Planning Commission recommends rezoning Wells Fargo site on Bengal Boulevard to multifamily; forwards recommendation to City Council

The Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission on July 16 voted to recommend that City Council approve a proposed general‑plan amendment and zoning map change to allow multifamily residential development on a parcel at 3425 East Bengal Boulevard.

The applicant, Nathan Anderson, is seeking to change the property’s designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to RM (multifamily residential). The commission’s vote was a recommendation to the City Council; council is the final decision maker.

Why it matters: The 0.48‑acre parcel sits on the north side of Bengal Boulevard across from a Smith’s grocery and is the only NC‑designated parcel on that side of the street. If rezoned and later developed, the site could host attached residential units (for example, townhomes) that would be subject to RM development standards. Neighbors argued the change would allow building mass and density incompatible with surrounding single‑family neighborhoods and could increase traffic on adjacent Oak Shadow Circle; the applicant said RM is consistent with nearby medium‑density land uses and would allow housing stock at lower price points.

Staff recommendation and scope of the request City planning staff recommended approval and told commissioners the application is consistent with the city’s long‑range goals for the area. Staff emphasized that the current hearing considered only the general‑plan and zoning map amendments, not a specific development application. If city council approves the rezone, any future development would still be subject to RM zoning standards including setbacks, height limits and lot‑coverage rules. Staff noted that neither the RM nor comparable R‑2‑8 zones would require an open‑space minimum for this lot size.

Applicant and neighbors Applicant Nathan Anderson said he intends to pursue housing consistent with RM standards and argued that the parcel is more compatible with residential uses on the surrounding stretch of Bengal Boulevard than with a standalone commercial use. "I think it's the right thing, less dense, It is all compliant to the written word of the RM zone," Anderson said.

Multiple neighbors urged the commission to deny the rezoning or postpone action until a specific development plan is available. Speakers said the area is predominantly single‑family (R‑1‑6 and R‑1‑8) and warned rezoning to RM could permit buildings up to 35 feet tall with windows and balconies overlooking adjacent yards. Concerns included potential parking overflow onto Oak Shadow Circle, loss of privacy, and the precedent of spot rezoning in an established neighborhood.

Commission discussion and legal/procedural points Commissioners considered competing uncertainties: under current NC zoning a variety of conditional uses are possible (including mixed use with residential above commercial), and staff said NC does not provide a strict unit‑density cap. Commissioners noted that RM zoning would establish clearer dimensional standards (setbacks and lot coverage) and that many of the most intensive NC uses would still require conditional use permits. Several commissioners asked staff to clarify permitted setbacks and whether the rezone would truly limit potential building intensity compared with leaving the site NC.

Formal action A motion to recommend approval of the general‑plan amendment and rezoning (ZMA25003) passed. The motion was made by Commissioner Shelton and seconded by Commissioner Mills. The recorded vote included yes votes from Commissioners Mills, Paulson (recorded as "reluctantly yes"), Shelton, Smith, Simon and Anderson; the motion carried and the item will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration.

What happens next The Planning Commission’s recommendation goes to Cottonwood Heights City Council, which will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination on the general‑plan and zoning map amendments.

Ending note The commission emphasized that a rezone is a legislative action; council will weigh the recommendation along with public input. Any future development on the site would still be subject to RM standards and any applicable conditional‑use review and mitigation measures.