[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6572230,"mediaKeyId","3104999-08ac1cc4f2f9c1d8cf7ea5513c165fac","parentId",3104999,"title","Planning commission recommends denial of RM‑25 rezone for Valley Behavioral Health site at 6854–6852 S. 700 E.","audioSeconds",2042,"startMs",3057000,"endMs",5099000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3104999-08ac1cc4f2f9c1d8cf7ea5513c165fac&start=3057&end=5099","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3104999-08ac1cc4f2f9c1d8cf7ea5513c165fac/thumbnail_3057000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6572230/Midvale/Salt-Lake-County/Utah/Planning-commission-recommends-denial-of-RM25-rezone-for-Valley-Behavioral-Health-site-at-68546852-S-700-E","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572230-b845583cf8d3491a2fd7445762046df9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152613&Signature=m~DECzOYrcjd-yqD1FIxLlUC~WYooHeRb034ri0ER~yfGrgU-NzC8M~0ayBrY7fDTa7Rri38iuvOGOdxE7rmwKEjQJ6burzjdxp5wGOilcJlxSHbzZ2SL-6S4NwgokLMvGyb3WNfMhBHbCTKrE1AgOvpZa-24LVQybVtUb46~H6XF8-3lkP7o7U8LG0s~NHEb1SEvMg1EB5lNBazIQY3WzaJJ7Umaw1yyVWREBgwCSmLBvmZmU0aqKZ6eWVFayPzuih8E43fs8Rlq6TZTnAHIAl~h3zrMtPoKdrPRwiJ5cyYF1YPEXVmEnu7HmrupYFj9GVyJ8IrDlvCIAt-ulAkpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Midvale","date","2025-04-24T03:09:08.647Z","article","The Midvale City Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of a proposed zone map amendment to change two parcels at 6852 and 6854 South 700 East from Single‑Family Residential Duplex Overlay (SF‑1DO) to Multi‑Family Residential (RM‑25). The applicant, Valley Behavioral Health, sought RM‑25 zoning to develop deeply affordable housing and onsite supports for individuals and families exiting treatment.

Valley Behavioral Health representatives described existing uses on the property and the proposed project. Russell (Valley Behavioral Health representative) said the organization operates HUD‑funded and tax‑credit properties and provides residential treatment for women who can bring children into care; he described the subject parcel as a nearly two‑acre, secluded site with mature trees and existing Valley facilities nearby. Jared Sanford, Valley’s executive director, said the nonprofit developed the proposal to address a statewide shortage of deeply affordable housing and to provide housing that connects to their treatment programs.

Supporters included Wayne Yederhauser, a state homelessness coordinator, who cited a statewide shortfall of deeply affordable units and urged local support. “The state has a deficit of 77,000 units for deeply affordable,” Wayne said, arguing for the need to expand units for households at 30 percent of area median income.

Opponents and nearby residents raised compatibility and traffic concerns. Several residents said the parcels are surrounded by single‑family homes and argued the requested RM‑25 designation would be a spot zone that conflicts with the general plan’s stability designation. A number of residents described local traffic and safety problems on 700 East and nearby streets and urged that the site remain in single‑family zoning.

Planning staff gave a staff analysis concluding the proposal did not satisfy the code’s four rezoning criteria. The commission’s discussion focused on whether the proposal met any of those criteria; multiple commissioners said they were sympathetic to the housing need but could not find a basis to approve a rezoning that conflicts with the general plan and surrounding single‑family context. One commissioner summarized the dilemma: while supportive of the programmatic goal, the request did not meet the legal standards for a zone change in that location.

Commissioner motioned to recommend denial with the findings in the staff report; the motion passed on roll call (Chair Anderson — yes; Vice Chair Erickson — yes; Commissioner Licki — yes; Commissioner Kasperian — yes; Commissioner Edwards — yes). The recommendation will move to City Council for final action.

Votes at a glance
Motion: “I move we recommend denial of the zone map amendment from the single family residential duplex overlay SF‑1DO zone to the multi family residential medium to high density RM‑25 zone for properties located at 6854 South 700 East and 6852 South 700 East with the findings noted in the staff report.”
Mover: Commissioner (motion maker not clearly identified in the transcript)
Second: Commissioner (second not clearly identified in the transcript)
Vote: 5–0 (Chair Anderson — yes; Vice Chair Erickson — yes; Commissioner Licki — yes; Commissioner Kasperian — yes; Commissioner Edwards — yes)
Outcome: Recommendation to City Council: denial (motion passed 5–0)

The commission noted that its recommendation is advisory; proponents said the project team is exploring funding sources and deed restrictions common to tax‑credit projects that would lock in affordability if a rezoning and subsequent funding were approved. The City Council will consider the application and the commission’s findings at a future public meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting 4-23-2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Midvale City Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of a request to rezone two parcels at 6852–6854 South 700 East to RM‑25, saying the change would conflict with the general plan and surrounding single‑family zone.","taxTitle","Midvale , Salt Lake County, Utah","taxId",7393,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6572235,"Planning commission recommends approval of RC residential overlay at 7001 S. 900 E.; neighbors urged additional studies",2420,0,2420000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3104999-08ac1cc4f2f9c1d8cf7ea5513c165fac&start=0&end=2420","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3104999-08ac1cc4f2f9c1d8cf7ea5513c165fac/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6572235/Midvale/Salt-Lake-County/Utah/Planning-commission-recommends-approval-of-RC-residential-overlay-at-7001-S-900-E-neighbors-urged-additional-studies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572235-29dd33248e70f68416ac182d5c0cae55/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152613&Signature=EdDh8uSb95CTdEfUZjRM3eIAXF6o7WiiQ09Leg3uV0uoDs7L7ulTCh7E9tFdh7DA8we7GrqVHkxA0rYwVT-C3GE25d8twmDxUAMPdDPHAmr~FUe2sB~kePqgXJgUlLAHqNF-cFqyjzHAXmKETgllCkGpHGtWjETWjxtEFTO4OTLzsJM53sQclnsvnv9TwsMIRW6lrQmQKg2T0OPWbONyd-ZAk5vfEU2GsJFb5ul4fj4sxtgIokODloniLrIxUdP~21qSDLV3u-CacRx-s-Anbq0BW9u7cXWBIaRrbuN0UAGb4CEDTxznZnkbohedGiAoETgPkpevrh2M~xnd9EqDNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Midvale City Planning Commission on a 5-0 vote recommended approval of a zone map amendment to add the Regional Commercial–Residential Overlay (RCRO) for the property at 7001 South 900 East, moving the decision to the City Council.

Neighbors and several residents told the commission the proposal lacks site-specific traffic, infrastructure and pedestrian-safety studies and would be incompatible with nearby homes. “There has not been a substantial traffic study, no infrastructure review, and no pedestrian safety assessment,” a resident who spoke during public comment said. Several speakers said existing turn movements on Ninth East already create unsafe conflicts and that adding more units would compound risks.

The recommendation followed a presentation by planning staff and legal briefing by the city attorney explaining the planning commission’s role. Van der Linde, the city attorney, told commissioners the commission’s decision is advisory and that a development agreement — a contract that runs with the land — is an available tool the City Council can require to lock in specific limits if they are concerned about future changes after rezoning. “A development agreement runs with the land,” Van der Linde said during the meeting.

Arlo Hancock, a mechanical engineer and resident, raised fire- and material-safety concerns about taller, engineered‑wood structures, describing how engineered lumber and adhesives can accelerate fire behavior: “With engineered materials, they look like wood … they burn very fast and very hot,” he said, urging caution for buildings that could be rezoned up to 75–85 feet. David McBride, a nearby property owner, asked that any approval include conditions or a development agreement to limit height, setbacks or future changes to the proposal.

Other commenters questioned whether the project would deliver the commercial space it promises and noted long-term vacancies in other large Midvale developments. Emmy Cordano, an Essex Court resident, told commissioners that almost everyone present opposed the rezoning and warned the change would be permanent: “If you approve this rezoning … the area will be forever changed,” she said.

Planning staff told the public that several corridor‑level studies exist, including a Fort Union corridor study posted on the Midvale website, and that Ninth East is a state highway under UDOT control; some mitigation (such as signal timing or major roadway work) would require coordination with UDOT. A planning commissioner noted that the city reviews utilities, fire, water and sewer capacity during development plan review and that upgrades would be required if the infrastructure could not support a project.

After public comment, a commissioner moved that the commission recommend approval of the RCRO zone map amendment for 7001 South 900 East with the findings in the staff report; another commissioner seconded the motion. The roll call was Chair Anderson — yes; Vice Chair Erickson — yes; Commissioner Licki — yes; Commissioner Kasperian — yes; Commissioner Edwards — yes. The commission’s recommendation now proceeds to City Council, where councilmembers can require a development agreement or impose other conditions before approving a final rezoning.

Votes at a glance
Motion: “I move that we recommend approval of the zone map amendment to add the Regional Commercial–Residential Overlay zone to a property located at 7001 South 900 East with the findings noted in the staff report.”
Mover: Commissioner (name not specified in the transcript)
Second: Commissioner (name not specified in the transcript)
Vote: 5–0 (Chair Anderson — yes; Vice Chair Erickson — yes; Commissioner Licki — yes; Commissioner Kasperian — yes; Commissioner Edwards — yes)
Outcome: Recommendation to City Council: approved (motion passed 5–0)

The decision shifts the central policy questions to the City Council, which can require a development agreement or other controls if it approves the rezoning. Residents were told they will have additional opportunities to comment at the City Council public hearing and to provide written comments to staff before council consideration.","Midvale Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a regional commercial–residential overlay for a property at 7001 South 900 East despite strong opposition from nearby residents who cited traffic, safety and infrastructure concerns and asked for project-specific studies.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission recommends denial of RM‑25 rezone for Valley Behavioral Health site at 6854–6852 S. 700 E.

Planning commission recommends approval of RC residential overlay at 7001 S. 900 E.; neighbors urged additional studies