Planning commission opens year-long review of historic mill demolition request

The Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission on Jan. 21, 2026 began a procedural review of CUP-25-005, an application tied to the potential demolition of an historic mill on Cottonwood Canyon Road. "The recommendation for tonight as Shane alluded to is it's just a discussion item," staff said, explaining the ordinance requires the application to remain pending before the planning commission for at least one year before the commission may act.

Staff explained the matter involves two parallel processes: the planning commission's conditional-use review and a separate city-council certificate-of-appropriateness process for any demolition. The structure is listed in the city's historic-preservation chapter and, staff said, "it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971." Commissioners emphasized the need for additional documentation before any decision: seismic and fault-line data, records of any condemnation (including who issued any past condemnations and when), the city's enforcement history under the historic-maintenance clause, and the history of past preservation or donor efforts.

One commissioner raised funding and liability concerns, noting the possibility of very large retrofit costs and asking who would bear that responsibility. "...we are imposing, you know, a potential 50 plus million dollar liability on a condemned building that was condemned pre the city," the commissioner said, urging staff to clarify how the building was added to the historic list and what obligations the city or owner would face. Staff and other commissioners agreed these are appropriate research items for the 12-month period and that the applicant should be asked to provide studies and historic documentation.

Staff outlined a list of follow-up items it will compile or request from the applicant, including how national or state historic designations affect the city's review, when and why a structure was condemned if a condemnation occurred, the date the maintenance clause was added to the city code, and any seismic or structural studies the applicant can provide. The transcript does not record a final motion or vote on CUP-25-005; staff recommended continued review and proposed that the commission determine a meeting cadence and specific information requests over the coming months.