Council tables 900 East zone change after neighborhood concerns; asks for development-agreement discussion

Midvale City Council voted 4–1 to table consideration of a proposed zone map amendment to add the Regional Commercial Residential Overlay (RCRO) to 7001 South 900 East and allow a mixed-use, multi-story development at that location.

Staff presented the parcel’s location on 900 East and reviewed prior planning commission review and the general plan’s designation of nearby areas as an “opportunity area.” The applicant’s concept showed retail on the ground floor, structured parking, and approximately 40 residential units in the concept plan (staff noted the RCRO would allow up to 85 units per acre while the submitted concept was ~59 units per acre). The applicant’s team said the concept intentionally did not maximize height or density and proposed internalized parking and retail amenities.

More than a dozen neighbors and property owners spoke at length during the public hearing, raising consistent concerns about traffic congestion on 900 East, pedestrian safety near Hillcrest High School, emergency vehicle access, the effect of additional vehicles on the Essex Court condominium driveway, and whether UDOT has been consulted on the access. Nearby property owner David McBride argued the request amounted to a “spot zone” benefitting a single owner; Essex Court residents provided written comments and petitions opposing the rezone and asked for a development agreement or traffic study before any rezoning is approved.

The developer, represented by Adam Paul, said the project would provide market-rate rental housing and that the developer would be willing to complete a traffic study and work with the city on stormwater, safety and permit reviews. Staff and several councilmembers said they were open to a development agreement and a more detailed traffic and infrastructure analysis, but several councilmembers also expressed concern that rezoning without binding commitments could allow a future buyer to build a larger or different project than the concept shown.

After discussion the council voted to table the request and direct staff to work with the applicant on a possible development agreement that would include traffic studies and specific terms for height, unit counts, parking and access. Council members asked staff to craft clear direction about desired development-agreement terms before further negotiations. The motion to table passed 4–1; councilmembers recorded support for tabling to negotiate specific protections for neighbors and to seek a traffic analysis prior to formal approval of a rezone.