Sugar House LUZ Report Addendum 2 May 2009

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