Cottonwood Heights reviews state-mandated moderate-income housing plan, council may vote to submit by Aug. 1

City staff briefed the Cottonwood Heights City Council on a draft moderate-income housing plan that must be filed with the state by Aug. 1.

Community and Economic Development Director Mike Johnson, who led the presentation, said state law provides a 26-item “menu” of strategies from which cities must adopt at least three and that the city is proposing to retain four prior strategies and add a fifth so the city can qualify for priority transportation funding. "We must adopt a minimum of 3," Johnson said when summarizing the statutory requirement.

Johnson gave local benchmarks used in the plan: he cited the city median household income at roughly $116,000 and said 80% of area median income (AMI) would be about $93,000 annually, “roughly $2,300 a month” in housing costs. He reiterated the common affordability rule that households spending more than 30% of gross income on housing are considered cost‑burdened.

The packet submitted to council documents recent progress under the city’s existing tools. Johnson said a Fort Union project of roughly 209–210 units is fully occupied and contains deed‑restricted units at deeper affordability levels (he cited 21 units restricted at 50% AMI). He also described permitting underway at the northern gravel‑pit (Wasatch Rock) site and noted the city code requires roughly 15% of total residential units in that project be affordable; staff flagged a materials typo about exact unit counts and clarified per‑building versus project totals during the briefing.

Among the recommended strategies: continue the development‑flexibility/Planned Development (PDD) approach that yields deed‑restricted units, expand allowance and outreach for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) including targeted outreach and possible streamlining of detached‑ADU approval pathways, pursue public–private partnerships and regional housing funds for built‑out cities, and consider an impact‑fee waiver or reduction for deed‑restricted units if the city resumes charging impact fees.

On ADUs, Johnson said internal ADUs are licensed with inspection and detached ADUs remain a conditional use with Planning Commission review; he recommended the city examine whether the detached‑ADU pathway is “overly restrictive” and suggested exploring pre‑engineered plan options to lower cost barriers for owners.

Council members asked for clarifications about marketing standards for restricted units, historical use of impact fees, and possible uses for leftover county EDA funds. Johnson said the planning commission had unanimously recommended approval and that staff would submit the finalized housing element after council action.

Next steps: the draft is on the council’s agenda for consideration; staff told the council the ordinance/report package could be voted and submitted to the state as soon as council approval is given, with the state deadline of Aug. 1 the controlling date cited repeatedly in the presentation.