December 2, 2009 Comments Made By Those in Attendance at the Sugar House Community Council Meeting Regarding the Proposed Master Plan Amendment at 2028 Lake Street

Richard Mendenhall from Westfield Properties, made the presentation. He brought some aerial maps to show the parcel and briefly explained the project. The proposal is expected to benefit the neighborhood because of the rezone. There will be a cul de sac, instead of the existing dead end, with no vehicular access to 21^st south.

It will provide off street parking for the home to the north. There will be dumpster control, screening, and noise barriers to not upset residential community. Lighting will be controlled. Willing to accept any conditions placed by Planning Commission. This will be a venue that would accommodate local businesses. When he met with the neighborhood, the majority was in support of the rezone as long as conditions would be met. Mr. Mendenhall said he wanted to have a master plan amendment, and then if he got that, would go in and ask to rezone one residential parcel at 2028 Lake Street to commercial.

¤ Dennis Kezar said he lived two houses north of abandoned, boarded-up parcel. Trust levels are low on Lake St. Westfield has managed some properties that donÕt do us a lot of good. Crime rates are high on that particular court. Insuring that what they say will happen is key to make sure it is really residentially friendly.

¤ Cabot- I do not like the proposed plan for the commercial area, set back too far. Because they are putting a big setback in the front it requires them to request commercial. Who owns the home in question, how long? Mendenhall - Anderson family owns parcel and has for many years it has been a collection of different parcels. The drawings are to give you some vision as to the direction the project is going. Problems with ingress egress on 21^st South.

¤ Lynne -Why has the owner allowed the house to be abandoned and deteriorate? Mendenhall- we are limited by what the owner is willing to invest in the property to get a reasonable return on their property, demolish the house, eliminate the liabilities, canÕt justify trying to re-establish that as a residential property, although we have tried.

¤ Sheila, this seems like open ended, what are you really proposing?

¤ Phil - the site plan is only a concept.

¤ Sarah, what we are being shown is confusing. To recommend a master plan amendment would be based on a nebulous plan, and I donÕt like that.

¤ Derek Ð this site plan is somewhat a representation of what they can do for the community, presenting the back side of building, taking out the existing trees, degrading the transition between residential and commercial.

¤ Maillie - is this being pushed back, I would be opposed to the parcel being built as commercial. Definite buffer for the neighborhood, the adjacent property is a Family Support Center, a Crisis Nursery, and Parent Education Center.

¤ Rawlins the fact that the house is residential, we shouldnÕt change zoning because the residential property is in difficulty, we should build a new house on residentially zoned property. Every time someone comes in they want to amend the master plan because they have a project in mind. I also question the proposed development because of Redondo. How can they put in a full cul de sac?

¤ Grace, what he didnÕt mention is that the reason is Pizza HutÕs long term lease is gone and they will be tearing that down, and making the parking more usable. Not increasing parking, just making the existing development better. Would like them to take the brick from the demolished home and build a wall to buffer the neighborhood, and add a buffer of trees along the fence.

¤ Ruth- There is no 7^th east access to this parcel, that is only for the properties on the corner. Is there a way to work with the folks that own the parcel, and how to turn that into a cul de sac. Mendenhall -Qwest is the tenant who opens the gate. The Anderson family owned Dees are willing to make parking available for the Family Support Center, which should be an asset to the neighborhood, and makes sense.

¤ Susie Ð need to separate problem from residence. Just because this is a problem house doesnÕt mean it isnÕt viable as housing and should be converted to commercial. The commercial creep will have a definite impact on the residences.

¤ Herb Moushegian Ð a resident 4 houses to the north of parcel. Current property is not desirable to bring in good business because of parking and ingress egress. To offset that, they want to rezone parcel to get more space to facilitate traffic. Owner wants to increase tenancy and rents. Negative effect. The owner realizes that as residential there is not much return for the parcel on 2028 Lake. They could just level the property and have someone come in and cut the lawn. No privacy, scrub oak, chain link, nice big tree. If we donÕt rezone, what do we do with it? If we do something it has to be of a net benefit to society, residents want to know what we get out of it, or will it be false promises and something we do not like. If they are honest and come to the table with a good plan, the neighbors will support it. Valid concerns, something has to be done with the parcel.

¤ Mendenhall - The owner is prepared to make an investment to make the properties whole, to come up with quid pro quo agreements, and better traffic resolution, better commercial content, they appreciate concerns of the neighborhood.

Emailed by Elaine - I support last nightÕs proposals regarding the south end of Lake Street north of 2100 South. Specifically,

• I support the demolition of the house located on 2028 Lake Street. Clearly the owners are not residents, and therefore, would need to rent it in order to maintain it as a residential property. As a rental unit, it is undesirable due to its location between a parking lot (albeit buffered with trees) and a commercial establishment (the crisis nursery/education center), even though the latter is well-maintained and aesthetically pleasing.
• I support creating a cul-de-sac between the parking lot behind the current Pizza Hut and Qwest Building and the south end of Lake Street that abuts it.
  • Creating the cul-de-sac will help maintain/restore the overall residential feel of Lake Street by:
    • reducing traffic
    • providing a solid barrier between residential and commercial (with the exception of the crisis nursery/educational center, which is not a high traffic commercial establishment) property
  • I support Grace SperryÕs suggestion that if the

2028 Lake Street property is demolished its brick be salvaged for use in a wall defining the end of the cul-de-sac on the south end of Lake Street.

• I support replacing and adding to the current row of trees to restore the existing buffer zone between commercial and residential areas on the south end of Lake Street.