Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer and neighbors reach terms-in-principle for Fort Union housing; council delays rezoning vote to July 15
Summary
A developer seeking to amend the general plan and rezone property at 3526 East Fort Union Boulevard described why commercial uses did not pencil out and agreed to negotiate a development agreement with the city and neighbors; the council voted to table consideration of two ordinances to July 15 to allow agreement language to be drafted.
A developer pursuing a general plan amendment and rezoning for property at 3526 East Fort Union Boulevard agreed to work on a development agreement with the city and neighborhood representatives, and the Cottonwood Heights City Council voted June 3 to table two related ordinances until its July 15 meeting.
The council considered two related items: an ordinance to approve a general plan amendment and rezoning of about 0.95 acre from residential office to residential medium density, and a second ordinance related to a 0.59-acre parcel. The applicant, identified in the meeting as Adam (surname Nash), told the council his firm's expertise is multifamily residential development and that earlier commercial or residential-office ideas for the parcels did not ‘‘pencil out’’ — meaning projected rents and tenant demand would not support new-construction commercial uses at this location.
Adam said the site is not a true retail location and that residential-office (RO) uses on the site would be limited to small professional offices that typically do not generate the rents needed for new construction. He said the RO zone even lists duplexes as a conditional use, and that their market evaluation, parking, signage and lighting limitations all guided the developer back toward a residential zoning and residential product types (townhomes, multifamily) instead of commercial space.
Several council members praised the developer for community outreach and for negotiating concessions with nearby residents. Council member Suzanne Hyland and others referenced neighborhood engagement that included concessions on setbacks, parking and design. The developer said he was willing to enter a development agreement that would memorialize commitments such as setbacks from the western edge and parking-lot treatments.
Council member Holton moved, and council member Burrell seconded, to table consideration of Ordinance 441-A and Ordinance 441-D and to reschedule the matters for the July 15 council meeting to allow staff and the applicant to finalize a development agreement. The motion passed on a voice vote with council members expressing support; the council also discussed that the developer needs to resolve control or easement over a private driveway that provides access to Fort Union Boulevard before finalizing all terms.
The developer said options include purchasing the private drive and granting an easement back to the current owner or negotiating a permanent easement, but emphasized the developer needs certainty before spending funds to upgrade the drive. Council members said the development agreement would clarify maintenance, access and other site controls and help avoid later disputes.
No final zoning action was taken on June 3; the council set July 15 as the target date to return the two ordinances for consideration, contingent on staff and the developer completing the draft development agreement.
