Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews request to rezone 3425 East Bridal Boulevard for six-townhome development
Summary
Council reviewed a developer’s request to amend the general plan and rezone 3425 East Bridal Boulevard from neighborhood commercial to residential multifamily, discussed setback and access constraints and asked staff to pursue a text amendment and planning‑commission review before formal action.
Cottonwood Heights council members discussed a developer’s proposal to change the property at 3425 East Bridal Boulevard from commercial to residential multifamily and to approve a development agreement that would allow a six‑unit townhome project. Planning staff said the planning commission recommended approval of both the general‑plan amendment and the rezone but highlighted design constraints on the narrow corner lot.
At the work session, planning staff described the concept plan: six townhouse units with 20‑foot (two‑car) garages that would face Oak Shadow Circle; the site currently has a 10‑foot side setback and a 30‑foot front yard under RM zone standards. Council members and staff raised concerns about vehicle access, fire department turning radii for a proposed rear alley, and a developer note that requiring sprinklers because of an access limitation could add about $16,000 per unit.
Council members asked staff to explore a citywide text amendment to the RM zone that could allow adjusted front and side setback rules—one suggestion was permitting a larger side setback adjacent to single‑family homes while reducing the front yard depth to make the site buildable. Staff said any text amendment would go first to the planning commission for public hearing and recommendation, and that the rezone and the general‑plan amendment could be returned to council together with draft amendment language.
No final vote or formal approval of the rezone, general‑plan amendment or development agreement was recorded in the work session transcript. The council asked staff to work with the applicant to explore (1) whether a rear alley is feasible given fire‑access constraints and turning radii, (2) draft text‑amendment language for RM setbacks, and (3) adjustments to the site plan to address neighbor concerns about proximity to single‑family yards. The planning staff committed to returning a recommendation after planning‑commission review.
