Cottonwood Heights planning commission continues review of proposed 12‑story condominium at Wasatch gravel pit

The Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission on Jan. 8 heard an informational presentation and public comment on ZTA24‑005, a text amendment to the site‑specific planned development district (PDD‑2) for the gravel pit at 6695 Wasatch Boulevard that would set the height, massing and unit count for a condominium building on the northern edge of the Wasatch Rock Redevelopment site. Planning staff and the applicant said no final vote was scheduled; the commission voted to continue the item to its Feb. 5 meeting to allow a full staff report and updated technical studies.

The item matters because the PDD‑2 ordinance, adopted in 2021, already entitles multiple uses on the 21.5‑acre parcel — an apartment building (originally approved at 325 units and later reduced to 300), several commercial pads, and a hotel — but deferred final approval of the condominium building’s height, unit count and parking. Planning staff said the current application asks only to set those deferred parameters for the condominium site; other entitlements and site standards in the PDD remain unchanged.

Mike (planning staff) told the commission the text amendment is “an amendment to that site specific plan development zone” and that staff will perform a “full technical staff analysis of the proposed condominium details — its massing, its parking generation, its traffic counts.” He recommended the commission continue the discussion to give staff time to update geotechnical, traffic and other analyses and to return with a full staff recommendation.

Applicant Sarah Namelco of Rockworth Companies said the condominium proposal is a 12‑story building with three levels of parking and nine levels of residential units and described the product as intended to be “a higher end product” rather than short‑term rentals. Namelco said the developer is starting phase 1 site grading now and expects to apply for building permits for the apartment phase in the coming months. She told commissioners the team is willing to update renderings and submit additional perspective views for nearby Holiday City residents.

Residents and nearby officials who spoke during the public comment period raised traffic, light pollution, view impacts, dust and vibration from grading, and risks to existing neighborhood character. Bill Hortado, a Holiday resident, said his “biggest concern is more around light pollution” and asked that the commission consider limiting the building to “exactly 150 feet above grade.” Emily Gray, who identified herself as representing District 5 adjacent to the condominium site, said the proposed increase would “protect the character of all along the east bench” and asked the commission to maintain lower heights to preserve views and the suburban character of nearby neighborhoods.

Speakers also pressed technical specifics. Planning staff noted the site contains geologic and geotechnical hazards (fault lines and fault setback areas) and a Metropolitan Water District aqueduct easement that constrain where habitable buildings can be sited and how road crossings are engineered. Staff pointed to a temporary secondary ingress/egress alignment already required as part of initial site entitlements; that access requires UDOT permitting to be operational. Several commenters asked that the traffic study be updated for current conditions and seasonal peak (ski season) impacts.

Commissioners and staff said the PDD‑2 ordinance already establishes maximum height parameters for the gravel pit site using elevation above Wasatch Boulevard as the baseline; staff reiterated that most proposed building massing is well under the ordinance’s maximums (the PDD allows up to 300 feet at the furthest east elevations). Staff estimated the condominium proposal would be roughly in the 140‑foot range based on submitted drawings and historical entitlements. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide additional renderings from Holiday City vantage points and urged careful review of traffic, ingress/egress phasing, lighting compliance and geotechnical mitigation.

By motion, the commission closed public comment, then voted to continue the application to the Feb. 5 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to prepare an updated analysis and for the applicant to submit requested materials. Other routine motions that evening approved planning commission minutes for Nov. 6 and Dec. 4 and adjourned the meeting.

Votes at a glance: The commission voted unanimously to close public comment and to continue ZTA24‑005 to the Feb. 5 meeting; commissioners present voted yes when the motion was called. The commission also approved the Nov. 6 and Dec. 4 minutes and then adjourned.

The next step: staff will prepare a detailed report reassessing traffic impacts (and asking the applicant to provide updated traffic engineering if needed), refresh geotechnical and hazard mitigation analysis, and submit additional perspective renderings and response materials from Rockworth. After the commission’s recommendation the item will go to the Architecture Commission and then to the City Council for final action.