Reader comments
Millcreek steps nearer limits on 'monster homes'

Slag0500 | 11:21 a.m. March 17, 2009

The government has no constitutional right to limit the size of homes in Millcreek or anywhere else. This Country was founded on the principle that the only purpose of government is protecting us from crime and foreign invasion. The government has no business telling citizens what size of homes they should live in.

rights | 11:40 a.m. March 17, 2009

you are wrong local can make code to protect most from some. otherwise you could build ahous many storie high that no longer let sun light reach someones house and killing plant growth. Or they could build a house that used so much power it made brown outs of black outs. Just because they are rich they should not be able to do what ever they want.

clholli | 11:52 a.m. March 17, 2009

Again it people trying very hard to say I want all this uniform and cookie cutter. Move to england if you don't like it. mile after mile of uniform row houses where the only diffrence is the cars in the front drive. It's all about who owns the land and obviously we rent from the government. And obviously the neighborghs are worried because they will have more taxes and have to spend more to keep up with the jones.

Comments continue below

McGurkus | 12:19 p.m. March 17, 2009

In this time of economic tormoil when thousands are going hungry, it is unconscionable to spend the kind of money it takes to build these McMansions. These people should be content to live in a house like their neighbors.

seen it before | 12:50 p.m. March 17, 2009

Mark my words! If this ordinance passes the only alternative for Millcreek areas affected by it will be to eventually become a slum. If in your short sighted way, you prevent rebuilding the homes in the area, then the existing homes remain and become unavoidably outdated, too small and undesirable. It will not happen immiedately, but it will happen. You will curse the day when this was passed.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but it carries with it the awfull reality that not everyone wants to live in a home that was built in 1960. Don't blame this on the super rich. None of you in Millcreek wanted to live in Rose Park or Glendale, either.

Reconstruction is good | 1:00 p.m. March 17, 2009

1. Reconstruction benefits old neighborhoods because it makes property values rise.

2. Anyone who calls a new, big house a "McMansion" is JEALOUS.

3. Big houses don't block out the sun any more than trees do, which can get taller than most houses. Does that mean tall trees should be cut down?

4. The size of a home (as long as it poses no harm to its surroundings)is nobody's business but the owner's.

Wrex | 1:51 p.m. March 17, 2009

It seems that there are two extreme positions:
1. No Restrictions at All, and
2. Totally Restricted.

I would surmise that somewhere in the middle lies the appropriate answer and course of action.

frank | 1:51 p.m. March 17, 2009

Those of you are compaining about the size of homes need to get off your soapbox. When your homes were built they also were consider to large. It was your right then and it the new owners right now to build wonderful looking homes.

Himself | 1:52 p.m. March 17, 2009

It's nice to see that the spirit of selfishness and anarchy still trumps all else. Hey slag I'm putting a hog farm next door to you, got the constitution right here.

Re: McGurk | 1:52 p.m. March 17, 2009

Are you going to comment on every article today?

Restrictions | 1:54 p.m. March 17, 2009

Restrictions should be set in place. There's no need for 10K square foot homes in these areas, unless its built on a large lot. Set height restrictions, but make them reasonable (30-35 feet). Instill setback requirements and again make them reasonable. There isn't any reason why both parties can't win.

Midwest Member | 2:31 p.m. March 17, 2009

Sounds like a lovely place where everyone gets along. Who wouldn't want to live there? The ugly American is alive and well.

Anonymous | 4:39 p.m. March 17, 2009

Certainly neighbors can weigh in about the size of a new home near them. Suppose someone plans to move to your neighborhood of average-sized homes and wants to put build a tiny home the size of a tough shed. That would drop the value of your home and you would not be happy when it came time to selling your home.

On the flip side, I used to live in Millcreek. When I visit the area I often think how ridiculous these new, enormous homes look squeezed in on the small lot. The homes are so big that they are built within a few feet of the edge of the property line. Seriously, imagine someone building a ten story building on your neighborhood street and that would help your mind's eye see how ridiculous these homes can look.

Anonymous | 5:09 p.m. March 17, 2009

I certainly think restrictions and zoning codes will allow flexibility for people to expand who want to expand. Doing it within the codes will ensure that future homes meet a reasonable balance for home-to-lot ratios. Hopefully it will become a beautiful neighborhood in the years to come with managed growth, rather than a hodge-podge mixture of retro quaint and modern sprawl.

I just hope I never have to have 'reconstruction is good' as a neighbor ;)

Anonymouser | 6:45 p.m. March 17, 2009

I live in the East Millcreek area recently annexed by Holladay. We have lots of "scrapes" (the removal of perfectly good house to build larger perfectly good house) and by and large they seem to be in keeping with the neighborhoods. One person near me seemingly wanted a castle and is building same in the midst of a neighborhood of 50-something homes. Glad it's not next to me.

What has driven this argument in other neighborhoods is when a house is built out to EVERY maximum setback or tolerance. I invite you to go see the poster child for bad rebuilds ... the so-called Hubbard house at 1788 East Hubbard Avenue in the Yalecrest area. That house, which was never occupied by the owners, is an eyesore and is so huge and boxy passers-by think it is a fire station.

Some have suggested a formula by which only a percentage of the total maximum setbacks could be employed in a given structure. It's a complex, emotional problem and hard to define. Good luck to the county council.

Laser | 7:21 p.m. March 17, 2009

I'd be very disappointed if they pass this code, because it will drive me out of the area. I live in East Milcreek and love it. But I'll have to move eventually with my growing family if there are restrictions on remodeling. The base homes here are so small, even a tiny family (by Utah standards) needs something bigger than the typical 2000 square foot house here. I'd love to renovate to a bigger (but not monster) home, but the proposed code is too restrictive. In effect, this regulation will drive young families like mine out of this area.

Remodeling and allowing bigger homes increases home values for everyone here. Our home values here will increase only if people are allowed to update and modernize.

Finally, the architecture here isn't the Avenues or Sugarhouse. I love the area, but East Millcreek is primarily 1950s box homes. If you think that is architecurally worth preserving, God help you. This is a great area but the lets face it, the houses need a little help.

Don't Limit Us | 7:59 p.m. March 17, 2009

Protect your freedoms as a homeowner in this free country. The day your neighbor can limit the way you build your house, the day this great country falls down. If he can't get sunlight and it kills his plants, that's too bad--you got there first. It's my right as an American homeowner to build my house the way I want and as big as I want it, whether it's in Millcreek or any other place.

MoreThingsChange | 10:05 p.m. March 17, 2009

The problem isn't the existing homes, it's people's values that have changed. My neighbor raised 9 children in a 1800 SQFT home. Today people buy so much junk that fills they house that they then complain about raising a family in a "small" 2000 SQFT home.
I guess we aren't learning anything from this recession. Everyone still seems to think more is more, from our huge, gas-guzzling SUVs to our huge homes.
Someday the huge houses will all stand as a mark of our gluttony and greed.

Sharjah | 10:56 p.m. March 17, 2009

There is great value in neighborhood zoning codes. I am sure that many of the owners of large homes in the neighborhood would be upset if somebody kept farm animals next to their nice, large, house. It seems that all are best served when there are separate areas for McMansions, farms, and 2,000 square foot houses.

On another note, I find it interesting how our need for home space seems to just keep getting greater and greater. When I lived in Hawaii, a family of 7 or 8 routinely occupied 1,400 to 1,500 square feet. Of course, one can live much more outdoors in Hawaii than in Utah. In the Middle East where I currently reside, expatriate couples frequently have 3,000 square feet or more for just two people.

L | 12:23 a.m. March 18, 2009

I have observed an area (Boulder COUNTY Colorado) that has established size limitations I think of 5000 sq foot. My observation is that it has not made the area "go downhill" as some have suggested, but those areas with the restrictions have grown in value and there has been a waiting list to move into them.

A pig farm next to you as an alternative to do whatever you want to do. That is how it used to be in many communities until CITIZENS indicated the need for planning and zoning.

I guess it is like my freedom to swing my arm encounters some restrictions when it beging to hurt others. If the majority of the landowners in a certain area want to restrict the size of homes in that area and put the plans and zoning in to control that .... that is how it should be.

Afer all, what I do in my yard will effect the value of the neighbor's property. Just ask any appraiser. Health, Safety & Welfare of the citizens is the main reason for planning and zoning. On the other hand, everyone certainly has the right to influence laws that are considered.

Laser | 7:55 a.m. March 18, 2009

Some odd comments here. Because someone used to cram 6 people in a 2000 square foot house 30 years ago, it's the way to live now? I'd be interested to see the size of the house those "idealist" commentors have now, and whether or not they have kids. Yes, a family of 6 or more people can live in 2000 square feet. But do you think many parents are going to choose to do that willingly if they can afford otherwise? I try and be as "green" as possibly in my lifestyle, but cramming a lot of people in a small space is not practical and there is no reason to do it if more can be afforded. You are not going to fill up East Millcreek with idealist families who believe in minimizing the space in which we live. The only thing that will happen if we are expecting that is the ghettoifcation of Millcreek, because the only families that will live in those tiny homes are the ones that will be unable to afford anything else. That is just reality.

Love Thy Neighbor | 9:42 a.m. March 18, 2009

Common courtesy seems to be what is lacking here, even more than appropriate zoning ordinances. As long as people seek to live in a civilized society, they must consider how their actions affect those around them. The mantra of rugged individualism, "I can do whatever I want with MY land," may work for those with multiple-acre estates, but in most neighborhoods, it smacks of self-centered, small-mindedness.

In my neighborhood, there are a couple of beautiful, tasteful "monster homes." But I can't help but wonder what their owners feel about the even larger, less attractive ones that now tower over them... And what about the not-quite-finished ones that stand stark and vacant, symbolic monuments to excess in a poor economy? Are they making anyone happy?

Individuals on both sides of this issue want their points of view respected and validated. The main issue may not be the size of the homes, but instead, the underlying message, which comes across as "I don't care what you want." Let's change that message, and then seek a resolution of the zoning issue.

Honor Thy Neighbor | 3:08 p.m. March 26, 2009

I support the comments from "love thy neighbor", right on the mark. Additionally the new MTRI proposed ordinance is not very restrictive.... 28-29 feet high sounds low compared to the existing zoning.... however the height of a story averages about 9 feet, 8 foot wall height and approximately 1 foot to include floor joists. Appears to me one can build two story above grade in 18-20 feet and still have plenty of room for a roof with considerable slope or pitch. Add the basement, and you have a sizable three level home. Positive for infill, with positives for community aesthetic and continuity.
The new ordinance is on the table because many of the new homes built do not include consideration for their neighbors. Consideration for others, an important human quality, is very worthwhile to preserve.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

Tom Smart, Deseret News

Lucy Jordan speaks at a final public comment opportunity before the Millcreek Township Planning Commission on the proposed "monster home" ordinance Monday in Salt Lake City.

Gallery (2 photos)