January 4, 2010

Salt Lake City Planning Commission

451 South State Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Dear Commissioners:

Richard Mendenhall and others from Westfield Properties attended the October 20 meeting of the Sugar House Land Use Committee to present the proposal to obtain a master plan amendment pursuant to a rezone on the parcel from residential to commercial. We urged the petitioner to hold a meeting with the neighborhood, and Derek Payne from the SH Land Use Committee attended the meeting.

On December 2, Mr. Mendenhall presented his proposal to the entire Sugar House Community Council, and members of the public who were in attendance. I have attached a transcript of the comments that were made at that meeting, as well as an email I received the next morning.

The comments made by participants of all three meetings seem to have a common theme. Everyone agrees that the existing commercial parcel that includes a strip mall, the Pizza Hut, and Gandolphi’s Deli is not well-designed. It is difficult to get in and out of, and drive around to find any available parking. As a consequence, Westfield Properties, which manages the property for the Anderson family, has come up with a plan to reconfigure the parcel. To complicate matters, the parcels have been separately leased, with different expiration dates. The Pizza Hut lease expires soon, which is the first opportunity to attempt to improve the parcel. The Dee’s Corporate Office building doesn’t expire for some years in the future. At that time, the petitioner would like to add a restaurant pad to the development.

We’d like to wish that this reconfiguration could all be done at once, but apparently that is not to be. One quick fix is to demolish the house at 2028 Lake Street and incorporate that land into the commercial parcel, to allow for what is arguably a better layout. However, most everyone is having a hard time seeing how this will benefit the neighborhood. Westfield Properties does not have a good reputation on the block, with comments about promises made that have not materialized in the past. The Land Use Committee does not like the commercial creep, eating away at housing once again. Westfield has approached other homeowners on the east side of the block to purchase their homes as well. We are worried that this will just be the beginning, and the neighborhood will be eroded further in the future.

It is difficult to see how a parcel that has been vandalized is not worth repairing. It seems like this has just made it easier to come up with this new plan. It is hard to hear about a landowner who owns a significant amount of property in Sugar House, but only has an interest in “return on investment”, rather than any actual investment in the neighborhood itself. Those of us who live in the Sugar House neighborhood are very invested in this place.

The subject parcel is not in the Sugar House Business District, where it would be subject to extra review, and you could potentially approve the Master Plan Amendment and then subsequently approve the rezone, and have some design review to ensure a better project.. However, at the point where the property is rezoned commercial, as long as what Westfield Properties applies for over the permit counter is a permitted use, the community would have no say in what happens. There would be no conditions put on the project at all. The proposal looks to many of us like a reconfigured strip mall, which doesn’t add a lot to the neighborhood. We do realize the owners might get a bigger return on their investment if the parcel were commercial compared to a residential use. I don’t think I have heard from a single person who had been completely in favor of the change of use. Everyone had some reservations. This project has little to recommend it, and I am going to say as a community we are not in favor of the master plan amendment. We are in favor of Westfield Properties taking some time to improve the property so it does not continue to cause problems for the neighborhood.

The Sugar House Master Plan asks us to strengthen and support existing neighborhoods, by considering appropriate adjacent uses. Allowing a commercial use this close does not further that goal. Census track 1033, which is where this parcel lies, is listed in the 1997 Census Tract Survey Results as having 46% substandard housing. It appears that quite a number of the houses in the blocks along Lake Street close to this project have been upgraded and are well-maintained. If the commercial creep is allowed, the neighborhood starts to turn to rental property, which is generally not maintained as well as owner-occupied property. As that happens, the housing stock in this census tract could further degrade.

A primary goal of the Sugar House Community Master Plan is to preserve and improve a desirable residential environment. It is difficult to see that this proposed master plan amendment furthers those goals. We see nothing to recommend the change.

Sincerely,

Judi Short, Land Use Chair, Sugar House Community Council

862 Harrison Avenue

Salt Lake City, UT 84105