Commission splits on 800 East project: forwards zoning, denies general‑plan change and tables design review

Salt Lake City’s Planning Commission took split actions Nov. 12 on a larger mixed‑use proposal at 346–354 South 800 East, forwarding the developer’s zoning map amendment to the City Council but denying the applicant’s requested general‑plan amendment and tabling the project’s design review for further revision.

Staff (Grant Amen) presented a three‑part application from Hardage Hospitality and the Elliot Work Group that sought a zoning map amendment to MU‑5, a general‑plan amendment to change a future‑land‑use designation from medium‑density to high‑density transit‑oriented, and approval of a design review for a proposed mixed‑use building with about 109 residential units and roughly 2,590 square feet of publicly accessible commercial space. Staff recommended approval of the requests subject to conditions and a development agreement to secure community benefits and tenant‑replacement requirements.

The applicant team emphasized a unit mix that includes family‑sized three‑ and four‑bedroom units, on‑site structured parking (an 89‑stall garage), bike storage, enhanced glazing and material articulation, and a 45‑degree height transition toward adjacent residences. The applicant said the design was coordinated with the fire department and that rooftop/aerial access requirements drove the decision to consolidate several parcels and seek MU‑5 zoning to create sufficient continuous frontage for ladder‑truck access.

Neighbors and the East Central Community Council urged denial during the public hearing. Comments cited demolition‑by‑neglect of older homes under the applicant’s ownership, the loss of naturally occurring affordable rental units (staff noted the project would demolish seven units and proposed contributions to the city housing fund), shadow and solar‑access impacts, narrow Linden Avenue and constraints on snow‑plowing and emergency access, and concerns that the large podium building and long continuous façade (about 273 feet) would not fit the neighborhood’s scale.

Commissioners split on the package. After debate about legislative versus administrative roles — the commission forwards legislative items (zoning and plan amendments) to the City Council, while design review is an administrative decision — the commission voted 4–3 to forward the zoning map amendment to the City Council. The commission then voted 6–1 to recommend denial of the general‑plan amendment, concluding the evidence did not justify changing the future‑land‑use designation to high‑density transit‑oriented development.

On the administrative design review, commissioners were sharply divided over whether the applicant’s proposed articulation sufficiently mitigates the effects of exceeding the city’s 200‑foot contiguous‑façade guideline. The commission voted 6–1 to table the design‑review decision and directed the applicant to return with a revised design that treats the project's mid‑building vehicular/ pedestrian break as an inviting, pedestrian‑focused courtyard or amenity (rather than a simple 12‑foot driveway) to meet the design‑review standard for facade breaks. The commission also agreed that when the design review returns, the public comment period should be reopened.

Outcomes now move to City Council for the zoning and (separately) the rejected plan amendment; design‑review approval remains on hold until the applicant submits the revisions requested by the commission.