Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lease And Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cottonwood Heights CDRA ratifies lease for Fort Union town center despite concern over height limit
Summary
The Cottonwood Heights Community Development and Renewal Agency approved Resolution 2025-07 on Dec. 16, 2025, ratifying an agreement to lease real property in the Fort Union town center. A board member urged delay over a height-restriction clause (item 6.9); staff said the agreement is intended to be binding and any change would require developer consent.
The Cottonwood Heights Community Development and Renewal Agency voted Dec. 16 to approve Resolution 2025-07, ratifying an agreement to lease real property within the Fort Union town center at 2300 East.
The vote followed a short debate over a provision labeled in the draft lease as item 6.9 that one board member said limited building height to two stories (about 35 feet) and could constrain future adjustments. "I would like to go on record... that item 6.9... limits the city and Onyx Thrive to a maximum of 35," said an unnamed board member who asked the agency to delay ratification until the city attorney had reviewed options.
City staff responded that "the agreement to lease is intended to be a binding document," and that changing design elements such as height restrictions after execution would require the developer's agreement. Chair Mike Quickers said the board would still entertain a motion.
Council member Noah moved to approve Resolution 2025-07; Council member Holton seconded. During roll call, Board member Holton voted yes, Board member Hyland voted yes, Board member Renewal voted yes, Board member Burrell voted no, and Chair Mike Quickers voted yes. The measure passed (yes 4, no 1).
Staff also noted a technical problem with the ground-lease exhibit: section numbers were missing in the version attached to the packet and would need correction after approval. The board approved the lease with that procedural caveat and then proceeded to other agenda matters.
The agency indicated that, because the lease is intended to be binding, any formal amendment to height limits or other described design elements would require consent from the developer and likely additional legal work. No substantive amendment to item 6.9 was made at the meeting.
