×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Holladay Horizons General Plan: Steering Committee Draft

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Close

Add comment

Carrie Jul 21 2025 at 12:14PM on page 3

Suggested Revision

...which included engagement with and input from the public, the ....

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 5:29PM on page 65

Comment

When we go through development, the city’s main concern with respect to water is impervious vs pervious coverage, which is driven by the desire to protect the capacity of the stormwater system rather than the desire to reduce water consumption. If we want to preserve water resources, I think that the code could be updated to require a certain percentage of low-water landscape in the pervious landscape allocation for new developments. The home I just finished has a great little yard and uses 1/3 the water of my neighbors. About half of its pervious landscaping is xeriscape. I think it should be a goal or policy of the city to institute a xeriscape or low-water mandate percentage for all projects.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 5:27PM on page 60

Comment

The water section—I recognize that this is beyond the purview of the plan, but while the City is considering its varied service providers, I’ve always thought it odd how JVWCD cuts a narrow district awkwardly across the city. When we dug up HB to do my current development, the quantity of utilities were obnoxious. There were separate waterlines for each of the providers. Why? Why can’t we get JVWCD absorbed into the other two water providers and simplify water administration in the city? Perhaps you can’t do anything with this comment, but I provide it as an example observation from my own experience here.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 5:21PM on page 53

Comment

I agree FULLY with the focus of this goal and the related policies. I think if you re-read the introductory narrative to this whole section, you’ll find that it appears to have a sharp focus on property tax and a soft focus on sales tax. I think that needs to be reconsidered/revised. I don’t think the City wants to prioritize one over the other—doing the stuff outlined here gives the city BOTH increased property value in and out of the commercial districts, AND increased sales tax revenue.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 5:17PM on page 51

Comment

I have the sensation that the importance of Holladay Village is missed in the discussion. First, the other major hubs discussed below it have economic (tax generation) analytics, but none for the village, which is currently the largest and most important. Second, in my mind the unbuilt—or more precisely—the yet-to-be-redeveloped portion of the village is the most important commercial undertaking in the city’s future. Doing it well, doing it right, is crucial to maintaining the village feel of the city, and also crucial to its economic/retail future. I think the City should be equipped with a powerful mandate to address and support this redevelopment, and also to guarantee its architectural and landscape excellence. I think the General Plan should reinforce that better.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 5:14PM on page 49

Suggested Revision

This whole section, and in particular the Key Considerations section needs copy/edit work to flow better. I also think the analysis needs to better balance the discussion of importance for both property and sales taxes. Utah has a major Point-of-Sale provision for sales tax distribution, and retail sales are therefore ALWAYS important to a community. Quality commercial development brings BOTH property and sales tax revenue, so it can definitely be more beneficial to the city than just residential development (which carries a 45% assessment exemption for primary property owners unlike commercial development).

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 5:11PM on page 23

Comment

I really like the SUSTAIN/EVOLVE/PROTECT framework. I think it gives city staff a layer of power with intent. The areas indicated as EVOLVE are intended to accommodate growth and change. I think we should be careful to make sure that the FLU designations in these areas are carefully worked out, literally parcel-by-parcel, to further support the power of that intent.

in reply to Emily Gray's comment

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 5:02PM on page 47

Comment

As I’ve been reading, I’ve been resisting stating aloud what Emily just said. There’s a part of me that wants to say “yes” to all this UTA and transit stuff, but I worry that the community doesn’t actually like/want/need it. The exception, of course, would be light rail along Highland Drive, which could connect the U, Sugarhouse, Brickyard, Holladay Hills, and the Cottonwood Canyons. That investment would change the corridor and make it an excellent place to absorb growth while meaningfully reducing traffic.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:56PM on page 46

Comment

I have believed for a very long time that Highland Drive is the right place and the only place for an east side light rail line. I could go on for many pages, but I think if Holladay is really intentional about this Policy and Action, it probably means getting engaged in a long term campaign with Cottonwood Heights, Millcreek, and Salt Lake City to make something happen here.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:46PM on page 40

Suggested Revision

It appears in the map that follows that there are zero existing or planned Class I corridors in the city. If that is the case, perhaps that should be acknowledged here.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:44PM on page 39

Comment

ALSO: when you click on this map it takes you to the map on the other website that only shows bus routes.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:42PM on page 39

On this map I think there is an odd flaw. From Holladay Blvd, Wren Rd is not a preferred pedestrian connection—Kentucky Street is. Kentucky’s terminus is the food trucks and the HV. Wren has an unsafe corner, no sidewalk, and poor visibility for pedestrians and children.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:32PM on page 36

Technical Edit

In this document there is a slightly erratic use of “toward” and “towards”. I suggest the uniform use of “toward”.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:27PM on page 34

Technical Edit

The word “Action” is misspelled throughout this sections goals list.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:25PM on page 34

Technical Edit

The word “Action” is misspelled as “Aciton” in all of these Housing element sections.

in reply to Ashley Atkinson's comment

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:24PM on page 34

Comment

I like Ashley’s comment and concept above. In addition, I see this as a very aggressive action—allowing duplexes in all SFR areas seems like it erodes the very idea of “sustain” that applies to those areas. To me, this kind of action seems like it should be more carefully focused in areas identified as “evolve”

in reply to Ashley Atkinson's comment

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:09PM on page 30

Comment

Yes! But also water use. It is such low-hanging fruit. Some percent of low-water landscape should be required in the pervious areas of all new developments or redevelopments, and the incentive structure should support it.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:05PM on page 30

Comment

This would be very high on my wish list of things for the city—some sort of aggressive program for the undergrounding of utilities, especially along the corridors that feed into Holladay Village.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 4:02PM on page 30

Question

I worry a little bit about this…could one run into trouble demolishing a non-significant, depreciated home built in 1975? I don’t know if 50 years is by itself the best criterion, perhaps it should be NHRP-eligible or something of that sort before being moved through this process?

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:52PM on page 28

Suggested Revision

This paragraph should be revised for flow and clarity.

in reply to Ashley Atkinson's comment

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:50PM on page 26

Agree completely—these images make no sense where they sit in the document right now.

in reply to Ashley Atkinson's comment

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:47PM on page 25

Comment

And also the same comment as I made above. I respectfully disagree. I do not think the community has a broad desire to see “additional density or changes in use” as a possibility in this area, which is envisioned in the SUSTAIN category description above. Special districts in cities get special protections all the time. Harvard-Yale (Yalecrest) in SLC has special protections, for example, because it is clearly unique, historic, and special. Its residents want protection and incredible stability, and there is no consternation in the broader city about granting it.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:38PM on page 25

Technical Edit

Perhaps use the word “substantial” here to avoid redundant use of the word “significant” in the sentence?

in reply to Ashley Atkinson's comment

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:35PM on page 24

I remember the meeting including this point of view, but also including disagreement over the point of view. In my memory there was a discussion about the utilities being a natural constraint, but I definitely do not remember arriving at a decision to only use “protect” status for open space. I personally remember expressing that this is a special and unique development pattern - the only area in the salt lake valley of its type. It is an absolutely unique country estate district and to do less than protect it is politically untenable in Holladay. I don’t think there is any political risk with leaving it the way it is rendered here, and I DO think there is political risk with any idea of not protecting it. I also think this rendering is consistent with what essentially everyone in Holladay expects anyway: The country estate lots will stay that way and be protected from change. As a developer I look at this area and automatically avoid it as a subdivision target because I understand how the community values it the way it is.

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 3:30PM on page 3

Technical Edit

meet

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 3:29PM on page 3

Technical Edit

additional comma after break
bend, not break,

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 3:28PM on page 2

Suggested Revision

Are the things in this sentence the things that can sometimes be taken for granted? Add clarification.

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 3:27PM on page 2

Technical Edit

these elements

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 3:26PM on page 2

Technical Edit

put "to the maximum extent possible" at the end.

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 3:25PM on page 2

Technical Edit

Maybe lead with "Updates to this plan..." end with "as residential and economic trends...."

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:19PM on page 23

Technical Edit

Add comma

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:17PM on page 22

Technical Edit

Eliminate this redundant “especially”

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:16PM on page 21

Suggested Revision

Here it occurs again. Would you consider making each FLU category its own page? Green header, then image, then other information, but always fitting on a full single sheet?

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 3:14PM on page 2

Suggested Revision

plural- "provides realistic opportunities"
Could also eliminate realistic and just leave it as opportunities

in reply to Raelynn Potts's comment

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:14PM on page 20

Suggested Revision

I agree—this is the second time the image has been confusingly disconnected from its land use zone. Maybe put the image immediately under the green header text, then the density and use details after the image?

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:12PM on page 19

Technical Edit

Add comma after the word region

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 3:11PM on page 19

Technical Edit

“intensity” seems like a more precise word than “impact” here

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 2:45PM on page 3

Technical Edit

No apostrophe

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 2:44PM on page 2

Technical Edit

This sentence is awkward—it is a continuation of the prior sentence, but stands alone without the normal context of a full sentence.

Buck Jul 18 2025 at 2:35PM on page 2

Technical Edit

Missing bullet here

Carrie Jul 18 2025 at 2:25PM on page 2

Suggested Revision

Can the word conservation be woven into this statement somewhere?

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 10:07AM on page 66

This ends quite abruptly. Needs at least some small wrap-up.

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 10:06AM on page 66

Love the tracking/demonstrating aspect

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 10:06AM on page 65

I would love for these to be as ambitious as possible while still maintaining the tree canopy.

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 10:05AM on page 65

Consider capping new residential turfgrass coverage to a certain percentage (35%?) and requiring developers use low-water turf species (e.g. not Kentucky bluegrass). It much easier to start with less turngrass than to incentivize retrofits.

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 10:03AM on page 65

Consider lowering this threshold

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 10:02AM on page 65

What already exists, and how is this building on that?

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 9:59AM on page 61

Visuals would help this section, or a Portal to other great existing resources

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 9:59AM on page 61

Mention Great Salt Lake as an important regional consideration!

Angela Gong Jul 18 2025 at 9:58AM on page 60

Add language around the impacts of different water uses as well--the implications for downstream are very different for indor vs outdoor water bc of depletions vs. nondepletive diversions