1. ZONE-01-21-5975(CC) Community Development Department presenting a rezone application (File #ZONE-01-21-5975, Coppercreek Rezone) submitted by Utah Development Group, requesting that 0.62 acres of a 1.02 acre parcel located at 1368 E. Coppercreek Road be rezoned to the RM(10) Zone.
I oppose this rezoning change. I have lived in this neighborhood for over 30 years and I am concerned about the added traffic and parking that six new townhomes will bring. Copper Creek is not a big street and it is often clogged with traffic during pickup and dropoff times at Kindercare. Sometimes there are so many cars waiting to go into the Kindercare lot you can’t even turn onto Copper Creek from 1300 East. With these added townhomes, it will add even more traffic and parked cars on that small street and create more of a bottleneck there. Please oppose this rezoning. I would prefer to see only single-family homes in that area.
We (Dave and Julie Hepworth), live at 9135 Stillwater Circle and Coppercreek Road is our main road in and out of our subdivision.
We are asking you to deny the request for a zoning change for the following reasons:
1. The memorandum from the planning meeting (2-18-21) quoted from Sandy City 1300 East Corridor Study Summary: “While the Study specifically focused on properties that directly access 1300 East, the Recommendation section includes the following: “Low Density PUD (garden style or Townhouse at 6-8 units per acre is included among a list of recommended uses.” The proposed plan is 6 units on .62 acres, which is almost double the recommended number. 2.The Master Plan originally had 3 homes on that 1.02-acre lot. 3. Traffic Flow in the area of the corner of Coppercreek Road and 1380 East is already a congested area during rush hour, especially in winter. You have two streets merging onto Coppercreek - 1380 East and 1400 East, and then you have to watch out for the traffic at the Kindercare as they drop off and pick up children. 4. In regards to Brittney Ward’s traffic information at the planning meeting- a. “traffic at the townhomes would be less that the traffic at the 3 business” - Reality = Wedding Reception didn’t interfere with rush hour and there was no traffic at the businesses; b. a “single family home takes 10 trips a day and the multifamily homes take 7.5 trips per day, creating 65 new trips on Coppercreek which is built for 2,000 trips per day at max, and the added trips would not cause congestion or delays.” The flaw is that the added 65 new trips a day are coming out of one driveway, near an area where the community already merges on to Coppercreek, vs the 10 trips out of a single family home . 5. Because of insufficient guest parking at the townhomes, cars will start to park on the street causing congestion/snowplow issues on that part of Coppercreek that hasn't had those issues before. 6. Coppercreek already has some Short-Term Rentals and one grandfathered in Ski Rental, changing the feel of a residential area and parking illegally overnight on Coppercreek causing snowplow issues and funneling the street to one lane in the winter. 7. We pay elevated taxes for a R-1-8 residential community and we want to protect that.
Please deny the request for a change of zoning. Thank you, Dave and Julie Hepworth
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding the rezoning proposal for the property on Coppercreek Road. Certainly this property needs some effort to correct the eyesore that it has become. It has been totally neglected by by the current owner for a number of years. When the zoning upon which the Sivercrest Reception Center was based was determined the property was zoned as is the rest of the neighborhood. The CN was set up to provide a family the opportunity to build a combination home and reception center to be a family business for them. I feel the zoning should be single family residences as was set up in the initial subdivision establishment.
I recognize the need for providing housing opportunities for families, Increased densities is one way to provide them. However, increased density dwelling is an option that works in some locations and does not work in others. I feel this is a site for which increased densitiy does NOT work.
My primary concerns are centered around the nature of our neighborhood. Larger compact increased density dwellings do not match the neighborhood. Further, the site location is on a major access road which serves a large number of homes. There is a Kindercare facility adjacent to the west with its own attendant traffic issues. Increased density would compound that. Further, Increased density brings additional vehicles from the families themselves, visitors, extra vehicles such as trucks, toys, etc. They do find their way to the street. All of this will exacerbate the ingress and egress to and from 1300 East.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council reject this proposal.
I am not in favor of the rezoning of this parcel to a R-10. I petition the Council to vote against this change. Higher density homes is not a favorable decision for this parcel. Just over half of this parcel, even. This change does not mesh with the existing neighborhood nor does it go well with the traffic that merges from streets even as high up past Highland Drive that use these neighborhood streets to avoid dangerous intersections.
I strongly ask that the Council vote against this change and revert it back to its original zoning of the R-1-8. As the owners have proven their total inept ability to be profitable and successful at four (4) business at this site, it is 100% apparent that the original zoning should be put back in place to preserve the neighborhood layout, property equity, safety of parking and fewer vehicles, and ultimately better for the flow of those that live here and those that use these streets.
The human, living, breathing, functioning part of a neighborhood and it's streets cannot be found in the cookie cutter analysis that one sees. With the awakening of our lives going back to higher speeds and demands and mobility that we are seeing with the vaccines opening up all that was closed down, the neighborhoods are becoming more and more busy. The 2020 quiet is departing. Between the traffic of the neighborhood, church, a Kindercare and a dance facility all in intertwined in the Copper Creek Road and 13th East, there is a lot of traffic and movement.
This is clearly not the right decision for this little parcel and I strongly emphasize this to the Council Members asking for an opposing vote.
We DO NOT want anymore RM (10), multi-family dwellings or dense housing projects within our neighborhoods. Especially considering it’s being planned right next to one of the busiest roads and intersections in the city. These dense housing projects are ruining Sandy.
I oppose this rezoning change. I have lived in this neighborhood for over 30 years and I am concerned about the added traffic and parking that six new townhomes will bring. Copper Creek is not a big street and it is often clogged with traffic during pickup and dropoff times at Kindercare. Sometimes there are so many cars waiting to go into the Kindercare lot you can’t even turn onto Copper Creek from 1300 East. With these added townhomes, it will add even more traffic and parked cars on that small street and create more of a bottleneck there. Please oppose this rezoning. I would prefer to see only single-family homes in that area.
We (Dave and Julie Hepworth), live at 9135 Stillwater Circle and Coppercreek Road is our main road in and out of our subdivision.
We are asking you to deny the request for a zoning change for the following reasons:
1. The memorandum from the planning meeting (2-18-21) quoted from Sandy City 1300 East Corridor Study Summary: “While the Study specifically focused on properties that directly access 1300 East, the Recommendation section includes the following: “Low Density PUD (garden style or Townhouse at 6-8 units per acre is included among a list of recommended uses.” The proposed plan is 6 units on .62 acres, which is almost double the recommended number. 2.The Master Plan originally had 3 homes on that 1.02-acre lot. 3. Traffic Flow in the area of the corner of Coppercreek Road and 1380 East is already a congested area during rush hour, especially in winter. You have two streets merging onto Coppercreek - 1380 East and 1400 East, and then you have to watch out for the traffic at the Kindercare as they drop off and pick up children. 4. In regards to Brittney Ward’s traffic information at the planning meeting- a. “traffic at the townhomes would be less that the traffic at the 3 business” - Reality = Wedding Reception didn’t interfere with rush hour and there was no traffic at the businesses; b. a “single family home takes 10 trips a day and the multifamily homes take 7.5 trips per day, creating 65 new trips on Coppercreek which is built for 2,000 trips per day at max, and the added trips would not cause congestion or delays.” The flaw is that the added 65 new trips a day are coming out of one driveway, near an area where the community already merges on to Coppercreek, vs the 10 trips out of a single family home . 5. Because of insufficient guest parking at the townhomes, cars will start to park on the street causing congestion/snowplow issues on that part of Coppercreek that hasn't had those issues before. 6. Coppercreek already has some Short-Term Rentals and one grandfathered in Ski Rental, changing the feel of a residential area and parking illegally overnight on Coppercreek causing snowplow issues and funneling the street to one lane in the winter. 7. We pay elevated taxes for a R-1-8 residential community and we want to protect that.
Please deny the request for a change of zoning. Thank you, Dave and Julie Hepworth
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding the rezoning proposal for the property on Coppercreek Road. Certainly this property needs some effort to correct the eyesore that it has become. It has been totally neglected by by the current owner for a number of years. When the zoning upon which the Sivercrest Reception Center was based was determined the property was zoned as is the rest of the neighborhood. The CN was set up to provide a family the opportunity to build a combination home and reception center to be a family business for them. I feel the zoning should be single family residences as was set up in the initial subdivision establishment.
I recognize the need for providing housing opportunities for families, Increased densities is one way to provide them. However, increased density dwelling is an option that works in some locations and does not work in others. I feel this is a site for which increased densitiy does NOT work.
My primary concerns are centered around the nature of our neighborhood. Larger compact increased density dwellings do not match the neighborhood. Further, the site location is on a major access road which serves a large number of homes. There is a Kindercare facility adjacent to the west with its own attendant traffic issues. Increased density would compound that. Further, Increased density brings additional vehicles from the families themselves, visitors, extra vehicles such as trucks, toys, etc. They do find their way to the street. All of this will exacerbate the ingress and egress to and from 1300 East.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council reject this proposal.
I am not in favor of the rezoning of this parcel to a R-10. I petition the Council to vote against this change. Higher density homes is not a favorable decision for this parcel. Just over half of this parcel, even. This change does not mesh with the existing neighborhood nor does it go well with the traffic that merges from streets even as high up past Highland Drive that use these neighborhood streets to avoid dangerous intersections.
I strongly ask that the Council vote against this change and revert it back to its original zoning of the R-1-8. As the owners have proven their total inept ability to be profitable and successful at four (4) business at this site, it is 100% apparent that the original zoning should be put back in place to preserve the neighborhood layout, property equity, safety of parking and fewer vehicles, and ultimately better for the flow of those that live here and those that use these streets.
The human, living, breathing, functioning part of a neighborhood and it's streets cannot be found in the cookie cutter analysis that one sees. With the awakening of our lives going back to higher speeds and demands and mobility that we are seeing with the vaccines opening up all that was closed down, the neighborhoods are becoming more and more busy. The 2020 quiet is departing. Between the traffic of the neighborhood, church, a Kindercare and a dance facility all in intertwined in the Copper Creek Road and 13th East, there is a lot of traffic and movement.
This is clearly not the right decision for this little parcel and I strongly emphasize this to the Council Members asking for an opposing vote.
Thank you
We DO NOT want anymore RM (10), multi-family dwellings or dense housing projects within our neighborhoods. Especially considering it’s being planned right next to one of the busiest roads and intersections in the city. These dense housing projects are ruining Sandy.