Developer Dakota Pacific outlines 3.3-acre infill housing plan near Hillside Plaza, discusses purchase of adjacent apartments

Dakota Pacific representatives presented a concept plan March 5 to the Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission for a 3.3-acre infill housing project on 2300 East adjacent to Hill Rise Apartments and the Rocky Mountain Power substation.

The developer described the proposal as ‘‘medium density’’ in their terms — roughly 3–4 stories with tuck-under garages, about 20 dwelling units across the site, and a planned parking ratio of about 1.6 stalls per unit. The firm said it is negotiating to acquire the neighboring Hill Rise Apartments after a right-of-first-refusal on those units was triggered.

Why this matters: the site fronts 2300 East at the edge of the future Towne Centre redevelopment and the developer framed the project as an entrance to a new master-planned area that should activate nearby retail. The project’s scale, street frontage and adjacency to an existing apartment complex mean design, parking and zoning choices could affect circulation, pedestrian access and nearby residents.

Developers and staff described key elements and constraints. The team said the topography includes roughly a 30-foot fall across the site; they plan to use building massing and tuck-under garages to handle grade changes rather than constructing an expensive podium or full parking structure. The team showed a streetside leasing-office storefront on the lower corner, an outdoor amenity/green space and interior amenities such as a fitness room and clubhouse. The developer summarized the unit mix as mostly one- and two-bedroom units, with some studios and a small number of three-bedroom units.

‘‘We view this as kind of the entrance into this new area,’’ a Dakota Pacific representative said while outlining the 2300 East frontage and pedestrian emphasis. The presentation emphasized a stronger pedestrian experience on 2300 East, stoops and storefront-like edges along the street, and opportunities for landscaped seating rather than uninterrupted sidewalks.

Parking and parking policy were prominent topics. The developer said market rents and construction costs (particularly concrete) make structured parking expensive; that reality influenced the 1.6 parking-ratio planning assumption. Commissioners and staff discussed shared use of excess parking at Hill Rise — staff said Hill Rise currently has two stalls per unit and that the northeast corner of that property shows the greatest excess — and the developer said shared parking could allow more dwelling units on the combined footprint if they acquire Hill Rise.

The applicant confirmed a recorded easement south of the daycare building that provides access across the parcel and identified two main access points: the existing Hill Rise entrance (which they would redevelop if acquired) and a secondary entrance near the daycare. The developer said some circulation assumptions in their concept depend on whether the purchase of Hill Rise completes and noted negotiations are ongoing.

Commissioners raised transit-oriented and shared-ride options; the developer said past projects with one-spot-per-unit ratios led to overflow parking in adjacent neighborhoods and that full TOD-style reductions are risky where car ownership patterns remain high. The team said they were open to bike-storage and other measures that can modestly reduce required stalls but were wary of aggressive parking reductions for this site without broader neighborhood changes.

On zoning and approvals, Cottonwood Heights staff said the proposal does not neatly fit current zoning and will likely follow a site-specific rezoning process similar to a planned development district (PDD). Staff indicated the city and developer are coordinating submittal requirements ahead of a formal application in which the planning commission will hold public hearings and ultimately forward recommendations to city council for final action.

Commissioners and staff offered guidance on design references, including the Fort Union master plan and form-based principles for the Towne Centre area, and asked the developer to show updated street-section and frontage treatments in future renderings. The developer said they are aiming to submit in a way that allows the project to be financed and built in today’s market rather than relying on more costly parking structures.

The presentation closed with the developer reiterating their local office ties and interest in moving the project forward; no formal application or vote occurred at the March 5 meeting.