Cottonwood Heights staff to hire independent engineering reviewer as Old Mill demolition request proceeds

Cottonwood Heights planning staff said on March 4 that it will seek a city-funded, third-party engineering consultant to produce an independent analysis of the Old Mill’s condition as the Planning Commission continues review of the applicant’s demolition request.

The move aims to give commissioners and the public an objective technical assessment to inform the conditional use permit (CUP-25-00005) review and, if needed, a later City Council decision on a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. Staff estimated the RFQ and study process could take several months and said it intends to present more materials across the coming fiscal year.

“I think we’re hoping to have that out soon so that in the next few months we’ll have that information in front of us so that we can then make some educated decisions,” said Jim Spung, a planning staff member, explaining the city is drafting an RFQ to bring on a third-party engineering consultant to do an independent analysis of the structure. Spung described the planned product as a “city‑funded report … intended to be a non‑biased second opinion.”

Spung told commissioners the packet already includes several exhibits from the applicant and prior studies — including a 1996 Salt Lake County chief building official inspection report, a 1983 flood damage statement, current geological‑hazards mapping and highlights of Utah seismic law — but staff wants an independent analysis to remove questions about bias in applicant‑provided documents.

“If they come back and say like, ‘No, it can be preserved. It’s not a big deal,’ then that changes the conversation. But if they come back and say, ‘No, it’s probably going to fall down in a year,’ then that also changes the conversation,” Spung said.

Staff outlined a staged schedule for additional materials: a future packet on donations and contributions related to preservation, a review of historic maintenance and renovation work, and a business‑use history of the site. Spung reminded the commission that state and local rules create a two‑step review for demolition of historic structures: the Planning Commission’s CUP review is a prerequisite for a City Council certificate of appropriateness, and the council must act within four months of a complete application for that certificate.

The applicant’s representative said the applicant has provided the materials it has and is willing to supply additional studies if requested. “We’ve read the materials that [staff] put together … we’ve tried to reply and respond and provide any information requested from us and plan to continue doing so,” the representative said.

Commissioners debated who should pay for the independent review. Several members asked why city taxpayers should bear the cost rather than the property owner; staff replied the city‑funded study would ensure a neutral evaluation that the council could rely on when deciding whether demolition meets the code’s certificate‑of‑appropriateness standards.

Staff said it will draft the RFQ soon and aim to have proposers submit qualifications; depending on timing, it could be several months before a final report is available. The commission agreed to keep the Old Mill matter on the work‑session agenda for ongoing discussion and to defer formal business‑session action until commissioners have more information. Staff also said it will coordinate timing for any public hearing if the commission elects to schedule one and reminded the body that mailed notice typically requires about ten days’ lead time.

Next steps: staff will finalize the RFQ, provide the planned series of informational packets over the coming months and return to the commission for further discussion; any later decision on demolition would require both Planning Commission action on the CUP and a City Council decision on a certificate of appropriateness.