Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Transmittal - 9/8/2023
ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor rach tto (Sep 8, 2023 09:11 MDT) Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 09/08/2023 Date sent to Council: 09/08/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2023-00239 2157 S. Lincoln Street Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner (801) 535-6184 or lex.trau_hg berkslcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the zoning map as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mark Isaac, representing the property owner, proposes to amend the zoning map to change the zoning for the 0.7 acre parcel located at approximately 2157 S. Lincoln Street from RB (Residential Business District) to C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) in its entirety. The parcel is currently occupied by a Victorian mansion used as an office building, and the applicant intends to retain the mansion as part of the proposal. This zoning map amendment change will facilitate construction of a new multi -family residential development on a portion of the parcel. The zoning map amendment is consistent with the future land use designation for the property as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan. 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 944 0 974 Project Area in Yellow , � r - 931 IN 0 ....tea ELMAMEMW The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing on July 26, 2023. The commission determined the request met the standards for a zoning map amendment. The commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to City Council to amend the zoning map from RB to C-SHBD2, with the following two conditions: 1. Petitioner shall enter into a development agreement to guarantee the preservation of the existing Victorian mansion currently located on the 2157 S. Lincoln Street parcel; and 2. Petitioner shall increase the width of the sidewalk to extend it to the curb abutting the parcels that are the subject of Petitioner's design review application (Petition No. PLNPCM2023- 00092). To clarify these conditions, Planning Staff recommended the first condition because the mansion is not in a local historic district nor is it an individually listed site, and therefore demolition is not regulated and it could potentially be torn down. Retention of the mansion has always been something that was presented to the community by the developer as an amenity of the overall project and the development agreement would ensure retention. The second condition was added by the Planning Commission based on public comment at the public hearing. Section 21A.26.060(N) of the zoning ordinance addressed sidewalk width and calls for 10' sidewalks in the C-SHBD zones. This section of code goes on to say that modifications to this requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the adopted "Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan" or its successor. The Sugar House Master Plan (Business District Design Guideline Handbook — page 20) refers to 8' sidewalks in high traffic areas and 6' sidewalks in low traffic areas. In addition, the Sugar House Business District Circulation and Amenities plan looks at sidewalk widths along 2100 South, Highland Drive/ 1100 East & McClelland/I 100 East. The associated McClelland map shows the corridor that is close to this project site and calls for 5-8' sidewalks. The applicant proposed a mix of sidewalk widths of 5-7' depending on location. Given the residential nature of this and surrounding development, Planning Staff, after consulting with the Planning Director, supported the applicant's proposal of 5-7' wide sidewalks as being appropriate when considered with the tree lined parkway between the curb and the sidewalk. The Planning Commission disagreed with this assertion and stipulated a condition that the sidewalk extend to the back of the curb to effectively increase the sidewalk width. 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 June 26, 2023. In addition, the Sugar House Community Council and the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce were also provided notification on May 15, 2023. • Sugar House Community Council — The applicant presented and discussed the proposal to rezone the property at the Sugar House Community Council meeting on June 7, 2023. Planning Staff was in attendance. • Planning Commission Meeting — On July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation regarding the proposal on to the City Council for decision. PLANNING AND HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) b) PC Minutes of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) c) PC Staff Report of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) d) PC Hearing of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) EXHIBITS: PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of the property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00239. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on July 26, 2023 on a petition submitted by Mark Isaac, representing the property owner, 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS, LLC ("Petitioner"), to rezone the property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street (Parcel number 16-20-136-006) (the "Property") from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00239; and WHEREAS, at its July 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council") on said application with the conditions provided in Section 2 below; 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 Property identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District. SECTION 2. Conditions. The proposed zoning map amendment is conditioned upon the Petitioner entering into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that requires the Property's owner and its successors to use and develop the Property as follows: 1. Petitioner shall enter into a development agreement to guarantee the preservation of the existing Victorian mansion currently located on the 2157 S. Lincoln Street parcel; and 2. Petitioner shall increase the width of the sidewalk to extend it to the curb abutting the parcels that are the subject of Petitioner's design review application (Petition No. PLNPCM2023- 00092); and SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the conditions set forth in Section 2 are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 4. Time. If the conditions set forth in Section 2 have not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the above conditions by resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: Ordinance Rezoning 2157 S Lincoln Street with DA APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: AVgust 3,,2023 By: P 1 C. ielso Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for the Property to be Rezoned: Address: 2157 S. Lincoln Street Tax ID No. 16-20-136-006 GENEVA PLACE 1115LOTS 1 TO 8 INCL BLK 3 GENEVA PLACE 5476- 1134 5476-1137 5851-0751,0753 5882-2969 5993-0733 6090-0374 7412- 2833 8414-8416 8526-2230 08526-2239 Contains 30,492 sq feet or 0.7 acres more or less. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2157 S. Lincoln Street Zoning Map Amendment Petition PLNPCM2023-00239 A ri114, 2023 Petitions received by the City. May 15, 2023 Petition assigned to Lex Trau hber. May 15, 2023 The Sugar House Community Council & the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce were emailed notification of the proposal. June 7, 2023 The applicant formally presented the proposal to the Sugar House Community Council at their regularly scheduled monthly meeting. Planning Staff was in attendance. June 26, 2023 Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject property boundaries. July 12, 2023 Property posted with signs for the July 26, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. July 13, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission's July 26, 2023 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. July 26, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation regarding the request on to the City Council for a decision. July 31, 2023 Sent a draft ordinance to the City Attorney's Office for review reflecting the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the zoning map amendment. Requested review of the draft ordinance. August 3, 2023 Received ordinance from the City Attorne 's Office. August 25, 2023 Transmittal submitted to CAN. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00239 — 2157 S. Lincoln Street Zoning Map Amendment — Mark Isaac, representing the property owner, proposes to amendment the zoning map to change the zoning for the 0.7 acre parcel noted above from RB (Residential Business District) to C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) in its entirety. The parcel is currently occupied by a Victorian mansion used as an office building. This zoning map amendment change will facilitate the redevelopment of this parcel into a multi -family residential project. The subject property is located in Council District 7 represented by Sarah Young. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: "This meeting will not have a physical location. "This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.2ov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.commentsAslcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 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 People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council. commentsgslcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION PLANNING PROCESS ZONING AMENDMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION Thank you for your interest in submitting a Zoning Amendment application. The following packet will provide general information to get started on your project and guide you through the application process from start to finish. The package is broken down into three sections: Information about the application, a visual diagram of the application process, and the application form. We highly encourage you to work with our Planning staff prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding any of the information listed in this packet or to set up a pre -submittal meeting please contact us at zoning(aslcgov.com or give us a call at 801.535.7757. Important Process Information PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 Process Timeline Application Form SLGGOVIPLANNING ZONING@SLCnQY,COM TEL 801.535-7757 ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 1 PLANNING DIVISION II v3.14.23 IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION 216,50 PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE PROCESS An amendment may be initiated to modify the text of the Zoning Ordinance or to change the designations or boundaries in the Zoning Map. The amendment process is not intended to relieve particular hardships nor to confer special privileges or rights upon any person, but only to make adjustments necessary in light of changed conditions or changes in public policy. WHO CAN INITIATE AN AMENDMENT? Applications for amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner's authorized agent. STANDARDS FOR AMENDMENTS Z1A.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. A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors. 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Z. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and �-- 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional �— practices of urban planning and design. B. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: 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; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 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. CONSULTATION 0 If you have questions regarding the Zoning Amendment regulations or process, please contact the Salt Lake City Planning Counter staff at zoning(@slcgov.com or give us a call at 801-535-7757. If you would like to discuss your development plan in more detail, you can request a pre -submittal meeting with Planning staff by contacting the Planning Counter. Pre -submittal meetings are held on Thursdays in 30 minute slots between 1:30 and 3.30 pm. ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 2 PLANNING DIVISION // v3.14.23 PROCESS TIMELINE Q 6 - 1 z MONTHS ,' APPLICANT . STAFF ........................ 0 APPLICATION RECEIVED Application submitted and pre-screened to ensure submittal requirements are met and fees are paid. PLANNER ASSIGNED Application reviewed by Planner to ensure complete documentation (if incomplete, the applicant will be provided a list of missing info to submit). T .......... 0 .............. 0 45 days © ......... . APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS Modifications based on public input & City Department review comments (if needed, applicant must submit updates). Minor issues will be conditions of approval. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notices sent to nearby neighbors, property owners and Community Councils (when required by ordinance). Application routed to City Departments for review. 000 ' ....... ©G 0 0 21 days ..... ......... Q C§EdaD- PLANNING COMMISSION Public hearing scheduled, notices sent, staff report produced, and commission recommendation made. TRANSMITTAL OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN) Commission minute approval and public record are assembled by staff. After review, the package is transmitted to City Council. CITY COUNCIL PROCESS City Council holds a briefing with staff during work session. Public hearing and action follows. Timeline determined by City Council office. wu'w.slc.aQv/council DISCLAIMER: APPLICATION TIME FRAMES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON CURRENT WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATIONS. INCOMPLETE OR MISSING INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS AND APPLICATION FORMS WILL DELAY THE PROCESS. ZONING AMENDMENT CONSULTATION Available prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding the requirements, email us at Zoning(@slCgQy.Wm. PROJECT NAME (OPTIONAL) 10th & Elm ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 2157 S Lincoln St REQUEST Rezone NAME OF APPLICANT Mark Isaac E-� SUBMISSION Submit your application online through the Citizen Access Portal. Learn how to submit online by following the step-by-step guide. MAILING ADDRESS 1165 E Wilmington Ave, STE #265 APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY (*oulner'sconsenl required) Owner Architect* Contractor* • Other* NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (if different from applicant) 1000 E Sugarhouse Apartments,LLC MAILING ADDRESS 3021 Citrus Circle, STE 130, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 CASE NUMBER RECEIVED BY PHONE 801 A55,5903 EMAIL REQUIRED FEES • Map Amd: $1,142 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (in excess of 1 ac). • Text Amd; $1,142 filing fee. • Additional required notice fees assessed after submission. markisaac@pinyon8.com IF OTHER, PLEASE LIST PHONE 435.571.0404; 435.233.6448 EMAIL cdamron@cruachancapital.com DATE RECEIVED DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAYBE REQUIRED BY THE PROJECT PLANNER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR STAFF ANALYSIS. ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR STAFF ANALYSIS WILL BE COPIED AND MADE PUBLIC, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUBLIC REVIEW BY ANY INTERESTED PARTY. ..................................................................... ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 4 PLANNING DIVISION // v3.14.23 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF • 1. This is to certify that lam making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. 2. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the Instructions provided for processing this application. The documents and/or information l have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. 3. 1 understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it Is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. i will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 4. 1 understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. NAME OF APPLICANT EMAIL Mark Isaac mark€saac@pinyon8.00m MAILING ADDRESS PHONE J1165 E Wilmington Ave, STE #265 801.455.5 03 APPLICATION TYPE mfi�f: DATE Zoning Amendment I �` If the applicant Is not the legal owner of the property, a consent from property owner must be provided. Properties with a single fee title owner may show consent by filing out the information below or by providing an affidavit. Affirmation of sufficient Interest: I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that i have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 16-20-136MB NAME OF OWNER 11000 E Sugarhouse Apartments.Ll.0 MAILING ADDRESS 3021 Citrus Cirde, STE 130, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 EMAIL cdammn@cruschancapital.com SIGN] DATE �3 Ar#chari 1 bignall* 1. If a corporation Is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 2. If a joint venture or partnership Is the fee owner, attach copy of agreement authorizing action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. 3. If a Home Owners Association is the applicant then the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth In the CC&Rs. DISCLAIMER; BE ADVISED THAT KNOWINGLY MAIQNG A FALSE, WRrMN STATEMENT TO A GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS A CRIME UNDER UTAH CODE CHAPTER 76-8, PART 5. SALT LAKE CITY WILL REFER FOR PROSECUTION ANY KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS MADE PERTAINING TO THEAPPLICANT'S INTEREST INTHE PROPERTYTHAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. ........................................................................................... ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 5 PLANNING DIVISION // V3.14,23 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Please provide the following information with your application. Confirm that you have included each of the requirements listed below by adding a check mark for each item. CK STAFF REQUIREMENTS (21 A.50.040,A) O Project Description: • A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment, • A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. • List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. • Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. • Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. INITIALS DISCLAIMER: I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SALT LAKE CITY REQUIRES THE ITEMS ABOVE TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE MY APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED. I UNDERSTAND THAT PLANNING WILL NOT ACCEPT MY APPLICATION UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE, ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 6 PLANNING DIVISION //v3.14.23 .-dwell design studio Our Statement: 360 W 300 S, Suite 102 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 385-273-3888 dwelldesignstudio.com Rezoning Amendment We are requesting a zoning amendment of the parcel located on the corner of Lincoln and Elm, currently zoned RB to CSHBD2. Granting this request will allow us to achieve and promote a more walkable and integrated community, with higher density compatible with the envisioned master plan for the Sugar House Business District that currently neighbors this parcel on multiple sides. Our Purpose: "A dance of old and new"; a guiding principle of our design is to establish the harmony between old and new. The Victorian mansion that currently resides on this parcel is a part of Sugarhouse's rich history, and our approach is to respect what is old and what is new. The intent is for the Victorian to be an enjoyable amenity space for the tenants of the multifamily development planned for the parcels neighboring the mansion. By granting this amendment it will allow us too also better incorporate the new build into the Victorian with the reduction of setback requirements associated to the CSHBD2. no The Mansion is currently used by a small investment firm, and the architectural beauty of the building is underappreciated due to the privacy of its use. By including the mansion in the residential development zone, it will enable the use of an underutilized architectural gem. Reasons Why: 1. Not granting this amendment will leave this parcel isolated to the rest of the zoning in the area, which in turn works against promoting the walkable, more transit -oriented district that Sugar House Master plan is working hard to achieve. 2. The design intent is to integrate the Victorian mansion into the new build. By not granting this amendment, the separation requirements between the two zones would be detrimental to the project by not enabling a more direct connection between the 2 structures. 3. Additionally, by including the Victorian Mansion in the development, a piece of Sugarhouse's historical architectural fabric will be permanently protected. Request amending the Zoning Map: The request will amend the existing Zoning Map. The parcel to be amended is 16-20-136-006-000 (see attached zoning map for reference). dwell 360 W 300 S, Suite 102 design 385-273-3888 Iffi esi0 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 dwelldesignstudio.com 4. MAILING LIST OWN —FULL —NAME OWN_ADDR NUPETCO ASSOCIATES, LLCET AL 2001 S WINDSOR ST SUTTONS WESTERN WHOLESALEFLOORING, INC 823 S MAIN ST SUGARHOUSE DISTRIBUTING INC 7997 S HUNTERS MEADOW CIR LANDMARK 973 E 2100 S LLC PO BOX 980580 NEILSON, DANIEL L &STACEY M; JT 2092 S 1000 E SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIESINC 1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR INGRAM BARTON HOLDINGS, LLC 733 N MAIN ST FLEEGE, JAMES 922 E ELM AVE WAAGEN, ANGELA M &KIM C; JT 924 E ELM AVE TREMBLAY SIMES FAM TRET AL 8769 S WILLOW GREEN DR SAPPINGTON, DANIELLESAPPINGTON, JONAS 968 E ELM AVE SMITH, ABRAHAM &COLTON, KIMBERLY; JT 2186 S LINCOLN ST HART, ROBERT J 2190 S LINCOLN ST SUGARMONT PLACE DEVELOPMENTLLC 733 N MAIN ST SORENSON, BLAIR W &MARGENE; TRS PO BOX 526136 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS,LLC 2157 S LINCOLN ST 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS,LLC 2156 S 1000 E 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS,LLC 2160 S 1000 E AGHDAS SIMIN TOOMEY LIV TRTOOMEY, AGHDAS S; TR 635 N DEARBORN ST 974 EAST 2100 SOUTH, LLC 1075 E 2100 S RYANS ON ELM, LLC 948 E ELM AVE STEVENSON, AARON N &CAITLIN B; JT 956 E ELM AVE BRADY, CONNOR; JTHANKS, CANDACE; JT 960 E ELM AVE JOHNSON, KRISTI M &GIBSON, MARSHA; JT 2187 S LINCOLN ST CARLISLE, JOHN W &DREES, BETH E; JT 2195 S LINCOLN ST LASKOWSKI, STEPHEN E; JTCATE, SHELBY; JT 2197 S LINCOLN ST ROSA M CASTRO TRCASTRO, ROSA M; TR 2192 S 1000 E WHEELER, DAVID S; JTWHEELER, MICHELLE M; JT 2196 S 1000 E Property Owner 968 E ELM AVE Property Owner 974 E ELM AVE Property Owner 11724 S SUN TEA WY Property Owner 1525 E REDONDO AVE HARVARD PLUMB LLC 1468 E HARVARD AVE OWN CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY COTTONWOOD HTS PARK CITY SALT LAKE CITY CINCINNATI SPANISH FORK SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SANDY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SPANISH FORK SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CHICAGO SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SOUTHJORDAN SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY OWN STA' OWN ZIP UT 84105 UT 84111 UT 84093 UT 84098 UT 84105 OH 45202 UT 84660 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84093 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84660 UT 84152 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 IL 60654 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84009 UT 84105 UT 84105 MCCLELLAND STREET ASSOCIATESLC 1165 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;TR ET AL 428 W RIVERSIDE AVE SPOKANE WA 99201 MILES, GARETT &HALEY; JT 42843 CHAMPNEY CT BROADLANDS VA 20148 ZHAO, ZHONGLIANG &TANG, WEI; JT 8156 S MAIO DR SANDY UT 84093 RUELAS, AURELIO 1015 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ROCKWOOD INVESTMENTASSOCIATES, LC 5882 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121 MCCLELLAND STREETASSOCIATES LC 1165 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SREIT SUGAR FLATS SLC, LLC 2340 COLLINS AVE MIAMI FL 33139 DILLON, JAMIL 1002 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HERTZEL, JONDAVID F 1010 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 REIMHERR, PATRICK M 1014 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HAO NGOC EVANS TREVANS, HAO N; TR 887 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 GOOD, FOREST R 2187 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MURDOCK, VALERIE 2193 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MARK E PITTMAN REV TRPITTMAN, MARK E; TR 2195 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DIXON PLACE LLC 2170 S MCCLELLAND ST #100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 935 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 955 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 959 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 967 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 973 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 975 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 922 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 910 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 916 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 932 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 940 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2185 S 900 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 960 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2131 S LINCOLN ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2134 S 1000 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2140 S 1000 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 944 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 974 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1001 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1020 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2124 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1003 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1007 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2141 S 1000 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1010 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2150 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1024 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2170 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Lex Traughber 451 S. State Street, Room 406, PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-548 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) From: John Stefanic To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) loth and Elm Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 11:02:59 AM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. This is a public comment for the IOth and Elm project. I live on the end of Lincoln St, approximately one block south of the 1 Oth and Elm project. The intersection at Lincoln and Elm is dangerous because of the reduced sight lines and street parking that surrounds all sides of the blocks. This is a popular place for patrons of Smith's to park and it is temporary home to a lot of RVs and campervans. I have witnessed two accidents here and my wife's car was hit by a speeding car down Elm that could not see her pulling out of Lincoln. The plans for the 1Oth and Elm project have the buildings extending as far up to the sidewalks as possible, and the sightlines for cars are already terrible in this neighborhood. By extending the sidewalk width, sightlines for vehicles will be improved and pedestrians will have more space to walk (it's pretty challenging to pass someone with a dog or a stroller as it is now). Developers get whatever they want in this neighborhood— please start setting some precedents that promote the safety and character of our neighborhood. This is another project with no street activation that is going to gobble up another full city block. Please consider something beyond an investment bank's bottom line. We're sick of ground floor parking garages and boring facades winning out over the needs of the residents of Sugar House. John Stefanie From: Judi Short To: Trauahber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 10th and Elm Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 2:13:22 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Here is another comment on Tenth and Elm Judi Short, First -Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council 801,864.7387 RI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dayna McKee <dmckee3313&gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:47 PM Subject: 10th and Elm To: Judi Short <judi.short&gmai1.com> Hi Judi, Trying to play catch up again here. I agree with you that the updated zoning ordinance for 10' sidewalks should be adhered to. Additionally, I agree that the landscaping plan is critical to continue to mitigate the effects of climate change and air pollution in our community, particularly with such a high influx on people coming into the neighborhood through all of the high density development that has been and will continue to occur. I would also argue that all future development projects should be making provisions for solar power, water wise landscaping and building materials, etc. We should be building for the future and these developments need to be incorporating best practices for environmentally sustainable housing. Lastly, my initial comments included questions about affordable housing options for this project. I would like to know more about how they intend to address housing disparities in our community with this project. Thank you for your time on this matter. Dayna McKee RE: Comments & Concerns Regarding loth & Elm Proposed Project Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission and City Council, We strongly oppose this proposed project and ask that the City Council reject the move to rezone the existing zoning of RB for 2157 S. Lincoln Street. At minimum, we ask that the City Council grants more time for the public to gather their opinions and submit to the Council before making a final decision as our seat (District 7) has been empty and recently filled so this will allow for adequate time for all opinions to be heard. Please consider the following: -There are already 4 additional major apartments being finished within a 1/2 mile of this location -Sugar Alley — Lowe Development -900 E./Sugarmont Project -Alta Terra (Former 24 Hour Fitness) -Former Art Studio Building @ 700 East/Simpson Ave. -With the 4 already being built and then the Former Snelgrove Ice Cream property beginning to start construction soon, in addition to other proposed projects in the area at the old Midas Muffler site and the Wells Fargo Bank site, there is already enough apartments being built to support growth in the area. -This area is already highly trafficked and increasing the amount of apartments in Sugarhouse will only continue to steer it away from its small quaint charm that it's always offered and is one of the best neighborhoods in Salt Lake City for this aspect. -This area does not have the infrastructure for these additional cars with the proposed changes happening to 21 st South resulting in a more pedestrian focused infrastructure and less lanes for cars. -This area is becoming more walker focused and adding around 240+ cars with this proposed apartment will only cause the traffic in the 21 st South corridor to become even more challenging. -Additionally, how will the street parking be able to support these additional cars? No matter how many spaces are offered on site, there will always be residents and guests who will park on the street and Elm & surrounding streets (McClelland & 1000 East) are already completely full with street parking as it is. -There is no diversity of offerings for single families - only apartments are being put into Sugarhouse. -There needs to be offerings such as townhomes and single-family homes to help first time home buyers be able to buy equity. -The community aspect is very important to us personally, as we are a young family looking to connect with people in our community and continued apartment building prevents community equity and long-term residents. -We understand the developer plans on keeping the Victorian house on site as part of the project, but the end result will be a beautiful, historic home being overshadowed by an ill-fitting, massive apartment complex which is unfortunately more of the same for this area. Regards, Connor & Candace Brady 960 East Elm Avenue Homeowners July 17, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission I1 II Sugar House COMMUNITY COUNCI! FROM: Judi Short, Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Q,, Sugar House Community Council r RE: PLNPCM2023-00239 Zoning Map Amendment PLCPCM2023-00092 Design Review The Sugar House Community Council, and the SHCC Land Use and Zoning Committee, have had a presentation by Mark Isaac a number of times about this project. Written comments I have received are attached to this letter. This project meets the purpose of the Sugar House Master Plan and the CHSHBD-1 and CSHBD-2 zones. The two zones don't differ much except for building height. We are in favor of rezoning the RB lot to CSHBD-2, to provide some continuity for the project. We asked for information about how the buffer spaces for the two zones help the project if they are both the same one, but the drawing we received didn't clarify anything. Parking is always an issue, and especially in this part of Sugar House, Elm Avenue is always packed with cars from people using the business district. One business had something like 180 employees and fortunately that business is relocating. The people who live on Elm have a hard time. The former Liberty Village always says they have extra space in their building, and we think it is because tenants are parking in the neighborhood. Mark Isaac is going to attempt to solve this problem by making the parking in the building free. We hope that assures that tenants will park in the building and not in the neighborhood. He said he would put that in a Development Agreement. We are pleased that the Victorian house is staying, and not being used for housing. Using it for recreation is a bit unusual, but it still keeps the look we have come to love in the neighborhood. We have been lobbying for many years to have 10' wide sidewalks be the standard in Sugar House. This is now codified in the ordinance. Mr. Isaac wants to pretend that didn't happen, and ask for 5' sidewalks for this project. First, because the existing sidewalks onlOth, Elm, and Lincoln are currently 5' wide and he should be allowed to do the same. We say no. We didn't discuss this issue for so many years with the idea that we would just give in with every new proposal. There are quite a number of big land use projects coming up shortly in Sugar House, and we expect they all will comply with the 10' wide sidewalk requirement. It is hard enough with 5' wide sidewalks and a mom, and baby or child in something with wheels, and a dog, trying to pass someone coming at them from the other direction. We are sorry if this means the project has to shave a few feet off the building size to make this happen. The other issue that is not at all clear is the new landscaping requirements, and how that will affect sidewalk width and the width of the median. We think it is important that we have street trees throughout the business district, and we don't want them planted surrounded by rocks or concrete. We want them planted in such a way that the trees will survive and grow to a mature height so they provide the much -needed shade and cooling effect we all need. This should be part of the design review for this project, to make sure that there are 10' sidewalks, along with appropriate medians, and room for trees that will survive. This is the perfect time to clearly identify what those standards are, so they can set the tone for the future buildings to come, all of which are in the business district or along major thoroughfares. We do not approve of artificial turf or rocks. Bark is a better solution. if these things can be provided, along with a development agreement concerning the parking, we will approve this project. Comments from the public are attached. Letter to PC loth and Elm.docx www.su arhousecouncii.or COMMENTS ABOUT TENTH AND LINCOLN BAUBHART@ME.COM, Bradyce331@icloud, lea hJaramillo@deesinc.com, TJrinne@gmailcom, Shelby. a.catemail.com, stevengardiner24@gmaiLcom, John Stefanic Tony.stefanic@gmaiLcom, marc taylor taylor <physicteach(c-gmail.com. gechapman2@gmailcom A few thoughts: (From David Alkire December 16, 2022) 1. FWIW 1 was impressed by Mark Isaac. Good listener, seemed in tune with the community, didn't try to whitewash or obfuscate things that he knew might be less popular. 2. EV approach seems thoughtful and appropriate 3. Have they talked directly to the neighbors to the east and south? Will they? 4. 1 like the setbacks on the east and south to soften the effect on adjacent residences. The fact that the units are walk-up townhornes doesn't make any difference for me --still looks like a big apartment building. 5. Assume they will remove the fencing by the Victorian to connect the space to the community. 6. This will probably be unpopular but I'm not yet convinced that the house should be saved. I don't think the case has been made that preserving the house is better than an additional —80 units of housing. Does the house have any historic significance? I've been asking neighborhood people about that house for 6 months because I was curious about its history, and literally no one knows anything about it. The space sounds interesting and the proposed uses make sense —game room, remote workspace, etc., but that's a lot of square feet of possible housing! Ready to hear more... 7. Now about parking. We are asking builders to solve a problem that has been caused by the city, and SHCC/LUZ is asking the builder to do things that are bad for people and for the planet. The problem is free curb parking, not paid off-street parking. SHCC/LUZ should want builders to charge for off-street parking because it provides incentives for car -free living and reduces the cost of housing. This is harder to do because the city chooses to give curb parking away for free. A couple ideas that SHCC/LUZ (and Transportation) might be able to get behind and really make a difference, using this project as a springboard: a. Pilot residential permit parking program in the 3 residential blocks enclosed by 9E/McClelland and Elm/Sugarmont. This would help the folks already adversely impacted by Dixon, Sugar Flats, and Sugarmont. This would be a lot better than the second idea below, but harder to implement because it's more than just a bunch of signs. b. Two-hour parking and/or no overnight parking in those same blocks, and around the new building. This might be a problem if some of the houses in those blocks don't have offstreet spots —the dog and I will walk those blocks and check on that later today. Hi Judi, I was unfortunately not able to make the zoom call on this property yesterday. I live across the street from the proposed development on 1 Oth and Elm roughly. I have significant concerns with a 3rd development while two other properties are under construction. Specifically I am concerned I won't be able to enter or exit my property. Below is an image I took today showing how the construction is blocking the ability to safely get on or off Elm. Combined with the recent fire that left charred debris throughout my yard and required me to access my roof in the rain to check for burn marks in my room, and has blocked access roads in perpetuity. Of concern is also that the state of the roadway on Elm is abysmal. 1 suspect we will not be requiring the developer to contribute the requisite amount of impact fees to have Elm rebuilt, and specifically rebuilt with concrete given the 13x increase in traffic the property will drive. And of course, parking, with construction alone the contractors park up to and past the stop signs. We've already seen Sugarmont's lack of parking lead to risk parking causing near fatal pedestrian encounters. At the very least I urge the council to convey that 1. the property will not be developed until the other two properties are completed. And that a requisite impact fee or contractual concession from the developer be made that Elm be rebuilt in concrete to support the increased traffic. Thank you for your time. -Mark physicteach@gmail.com DAYNA MCKEE via server. aqusagtechnologies.com .tan 11, 2023,11:48 AM (3 days ago) to me From: DAYNA MCKEE <dmckee3313(a7gmail.com><2312 S Green St> Subject: 10th and Elm Message Body: I like that this project retains the existing house on the property. My biggest concerns are related to ALL of the other construction going on in this area in the coming 2-3 years. There is the Snelgrove Project, the road construction on 1100 E, 2100 S, & 1300 E, the site of the recent fire and its reconstruction, the upcoming Wells Fargo project, the Midas; the list goes on. The neighborhood deserves a break and there isn't one in sight. How is this project going to mitigate the impacts of construction on this site while all of this other construction is going on. Are we supposed to stay in our homes and not travel to the Central Business District of Sugar House for 2-3 years while all of this is happening? It is absolutely exhausting. Additionally, will any of this housing be affordable housing? Or deeply affordable? How are you contributing to creating equitable housing opportunities for the teachers, police officers, families, and service workers who want to live and work in this neighborhood? Does the retail space include affordable space for local businesses? Supporting small, local businesses is important in this community. What are the plans for sustainability for the building and for the community - gray water, water wise landscaping, solar panels, transit passes for residents? How are you going to mitigate the effects of pollution and traffic in our community with this project? From: mart taylor taylor <physicteach(.d),gmail.com><2200S 1000E Subject: 10th and Elm Message Body: I would appreciate updates as this plan progresses. I am interested as an owner on 1000 East @2200 South. I am disappointed and concerned about the destruction of quiet walkable Elm and the important daycare. Not sure if any onsite parking can suffice. Elm can't handle more traffic and parking. Lincoln and 10th already have on street parking full. And Elm constantly complains about parking. Lincoln has bulb outs that should discourage high density development. A right turn only could help at Lincoln and 21st and 10th but 900E and Elm is also a choke point. And Smith trucks on Elm will require the street to stay open during and after construction. Bottom line, streets can't take this hyper development. This destroys single family home neighborhoods and takes SLC closer to apartmentville USA. I won't be able to attend even via Zoom due to traveling with family. George Chapman I do like how this blends in and includes the victorian house. I really hope they keep this. I think and the council meeting they talked about adding more parking and more charging stations. Also including parking costs for tenants in rent. Mary McConaughey As far as the 10th & Elm site, I like that they are keeping the existing home and utilizing it in the development. However, I am deeply concerned about MORE construction impacts on the neighborhood. With the upcoming construction on 1100 East, 2100 South, and 1300 East, as well as the Snelgrove site, I feel like people are going to need a way around the neighborhood and more construction feels hard to swallow right now. Can't they find a new neighborhood for a while? More development, coupled with all of the impending road construction, and the Snelgrove site coming under construction soon feels like too much to put the neighborhood through. Dayna McKee I would just like to state mine and my wife's strong opposition to the 10th & Elm project. We own a home right across the street and the area has already changed dramatically with all the apartments built and being built and it's total overkill. How is the infrastructure going to support all of these new residents? 2100 south is already a nightmare and with the continued, unrelenting development of the area, will become absolute gridlock. The last thing Sugarhouse needs is another apartment development. Why not develop this for single family homes? Sugarhouse needs to keep its character rather than change it to some urban, concrete jungle. Brad ce331 icloud.com Connor Brady I agree with the rezone request for the parcel that the Victorian mansion occupies. It makes sense to the totality of the project. I do not support the request for the reduction in sidewalk width. The 10 ' requirement was put into the Zoning for good and sufficient reasons. I think that the transition from a 10' width to a 5' width on some parts of the project will be jarring and difficult for pedestrians to navigate. It is also a guarantee that if this is granted it will be a blueprint for every other developer to ask for a width reduction. We must also make sure that all promises are in development agreements as we have had issues in the past where promises were made to get advantages for developers and then the promises disappear when the project goes forward. Chris Longhurst to Judi 8.43 PM (2 minutes ago) Judi. I think my only comment is that they need to press Rocky Mountain Power about repainting I decorating the power transformers that will be feeding the site and the EV chargers. I remember we originally thought they had to be grey or green but then we found out a development over on the west side had got a variance and been able to either mural the transformers or paint them to blend in. I'm glad the upper floors they showed in the most recent plan have such a large setback. That's a welcome design change. And as long as they stick to their stated intent to renovate the Victorian on the outside and inside, I support that for sure. I agree that the sidewalks in front of Urbana on 21st are very narrow and believe that the 10 foot sidewalks would provide more walkability, especially considering how close that location is to the S-Line and Fairmont Park where people will be traveling to through those blocks. I am excited that the easement is being drafted and hope that it will get approved by all parties. I do think that Preservation Utah would be the ideal organization to have the easement through. I am on the historic properties committee for Preservation Utah and would be happy to connect the right people to each other if needed . Adrienne White I Rebecca Davis to me Thu, Jun 15, 9:12 PM Judi, I am supportive of the requested rezone for the historic building that is part of the 10th and Elm project. Regarding reducing the width of the sidewalks around the exterior of the project, l am not in support of reducing the sidewalks on 10th East and on Lincoln from 10 feet to 5 feet. I think they need to remain 10 feet wide to allow pedestrians to pass each other comfortably and remain on the sidewalk. Regarding reducing the width of the sidewalk on Elm Street from 10 feet to 5 feet, am not in support of that, either. I walked on the sidewalk around the perimeter of the 10th and Elm project this afternoon and saw that the 5 foot sidewalks adjacent to the Urbana apartments have artificial turf between the sidewalk and the street. There is a dispenser for plastic bags for dog owners to use to pick up dog waste from the artificial turf. Not very appealing to me. South of the Urbana apartments, I reached the former day care center as I approached Elm Street. The area between the sidewalk and street has been neglected and is full of weeds all the way to Elm Street. I don't know if the owners of 10th and Elm plan to plant real grass or plants or use artificial grass on Elm Street. If I lived on Elm, I would be concerned about whether artificial turf is going to be used between the sidewalk and the street, or if live, green grass or plants will be planted. If I knew that, I might be in favor of reducing the width of the sidewalk on Elm from 10 feet to 5 feet. Rebecca Davis 1564 E Blaine Ave. Tenth & Elm looked at the sidewalks around the development and maybe the 5' sidewalks are OK here it doesn't seem to be a very busy street - I just hate to open that door for more requests. It seems that if they have to make up 5' on 10th East and another on Lincoln that they could "absorb" that so that each apartment just loses a few inches? Yvonne Martinez I agree with the rezone request for the parcel that the Victorian mansion occupies. It makes sense to the totality of the project. I do not support the request for the reduction in sidewalk width. The 10 ' requirement was put into the Zoning for good and sufficient reasons. I think that the transition from a 10' width to a 5' width on some parts of the project will be jarring and difficult for pedestrians to navigate. It is also a guarantee that if this is granted it will be a blueprint for every other developer to ask for a width reduction. We must also make sure that all promises are in development agreements as we have had issues in the past where promises were made to get advantages for developers and then the promises disappear when the project goes forward Lynne Schwarz am opposed to anything but 10' sidewalks. That sidewalk width was put in the Zoning because it is the optimal width for a pedestrian friendly environment. It is discouraging to see one of the first projects to come before us after this zoning change ask for this to be reduced. And make no mistake , no matter what excuse is officially presented for this reduction, it is to increse the profitability of the project. If this reduction is granted, it will be the canary in the coal mine. Every project that comes before us will, have the same request. Please keep the 10' sidewalks requirement in effect. Lynn Schwarz Larry Wright to me Fri, Jun 16, 3:06 PM Hi Judi, I am not in favor of the reduced sidewalk of 5' or the rezoning request. The idea that we have to take the 5' sidewalk and have 5' of green space and give up the 10' sidewalk. Why do would you plan a building and not follow the city requirements? Make your building foot print smaller. Since this project has residential homes to the south and east, I think the 5' green space should be required. This plan should be redrawn to fit the cities requirements. It is unfair to the other builder who followed the city requirement. Thanks Larry Wright. > Jennifer Mallory wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.org via serv&K.4gQ§Agtechnolog 12:43 PM to me From: Jennifer Mallory <'ennifer.m.mallo mail.com><1158 Ramona Ave, SLC, 84105> Subject: 10th and Elm Message Body: I appreciate the designers being conscientious of the neighborhood and I corporatist family units and keeping the Victorian building. However, if they are advertising the complex as one for the "healthy, active" lifestyle, that usually attracts people that hike, ski, etc., all of which require a vehicle. The developers are going above what the city requires (a 1:1 ratio) but I am still concerned about the impact on the residents that live there and the on -street parking that will be a problem, especially when it snows. I would like the developers and the city come to a better conclusion than assuming people living in the new complex will simply choose not to have a vehicle (which we know will not be the case). I also see an issue with the turning left from and onto 2100 South with not center turn lane and increased traffic that the complex will cause. Hi Judi Really sorry to have missed the meeting last week. The Victorian project is intriguing, and it's in my backyard more or less. The LUZ group had great questions. I'm open for 9a coffee any day this week if you have the time. A few thoughts: 1. FWIW I was impressed by Mark Isaac. Good listener, seemed in tune with the community, didn't try to whitewash or obfuscate things that he knew might be less popular. 2. EV approach seems thoughtful and appropriate 3. Have they talked directly to the neighbors to the east and south? Will they? 4. 1 like the setbacks on the east and south to soften the effect on adjacent residences. The fact that the units are walk-up townhomes doesn't make any difference for me --still looks like a big apartment building. 5. Assume they will remove the fencing by the Victorian to connect the space to the community. 6. This will probably be unpopular but I'm not yet convinced that the house should be saved. I don't think the case has been made that preserving the house is better than an additional —80 units of housing. Does the house have any historic significance? I've been asking neighborhood people about that house for 6 months because I was curious about its history, and literally no one knows anything about it. The space sounds interesting and the proposed uses make sense —game room, remote workspace, etc., but that's a lot of square feet of possible housing! Ready to hear more... 7. Now about parking. We are asking builders to solve a problem that has been caused by the city, and SHCC/LUZ is asking the builder to do things that are bad for people and for the planet. The problem is free curb parking, not paid off-street parking. SHCC/LUZ should want builders to charge for off-street parking because it provides incentives for car -free living and reduces the cost of housing. This is harder to do because the city chooses to give curb parking away for free. A couple ideas that SHCC/LUZ (and Transportation) might be able to get behind and really make a difference, using this project as a springboard: a. Pilot residential permit parking program in the 3 residential blocks enclosed by 9E/McClelland and Elm/Sugarmont. This would help the folks already adversely impacted by Dixon, Sugar Flats, and Sugarmont. This would be a lot better than the second idea below, but harder to implement because it's more than just a bunch of signs. b. Two-hour parking and/or no overnight parking in those same blocks, and around the new building. This might be a problem if some of the houses in those blocks don't have offstreet spots —the dog and I will walk those blocks and check on that later today. David H Alkire