Published by Paul Ivinskas · Politically neutral. No endorsements.
Thursday, November 5, 2026

Utah, on the record.

Same sections for every candidate. Every fact linked to its source. How we stay neutral →

Holladay development tracker

4545-4551 South Highland Drive rezone

Request to rezone three lots (0.95 acre) from R-2-10 to RM, allowing up to about 14 units versus about 7. The Planning Commission recommended approval 5-2; the council denied it 5-1 on February 18, 2021.

Denied

Type
Zone change
Size
0.95 acres
Homes
14
Applicant
Sequoia Development
Location
4545, 4549 and 4551 South Highland Drive
  1. Feb 18, 2021City Council: Ordinance 2021-01: Rezone 4545, 4549 and 4551 South Highland Drive from R-2-10 to RM
  2. Feb 4, 2021City Council: Continued public hearing: rezone 4545-4551 South Highland Drive from R-2-10 to RM
  3. Jan 21, 2021City Council: Public hearing: rezone 4545, 4549 and 4551 South Highland Drive from R-2-10 to RM

In brief

4545-4551 South Highland Drive rezone appears on 3 recorded agendas, from the City Council meeting of January 21, 2021 to the City Council meeting of February 18, 2021.

On record, it was continued 2 times and denied once.

The most recent decision was denied (1-5) at the City Council meeting of February 18, 2021.

Follow the money and project delivery

4545-4551 South Highland Drive rezone

Denied

  1. Council action

    Denied: Ordinance 2021-01: Rezone 4545, 4549 and 4551 South Highland Drive from R-2-10 to RM · Approved minutes Record → · Feb. 18, 2021

  2. Money in the record

    No itemized amount linked in the records collected.

  3. Signed agreement and payments

    Execution and project-level disbursements are not verified by this tracker. They require separate records; meeting approval alone does not establish either.

  4. Work and operating costs

    Check the linked records for completion and recurring operating costs; this tracker does not verify them. Record →

Every hearing and vote

  1. February 18, 2021 · City Council

    Ordinance 2021-01: Rezone 4545, 4549 and 4551 South Highland Drive from R-2-10 to RM

    Denied · 1-5

    The 0.95-acre site has three single-family homes; R-2-10 would allow seven or eight units and RM up to 14. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval. Council Members Petersen, Quinn, Durham and Gibbons and the mayor gave reasons for opposing, including capturing unclaimed density, neighborhood character and community sentiment. Council Member Fotheringham supported the rezone, citing general plan consistency and nearby commercial uses.

    • Acres: 0.95
    • Current zone → proposed: R-2-10 → RM
    • Planning Commission: 5-2 in favor

    Moved by Council Member Paul Fotheringham, seconded by Council Member Matt Durham. Vote: 5-1 to deny; Council Member Paul Fotheringham voted yes; the minutes record the mayor voting with the council

  2. February 4, 2021 · City Council

    Continued public hearing: rezone 4545-4551 South Highland Drive from R-2-10 to RM

    Continued

    No one spoke and the hearing was closed, with a vote scheduled for February 18. In the work meeting, the mayor and Council Member Petersen said the decision should rest on appropriateness and consistency with the general plan, not revenue. The mayor said height limits are the same in both zones and did not think the project would create affordable housing; Council Member Gibbons noted density can already be doubled without a rezone and cited negative neighbor reactions; Council Member Quinn said a 14-unit building would look out of place; Council Member Petersen raised precedent and traffic. Council Member Fotheringham cited the Highland Drive small area master plan and the general plan; staff said the Planning Commission shares that view. The developer said it would preserve viable mature trees.

  3. January 21, 2021 · City Council

    Public hearing: rezone 4545, 4549 and 4551 South Highland Drive from R-2-10 to RM

    Continued

    The 0.95-acre site holds three homes; R-2-10 allows about 7 units and RM about 14, with RM height limited to 35 feet because the site is under an acre. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 in favor and staff found it consistent with the general plan. The applicants said the project would not add traffic to neighborhood streets, would have stricter setbacks and would provide moderate-income housing. In the work meeting members differed on whether a traffic study was needed now (one is required only above 100 peak-hour trips); concerns on left turns were deferred to site plan review. The hearing remained open.

    • Applicant: Sequoia Development (Kevin Ludlow)
    • Acres: 0.95
    • Current zone → proposed: R-2-10 → RM
    • Planning Commission: 5-2 in favor