Holladay planning commission continues public hearing on updated general plan after detailed review of format and policies

The Holladay City Planning Commission continued its public hearing on the city's updated general plan on Oct. 7, 2025, after commissioners said they needed more time to refine formatting, map graphics and several policy wordings.

Commissioners and the plan consultants spent much of the meeting debating how the draft is presented to readers. Several commissioners urged a short, plain-language "how to use this plan" introduction to help residents find relevant sections and stressed that goal numbering be unique across chapters so "Goal 1" in chapter 3 does not conflict with a separate "Goal 1" elsewhere. Commissioner Cunningham objected to repeated use of an image he described as a poor example of the city's built environment and recommended replacing it with a better-preserved building.

Consultant representatives from Logan Simpson said they will add an appendix with explicit community-engagement numbers and can adjust chapter introductions and labels. "We will include in this plan in the appendix some explicit the numbers that came from our community engagement," the consultant said, noting those figures were omitted from the chapter text but will be available in supporting material.

Commissioners also pressed staff and the consultants to make the distinction between the future land use map and the city's zoning map clearer. Several members suggested presenting the current zoning and the future land use side-by-side in packet materials or on the plan portal so users can easily see intent versus regulatory status. A staff or consultant speaker cautioned that the future land use map is a long-range vision and should be labeled to avoid implying immediate changes in parcel-level zoning.

Policy wording drew significant attention. One draft sentence in chapter 4 that reads, in effect, to allow duplexes across all single-family zones prompted alarm that the plan could be read as a definitive commitment. Commissioners asked for more nuanced language—6for example, "investigate the feasibility of adding duplexes in some single-family zones" or clarifying that such changes would require separate code or zoning actions.

A short public comment was recorded from an attendee who said they were "just curious to hear updates." No formal public testimony that changed staff recommendations was presented during the meeting.

Before adjourning, Commissioner Prince moved to continue the public hearing to the commission's next meeting; Commissioner Gong seconded. The commission conducted a roll-call vote that was recorded as all ayes (Commissioner Cunningham; the commissioner recorded as "Fawn" in the minutes; Commissioner Prince; Commissioner Gallum; Commissioner Barrow; and Chair Roach). Chair Roach announced that the public hearing would be continued.

The commission directed staff and the consultants to: add clearer "how to use" orientation language in chapter introductions; add appendix material with community-engagement numbers; revise captions and replace images that undercut the plan's intent; and reword policy language that could be read as prescriptive rather than aspirational. The hearing remains open and will resume at the commission's next scheduled meeting.