Cottonwood Mall site developer says referendum against project is illegal

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • davedave Sandy, UT
    July 9, 2018 6:22 a.m.

    @truth2017

    I currently do not live in Holladay but I grew up in Holladay and I have an office near the proposed development. I know for a fact Romney and Ivory are ok with it because they both live very near the proposed spot. Romney lives half a mile away on Walker Lane and Ivory lives in Millcreek. We need the density to accommodate the masses who want to live in Salt Lake.

  • coltakashi Richland, WA
    July 5, 2018 3:25 p.m.

    Higher density housing makes it more feasible to serve the neighborhood with public transit and cut down on the number of cars on the road. The main air pollution source in Salt Lake County is autos. Dispersing the same amount of housing over several square miles would increase the number of vehicles and air pollution as well as traffic congestion. Population in Utah will continue to grow, and the healthiest and most efficient way to provide housing is by building up, not out.

  • 1Reader Alpine, UT
    July 3, 2018 4:08 p.m.

    Per the artist's renderings: Note that those trees are 15 years tall, and they don't blossom all year.

    That density is just way too much. It's definitely not immoral to defend and maintain your quality of life. As Utah grows, it will need to start new communities and not just build upward (90 feet in this case). The environmental cost of building in desert is so close to zero; this is a responsible place to expand.

  • banliberals Bountiful, UT
    July 3, 2018 12:41 p.m.

    After reading the 10 posts or so here, not a one is from Holladay! I guess the developers have a point.......I hope these groups get the pants sued off them! There is nothing wrong with Progress.........the revenue lost from these Liberals hurts Holladay and its residents!

    MHGA!

    Make Holladay Great Again!

  • Ocomeonow Sea Ranch, CA
    June 30, 2018 1:28 p.m.

    During the first dozen years or so that Cottonwood Mall was in business, before Fashion Place,
    there were hundreds of cars going in and out of this property every day, and twice that on Saturdays.
    Get rid of the 74 luxury homes; initiate a Holladay shuttle bus system that connects this neighborhood with the rest of town, lease out the space for local neighborhood shops, so as not to create a regional attraction, limit commercial parking, allow one residential permit per unit, and lobby for increased bus service in the best directions.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 30, 2018 1:13 p.m.

    It is high time for people to give up on the extremist anti development stance. We need more development to drive down housing prices.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2018 10:09 a.m.

    @nead

    Townhomes in midvale are going for low 300’s to low 400’s. That is not exactly affordable for high density housing.

    Developers are just being greedy.

  • Truth2017 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2018 9:47 a.m.

    Holladay is one of the better places to live in Utah. Ask romney and ivory if you are unsure. I am not sure how they would feel about high density housing next to their mansions in the olympus cove, but for the people who live near the old mall its great right?
    high density housing is like theft. it steals the quality of life and equity from existing home owners. All future costs arising from the negative consequences will be paid in higher taxes by the citizens.
    Its time all high density developments be voted on by the people of the community. Do we really want this, or is it just a way to make developers rich? Let the people decide.

  • Truth2017 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2018 9:37 a.m.

    Its good to see the people stand up to developers. Its good for the people to have a voice and a vote on issues that affect their quality of life. Its wrong for the developer to unleash lawyers on people who do not want this project.
    Most people who are from here are familar with the camel in the tent story.
    Its not immoral to fight to stop developers from packing high density housing into a community that does not want it. Cities that spurn high density will continue to be the best places to live now and in the future.

  • ofer4 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2018 11:36 p.m.

    @Rikitikitavi... The homes on this site are intended to sell for $1 million+. Don't hold your breath.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    June 29, 2018 10:49 p.m.

    My son rents a basement in a small Sugar House home. It's going on the market for just shy of 400K. No chance he can buy the house. Maybe the proposed Cottonwood project finally makes home ownership a reality.
    Same goes for my daughter in Sandy.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 29, 2018 5:20 p.m.

    @ofer4 - Salt Lake City, UT
    It looks like reporter Jasen Lee needs to do a little research and write a follow-up. We assume that journalists don't take statements at face value.

    So Jasen, did Ivory ask for and get a zoning change?

    And, is such a referendum binding on the project?

    And while you're at it, do these challenges to the petition have any validity?

    Let's hope for a clarification after the holiday.

  • ofer4 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2018 4:50 p.m.

    @Say No... This is where Ivory is just wrong. The city DID change the zoning for this site, which was the whole point of the discussion. If it was just approving a plan within the existing zoning, the City Council would not have needed to be involved. It could have just been handled by the Planning Commission. Ivory and Woodbury were asking the city to change the zoning, which was made abundantly clear during all of the hearings and meetings.

    And the referendum would negate the vote. It is, in fact, binding. Of course, nothing prevents the City Council from voting on a largely similar plan thereafter, which would start this whole process over again. My own hope is that the referendum forces the developers to reduce the density. Then I hope that they do proceed with the lower-density plan and get on with life. :)

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    June 29, 2018 4:31 p.m.

    Always check your premise.

    It is hilarious to think the Holladay has a monolithic character and charm to begin with. Rome it ain't.

    How does a project violate something that doesn't exist?

    The project is a vast improvement over the eyesore there now.

    What citizens ought to watch out for are sweetheart deals in the form of cash and tax breaks to the developer. They should pay full price for the necessary infrastructure improvements needed.

    By the way, from the rendering it looks like they are going for a "Touch of Paris," plaza knock-off.

  • PeakBagger1 Heber City, UT
    June 29, 2018 10:30 a.m.

    The lesson for municipalities and developers is for municipalities to get their code and zoning straight without regard to individual developments and for developers to develop within the code and zoning. That way most everything is just administrative and not referable. Referendums are getting out of hand!!

  • NEAD SLC, UT
    June 29, 2018 10:27 a.m.

    Here's my unpopular opinion: arguments against increased density in the SL Valley are immoral. Housing is pushing into the unaffordable range for many people, so we need more housing stock. Building farther and farther from the population and commercial centers is environmentally irresponsible. So a fight against density-increasing development is either a fight for a higher cost of living for the financially vulnerable or a fight for worse air; or both.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 29, 2018 10:17 a.m.

    Holliday can't use more property tax revenue and sales tax revenue. Only thing that would guarantee a successful development is walkable open space in the development and flow through mass transit ability.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 29, 2018 9:14 a.m.

    The lawyers have a point. If the city doesn't need to change the zoning or grant significant waivers, then Ivory has property rights here.

    But the question on the ballot is advisory, not binding. It is little more than an approval poll or a "message bill" our legislature is famous for.

    Bringing out the lawyers is overkill here.

    Disclaimer: I never did like Cottonwood Mall. My dentist had his office there when I was a kid.