Thursday, October 15, 2026The Utah Ledger

Everything Utah, every day.

Logan development tracker

351 South 100 East (TEA) rezone

Request to rezone about 0.92 acres from NR-6 to Commercial. The Planning Commission recommended approval 5-2 and staff recommended approval, but the council denied it 3-2 on October 1, 2024, with three members preferring to wait for the new General Plan.

Where it stands
Denied
Type
Zone change
Location
351 South 100 East
Size
0.92 acres
Applicant
TEA (property owners)

Every hearing and vote

  1. September 3, 2024 · City Council

    Workshop: 351 South 100 East rezone, Ordinance 24-16

    Discussed

    Staff previewed rezoning about 0.92 acres from NR-6 to Commercial; the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval. Action was set for September 17.

  2. September 17, 2024 · City Council

    351 South 100 East (TEA) rezone from NR-6 to COM, Ordinance 24-16 (public hearing)

    Continued · 5-0

    The hearing covered about 0.92 acres. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval. Dr. Gail Yost opposed the change, citing neighborhood character; Matthew Fatuesi preferred NR-6 because of traffic; Joshua Molitor wanted the zone kept, citing road capacity. The council continued the item to October 1 as an action item with no new hearing at the proponents' request because of a family medical emergency. Council Member Mark Anderson said he knows both proponents and has no vested interest; City Attorney Craig Carlston said he would not need to recuse.

    • Acres: about 0.92
    • Current zone → proposed: NR-6 → COM
    • Planning Commission: recommended approval 5-2

    Moved by Council Member Jeannie Simmonds, seconded by Council Member Mark Anderson. Vote: 5-0 on roll call

  3. October 1, 2024 · City Council

    351 South 100 East (TEA) rezone from NR-6 to COM, Ordinance 24-16

    Denied · 2-3

    The motion to rezone about 0.92 acres failed 2-3. The Planning Commission and staff had recommended approval, 5-2 at the commission. The proponents said a gas station was not planned, though the zone would allow one absent a deed restriction. Council Members Simmonds, Amy Anderson and Johnson preferred waiting for the new General Plan; Council Members López and Mark Anderson supported the change. The minutes say both 'motion carried' and 'motion is denied' in the same entry, which should be checked.

    • Acres: about 0.92
    • Current zone → proposed: NR-6 → COM

    Moved by Council Member Mark Anderson, seconded by Council Member Ernesto López. Vote: 2-3; Council Members Amy Anderson, Mike Johnson and Jeannie Simmonds voted no