and the primary reason for the master plan and zoning amendments, between the CC – Corridor Commercial District and the CSHBD2 – Sugar House Business District lies in the maximum building height allowed between the two zones. As shown in the table below, the maximum building height that could be realized in the CC – Corridor Commercial District is 45’, and the maximum building height that could be realized in the CSBD2 – Sugar House Business District is 60’. The land uses allowed in these two Districts per chapter 21A.33 – Land Use Tables are virtually identical. Secondary differences between the two zones are that the CC requires more setbacks and associated landscaping, while the CSHBD2 requires active ground floor uses along the public street frontages. The former would result in a more open and suburban condition, while the latter would result in a more urban condition. Finally, should the property be rezoned to CSHBD2, any new construction on the subject that exceeds 30’ in height or twenty thousand square feet in size would be subject to the Design Review process, which is a public process requiring Planning Commission action. In short, should the property be rezoned, the proposed building would fall under review in a public setting. Comparison of Zoning Ordinance Standards A simplified table showing a comparison of the building size limits and yard requirements as well as some of the design requirements for both zones is included below. This is extracted from the more detailed requirements for each zone found in the Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 21A.32.080 – I – Institutional and Chapter 21A.24.180 – R/O – Residential/ Office. Corridor Commercial (CC) – Existing Zoning Sugar House Business District (CSHBD2) – Proposed Zoning Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width: 75’ No minimum lot area or width is required. Minimum Yard Requirements Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front and Corner Side Yard: 15’ 2. Interior Side Yard: None required. 3. Rear Yard: 10’ 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a Residential District shall conform to buffer yard requirements in chapter 21A.48. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front and Corner Side Yard: No minimum yard is required. 2. Maximum Setback: 15' 3. Interior Side Yard: None 4. Rear Yard: No minimum yard is required. 5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to buffer 9 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 Comparing two key development standards, building height and setbacks, the CSHBD2 zone allows for more building height than the CC Zone by 15’, the building setbacks are very similar (15’) with the difference being that buildings in the CSHBD2 Zone may be built to the property line if so desired. CITY WIDE MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: Sugar House Master Plan (2005) The subject property is located within the Sugar House Master Plan (SHMP) area (see SHMP Future Land Use Map – Attachment A). The associated Sugar House Future Land Use Map currently designates the property as "Mixed Use – Low Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the property is designated as "Business District Mixed Use – Neighborhood Scale". Note that both future land uses are similar as they are both mixed-use designations. According to the SHMP on page 5, the “Neighborhood Scale Mixed- Use” designation is “lower in scale (in reference to the “Town Center Scale Mixed Use” designation) but still orients directly to the street. Uses include residential, retail, and commercial businesses or primarily small tenants. It is focused around a transit/pedestrian oriented commercial/retail area with a strong street presence, wide sidewalks, street furnishings, lighting and landscaping. The street level businesses are commercial and retail in nature, while the upper level can be either residential or office depending on compatibility of the adjacent uses. Neighborhood Scale Mixed Use occurs along the perimeter of the Business District, and acts as a transition to the adjacent residential and commercial areas.” Several policies in the SHMP relate to the requested master plan amendment on various levels. The plan outlines the following policies: - Providing space for small tenants in the retail and office buildings that are developed (page 4). - Increasing a residential presence through a mixed use land pattern (page 4). - Directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented (page 4). yards and landscape requirements in chapter 21A.48. In addition, for those structures located on properties zoned CSHBD that abut properties in a Low Density, Single- family Residential Zone, every 3’ in building height above 30’ shall be required a corresponding 1’ setback from the property line at grade. The additional required setback area can be used for landscaping or parking. Landscape Yard Requirements A landscape yard of 15’ shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of section 21A.48.090 and subsection 21A.48.100C. None required. Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height: No building shall exceed 30’. Additional building height of 15’ may be granted through the Design Review in conformance with chapter 21A.59 for a maximum of 45’, and subject to additional landscaping requirements. The Maximum Building Height in the CSHBD2 zone shall not exceed 30’ for buildings used exclusively for nonresidential purposes. Additional square footage may be obtained up to a maximum of 60’ is a residential component is included in the development. Buildings used exclusively of residential purposes may be built to a maximum of 60’. First Floor/Street Level Requirements None The first floor of street level space of all buildings with this area shall be required to provide uses consisting of residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. 10 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 Discussion: The requested change to the future land use map in the SHMP is not particularly significant given that the current and proposed land use designations are both mixed-use in nature. There are no specific policies in the SHMP that support the proposed future land use map amendment nor are there any specific policies that would prohibit the proposed amendment. As previously noted, the basis for the requested change to the SHMP and the rezone request are based on additional building height (15’) that could be realized should the amendment be approved. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Plan Salt Lake outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time, compatibility, how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing opportunities for new growth. Guiding Principles specifically outlined in Plan Salt Lake include the following: Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. A beautiful city that is people focused. A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and foster an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. The proposed zoning map amendment and overall project is aligned with the vision and guiding principles contained in Plan Salt Lake and are supported by the policies and strategies in the document. CONCLUSION: The proposed master plan and zoning map amendments meet or are able to meet standards for these types of requests as outlined in Attachment C. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part of the final decision on these petitions. 11 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAPS 12 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 AREA ZONING 13 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT INFORMATION 14 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 ATTACHMENT C: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master plan. However, there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not have specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans addresses this issue in the following way: All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995) In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Sugar House Master Plan and the proposed zoning designation of the subject property. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission in relation to a master plan amendment. The required process and noticing requirements have been met. ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: Factor Finding Rationale 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Based on the existing land uses in the vicinity of the subject property, the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, and the adopted master plans, amending the zoning map for the subject parcels from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) is appropriate. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and, in addition: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-3), 1995) The proposed zone change from CC to CSHBD2 would support the purposes of the zoning ordinance found in Chapter 21A.02.030: Purpose and Intent as outlined above. The change would help to distribute land and utilizations (D.), while helping to support the city’s residential and business development (G.) 15 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning map amendment could have a positive impact on adjacent properties with thoughtful future development with an emphasis on appropriate and compatible design. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards N/A The subject property is not located within any designated overlay zoning districts. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies The proposal was reviewed by the various city departments tasked with administering public facilities and services (see comments – Attachment E). The city has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The infrastructure may need to be upgraded at the owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements. If the rezone is approved, the proposal will need to comply with these requirements for future development or redevelopment of the site. Public Utilities, Engineering, Transportation, Fire, and Police and other departments will also be asked to review any specific development proposals submitted at that time. 16 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 ATTACHMENT D: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS Meetings & Public Notice The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project. January 6, 2021 – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council meeting. Planning Staff was in attendance. A letter from the Sugar House Community Council is attached for review. The SHCC is in favor of the proposed amendments. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposal include: • Property posted on February 10, 2021. • Notices mailed on February 11, 2021. • Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on February 11, 2021. • Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing – February 12, 2021 Letter to PC Sugar Town Rezone.doc www.sugarhousecouncil.org 1 February 2, 2020 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Judi Short, First Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: PLNPCM2020-00906 Snelgrove Property – Sugar House Master Plan (SHMP) and Zoning Map Amendments We are writing you concerning the proposed Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment for the two parcels at 850 and 870 East 2100 South. This parcel has long been known as Snelgrove’s Ice Cream, with a store and ice cream factory. More recently, it was Nestle’s with just a factory. I’ve often wondered why we had a factory in the heart of Sugar House. The parcels are zoned CC Commercial Corridor, the purpose of which is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive automobile oriented commercial development along arterial and major collector streets. However, the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map calls for it to be Business District Mixed Use – Neighborhood Scale. The petitioner is asking that this be rezoned to CSHBD2. The purpose of that zone is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four-hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high-density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business district. We have a bus route on 2100 south with 15-minute service now, and this is a block from the S-Line. Our Transportation Committee is working with the city to try to add bike lanes along 2100 South, which could make it more comfortable for pedestrians. At the time the SHMP was updated in 2005, we talked about bringing the CSHBD2 zone all along 2100 South (the Lincoln Highway) to 700 East. However, there were businesses along that section from 900 East to 700 East, that would then be non-conforming, and it didn’t go any further. That zone stopped at 900 East. A number of us have been talking about doing extending the CSHBD2 since that time. Please note this petition is only for these two parcels. The rest of the parcels on this block and across the street, and west of 800 East will remain CC for now. The CC zone allows most of the same uses as CSHBD2, but it also allows things like bus stations, warehouses, and other things that really don’t fit along that corridor. The advantage of the CSHBD2 zone is that it has design guidelines, so that new development has to be consistent with the standards set in the master plan, those are evident in the newly built parts of the Sugar House Business District. The other advantage of the rezone is it would allow for additional height, and the applicant has said that will allow him to build a floor of affordable housing to the project. The applicant says he has convinced the property owner that it is the right thing to do. One thing we especially like it that it will allow the community to have some input into the design of anything that is built in this zone. We have met with the applicant at two SHCC Land Use and Zoning meetings and he presented his plans at least on community council meeting. This is on our website, and a link has been in our newsletter at least twice. I have attached the comments that we received. I know at least once, I asked the group of about 35 on the zoom call if anyone had any objections to the rezone, and not a word was spoken. We are in favor of this rezone. 17 Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021 ATTACHMENT E: CITY COMMENTS Date Task/Inspection Status/Result Action By Comments 11/12/2020 Pre-Screen Accepted Anglin, Anna John, Thank you for submitting your zoning amendment application. It appears to be a complete application as a preliminary review. However, once the planner assigned to it does a thorough review, they may ask for additional information. There is a fee balance of $283.25 for processing 1+ acres and noticing fees. I have attached instructions on how to pay for the balance on line through the Citizens Access Portal. The project number is PLNPCM2020- 00906 – Snelgrove Ice Cream Plant in Sugarhouse Rezone. Thanks, ANNA ANGLIN Principal Planner 12/2/2020 Staff Assignment Assigned Traughber, Lex 12/10/2020 Planning Dept Review In Progress Traughber, Lex 12/10/2020 Staff Assignment Routed Traughber, Lex 1/8/2021 Engineering Review Complete Weiler, Scott No objections. 1/27/2021 Building Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the proposed amendments – This would include Zoning, Fire and Building Code. 1/27/2021 Community Council Review Complete Traughber, Lex The applicant met with the Sugar House Community Council on 1/6/2021. 1/27/2021 Fire Code Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the proposed amendments – This would include Zoning, Fire and Building Code. 1/27/2021 Police Review Complete Traughber, Lex PD has no issues with these plans per Lamar Ewell - SLC Police 1/27/2021 Public Utility Review Complete Draper, Jason No objection to the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments. The proposed development or others that would fit the proposed zoning may require water, sewer, and storm drain improvements. The site will need to meet stormwater requirements for detention and green infrastructure. 1/27/2021 Staff Review and Report In Progress Traughber, Lex 1/27/2021 Transportation Review Complete Barry, Michael Transportation has no comments on these proposals. 1/27/2021 Zoning Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the proposed amendments – This would include Zoning, Fire and Building Code. 2/4/2021 Community Council Review Complete Traughber, Lex 2/4/2021 Planning Dept Review Complete Traughber, Lex 2/4/2021 Staff Review and Report Draft Traughber, Lex Work Flow History Report PLNPCM2020-00906 850 E 2100 S 3. PLANNING COMMISSION D. Agenda & Minutes February 24, 2021 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation February 24, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-02242021 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 10, 2021 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Modifications to Izzy South Design Review at approximately 534 East 2100 South - A request by Ryan McMullen for Design Review and Special Exception approval to develop a 71-unit mixed use building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South in the Community Business CB zoning district. The applicant received Design Review approval on December 9, 2020 for a building over 15,000 square feet in size and Special Exception approval to allow 3' of additional building height. Since that time, the applicants modified their design to include additional building materials on the south and north facades. In accordance with section 21A.59.080, these types of modifications to the approved Design Review plans require approval from the Planning Commission. The project is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315- 8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number: PLNPCM2020-00222 2. Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory Property MP and Rezone at approximately 850 & 870 East 2100 South - Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use-Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed- Use-Neighborhood Scale" and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The following two petitions are associated with this request: a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House Community Master Plan currently designates the properties as "Mixed Use – Low Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to "Business District Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Scale". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925 b. Zoning Map Amendment - The properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial Corridor District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the properties to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906 The subject project site is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com) 3. Reilly Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision Plat at approximately 1159 E 1300 S - A request by Anthony Reilly, property owner, for approval of a preliminary subdivision plat as a planned development to divide one existing lot into two lots at the above-mentioned address. Planned development approval is required for reduced lot width (from 50 feet to 46 and 40.25 feet) and a reduced side yard setback on Lot 1 (4 feet to 3 feet). The property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00681 & PLNSUB2020-00683 4. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1395 E Michigan Avenue – Prescott Muir, property owner, is requesting Conditional Use approval for an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) located in the basement of the existing single-family dwelling at the above-listed address. The applicant is proposing a two-bedroom apartment measuring 963 square feet in size. The property is zoned R- 1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00944 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 2 Judi Short – Stated the purpose of a Design Review is to get a better result; she does not believe that the proposal is doing that. Devin O’Donnell – Stated his opposition of the request and raised concern with lack of low -income housing. Eli Kauffman – Stated her opposition of the request. Eoin Daxter – Stated his opposition of the request and raised concerns with the affordabilit y. Soren Simonsen – Raised concern with proposed material. Michelle Mower – Stated her opposition of the request. Paula Mendoza – Stated her opposition of the request. Lynn Schwartz – Provided an email comment stating opposition of the request. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. The Commission made the following comments: • The purpose of these projects are to build density MOTION Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report and the information received in the meeting I move that the Planning Commission approve the requested modification to petition numberPLNPCM2020-00222 for Izzy South located at approximately 534 East 2100 South. With the following modification: 1. That the applicant Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory Property MP and Rezone at approximately 850 & 870 East 2100 South - Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 210 0 South in anticipation of a mixed -use type development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use -Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed -Use- Neighborhood Scale" and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The following two petitions are associated with this request: a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House Community Master Plan currently designates the properties as "Mixed Use – Low Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to "Business District Mixed -Use – Neighborhood Scale". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 3 b. Zoning Map Amendment - The properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial Corridor District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the properties to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906 The subject project site is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com) Lex Traughber, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on whether there is an intent to Mark Isaac, applicant, provided further information. The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following: • I would like to suggest that • Clarification on setback requirements PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; Judi Short, Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council – Stated her support of the rezone request. David Fernandez – Stated his opposition of the request. Eli Kauffman – Stated her opposition of the request. Eoin Daxter – Stated concerns with affordable housing in the neighborhood. Michelle Mower – Stated concerns with affordable housing. Soren Simonsen – Stated his opposition of the request. Lexi Langford – Stated her opposition of the request. Tom Greenleigh – Stated his opposition of the request. Tyler Adams – Raised concerns with affordable housing. Stephanie Christian – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request. Hollie Brown – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request and raised concerns with added traffic. Kimia Golchin – Stated her opposition of the request. Annie Lim – Stated her opposition of the request and raised concerns with affordable housing. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 4 The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on sidewalk requirements • Clarification on whether parking is included • Clarification on whether there has been a requirement for affordable housing MOTION Commissioner Young-Otterstrom stated, based on the analysis and findings in the staff report that amendments for Master Plans and the standards for Zoning Map Amendments have been substantially met, testimony and the proposal presented, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council in suppor t of the proposed amendments located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South. PLNPCM-00906 & 00925 Commissioner Bell seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passe d unanimously. The Commission took a short break. Reilly Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision Plat at approximately 1159 E 1300 S - A request by Anthony Reilly, property owner, for approval of a preliminary subdivision plat as a planned development to divide one existing lot into two lots at the above -mentioned address. Planned development approval is required for reduced lot width (from 50 feet to 46 and 40.25 feet) and a reduced side yard setback on Lot 1 (4 feet to 3 feet). The property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com ) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00681 & PLNSUB2020-00683 Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. Anthony Reilly, applicant, provided further information. The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following: PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. MOTION Commissioner Barry stated, based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development petition (PLNPCM2020 -00681) and Preliminary Subdivision Plat (PLNSUB2020-00683) as proposed, subject to complying with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. Vice Chairperson Barry continued the meeting. 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 5. MAILING LIST MOUNTAIN STATE TEL & TEL CO OLATHE, KS 66063 PO BOX 2599 MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158 PO BOX 58564 MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158 PO BOX 58564 MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158 PO BOX 58564 MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158 PO BOX 58564 FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION INCORPORATED SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2060 S WINDSOR ST NUPETCO ASSOCIATES SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2001 S WINDSOR ST PETTY INVESTMENT CO. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2001 S WINDSOR ST PETTY MOTOR COMPANY SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2001 S WINDSOR ST ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORP. HIGHLAND, UT 84003 5455 W 11000 N # 202 ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORP. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 777 E 2100 S BICYCLE ENTERPRISES LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 803 E 2100 S MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158 PO BOX 58564 A & A FUNK, LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 2582 S ELIZABETH ST # 4 FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION INCORPORATED SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2060 S WINDSOR ST YOUNG S LEE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 825 E 2100 S BICYCLE ENTERPRISES, LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 803 E 2100 S CORP OF PB OF CH OF JC OF LDS SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST MELISSA L SOUTHWICK SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 2152 S 800 E TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 2160 S 800 E JILL C HALL SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 2166 S 800 E A SERIES OF 2172 S SANDY, UT 84092 11289 S WYNGATE LN 774 ASSOCIATES LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 774 E 2100 S ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORPORATION AMERICAN FORK, UT 84003 5455 W 11000 N #202 NUPETCO ASSOCIATES LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2001 S WINDSOR ST NUPETCO ASSOCIATES LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2001 S WINDSOR ST HOWTON PROPERTIES LLC ATLANTA, GA 30355 PO BOX 52427 PHOENIX OF SALT LAKE CITY, LLC DEERFIELD, IL 60015 PO BOX 1159 NUPETCO ASSOCIATES, LLC; UINTAH INVESTMENT, LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105 2001 S WINDSOR ST GENERAL BUSINESS MACHINES, LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 1828 S WASATCH DR 921 PROPERTIES LC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124 4070 S EVELYN DR SUGARHOUSE VILLAGE, LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 1165 E WILMINGTON AVE 2010 VENTURES, LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 812 E 2100 S SKH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC PARK CITY, UT 84098 1280 FOXCREST CT DALE F BONDARUK SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 1455 W WASATCH AVE ALEXA LANGFORD SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 833 E ELM AVE SHAUN FUHRIMAN SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 837 E ELM AVE KAYCEE NIPPER; LANDY NIPPER; PAUL NIPPER (JT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 841 E ELM AVE ELM AVENUE HOME LLC OGDEN, UT 84402 1680 NAVAJO DR HEIDI M BEINTEMA; RACHEL BRUNO SAN DIEGO, CA 92116 4223 MEADE AVE JLF VENTURES LLC DRAPER, UT 84020 13827 S SPRAGUE LN GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLLP PARK CITY, UT 84068 PO BOX 680365 AURELIO RUELAS SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 1015 E ELM AVE WASATCHRENTALPROPERTIES, LLC PARK CITY, UT 84098 110 MATTERHORN DR AURELIO RUELAS SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 1015 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE COUNTY SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114 PO BOX 144575 ELIZABETH M HUELSKAMP SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 2151 S 800 E 3AS SUGARHOUSE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 867 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR TARTARO REVOCABLE LIVNG TRUST 06/17/2015 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 2167 S 800 E ALICE U ESPINOSA SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 820 E ELM AVE KIMIA GOLCHIN; MAGGIE NARTOWICZ (JT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 826 E ELM AVE RHAMA RENTALS LLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 524 N MAIN ST ROBERT V HARRELL SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 836 E ELM AVE DEBRA S GRIMES SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 840 E ELM AVE LA BREDIN LEGACY TRUST 9/15/2017 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 844 E ELM AVE KAIA ANNE RAGNHILDSTVEIT; OYVIND RAGNHILDSTVEIT; TIFFANY RAGNHILD SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 850 E ELM AVE BARBARA L MCCAULEY SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 854 E ELM AVE MARK R MORRIS SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 35 E 100 S # 602 MATTHEW P MANES; MARK MORRIS (JT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 35 E 100 S GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLLP PARK CITY, UT 84060 3642 OAKWOOD DR GRODNIK PROPERTIES, LLC PARK CITY, UT 84060 3642 OAKWOOD DR SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIES INC CINCINNATI, OH 45202 1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR Current Occupant 2023 S 800 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Current Occupant 2027 S 800 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Current Occupant 2027 S 800 E #NFF1 Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Current Occupant 2029 S 800 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Current Occupant 2021 S WINDSOR ST Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Current Occupant 2035 S WINDSOR ST Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Current Occupant 2030 S 900 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Current Occupant 767 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 809 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 815 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 837 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 827 E 2100 S #NFF1 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 724 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 2172 S 800 E Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 790 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 863 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 867 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 875 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 909 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 935 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 870 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 880 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 850 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 823 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 829 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 847 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 851 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 857 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 859 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 2141 S 800 E Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 2147 S 800 E Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 818 E COMMONWEALTH AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 820 E COMMONWEALTH AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 2165 S 800 E Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 830 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 858 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 866 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 2148 S 900 E Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 2166 S 900 E Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Current Occupant 922 E 2100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84106 6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT From:george chapman To:Traughber, Lex Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments against Case PLNPCM2020-00906, PLNPCM2020-00925 at Planning Commission Date:Monday, February 22, 2021 4:38:12 PM I am concerned but supportive of the project on the former Snelgrove site due to the need for wide sidewalks since the only safe way to ride a bike on 2100S. is on a raised and wide sidewalk. In addition, any entrance and/or exit should be away from 2100S 900E intersection for safety reasons (and an important bus stop). Otherwise, this project is an important and much needed addition to Sugar House. If needed, please give the developer flexibility in height to allow wider sidewalks. From:Mark Morris To:Planning Public Comments; Traughber, Lex Subject:(EXTERNAL) Email in support of Petition PLNPCM2020-00906: Snelgrove Site Rezone Date:Friday, February 19, 2021 12:24:58 PM SLC Planning Commission- I'm emailing in support of the petition to update the city's land use map and zoning ordinance to permit the 'Snelgrove Ice Cream' parcel in Sugar House to proceed. I have owned a home on Elm Avenue directly south of this parcel for the last 15 years. I have welcomed the investments and added activity in the Sugar House business district over the last decade. With each new project, we've added much desired housing and walkability for the neighborhood. Having been in this part of the city for many years, the walkability has much improved over time, and it makes this neighborhood one of the most walkable in the entire state. With the city's investments to update 900 East through this neighborhood this year, its clear that the prioritizing of walkability/bikeability of the community is a priority, which I applaud. Having looked at the back of the Snelgrove factory out my front window for many years, I see the potential for the site, and welcome the change to the neighborhood with housing and the new liquor store. I have participated as a neighborhood resident in the discussions with the Sugar House Land Use committee with the developer, and have seen many of the community's suggestions integrated into site plan changes and improvements. I think the addition of walking routes through the block go a long way to improving access to all, and chopping up a large block in the neighborhood. From my experience, the development team is acting in good faith to bring a well-designed and context sensitive project to an urban neighborhood, encouraging more residents to move to a neighborhood where they can walk to many destinations, and live a less car-centric life. With easy access to bus, train, bike, and walking, from my experience this is one of the most liveable neighborhoods in the city. I certainly wish there was more space along 2100 South in the project for retail/services space, rather than just the building's gym and leasing office. No doubt there are other retailers or service providers who would be more than interested in space next door to one of the city's few liquor stores. I appreciate the inclusion of public art in the project, and look forward to seeing it come together. Thank you for the city's attention to this neighborhood. I know you hear a lot of resistance to new projects in Sugar House, but that is certainly not a unanimous opinion. Mark Morris, PLA, LEED™AP, ASLA VODA Landscape + Planning 159 West Broadway #200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone (385)429-2858 Email mark@vodaplan.com Web www.vodaplan.com From:Landon Clark To:Traughber, Lex; Anderson, John Subject:(EXTERNAL) Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:01:21 PM Hi Lex or John, My name is Landon Clark with the Sugar House Community Council. I won't be able to make the planning commission meeting tonight but wanted to send a paragraph from the SHCC for you to read tonight to the planning commission. Speaking on behalf of the Sugar House Community Council we would like to talk about the level of outreach this developer has done with our community. They have presented at our general community council meeting a couple of times, our Land Use and Zoning a couple of times and have met with a group of us countless times. Their level of community engagement has been outstanding. For the most part we have had a very positive response throughout the community. There is a lot of discussion about bringing more affordable housing to Sugar House. When this group had the idea of including work force housing in exchange for an extra floor of height the response was overwhelming positive, even George Chapman gave a thumbs up. Thank you Landon Clark Sugar House Community Council Chair GO UTES! From:Anderson, John To:Della Rae Riker Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:31:45 PM Thanks for the additional comments. I will make sure that the commission receives them. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Della Rae Riker Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:27 PM To: Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com> Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone John, Thank you for your quick response and the meeting information. The only additional comments I have are that 2100 S is already stressed with traffic. Many of the roads in Sugarhouse are heavily trafficked and in need of repair as a result. We haven't even seen the traffic impact from the occupation of the new apartments between McClelland and Highland Drive. Also, for neighbors who love the cozy feel of their Sugarhouse street having to look at a 60' building will have an emotional impact. In a time when people's lives have been drastically impacted by COVID now seems the time to maintain the integrity of our community as much as possible. Again, many thanks, Della Rae On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:32 PM Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com> wrote: Della Rae, Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021 agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Della Rae Riker Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:13 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone Please don't. Sugarhouse is becoming much too crowded and losing the community charm. Keep it as small as possible. -- Della Rae Riker -- Della Rae Riker raeriker@gmail.com 801-891-3238 From:Anderson, John To:Della Rae Riker; Planning Public Comments Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:32:10 PM Della Rae, Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0 2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Della Rae Riker Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:13 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone Please don't. Sugarhouse is becoming much too crowded and losing the community charm. Keep it as small as possible. -- Della Rae Riker From:Robinson, Molly To:Stephanie Christian; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) 21st south snelgrove Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:33:50 PM Thanks, Stephanie. We will read your comments into the record during the public hearing. MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP Planning Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7261 CEL 385-226-8656 EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. -----Original Message----- From: Stephanie Christian Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:31 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) 21st south snelgrove I am writing to express my opposition to the reasoning proposal on 21st south near the old snelgroves. Adding the proposed amount of housing to that area of 21st south will create an unsustainable amount of congestion. The congestion is already an issue that needs to be addressed. I am not opposed to dense housing however the additional traffic and needs need to be addressed more thoroughly than what is proposed. -Stephanie Christian Sent from my iPhone From:Anderson, John To:David Fernandez; Planning Public Comments Cc:"Judi Short"; Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Deny the Sugar Town Zoning Change Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:27:23 AM David, Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0 2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: David Fernandez Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:13 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Cc: 'Judi Short' Subject: (EXTERNAL) Deny the Sugar Town Zoning Change I call for the Salt Lake Planning Commission to deny the request for the change of zoning and prevent the development of the apartment complex known as “Sugar Town” to proceed. Furthermore, I would call for the Salt Lake Planning Commission, the Salt Lake City Council and the Mayor to find the courage to move heaven and earth to re-open the Snelgrove factory as a local boutique ice cream parlor. I ask this not because it is easy, but because it is hard. Regards, David Fernandez From:Robinson, Molly To:Hollie Brown; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) No more condos in Sugarhouse!! Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:54:42 PM Thank you for your comments, Hollie. We will read your comments into the record during the public hearing tonight. MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP Planning Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7261 CEL 385-226-8656 EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. -----Original Message----- From: Hollie Brown Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:49 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) No more condos in Sugarhouse!! The proposed plan for the old Snelgrove site is a bad idea. Sugarhouse is getting so built out and the charm that once made this neighborhood so desirable is all but gone. Traffic is insane especially on 2100 s from 700 e to 1300 e. The roads aren’t designed for the drastic increase in traffic. I have lived in Sugarhouse for 48 years and have watched it deteriorate. Cramming another condo into the area only benefits the developers because it certainly isn’t benefiting residents. When will enough be enough? How about focusing on open spaces and developing unique features that will add to the community instead of another chain restaurant or retail store that will be out of business in six months? Instead of telling taxpayers of proposed building, how about asking area residents what we’d like to see? I guarantee no one will say more condos and retail. Thank you, Hollie Brown From:Anderson, John To:Carling Mars; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Opposing luxury redevelopment of area near Snelgrove Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:35:31 AM Carling, Good morning, I’m assuming that you’re referencing the proposed zoning changes at the former Snelgrove ice cream plat which is located at 850 E. 2100 S. That project would not remove any existing housing as currently proposed. It would only remove the existing nonconforming industrial site. You can learn more about the project here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/00906.00925StaffRep ort.pdf I hope this is helpful. If you have additional questions please let me know. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Carling Mars Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:11 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Opposing luxury redevelopment of area near Snelgrove Hello! I am opposed to getting rid of the somewhat affordable options around 2100 S and 800 E in the interest of building a luxury apartment building. We have an affordable housing crisis in SLC and we need to be building more housing that is accessible to people making minimum wage or even amounts much higher than minimum wage, as these people are being priced out of many neighborhoods by luxury developments that demolish existing more affordable housing. All new housing developments should be required to include subsidized housing for low income people. We are not going to fix the homelessness crisis by erecting luxury apartments. We need more affordable housing, not less. Best, Carling Mars SLC resident From:Anderson, John To:The Greenleighs; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Request to speak at hearing Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925 Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:53:08 AM Thomas, In order to participate in tonight’s meeting there are instructions on how to connect on the meeting’s agenda found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0 2.24.2021agenda.pdf If for some reason you are unable to connect to tonight’s meeting, please send an email to this address, and I can read your comments aloud to the commission. Please let me know if you have any questions. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: The Greenleighs Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:48 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Request to speak at hearing Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925 I would like to speak briefly at tonight's meeting of the Planning Commission regarding two concerns we have as a close neighbor to the proposed SugarTown project. 1) The proposed 2019-style modernistic design conflicts with the 1920's -1950's look of the surrounding neighborhood, the look that made Sugarhouse a desirable location for the development in the first place. 2) Due to the proximity of the development to our homes (18 feet), and the age of much of the building being demolished, we request that a specific plan be added to the proposal to protect the neighbors from toxic dust and debris, and that there be a specific plan for noise mitigation during demolition and construction. Thank you for this opportunity. Thomas Greenleigh From:Anderson, John To:Devin; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Re-zoning Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:53:45 AM Devin, Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. I do also want you to know that Salt Lake City leaders and staff are certainly aware of the current housing affordability crisis and we are working hard looking for solutions to mitigate a significant problem. If you would like to participate in the meeting this evening there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." -----Original Message----- From: Devin Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:19 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re-zoning Hello, I am writing today to as you to oppose the snelgrove re-zone. Honestly, as a long time resident of SLC I find it beyond troubling how much new development has pushed lower income people out of the city. We’ve seen such a large amount of new development in the last 5-10 years. Each time a building goes up, seeing that a studio apartment is over $1200, 1br $1300+ and 2 br $1500+ is scary. Doing this with even $15/hr is a stretch. It’s making renting anything else difficult as well with the prices being driven up by these luxury buildings. When you look at the generally accepted 50/20/30 plan for budgeting it’s not in your citizens’ interest to allow this to continue. That rule states 50% of income should go to your essentials (food, transport, housing, utilities). A $15/hr worker brings in ~$2400 a month leaving $1200 for the necessities. Rent alone just broke that so now your other life expenses like food and utilities are taking away from what should be saved income. You’d need two people at that income level to make it possible. At minimum wage... forget it. A $1600/mo income would take 2 people just to afford a studio. So, I beg of you, please stop this and any other re-zones. Stop giving breaks to these high cost apartments. In fact, pressure the existing ones to offer a higher percentage of not just low income but also affordable rates. Many people fall in the middle that are left out because they can’t afford market rate but make to much to qualify as low income. Lining the city’s pockets by bringing out of state residents in can’t be more important than supporting existing residents and adding to our homeless population. Thank you, Devin O'Donnell From:Anderson, John To:Angie Witzel; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Development Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:31:09 AM Angie, Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." -----Original Message----- From: Angie Witzel Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 8:37 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Development I am very concerned about the proposed 60 Unit housing and business development on the former Snelgrove site. The Sugar House area does not have the infrastructure to support the existing multi unit homes and businesses. I drive on dilapidated roads in desperate need of repair every day. The traffic in Sugarhouse is terrible as most roads are one lane with the exception of 21st South. Until major improvements in infrastructure are made, this development should not move forward. As much as the planning community thinks Sugar House is a walking community, it is not. Thank You Angie Witzel From:Anderson, John To:Kim Lee; Planning Public Comments Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Lot Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:04:46 PM Kim, Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." -----Original Message----- From: Kim Lee Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:07 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Lot Please do allow plans for more condos or apartments in the sugarhouse area. It is ruining what has been a great place to live and shop. There is not enough parking as is. And the traffic patterns are horrendous at certain hours of the day! Please rethink this!. thanks, From:Anderson, John To:Kim Kendall; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:29:24 AM Kim, Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0 2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Kim Kendall Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:38 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property This plan to rezone the Snelgrove property for yet MORE high density housing and retail is a disaster!! Please reconsider and understand that 2100 S. is a main thorough fair, the existing infostructure is absolutely not capable of supporting what you are planning. Please be conscious of the people and businesses that fit into current infostructure. 2100 S. from 2300 East west to State street has already become more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians, crime has skyrocketed and it is absolutely ridiculous to think that it can support the traffic that comes with additional housing and retail. Regards, Kim Kendall From:Anderson, John To:Kristin Kraus; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:15:06 AM Kristin, Good morning, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0 2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Kristin Kraus Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:00 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property I'm very disappointed to read about the plans to convert the former Snelgrove ice cream property to another mixed use facility with shops and living units of up to 60 feet. Aren't there enough of those in Sugarhouse? I feel like we are turning into NYC, which is not a good thing! The great thing about Sugarhouse used to be that it wasn't suburbia with the same stores and fast food restaurants as everywhere else. There were quaint shops and cute buildings. This is what we want for our neighborhood, NOT more rezoned ridiculousness. Sincerely, Kristin Kraus 84106 From:Robinson, Molly To:Scott Sartor; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property Proposal Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 2:26:56 PM Mr. Sartor, Thank you for your comment. The Planning Commission made a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter at their meeting last Wednesday, February 24th. We will forward your comment in our packet to the City Council. You will have future opportunities to give comment as the City Council will also hold a public hearing prior to making a decision to approve or deny the request. Thanks, Molly MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP Planning Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7261 CEL 385-226-8656 EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Scott Sartor Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 4:54 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property Proposal To Whom it May Concern, I am against any more apartments or condos in this area. Traffic is already at capacity on 2100 South from 700 East to 1300 East. Please go drive and walk around the block there before you do anything that involves more condos/ affordable housing! Thanks very much, Scott Sartor From:Anderson, John To:Ann Haynes; Planning Public Comments Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:28:42 AM Ann, Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." -----Original Message----- From: Ann Haynes Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:57 AM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property To whom it may concern, Please do not change the zoning of the snelgrove parcel. Sugarhouse, and 2100 south, do not need more traffic and tall buildings. Keep the corridor designation please! We are just overwhelmed with the model of business on the bottom floor and apartments above. Ann Haynes Sent from my iPhone From:Anderson, John To:devwright@gmail.com; Planning Public Comments Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove redevelopment Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:00:41 PM Devin, Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0 2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: devwright@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:31 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove redevelopment Hello, I want to state my support for the redevelopment of the Snelgrove property in Sugarhouse. I think that a mixed use development would be a perfect addition to this neighborhood and would replace an unsightly industrial building. Salt Lake City needs more density so an additional floor and extension to 60” height is reasonable. Thank you for your attention, Devin Wright From:Anderson, John To:Lucy Houser; Planning Public Comments Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove rezone Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:01:42 PM Lucy, Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0 2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share. JOHN ANDERSON Manager Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7214 CEL 385-226-6479 EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING www.ourneighborhoodscan.com "Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights." From: Lucy Houser Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:54 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove rezone Hello, I oppose the rezoning of the Snelgrove property. I live right around the corner at 1982 South 800 East. The traffic is already terrible on 2100 South, and that enormous apartment building where Granite Furniture used to be next to Fairmont Park hasn't even opened yet. Adding yet another large apartment building to Sugar House will very negatively affect the traffic situation. In addition, a 60' building is simply too high. It will shadow and overlook the neighborhood, affecting our access to natural light and will impinge on our privacy. Please do not give permission to the developers to go ahead with this project as it is currently planned. Send them back to the drawing board. Lucy Houser I oppose