Sugar House LUZ Report May 2009

2016 South 2100 East project - still have not heard from Shawn Barr to know when he wants to be on our agenda.

The DSL utility boxes at 2705 South Chadwick Street and 2024 South 1900 East were on the agenda for the May 14 Administrative Hearing. Amy Barry attended the meeting, and this is her report: “I attended the administrative hearing tonight regarding the DSL boxes and the 2 others we didn't get information on were on the agenda so I stayed and gave comments for those as well. Ralph Vigil wanted the SHCC to know that they are willing to provide screening for boxes. He stated the only limitation in Salt Lake City for some screening is height requirements due to code, but they are willing to do whatever they can.

PLNPCM2009-00265: 2024 South 1900 East Utility Box - This case was approved without modification, there is a 14-day appeal. No one knew the exact distance of this concrete pad and the hearing officer felt that 60 feet was an appropriate set back to not require screening.
PLNPCM2009-00268: 2705 South Chadwick Utility Box - Qwest agreed to put up screening or a fence on the north portion of the fence that abuts the sidewalk. They have to also install a mirror per code of the transportation dept. Apparently the fence that is currently there is not to code for transportation safety so this would be and upgrade to meet code.
PLNPCM2009-00266: 2857 South Melbourne Street Utility Box - This case was forwarded to the planning commission for further review - date of hearing unknown. The SHCC did not receive the substance of this case and there were many outstanding issues. Public Utilities initially denied this request by Qwest due to underground sewer and water lines. They have now conditionally agreed to the request with the provision that if any of the conditions are not met the boxes cannot be placed at this site. Qwest has agreed to those conditions. This site is actually located on a public right of way directly in front of 2857 Melbourne St. No private property easements were secured for placement so Qwest felt this was the most suitable site. There were 4 residents in attendance that spoke against the boxes. The home owner of 2857 Melbourne St stated there are also gas lines under this site location. In addition, the general concern of the neighbors are the visible impact, possible impact on mature trees, and safety. There is a school playground west of this site and the neighbors feel that the impact from activities occurring on the playground (i.e. soccer games) is a heavy impact enough and this would be an additional burden to the neighborhood.
PLNPCM2009-00267: 2705 South Imperial Street Utility Box- Qwest agreed to provide screening for these boxes. City code may prevent fencing higher than 4 feet at this location, but Qwest will screen to the height approved by the city to obscure the boxes. This case was approved with that provision.”

In the process of reviewing the boxes, I questioned the planner as to why we only were reviewing two of the four boxes (having learned of the other two by seeing them on the Administrative Hearing agenda). I got a vague answer about the smaller boxes, or ones that the planner determines are not controversial, don’t have to go to the community council. As I read the code, this is clearly not the case. The community council should be notified. I will attach the code for you to read. I sent the following letter to the Planning Department today, asking that this process be clarified and cleaned up so this will not happen again.

May 26, 2009 Cheri Coffey

Office of Planning and Zoning

Salt Lake City Corporation

451 South State Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Dear Cheri:

Sugar House had four DSL boxes on the Administrative Hearing agenda last week. Two of those projects were put before the SHCC and two were not. The process by which some of these are referred to us for an initial review and some are not is very confusing and, as in this case a very contentious proposal bypassed the SHCC. We need clarification of the process and procedures being used by the planning division to ensure we can provide you with input from the community on these projects.

Casey Stewart was the planner for the boxes on 1900 East and Chadwick Street. Michael Malloy was the planner on the boxes on Melbourne Street and Imperial Street. The first two projects were directed to the SHCC where we reviewed the proposals and provided feedback. However, we were not notified of the projects on Melbourne or Imperial St. To our knowledge, the community council was never notified about these two boxes and this administrative hearing was the first opportunity for us to learn about the issues surrounding the proposal for Melbourne St and listen to the comments offered by the residents. Apparently Michael Malloy received a comment from Grace Sperry on the SHCC and he assumed this was the official comment from the council.

There are two issues here:

1. Please make sure that all the planners know that notices to the community council for planning issues need to go to Maggie Shaw ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) who is the Chair. Or, they can go to me ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) as Chair of the Sugar House Land Use Committee.

2. The process for DSL boxes is not clear. I think this could be something that is reviewed by the Text Amendment Committee. As I understand this from talking to Casey, small boxes are permitted uses and just need signatures of the neighbors, as long as they are uncontested. The community council is to be notified. Medium and large boxes are a conditional use, the community council is notified and expected to give an opinion. However, if they are on private property, they are considered routine matters unless contested. Only the planner knows if they are contested, or if they potentially are controversial. This section needs a good revision, so that citizens and community councils are clear on the process.

The proposal by Qwest on Melbourne St was contested by the neighbors and was initially denied by public utilities. None of this was passed on to the community council for our input and we are now unable to respond to those residents who live near this proposed site. Understandably they are upset at the lack of communication and our inability to answer their questions. We don’t have any good way to respond to them. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Judi Short,

Land Use Chair,

Sugar House Community Council

Cc: Maggie Shaw, Amy Barry

We are expecting that neighbors who are near the 2857 South Melbourne Street proposed box will attend our SHCC meeting June 3 to voice their protest. This box has been referred to the Planning Commission on June 10. I’d like us to be able to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission at our June 3 meeting, if that is possible. I am attaching the staff report from the Administrative Hearing for your review. Westminster College – New Electrical Box for the Shaw Building. You have separately been sent the information about this box, it is fairly straightforward. Please read and be prepared to cast your vote on

June 3. Items in the Queue for Planning Commission, not yet calendared:View of Valley Mixed Use Project on the cottages on View Street west of the DoDo on 21^st South (east of KFC)City Council§

Language of Flowers The City Council approved the rezone to CB. This parcel has been zoned for business until 1995 when it was re-zoned to residential as part of the zoning rewrite project.§ Foothill Stake This parcel was rezoned from residential to institutional. There was a development agreement put in place, which has to do with returning the parcel to residential should the property no longer be used as a church.

§ ======For Planning Information, go to www.slcgov.com/ced/planning There is a link to Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment agendas. This is where you can sign up to get automatic emails from the city for these agendas.The monthly Planning Division newsletter is on this site. The recent Sugar house Business District Traffic Study is here.