The Salt Lake City Planning Commission on Dec. 15 recommended that City Council approve a general-plan amendment and zoning-map change for three parcels near 539 South 400 East, forwarding staff’s recommendation for a five‑story, mixed‑use development that would replace three single‑family homes.

Principal planner Olivia Svetko told the commission the proposal would change the central community plan designation from medium‑high‑density residential to high‑density mixed‑use and rezone the parcels from RMF‑45 to MU‑5. "Staff is recommending that planning commission forward a positive recommendation to city council on both items," she said, noting MU‑5 allows ground‑floor commercial, carries a 55‑foot height limit and does not impose a per‑building unit cap.

The applicant, Russ Paulson, described the site context, ownership of the adjacent Citizen building, and the city's Housing SLC goal to entitle 10,000 units between 2023 and 2027. Paulson said redevelopment would relieve ongoing maintenance costs at the existing homes and cited a contractor bid: "The cost to repair the sewer line is $40,000," he said, describing that expense as part of the applicant’s rationale for redevelopment.

The proposal includes required tenant protections under city code: the developer must provide like‑for‑like replacement of demolished residential units (three two‑bedroom units) and offer relocation assistance covering moving costs, application fees, deposits and a monthly rental assistance payment based on rent differentials up to a maximum of $7,200. Staff said those protections would be formalized in a development agreement.

During questioning, commissioners asked about parking — staff said MU‑5 within the urban center context requires reduced parking (no parking required per studio/one‑bedroom; two‑bedroom units require one space each) and the applicant plans a parking agreement with the adjacent Citizen building, which the applicant described as currently over‑parked. Commissioners also pressed staff and the applicant on whether ground‑floor commercial space would function as a genuine community benefit given recent vacancies in new podium buildings.

Several members of the public urged different outcomes. Cindy Cromer told commissioners she feared community benefits were being diluted into fees that developers might pay instead of delivering usable public benefits: "I see this as a windfall for developers," she said. Anne Ruth Isaacson, speaking for the neighborhood community council, said evidence shows many new buildings have struggled to lease ground‑floor commercial and urged the commission to favor for‑sale housing stock over more rental units. A younger resident, Luke Valentino, urged more affordable rental supply.

After deliberation, the commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council adopt both the general‑plan amendment and the MU‑5 zoning rezone as presented by staff. The recommendation will be transmitted to City Council for final action, where council may modify or approve the requested map and any community‑benefit terms.

The commission’s staff report and discussion noted that if City Council denies the amendments, the site would remain under RMF‑45 rules (a 45‑foot height limit, an approximate by‑right capacity of 29 units and no ground‑floor commercial requirement), and the applicant would not be required to provide the community‑benefit package or tenant relocation assistance.