Planning staff backs rezone request at 3526 Fort Union to allow twin homes; council denied similar requests previously

Planning staff presented a combined land‑use map amendment and zone change application (CMA 205002) on May 7 for 3526 Fort Union Boulevard, recommending the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.

The application, submitted by Adam Nash on behalf of Land Development LLC, asks to change the future land‑use designation from residential office to residential medium density and to rezone the property from R1‑8 (single‑family residential, 8,000‑square‑foot minimum lots) to R2‑8 (allowing two‑family dwellings on similar lot sizes). The parcel is just under one acre and, because of site constraints and local development standards, staff estimated either zone would yield approximately three buildable lots; under the applicant’s concept the R2‑8 zoning would allow three twin‑home buildings (six total dwelling units) compared with three single‑family homes under R1‑8.

Staff told commissioners the R2‑8 standards are similar to R1‑8 on many measures: both require 8,000‑square‑foot minimum lots and share the same 35‑foot maximum building height, 25‑foot front setback and 20‑foot rear setback. Differences include a slightly smaller minimum lot width in R2‑8 (65 feet versus 70 feet in R1‑8) and smaller aggregate side‑yard requirements (15 feet total with neither side less than 5 feet in R2‑8 versus 20 feet total with neither less than 8 in R1‑8).

Staff also summarized the property’s recent history: in 2022 a similar request was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission but denied by City Council. Following that denial, the applicant pursued a three‑lot single‑family subdivision through the entitlement process and completed some public improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, utility work); a final subdivision plat exists that could be recorded but has not been recorded. Staff cautioned that if a rezone were approved the applicant would not be required to follow the exact concept plan presented; any subsequent subdivision or building plans would require full engineering, fire and public‑works review.

Staff noted two neighborhood responses: the department received two written comments and some phone calls from nearby residents expressing concerns. Commissioners in the work session asked about shared private drive access to the rear of the site (the applicant’s concept shows rear‑entry units using a privately owned access lane) and staff advised that the developer would need to negotiate any cross‑access or easement with the lane owner and that the city’s fire and engineering review would evaluate whether the lane can safely accommodate traffic.

Staff also pointed out a state law change that now allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single‑family zones statewide, but said Cottonwood Heights code does not permit ADUs in R2‑8; staff’s comparison noted that in practice the maximum theoretical occupancy could be similar between three single‑family lots with ADUs and three duplex buildings, depending on how properties develop.

Staff recommended approval of the land‑use map amendment and rezone and provided model motions for the commission to forward separate recommendations on each element to the City Council. The transcript of the work session records the presentation and discussion; the transcript did not record a final planning commission recommendation vote during the work session portion of the meeting.