Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And Justin and I were like, it

does not make sense

to sit and try to have these guys do what my worst option. Still trying to make

Still still working. Day. It's just

a way in this wall.

That will still cut. If it might

go on.

So, Kate, where do you want me then?

Let's see. We'll have you where Polo is sitting.

Okay. Is this is it this one?

I think so.

A little harder to

tell. Yeah.

I think that's right.

K. If not,

I'll switch him around and fix it. Sounds good.

I was gonna say, Kate, Craig, and Ryan will be online tonight.

Yeah. Yeah. They they emailed me.

Alright. Cool.

I got links out to everybody, I think.

Perfect. Do I need to be in the meeting as well?

Yes, Ken. We're in the new building. I just saw your email asking if we're in the new building. But don't worry. I pushed it halfway up. I was like, we're meeting here. Right? Like, I didn't climb all these stairs for nothing.

That's a

I I assumed here, but I was just kinda, like, throwing it out there to see

if Just

in case?

Yeah. Just in

case anybody said no.

Saw your emails I sat down too. I was like, sorry.

Yeah.

I I figured. I guess it does say it right

there on the agenda too. Is

this gonna be a thing all night long? I hope so.

No way. That's we gotta get it quieter. I

mean, that's huge, though.

It is huge.

It makes sense that

it makes

notes like that.

There's the call. There's some

can we

unplug it? So it doesn't just keep going up and there. I do like this, though. Kinda like

Right?

Straighten it

up. And

no one can

see my 6. 3.

3. Oh, no.

It's good.

It stopped. It's still going up.

Hello. This is mine.

This is It's not going to be up. I don't think it's ever happened.

I think

you guys they're looking for input on if you guys like it up all the time, if

you want it down all

the time.

I think it's benefit to them.

Yeah. It's helpful for them to be able to see what we're looking at too.

Does anybody else need a pen? Or

I'll take one if you've

got one. I should push to tell.

I mean, I have my iPad, but we've got an extra. Thank you. Oh, this is a good one. I'll be sure to

give back to. Don't want it going up and down during the

No. All the window?

Feels like a.

So Pause and wait

until it's upside down. Isn't it a movie

worthy? I think there is. I can't think of what it is. But

That's super fun. Yeah. It was really fun.

I have a, like, cork board in my office. And when I put it up, was looking for, like I wanted, like, cute decorative, like, pushpins.

Mike, are you ready? Good.

How are you? Yeah.

Can we go?

Yeah. All

right. We want to welcome everybody. Was told to speak into the mic. Can you guys hear me out there? All right. We'd like to welcome everybody to this Lehigh Planning Commission meeting on 04/23/2026. Call this meeting to order. And we will excuse Commissioner Jackson, who's out of town tonight. But we're excited to have Lindsay here. Thank you. Move to item two, consent agenda.

Put forward a motion that we approve both consent agenda items, two point one and two point two. Can can I

Yeah. Please. On one of the 3.2 of the March 12 meeting, there's no record of who seconded item 3.2. I don't know if I'm being nitpicky or if it's

Definitely not. That's Yep.

And with that, I would second the motion.

Motion and a second with noting that change. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alright. We will move on to item three or regular agenda. Ike, the time is yours. Alright.

I didn't have a second here.

Alright. I

have it pulled up on here. Is it?

Alright. I think

I got the HDMI cable. Sorry.

There should be a plug there. Is it not working?

Let's see. Let me try

this one. In the new building tonight. This is our first meeting here, but there might be some technical hiccups we're working through tonight.

But Yeah. It's open to.

Do you want to note those two items that are

Yes. Just real quick, item 3.2 has been withdrawn from tonight's Medi Lifetime Fitness site plan approval. And then also, item 3.8 will be tabled. When we get to that item, the applicant has asked us to table that. So if anybody was here for the Symphony developments request for the Heritage Meadows, You're welcome to stay, but we will not be hearing that item tonight.

Alright. Perfect. I'm gonna pull this up here. An exception on the size and height of their pylon sign out, and this is out on 2100 North, 36 West. The store is currently under construction, and they're just looking for approval on the sign.

This was tabled from Planning Commission before. They previously requested a 70 foot height. They are now requesting a 50 foot height, so they brought that request down a little bit. They also provided some drawings showing the the new requested height at 50 feet here. And their other pylon sign down 3600 West meets the height and size requirements, so that that's not they're not requesting exception on that one.

And these are some of the views that the applicant has provided showing the future freeway overpass over 3600 West. So they just want to show how this sign would look from the ground, both on the north and the south side of the bridge, and compare the 25 to the 50 foot. This was the perspective of on the new this is kind of a concept showing the new freeway bridge, what the sign would look like driving there, the 50 foot size there. This is from the other direction, as if you're driving on the new freeway bridge, about how much of

the sign you'd see

going westbound. And with that, I'll turn it over to the commission.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? No. All right. Is the applicant present?

Good evening. Thank you for letting us into your new home. This is beautiful. So thanks for that. Thanks to staff. I appreciate staff working with us to kind of reconsider, take a step back, and look at this again if we can. If you recall, and I'll I'll just repeat a couple of things. Originally, we came up with an application of, a 70 foot tall sign and asking for a 900 square feet. And the code allows for a 25 foot high sign with 600 square feet. So we definitely were asking for, an exception for both square footage and the height of the sign.

Since we met with you back in March, we had an opportunity to to receive all the drawings that, UDOT has for this corridor. And by the way, they did a groundbreaking about three weeks ago. It is going to happen along 2100 North, and I think that's a good thing, especially for traffic and all. But what I wanted to come back to you as is as we looked at the speeds that were gonna be created. So all the new can you go to the aerial that I had of that? I just wanna kinda walk through that if I could. It's not this one. It's the Google Earth. Here we go. So I just wanted to show once again to orient you.

We're on that South side of 2100 North. Where they have the accesses for eastbound traffic, that access occurs about half a mile behind our parcel or to the east or to the west of our parcel. So eastbound traffic definitely needs to see something before even that that half mile down the road so that they can then make a decision, a safe decision. If you are westbound, the exit is point seven miles distance wise. And so even beyond before that, a a driver needs to see what decision he's gonna make.

Oh, here's the smiths. Oh, here's fuel, and this is what we're gonna do. So what we're proposing tonight, what we revisited is the dynamic or the design of this, if you will, freeway system. All those improvements are going to be in the center median. And then what's gonna happen is the roadways you know now are gonna be frontage roads.

So once again, frontage road, I've gotta make a decision well before I get to the intersection at 3600 because that will be an overpass at that point. So your code allows 25 foot height and up to 600 square feet on a pylon sign. We're proposing a 50 foot high sign. I'll I'll show why the extra height is needed. However, we're only proposing 403 square feet.

So within the square footage, we are well below what the code allows. So now we're just kind of considering why the height limitation. And, of course, as I've mentioned before, if you'll just start to go through that mic, and then we're all on the kind of the same page. This is just a layout of where where that 50 foot pylon will be located up on the north Northeast Corner there. Then the idea here of this exhibit is here's the 50 foot sign, the 50 foot height sign.

The square air the signage square square foot area is 400 square feet, once again, below by 200 square feet, what is allowed by code, and then 25 feet. The red line is to show what the visibility is or how high at the crossing of 3600 West, how high that overpass is going to be. Already, I've diminished some of the visibility for some of the multiuse tenants that are gonna be in that site. But we did need some visibility, once again, for the decision making that's happening at half a mile beyond each each direction. If you could go to the next one, Mike.

And thank you so much for not giving me a button because I'd be all over the place. It's really good control here. Once again, as as Mike mentioned, the very top is if I am a view from the north to the south. This is what is gonna be seen. Of course, the side of the sign, it is gonna be up above the gradient area of that overpass. The middle view is from the south. So if I'm if I almost got this this project on my left, and I'm just starting to negotiate underneath, and I really hope that we're not driving on that side of the road, but that's okay. The Can

I ask a clarifying question real quick?

Yes. Absolutely. You're showing

a median there. Will the frontage roads not go through?

So the frontage road will be negotiated there. There probably is a way for that to happen. This was, you know, copy paste.

I Sure.

I apologize.

I I was just curious if that was something you got from UDOT.

Usually, no. No. That portion is not we did not have the final thing here. And probably there's an intersection like we all know, signalization and that sort. Good. Sorry. Good catch on that. What I wanted to show also is once again the visibility of that signage. And then the the bottom is just an example. If if we went to code of 25 foot height and even regardless of what that square footage is of that signage, that sign is not seen, especially from westbound traffic, but also eastbound traffic.

If they're having to make a decision, they're actually having to move their eyes well off of the right of way to look down and find that signage. So and then the decision making back a half a mile makes it very difficult for anyone to make a safe transition, once again, that frontage road access that then comes off of there. So this was just to demonstrate that once we had this dynamic, this is, you did not see this last March because I didn't have that information for you. The next slide. And then this slide is, I am, here I am eastbound.

And I am before I'm at the estimated exit that's gonna be here. Now I have I this I'm I'm literally on the frontage road now what it will be. But this is to show I know you commissioner Eyre, I know you I know you said something about, hey, the the views that you have on the east.

Commissioner Eyre.

Eyre. I'm so sorry about Commissioner Tyson, if I can. So what what you when you talk about the view or the bounds coming in to this valley from from the west to the east, what I wanted to show is that previously we have proposed what's outlined in red. And this is what we're proposing now. And once again, providing visibility for those in the distance to make a decision to then be off of this.

So this represents if I were at the, if I'd already made the exit, and now I'm coming now I'm gonna be on that frontage road and arrive. So that's what this one is. And once again, we've brought down the height about almost 30%, and then we brought the square footage down well over 50% so that that can be more integrated into the overall visibility of everything. Mike, if you could just do that next one. And then once again, this is if I am at that point seven mile location that and once again, this is at the exit.

If I am looking at this sign or trying to orient myself to get off that exit, this is what I'm going to see. I'm I'm I've reduced it down again by 29% the height. And then I am looking at this sign, and this is similar to what you will be looking at. At just before 3600 West Crossing, I then see this sign that I now cannot access, and I'm driving past waving at the Smiths now that I cannot access. So I think is that is that all of them?

I think that's everything. So what, to come back to you, the request is we can still have a good signage that allows safety in decision making to access the frontage road and also see what is coming up. And this I this is why I'm back with you on this application. And once again, the square footage is below what's allowed by code. It's the height that we had to just try and identify for those that are going to frequent.

It's a mismarketplace in that. So with that conversation, that presentation, I look forward to your approval. But I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, applicant. Any questions for the applicant?

I don't know if I can maybe if I start talking, I'll have a question. We'll see what happens. Okay. It's a terrible way to start, right?

That's fair.

But I appreciate you showing us where the exits are going to be. Because that was one of my concerns was you have I-fifteen and then Redwood Road, essentially. Those would be the only two exits. But there's exits in between. I asked staff to put together a list of all the signs along the I-fifteen Corridor in Lehi. And the outlets, obviously, is huge, 100 feet. But yours would be conservative. UCCU is 50 feet. EV Auto is 40 feet, which I thought was very helpful for staff to do that for us. So I like this.

I appreciate you coming back, showing us a different way, shrinking the size, the square footage. I think this is something I could get behind.

Does the signage have a video board?

The only, no. It has just the price changers that are not continually repetitive. They are fixed. And then when the price of fuel changes, they they'll make that. So you'll see that change. But

But there's no, like No. Some of these others

No. There's not a there's not a video board. There's not an electronic video board.

I will give praise for your work here. I appreciate the work that you've done. I agree with the sentiment that's been said. I don't love science. It's not a secret. The signage that we have around, I think, is a blight, can turn into a distraction rather than with the intended intent that it has. But before we get too much into opinions, this is a public hearing. Did you have anything else to add for us?

No. I'm just here to answer any questions. I can sit here in case you need

to Did anybody have questions for for the applicant?

Thank you.

Alright. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here that would like to speak to this item, you're invited to come up and speak in the mic. Seeing none, there was a comment online. Do you want to read that mic? Sure.

Sorry. I should have had this prepared. I'm a little rusty.

There is an item later that has many comments, so be ready for that one too. Yep.

Yeah. K. So there's one e comment here.

Let's see. Sorry.

Hannah Orton says there seems to be a grave overestimation regarding how the pylons large size and height of the signage will actually affect those who are traveling by it. Nearby residents and possible patrons who will shop at this missed location will already know where it is and won't ever be needing an exaggerated sign to orient or reorient them to direct them to it. Their phones or habit will already be doing that. Other nearby grocery stores relative to this location don't rely on similar proportions of signage to pull in patrons. Most people are navigating using their phone, which goes against the current justification of this large sign.

Framing that, this sign is detrimental to securing patronage traveling from either direction is an exaggerated claim. People traveling through this location on a frequent, daily, or infrequent monthly basis won't have their minds immediately changed because a bigger sign for a Smiths is or isn't present. This location doesn't need a giant landmark bloated sign to convince nearby passing patrons to visit or shop. Current city code, height, and size allowances should be sufficient enough to accomplish the aim. It seems rather tongue deaf to take the stance that wanting to not obscure the natural outlook and beauty of the mountains in both directions in Utah is a justification to construct a big ugly piece of signage.

You should not want to look at the mounds as much as you do. It's a rather silly stance. The Golden West representative took at the last meeting regarding this pylon. The applicant may convey with great certainty that increased height and size is necessary requirement for adequate visibility without much proof. So it may also offer the same amount of certainty when I say that this pylon is much too tall and big and that proving the exception is a bad idea, especially for those who will have to look at it every day and deal with the negative effects.

City code minimum allowances for height and size are already sufficient. 25 foot pylon is already tall enough to grab your attention, and there is no need to make this pylon absurdly, distractingly tall. Please do not table or grant an additional continuance for this to be changed or altered. Please formally deny this exception. Yep. Yep. That's that column. Sorry, the Hannah Ortons for a different Thank

you. There

are two more.

There's two more right after that. They're short.

Let's see. I can read them for you, Mike. Okay. Is there

What you search for?

Them. Okay.

The first one says, I'm concerned about potential 70 foot tall sign that is way too big. I understand the 2100 route will soon have a freeway, but I don't want a quarter cluttered with billboards and massive signs. That was by Tyler Maybe. The second one is by Teresa Neath. Teresa said, our townhouse is the first townhouse on the inn directly next to the backside of the Smith Building. Where is the exact location of the smaller 25 foot pylon?

Thank you, Bill. That being said, we will close the public hearing, and I'll invite you back up. Do you want to address any comments you heard specifically on the location of the other sign as well as anything else?

You bet. Mike, if you could go to the rent the the site plan with the big red line through that. So our other pylon will be on 3600.

Right there?

Yeah. And then there's one up just a little bit closer that's like a 15 foot. So those are where the two, that the other one is. They're all those are both within code. It that's why we were just focused on the one out there on 2100, if you will.

As far as what was related to you in some of these comments, we have listened, and that's why you are considering a shorter, smaller size. And it's true that there is gonna be so much traffic going to Eagle Mountain, you know, along there. There just there just will be that some of them will need to help make a decision to come off and exit Smith's. It's not necessarily yes. The locals will know.

That will be their Smith's. You know? That's kinda how we always affectionately call our stores. But we're addressing that by minimizing the size of this and looking for your approval.

Thank

you. Any other comments or deliberation? Or I'll entertain a motion.

Just by way of conversation, I feel similar to what I think I heard the two of you say, in that I do appreciate Gold West advertising coming back and doing quite a bit of work to reduce the size of the sign, I would feel comfortable putting forward a motion that we do pass this. Because while I hear the residents saying that this could be a blight on Mountain View, which was our original concern for Mhmm. Lowering the height of the sign from 70 foot to 50 feet. I also respect the business' right to be able to advertise themselves.

Mhmm.

And they would be greatly hindered to be able to do so because of the height of that that freeway. So just by way of conversation, I'm for it.

Awesome. I I do have one. Are we is this are we discussing lighting today? Or is that

Yes. Discussing everything.

I mean, it's not on the agenda. Basically, talking about how to hide the sign. Are they going to come back for lighting? Did you want to

come up and discuss the illumination of your sign?

Sure. We could. There are restrictions in code. Daylight, nighttime. Now that we have the technology of, like, LED lighting and the way that you

can

control the hues of LED lighting and all that, that will be that it's definitely within code. And we will be complying with every every portion of that. And we're required to we'll they'll actually once they get it installed out there, they take readings at different times of the day and night so that it complies with what it is that this city wants to see.

Excellent. Thank you. Yeah.

I'm sure they'll agree to a formal teardown if they don't meet it. No. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Your mic is a warrior.

I definitely think that the lack of a digital piece on that will help with any of, you know, a lot of those concerns. Yes.

I just had a point of you're Rick Magnus, right? I don't think you said your name this time, but just

she probably

knows that. But just

for anybody listening.

You're good.

If there's not any other thoughts, I'm happy to put forward a motion. All right. I move that we approve item 3.1. I'm gonna try a new format. I think we learned last time that we don't have to necessarily note everything here. So the motion being that we approve item 3.1 with the findings being that at the proposed location, this sign will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. I think we also learned we can just ask you, Kate, to please include all those possible findings. And let me check if there's any DRC comments. There are a few. Please include those as well.

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And I love the new house.

Alright. Three just as a reminder for anybody that's walked in, 3.2 has been withdrawn. That would be the lifetime fitness site plan exception. And so we will move on to 3.3.

Alright. 3.3 is a conditional use to allow a flat lot. This is located on 200 South here in Downtown Lehigh area. It's within the medium density residential general plan. It's currently zoned R2, which is consistent with that general plan. And they have this Lot 3 here as a new proposed flag lot. One of the DRC comments was that Lot 2 here was part of a previous subdivision. So it really shouldn't be included as part of this because we can only do one flag lot per subdivision. So really, it's just Lot 1 and Lot 3 is what we'd be looking at. But the item before you tonight is for the conditional use to allow for the Lot 3.

And then the chief building official does the sign off on the subdivision. But it does meet the flag stem requirement and the fire access requirements to be able to get back into the future lot there.

Mike, can you repeat what you said? That was a little unclear to me, that a lot is usually allowed one subdivision, not two

Oh, yeah. So the code says flag lots can't be part of a big multi lot subdivision. It can only be part of a two lot subdivision unless there's some kind of exception or something. Lot 2 on this plot is already existing that way. So this plot's really just splitting Lot 3 off of Lot 1. So if I go to the parcel map, you can see the existing parcel looks like this. So all they're trying to do is take this parcel and split it to one new flag lot behind it.

Are there any requirements that this doesn't meet, like square footage

or anything? Looks to meet all the square footage and the 20 foot minimum flag stand requirement. So it's a the new lot's 9,500 square foot. RT requires at least 6,000 square feet for a single family home.

Any questions for staff? Other questions for staff? Alright. This is we'll invite the the candidate or the applicant. Is the applicant present?

We are online, if you can

hear us. Oh, we can from above. That's fun. Is there anything that you'd like to add?

No. The only thing is to address the DRC comment. The reason we included that a little lot on there is when we had our preconstruction meeting, we had your power department wanted the power to run-in a different location than we had originally, so we included that to show an easement is all. So Any

questions for the applicant? Okay. You're off the hook for a moment. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.2, please come up and speak in the mic.

3.3? It's a 3.3.

3.3. Excuse me. Seeing none, I don't believe there was any comment online for this one. So we'll close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

Good with that? Yeah, you're good. I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. On item 3.3, public hearing consideration of Hall and Rockville's request approval of a conditional use for the Skull Valley Plot B Flag Lot located at 208 East 200 South. I move that we approve the conditional use and that it's won't be detrimental or dangerous to the property. It'll be located and connected in a manner in compliance and similar lot next door. And please include all DRC comments.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you, You're welcome. Thank you. Have a good night. You too. 34.

Alright. This is the Bull River Road preliminary subdivision located on about 425 West Bull River Road. This is located right along where the Merdot Canal Trail is at up there. It's currently in the lower density residential designation on the general plan. It's currently zoned R110, which allows for a minimum lot size of 10,000 square foot, single family homes. And what they're proposing are three new single family home lots. All of these meet the frontage and lot size requirements. As part of doing the subdivision, we do have connectivity standards. Since it's unable to get a road connection through here, they do still meet the pedestrian connectivity. This parcel A shows a sidewalk connection.

We have external connectivity requirements where if you have a cul de sac, it's either one or two rows of lots between that and an external road like Bull River. You have to have a pedestrian connection. So they do show that on here. The DRC did note that counts towards open space on the subdivision. But other than that, we just have the three lots, and they meet the zoning requirements for their own 10 zone.

Thank you, Mike. Any questions for staff? I was curious. Was there a reason that that first lot did not orient into the cul de sac?

It just doesn't meet the frontage requirement because you can see the other existing lot over there takes up most of the frontage on it, so they couldn't meet the frontage. Understood.

Thank you. Yep. Alright. Is the applicant present?

Welcome.

Thank you. I'm Lindsey Neve with Perry Homes. We want to thank staff for working with us on this. And other than just to reaffirm that we meet all the requirements of the code, happy to answer any questions if there are

any.

Any questions for the applicant? All right. None right now. Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing. There's anybody in the public that would like to speak to item 3.4, this is your time. Please come to the mic. Were there any comments online? I don't see ones for the any for this.

I apologize on the Smiths one. I had the old list. Now we have the ones.

Alright. We will seeing nope, none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further deliberation or a motion.

Ready to put forward a motion for item 3.4, public hearing consideration Perry Holmes' request for approval of the Bull River Road preliminary subdivision, including three single family lots located at 425 West Bull River Road to the R 110 zone. The motion being that we approve this preliminary subdivision as

it

does meet the requirements for the zoning and Lehigh City's development code. And please include those DRC comments.

I'll second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you.

Item 3.5.

Alright. Pull this up here. Okay. This shows the overall this is a concept plan for an area plan amendment. On these larger area plan amendments, we require it as a concept plan just to kind of look at the big picture and see if the Planning Commission, ultimately the council, likes the direction that it's going. An area plan amendment now, again, this is the concept. It's not the final. But an area plan amendment basically changes the rules of the area plan. So that's anything proposed as part of this application is saying, hey, we're trying to change whatever's shown on the land use maps or any of the details in the code. So that's why they're here with this item.

But they are required to do the concept plan first. So I think it's a great time to take a look at the big picture and see whether there are elements that are good or not good that the Planning Commission and ultimately the council would like to see on it or not. But in the big picture, what's proposed is being able to allow there's 600 units up in this West Canyon and some remaining units within the Central Canyon that Perry Commercial's entitled to. They're just looking at allowing the ability to transfer those down to these parcels below. They've put some details within the concept as to how many units would go into each parcel or maximum number of units.

It doesn't mean you can add up the maximum of all of them, and that's how many units they can get. They're still limited. There's no proposal to increase the overall density of Traverse Mountain. This is looking at being able to transfer that. Now, the DRC did have a comment that they prefer, if we're doing this, that they just get all the units out of West Canyon and allow that to be future open space. Because there's still development up there. You still have to put infrastructure. There's maintenance, and there's emergency management issues. Like Central Canyon has a lot of units with one access, and that's not ideal. We'd hate to keep doing things like that in the future.

So it'd be more ideal to pull those units out of the more wildland urban interface area and pull it down closer to where the roadway infrastructure is, where more of the commercial uses are. It gives a lot more opportunity for walking or biking trips rather than being separated and far away. Those are more likely to be driving trips. So in the big picture, that's kind of what they're looking at. I'll go through some of the details here. And then there was that one DRC comment I wanted to note. So this is a little closer look at the parcels. Perry owns all the parcels other than these two. These two would be if they were to enter into some sort of joint venture with that property owner. Could look at putting some housing units there.

This is existing general plan, which is based on the current Travis Mountain area plan. It's all within the plan community zone. This is just a look at that West Canyon parcel up there right now. It is part of the the mining operation. When that mining operation is done currently, the area plan anticipates those 600 units up there.

Again, it's not an ideal place to put a lot of development just with the the terrain and everything else going on up there. This just shows the general plan as it reflects the area plan. Again, the zoning. This is the current Travis Mountain area plan map. And a lot of what they're trying to transfer into is either already identified as high density or highway commercial with the high density overlay. Really, all it does is it allows for more units to be located there is what this amendment would do. And then with that, I'll turn this over to the commission.

I have a question for staff. Sure. Mike, is there still plan does UDOT still have plans to put another freeway entrance north of Thanksgiving Point?

It is on their plan, and Lauren in engineering is working very hard to try and get that as soon as he can.

A lot

of that hinges on UDOT's told us, well, there's not a lot of development right at that location right now. So it's like a chicken and the egg kind of thing, but we're pushing. We just think it needs to go in even before the development. But it is on the master plan, and we feel like that's very important to get that North interchange because that allows another way onto the freeway without walking down the S R 92 Interchange as much. So allows more dispersion of traffic.

Was that part of the thought of putting some high density up on that end where it was maybe closer to that future access to a freeway?

So that north end, you mean the stuff that's under construction right now?

No. On Oh, on this one? This tonight. Yeah.

So the original area plan, I don't think was anticipating necessarily that interchange being there. Obviously, we think it's gonna be helpful for Traverse Mountain and the future development down below. But the initial area plan actually had a lot more density. And in 2012, that got brought down to fifty eight twelve. And there were many more units in the canyons in the original plan than there is now, so it's definitely better than it was.

But I think the more we can get units out of the canyon areas, it's better for public safety and has more opportunity for their other modes of transportation or having closer access to some of the major roads. There are details, once you get into the actual area plan amendment, that we certainly want to make sure we're getting right and looking at the impacts. I know they mentioned at the DRC, like a traffic study, is going to be needed to be done. We want to look at circulation. I'm a believer in trying to do traffic circulation in a way that puts people where we want them to drive and limits them for where they're not shouldn't be driving, like through neighborhoods and things like that. So I think that's certainly something that could be looked at with the traffic studies.

A transfer of this is not a swap. This is a strict transfer, moving them from one place to another. What would happen to the land where these were originally designated?

So that's part of the right now, the I believe the and maybe the applicant can clarify more, but I believe for every unit they pull out, it's like point one two acres would be designated as open space up there in reclaimed. Maybe they can clarify what their proposal is. But the idea would be if you transfer those out, we should be getting more open space up there.

So it doesn't mean no development up there?

So if if it does get approved that way where there's more open space going up there, then that would be no development.

But they're not planning to pull all units that they've been awarded up in that area or allotted up in that area?

That's right. The current proposal is to allow the transferability, but it's not requiring it to come out.

Understood. And this is also not a an addition to what has been approved? This is just a moving Yep. From one location to Luckily, no

net increase in density proposed. It's just, yeah, it's moving. Which, obviously, there's trade offs to everything that you do in planning. But that's up to use the commission and ultimately the council to consider all those trade offs.

Thank you. Any other questions for Steph?

Yeah. Mike, I can apologize. I'm gonna have you rehash a lot of that just to make sure I understand fully.

It's all good.

My understanding is that Perry Homes owns all those blue areas that you showed previously. So up in West Canyon and also those areas excuse me.

Except for these two parcels.

Okay. Just those two parcels.

Because they're separately owned, but they made an agreement with them to K.

So the proposal here is that they would take the density associated with West Canyon, pull some of that out of West Canyon, park it here north of Tippanogus Highway, And then there's a portion of that land from West Canyon that would be given to the city, or probably the folks from Perry Homes can

get clarity to And they

can clarify what their hope is for the amendment since this is their proposal. And some of those final details would get worked out with the final area plan amendment. This is still the concept plan, so there's a lot of details that would have to be worked out. This concept plan is really just to see what everybody thinks of the overall idea, if there's problems with it. You know, obviously, some things could be changed for the next area plan amendment. Or, you know, if people just really don't like it at all, then it doesn't have to be approved by the council. Okay. Thank you.

Mike, is there a map that shows Perry A1 And B1 and Perry D6 Right highway

here. Oops. Yeah. Here's period D. B 1 And A 1 are up here. This is the highway commercial piece as well as this here that they have.

Can you zoom out so I can see them all at the same time?

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I'm just moving around like crazy on you.

Getting dizzy.

There you go.

Okay. And there's a paragraph for each one of those little areas. And there's a number with each one.

Yep.

So that number, all combined, is not going to add up to more than, what is it, 1,000 That's right. 180

Yep. They're limited to the number of units they have. All their proposal does is says this is the absolute maximum that any one of these districts has. If they max out a couple of districts, it means the other districts are going to have, they're not going to be able to max out because they don't have enough units to do that.

Okay. And that's not this is concept, they haven't

Yeah. We'll have to really make sure that language would be right in the actual amendment to make sure that's very clear. Okay.

Thank you.

Is there any scenario where they max out down here but then still have units left over and then want to go back and put it up in West Canyon?

According to the current proposal, it allows some of that flexibility. So right now, it gives the option of transferring out, but

But they don't have to transfer it.

It's not forcing them to transfer it out. That was part of the DRC's comments. They prefer to say, hey, we're transferring, let's just require to come up. That's just the DRC's opinion.

Other comments, questions for staff? Let's get the applicant. Is the applicant present?

Good evening. I'm Matt Swain, here representing the Perry Companies on this application. Happy to have a discussion and answer any questions.

Is there anything that we missed in the presentation that you wanted to add?

I think Mike did a a great job. We've been working with staff on and off on this concept for a number of years, it was it was actually spurred a number of years ago by staff just looking at the hillside and saying, okay, what can we do to get some of the density off the hillside? For all the reasons within the the staff report, I think they they would like to see as much of that density off the hills as possible. So very grateful for the time we've had to spend with staff in getting to this point and refining it. This is kind of the, I'd say, fourth, fifth iteration, maybe, of kind of back and forth just at the staff level as we've been trying to work with them to find a reasonable way to propose this, to help get them a few things that they need and also hopefully provide us the flexibility with this density to be able to work with the market.

The market really guides the decisions that we have to make. And so the flexibility that we have here, bringing down a certain number that's undefined of those units, allows us to react to the market as it relates to product type, velocity of that product demand within the market, and just gives us some flexibility to be nimble within the market demands. So I'm happy to answer any questions. There's a lot of moving parts here. We recognize that.

And we recognize this is conceptual in nature, and there's probably going to be some back and forth. And we look forward to that conversation. But really here to answer any questions that you might have.

I had a question about the additional park space that would have been in West Canyon and now needs to be transferred with the density over to these other areas.

Yeah. I think we're open to that concept. We already have, as outlined and Mike, I don't know if you have the other exhibits that we had sent, kind of outlining the different parcels. But there's already in the area map or that's requiring us of a a park kind of in the

sorry. I've got

a lot Is the things one

at the corner

of Traverse Terrace

in Yeah. Yeah.

So Parcel C, there you go. So there, we're we're required. And and, again, this is not indicative of of the alignment or the location of that park necessarily. It's just a description of the acreage that's required underneath the area map. So we've had some high level discussions about possibly making that a little bit bigger, maybe relocating it to a different location.

And so we're open to those conversations to add a little bit more park space to the already required park, as well as as we've discussed, dedicating what's up there that's not developed and reclaiming that and dedicating it over to the city for perpetual open space.

I don't love hearing the word maybe, right? That's not a word that holds a lot of water. Obviously, this is a concept plan. But as it went further, we would want to see real hard figures of what that looks like, what changes, if any, would be made to the amenities that would be going in there.

So the requirement is only point five an acre?

This half acre was from a previous requirement. So there was five acres originally required in this area. Four and a half got transferred over to where Ignite Academy is, which is now Triumph Park. And there was a half acre left of that required park space still here. So this isn't in any intent anticipation of what park space could move down. This is just what was already required in the existing area plan, and they just wanted to show that as a minimum remaining on there.

K.

Does the density the movement of the density, does it trigger anything that would require them to reevaluate, or is that half acre really all that's left that they need to really fulfill?

So at a minimum, the half acre does. I think there's some discussions that can be had about the open space that's required currently in the area plan for West Canyon. Obviously, if some of that open space up there is dedicated to city, that's a big chunk of open space the city would be getting and could be able to put into the conservation easement, contribute to the overall open space that's up there. But certainly, I would appreciate that Matt's talking about the possibility of having more open space down here. Because I think one of the elements to get right when you're including more housing in an area is having good public open spaces and doing it in a way that transitions well from existing development, all that kind of stuff.

So I think a lot of those things could definitely be discussed and talked about as part. And that could be part of your recommendation on the concept. That's why we're here for the concept plan to say, hey, what are the kinds of things that we feel like can mitigate whatever impacts we feel like this move makes? So if there's some of these things that you feel like counsel should consider and that the applicant can be considering, I think this is the time to really bring some of that up.

Do we put any sort of designation, or is there any sort of difference between open space and, like, usable open space? Because there's lots of open space up there, but it's not necessarily you're not able to really, like, recreate recreate on on it, it, like, like go have a picnic or put a playground or anything like that. Is there any sort of designations, or would that just be something that would be worked out?

So the area plan currently designates not just open space. They say park space. Okay. So the current area plan, like, this is park space that's usually amenitized, landscaped, whether it's playground or some other amenity that's there. That's the idea. And then the area plan also shows just kind of environmental sensitive area, open spaces. That's more open space. Maybe have the mountain bike trails or hiking trails in those spaces. But Okay. So that, again, that could be part of the discussion of this concept and the amendment ultimately. You know, is there a certain amount of that amenitized open space, especially down this area versus up in West Canyon that should be considered?

I

think that's all part of the discussion. And

like I said, just to be clear, we're open to broadening the required open space, park space, that's shown in blue here as a part of this, as well as dedicating the perpetual easement in West Canyon for whatever ground is there.

And I will add that I think that would be great to look at this area too. Because I know in the past, when the open space was moved before from the prior amendment, I know some of the residents in this area were hoping to get a little more of the park space. So, I mean, if that could help, you know, provide some improvement to the area, yeah, could be a net positive.

I don't know if you can answer this question. But for that West Canyon area, were you guys thinking of building more single family homes? What size lots? Can you give me an idea of what you're thinking up there?

It's pretty likely there'll be larger single family lots up there just due to the topography and the lay of the land up there. That's far more likely. Again, we're driven by the market. We have a certain allocated number of units. And the market's going to kind of drive that once we're at a point to develop that. But looking at the topography and the location, it's more likely that it'll be single family homes.

Okay. And then those ones down by Temp and August SR 92, are they gonna be single family homes just tighter, or you're doing multifamily?

Far more dense. It it'll be more vertical More vertical. Residential. And so the density or the size of the units is going to be far smaller

the

closer you put it down to SR92. And obviously, you're putting it on fewer acres. So will go vertical. It will be more dense. And I think we've outlined some kind of parameters of density within each parcel based upon what those unit numbers could look like on each parcel.

Is the market still requiring not requiring, but get the drift that high density housing that we're seeing, like at Utah City, or maybe out of the

There's no doubt that that's where the trend is going just based upon the expense of inputs, the cost of construction, the cost of you name it. Everything has gone up dramatically just in the last five years. And so the consequence of that is shrinking things. And the demographics are shifting in that direction. First time home buyers, which, you know, that's a whole other discussion.

But yeah, the houses have to get smaller. The lots have to get smaller for them to be affordable and sustainable within this market. So I do think it's reflective of where the market is going. There's always a market for premier estate view lots, which is what West Canyon would be. And so it's a different market that we would be looking at doing.

And so we have the right to build that now in West Canyon. We're looking at doing this as as as a compromise. Frankly, a smaller unit down closer to SR 92 is gonna be less valuable, less profitable than in a state lot up on a view of West Canyon. The difference is timing, essentially, and hitting markets within a different timeline.

And I yeah. I agree. I think a state lot, what, half acre, acre?

Yeah. I mean, you would

send some of

that out there based upon the the topography. Yeah.

So I guess I'm wondering also why are you guys mean, I you've done a ton of work up there, or somebody has.

Why

now are you looking maybe we leave that and come back and bring I mean, market driven?

Yeah. And honestly, it's not as though we're going to go start building all of these right away.

Sure.

We're looking long term and saying, Okay, what can we do to accommodate the city and being good neighbors, doing the development the right way, and having the flexibility to move with the market. Right now, we can just sit and wait for West Canyon to come to us, and we'll build the houses in West Canyon based upon our entitled rights under the area map. So we're looking for flexibility, is essentially it, to be able to move that density off the hill, accommodate some of the concerns that we're aware of that have been voiced to us over and over again by staff and neighbors, the amount of traffic and everything that 600 units is going to take up those main roads through the neighborhoods and all of that. We're very aware of what the impacts may look like developing out West Canyon. And so it's essentially a compromise to say, okay, Perry companies have been here.

We've been developing in Lehi for a lot of years. We try to be good neighbors. We try to do things the right way. And so we're here really as a compromise with the staff saying, it might be a good idea to get some units off the mountain. I

haven't had the opportunity to drive up to West Canyon. I don't know how far I could get up there. But obviously, I've looked at it. Is there room for 400 half acre lots up there?

No. I'm not suggesting all of them would be half acres. There there may be some high end townhomes that are far more dense than than a single family home. There there certainly space for 600 units. But I do think there'll be a a mix of product types even at that location.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Can you speak to the timeline of West Canyon? When is that gonna come online for development?

You know, that that is that's more a question probably for Geneva than it is for us. I I don't know that I can answer that with real certainty.

They haven't given you some commitment of a timeline of when they're gonna get out of there? No. Interesting. Any other questions for the applicant?

No. You're just asking my hands. Okay.

Thank you.

K. Have a seat. I it. Will be more for you soon. Great. This is a public hearing. Before we jump into that, Mike, I wanted clarification. This does go to city council.

They don't see recommendation to the council.

K. So they don't typically see concept plans. What's triggering this to go?

If it's a item that ultimately will receive a council approval, like an area plan amendment, because that requires council approval, we like to send it to the council. Okay. Since they're the one that will ultimately approve it, I'd like you know, we wanna make sure the applicant and

For sure.

City and the public

I'm glad it's doing that. I was just wanting to Oh, yeah. We will invite the public up. We'll open up the public hearing. We're going to ask staff behind the shady glass over there to give us a time limit. I know there's a lot of people that probably want to speak to this. So we'll put a two minute time limit for public comment. We we we do ask that we keep the comments addressed to the commission, not towards the applicant or back towards the public. We also ask that you keep your comments respectful and on point to what we are seeing tonight. That being said, public hearing is open. We'll invite anybody that would like to speak.

Good evening. My name is Rob Ludlow. I'm a longtime twenty year resident of Traverse Mountain, and I've been actively involved in negotiating with the developer and with the city to broker a compromise. And my wife and I are probably the only people that were involved in brokering the 2012 Traverse Mountain Area Plan that are here tonight. And so I wanted to give a little bit of history, and I hope I can get it within two minutes.

But I think I can give you some strong reasons why the proposal is frankly unacceptable. And it basically unwinds a compromise that was made with residents and is now unwinding that. And it's effectively a density grab by Perry Holmes. And it's just a terrible plan. You know, it's important to realize that in, you know, in 2003, the city offered Cabela's Cabela's came to Lehigh City and said, hey, we want to have a large, you know, a large presence here.

The city didn't have money to, you know, buy free land. They didn't have land to give them. And so they gave a density bonus to Mountain Home Development, developer of Traverse Mountain, to provide the free land. And the problem with that was is that they continued to sell the 3,500 unit plan way into 2011 and 2012. They didn't mention that we're going to now have 8,000 units up here.

They sold the 3,500 unit plan. And so when, in 2011, Mountain Home Development is nearly bankrupt, they then exercised this option after selling everybody on a 3,500 unit plan. And there was a train wreck. And a lot of friction and a lot of challenge. And so, you know, in 2011, when this area plan was proposed, there was a lot of compromises being made.

And while Perry doesn't realize it, they are going at the heart of a number of key compromises. And frankly, I'm disappointed in the planning staff for not championing and holding firm on these compromises and including residents yet again because of what was given. And so let me just say, like, that is unacceptable to be giving away key compromises that the city made. The city did buy down density. We did bring down density out of the Central Canyon.

And instead of us dickering over the 5,812 units in each different neighborhood, we basically compartmentalized the density in specific areas. And there was only one area, Central Canyon, that allowed sweeping of density. The area plan explicitly locks density into specific areas and says, you cannot transfer it. And so that was one of the key compromises, is we don't want density in one area. So now what are they doing?

They're saying, well, we want the option now. We really like we don't want to have to build up here in West Canyon. Well, the time to have had that conversation was back in 2011, not fourteen years later. The other important thing to realize is that Perry argued, well, we need to build a pad for 600 units in West Canyon. And so they've had a massive sand and gravel operation that they've contracted out to Geneva and have made tens of millions of dollars selling selling sand and gravel under the auspices of of masquerading.

I'm glad to see Mike call it mining for what it is. They've they you know, and it was not only allowed because it was creating a pad for these for these homes. And so I'm curious to see whether or not Perry is gonna walk away and say, I'm willing to stop my mining operation. It's super lucrative, you know, along with the density transfer. Please ask them that. And the answer is going to be no. Well, we really like we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want to have the mass grading in a residential neighborhood, adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and near a school. We want to continue that so we can make money. But but it's we realized that we're gonna need to put in some infrastructure.

We need to put in water, sewer, electric, and roads, and build out flight park roads so that connects to Digital Drive, and build in Roads A And B, which connects Central Canyon to to West Canyon. And and there's a lot of infrastructure that they're gonna need to build. And they're saying, you know what? This is not gonna be very profitable for us in the timelines that we want. We'd rather grab all this density and literally slam the majority of it next to Ignite Entrepreneurship Academy, a charter school.

They're going from two and fifty units. If you bring up in Perry A 1 and B 1, you're going from 250 units to 827 units, which would dramatically change the neighborhood. It's antithetical to what we try to do, which was balance density and find homes for the density. And it does not accompany with a meaningful transfer of open space. So let's talk about open space.

Rob, I'm going to ask you to wrap up.

Okay. The open space at West Canyon is not usable. So when you reclaim terraced hills that are no longer accessible from the hills around it, that's not a fair trade. And also, it's antithetical to the master plan community ordinance that we have inside of Lehi. Open space is supposed to be adjacent to people.

Here, we're moving people away from the open space, moving them a mile and a half away. We are stripping commercial. And they're giving their buddies at Riverbend Development 300 additional units, where instead of building commercial, which is one of the promises in the Traverse Mountain Area Plan, and one of the benefits to Lehigh City is a commercial tax base. And they're stripping out the commercial and slamming in yet another big apartment complex along SR92. Just the idea of saying it's a great idea from going from the maximum density level inside of Traverse Mountain of 20 units per acre, and they're asking you to bless going to 50 units an acre, going from three stories to seven stories adjacent to a charter school is nuts.

And frankly, is is not in keeping with the role that they took on as they graduated from being a neighborhood builder to taking over the role with their partner, Riverbend, to be master developers. And they say that they like to be good neighbors. Well, ask them, hey, when was the last time you paid dues to the homeowners association up there that you now lead and control? The answer is they don't pay dues. They allow all the residents to pay and fund the master association, and the commercial folks somehow get a pass and don't need to pay dues.

So saying that they are awesome neighbors is probably not fully consistent with the entire story. And I would just simply say that this is not in keeping with the high standards that a master plan community is supposed to have. Master developers are supposed to come in and bring creativity and innovation and design and not have a density grab. They get increased rights, but along with that comes increased responsibility. And the only thing that shines through in this particular proposal is a glaring density transfer that does not fulfill this elevated standard of design that we hold master developers to, but it's just simply a blatant economic grab that is not in the best interest of the community, that overloads an area that already has traffic issues, and will be overloaded even further from the work that they're doing, putting in the Whole Foods there on the corner of SR92 and Morning Vista.

And we pour more density into an already, you know, already full area. And that is not what a master plan community is about. It's about balance. We have to realize we started with 3,500 units, and then we were all surprised by 8,400 units. And we reached a compromise at 5,812 units.

And this is not in keeping with the compromise. So I strongly recommend that we hold firm to the original plan, that we don't unwind these compromises, and that we hold Perry to the high elevated standard of being a messer developer and not doing these kind of piecemeal, half hearted designs that, frankly, are unacceptable and don't meet the standard the legal standard here in Lehigh City for what a master plan community is supposed to achieve. So I strongly encourage you to vote no tonight.

Thank you, Rob.

Oh, yeah. My name is Zach Zabriskie. I agree with everything you said. So we bought a house. We're on that road right there, one of those view lots, and I appreciate him talking about creating view lots because we paid extra. I worked here for maybe six years before I moved here about eight, nine years ago, And I did a lot of research of where I wanted to move, where on Traverse Mountain. I looked at all the different neighborhoods, and I actually saw this plan and it did have five acres of park right below us. And now it's already been reduced to a half an acre. And so and then instead of 75 houses now, he he just said that they wanna go vertical. So they sold us.

We paid more for a view lot, and he said that about West Canyon. Like, we're gonna have nice half acre, one acre view lots, and then you press him on it and he says, oh, no. Not half acre. So what I'm saying is I don't trust Perry. We paid extra for a view lot. We finished the basement because we even have a view out of our basement. I mean and he the first he said we'd go vertical. To put 300 units in 11 acres, I mean, it's gonna ruin it for us. And like I said, I did a lot of research before we moved here. I checked out a lot of different neighborhoods.

That was supposed to be five acres of park down there, and now it's already down to a half of half of one acre, and it's just gonna ruin our neighborhood. It down there below and to the right, I think that she's gonna talk about where her house is. And I'm not sure if Perry is gonna put in if they're talking apartments or townhouses or whatever, but to put 300 in 11 acres. But it's ruined the neighborhood below. So I strongly discourage this. I don't want this to go through. Thanks for listening.

Thank you.

My name is Drew Armstrong. I live at 5601 North Canyon Rim Road, so up in Central Canyon. The couple of concerns that I have is, number one, has has the city already invested? Or, I mean, do we have infrastructure there that is already going one direction and is going to be abandoned? Or is this going to cost more in terms of putting infrastructure are we wasting infrastructure that's already been allocated by the city for specific dwelling units in specific places.

And so that's a bit of a concern for me. And I don't know that. That's something that I'm asking. But in general, I like the idea of moving density, as long as it doesn't impact the neighbors, closer to transportation corridors. But at the same time, I think we also need to be cognizant of the fact that one of the reasons that people are are up in arms about density is what we'd like I mean, even if it's a small yard in a single family residence, I I think that right now, in general, we're saying we've we've got a lot of very high density.

When you're talking about going to seven stories, is that really you you know, density is not all equal. When you you know, you might have small lots that are point one four or point one zero acre lots, but it's still a single family residence in a neighborhood. And it's, you know, it's not just a huge high rise condo project. And I think that I I don't think all density is equal as far as that goes. So I it's a concern to me a a bit.

And I I think I'll agree with the first gentleman for the most part. It it I'm I always am concerned when cities get enough years down the road that they forget the history that is behind the the agreements that were made at at one point. And I would encourage you to go back and look at the meetings again, back from 2011.

Thank you.

I'm Erin Effington. I live in the Crossing neighborhood just well, I guess it's west of the red parcel there. I'm all over the place. The mining operation, all the things, like, they definitely shouldn't they have done the environmental damage. They've dusted Utah County all for years and years.

They've taken their profits. They should definitely not be allowed to move all of the units out of that area, period. But more importantly, the Perry area is written in the area plan. There is language, very strong language that says, if I can find it again now, this is specifically talking about this parcel and then the a one b one where they're talking about putting 827 apartments. Planning areas that are noted with a do not exceed label are not permitted to exceed the do not exceed dwelling unit count no matter the underlying zoning designation, e g c Perry Homes Planning Areas a and b.

This is in the area plan. K? This says no more than 250 units there. All of us that have invested and bought in Traverse Mountain area plan, we hold on. Me not a good speaker here. Okay. We are have invested there. We additional fees to live there and increasing those density rights by 300 to 400%. Runs counter to the intent and the underlying purpose of having an area plan in the first place. Perry knew going in that the West Canyon area would be difficult and expensive to develop, and they moved forward anyway doing the destructive mass grading under the pretense that they're gonna build there.

Hopefully, the millions that they made doing the grading will help them afford to build what they're planning to build. They should not be granted their rights to transfer the units out of the area and into an area where the area plan explicitly says they can't. The this is ultimately a choice about profit for the developer. They can decide whether the cost of developing within their current rights are worth it to them or not. But for current residents who live down here and are already affected by too much traffic with all development around us, there is no choice for us. We bought into a master plan community with defined expectations. So allowing this change would take those expectations away after the fact, effectively rewriting the rules to our detriment and to their profit. Thanks.

Thank you.

So I'm Marian Ledlove and I live in Traverse Mountain. And I was around when this was originally negotiated in 2012. And I just want to let you know that those planning there is not a mass density right in Traverse Mountain. It's done by zoning units, which is districts, which is why they need to come in and amend this plan. But that was a huge portion that was a huge part of the negotiations, was having these districts in which they could not exceed that density.

And, you know, they and under that, I mean, they have been mining West Canyon for the last fourteen years. They would not have been allowed to do that if they had said, yeah, we're not going to develop it. But under that guise that they're going to develop it and have development there, they've been profiting for the last fourteen years mining that. And now we're going to say, Oh, yeah, we're going to let never mind. You don't have to build there.

You can just move it down. If there had been there was a lot of people at the table when this area plan was there, a lot of residents, the HOA, the city was there, the developers were there. There was a lot of people that were looking at this plan when it was done. And there was no way it would have been approved if this additional density had been down in that area. And so there was rights that are vested for the residents. And I'm an attorney, so I understand vested rights. But there's not a vested right for Perry to move down. And that was not part of the area plan. And I guarantee you that if they had proposed that when we negotiated it in 2012, it would not have gone. It would not have flown because it is packing so much density down there in that area.

And it's a very dense area. In West Canyon, there's other routes out. If people want to go west, right I'm sorry, if people want to go north out of West Canyon, they can take alternate routes so they're not clogging the traffic there. And there were some very specific reasons why there was density allowed up there because it wasn't putting as much impact on that main artery right there that is already congested. And so I would really urge you not to recommend, that they have this right to move.

Hold them to the area plan. You know, the residents have been relying on this area plan for the last fourteen years. Perry should have to rely on that, too. And it should not be, you know, allowed to have masqueraded and profited for fourteen years. I guess you could require them to disgorge the profits they've made for the last fourteen years if they're not required to build there Because that's the only reason that they would have been able to mine that area. So I would urge you to not approve this, to not recommend that it go forward and that this change be made. Thank you.

Hi. Montanay Hamilton, Traverse Mountain resident as well. Keep it fairly short.

Agree with a lot of that.

Right? There's vested rights here. And I think we need to be very careful about changing those rights. Because once we give them the rights to move all that density down, they're entitled to it. And we can't say no. So I think we have to be very thoughtful about changing. I think we should be open to change, but I have seen nothing proposed to say that this should happen. Right? We have no solid plan on what they wanna do with it other than put more density. If they could come with a traffic study, a solid concept that showed how this changed the plan would actually benefit us as residents in that area, I think we could support that.

There is no plan here other than we it would help us make more profit on these properties by moving this density. I think we should be very careful about changing the entitlements. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Angie Parkin. I'm also a longtime resident. I just Perry Holmes has a long history with both Lehi's as well as Traverse Mountain. And so I just want to well, I want to encourage you to come with me on a hike and actually look and see. It takes it's an hour. I did it yesterday and actually see West Canyon and see what they've done. There's no longer a mountain there. It is a sandpit. It is really shocking. I have a video, but it doesn't you gotta see it in person. It's an hour. It's 300 feet up and down. It's meandering. It's an hour out and back.

I encourage you to come. And most importantly, I also want you to encourage the city council to know that there is a long history of what they've done. We can't get the mountain back. But what we can urge them to do is to mitigate and ask what are they gonna do to mitigate. Because right now, it's just silica sand that's blowing all over into Traverse Mountain, into Lehi, if it's going north into Draper. It is awful. And we'll never get the mountain back, but we can mitigate. And there's actually code, Lehi code. I actually looked it up, chapter four. As far as the mass grading or the mining.

What you're supposed to do is re vegetate. And so there is code. Can try and please encourage Perry Holmes to do the right thing for be a good neighbor. They have not been a good neighbor this all this time. And so if you could just please I encourage you to come with me on a little hike and actually see for yourself the devastation that they've done to West Canyon. There's no way that they can build homes there. That was never the plan. That was a guise. A guise with saying that it was mass grading. It was really just mining this whole time. They never there's no way. If you see it when yourself, there's no way you can build houses there. So anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Got a mic, I'm Josh Coleman. I we've lived in Lehi for twenty years. Lived in the crossings for about seven years. And when we moved there, the fields were open. They were they were we were guaranteeing or trying to go off of the guarantee of the the planning that was there.

But if you look at I I want to encourage to get to get maps that that show the other high density housing that is in that area and also the parts that are not in that area because in crossings, unfortunately, since we we've lived in Lehi for twenty years, so I've been seeing the Traverse Mountain area being built. We see the parks all in Traverse Mountain. It's great. Crossings, I feel like the South this south area has been severely neglected. The only park that we have is the the the park in the canyons the canyon the Canyon Park by by the pool.

And it's not even a I don't think it's even a a publicly owned park. But that is the only park that is near there, and now we're planning on putting more high density housing where we already have high density housing. We have the view apartments. We have the seasons apartments, elevated apartments set by Harmans. We have a bunch of townhomes plus all the other high density housing that's going on in the Inverness area.

So I would highly suggest to go in on that map and and mark all of the places where there currently are high density housing and see how how close how how closely dense or, you know, dense the density housing is to that, how how close proximity they are, and then also propose to to get more parks. You know? I think that's one of the things that we were were told by Perry when we first moved in that we're that there was gonna be more parks that were gonna be built, and so far, none have been built since we've since we've lived there. So, you know, please reconsider or consider not voting for this. I strongly oppose it, and I know a lot of other people that do as well. So thank you.

MR. Thank you.

MR. Hi there.

Hello. I am Ryan Kingle, and I live right there on that map. I am not this. I've never been to one of these. And so I am born and raised in Ohio and moved out here to Utah in 2017. That's my beautiful wife there with our first baby. And and coming here and picking out where to live, you know, we chose Traverse Mountain. Lucky us. We I love it up there. But as you can see from the people here, I don't know again, it's my first time here, but I don't imagine you have this daily.

Just the fact that we're all here has gotta mean something. I don't know if you know this. I I told you I'm from Ohio. It's draft. The the draft NFL's draft is right now. Huge Browns fan. Huge Ohio State fan. I'm standing right here. Left work early and everything. Okay? I'm a small business owner. I come from nothing, and I'm able to to run a car dealership now there in Pleasant Grove. But I assume if you were to continue to ask us if this is something that we would be okay with, you're gonna be here all night again. And again, I think the fact that after hearing all this, like, litigious jargon and stuff, I'm like, wow. These guys know their stuff.

I think that that the fact that they're so early in the stages of this, they're already coming? Because you had said, like, you were like, this is kinda weird that that you would have something not so planned come before us. And I think that says something. Right? Like, they're they're bringing this to us completely with no idea because they wanna test the waters because they knew that we're all here. They knew we'd all show up because I was sold on on that space. I was sold. I paid more too. Really? I paid I paid an extra $16 from Perry Holmes from my view and with the promise of townhomes.

So, like, you know, again, I I just ask you all to put yourself in my shoes and all of our shoes when making this decision. I I wasn't around when all the previous talk was talked, but I was around when they told me what it was gonna be. And, again, I'm not a litigious guy. A handshake is a handshake and a promise is a promise. And they made me a promise, and and I hope that that means something to you guys. So thank you.

Thank you.

This is highly out of my comfort zone, just so you know. I also live right there

Please state your name, please.

Oh, my name is Shanna Coleman. I live right there on that map. Those townhomes that they're literally five feet from my back fence. So already some higher density housing right there around us. Several things that I just wanna point out.

There's two schools already super high traffic area right there. That intersection, Traverse Terrace Mountain View Road, right where he had said they were gonna put a half acre park. Roll my eyes there. Worst intersection you could put a park, in my opinion. There's so much traffic going through that intersection, and kids have actually been hit by cars there.

Already, there's gonna be increased traffic through that lower neighborhood because of the, Whole Foods development that's going through there and no consideration to the neighbors who will have hundreds of cars going through their neighborhood, just to get to and from. And, yeah, I just there's already hundreds of cars parked on that residential road just north of those apartments that is clogging up that street, and it's just it's too much. It's too much. That's just my opinion. Thank you.

Hey, y'all. Thank you for being here. So my name is Brandon Etherington. So I'm I'm in kind of a different position, not not for Perry, but definitely against it. But my kids I we moved here eleven years ago. The Ridgeview Townhouse was was gonna be a park. My kids, one, is on a mission now. He will not my grandkids might be able to use a park that they might build there. Right? My other son is gonna be a a sophomore next year. He won't see a park. That's 11. Okay? Unfortunately, I don't trust them. Do I think they excavated that with the intent of moving?

I hope not. I really hope they didn't do that. But if they did, shame on them. If they want to move that many units down to us, by the math we're looking at there, for every 60 units they move, we need an acre of park. So if they move 600 units, I want a 10 acre park. They I am all for it. If that's your land as designated that way there, you build your land. For the Smiths guy, the roads elevated, you need to be able to to advertise your land. That's your land. I'm all for that.

This right here is wrong. It's it's already congested. They said, oh, yeah. We're gonna put in more more affordable housing there. Yeah. You will. My property values will go down. All of those will go down. So, yeah, thank you very much. You just you made them all more affordable, including mine that is now less less valuable to me. So there's there's tons of he said, she said, and there's there's a middle ground here. But at the end of the day, like, I love how my wife put it. She read the area plan. She did the research for you. Congratulations. NASA rocket rocket scientist before you. That's what she does. She's not a she's not a super person. She did the math. The math didn't add up.

So I would I would strongly encourage you, stick to the area plan. It's there for a reason. We're gonna have so much traffic there already. We already do. E bikes and all the other fun stuff we have, it's not okay. And so I hope that my great great grandkids can take care of that half acre park one day, and I might be able to go go there in my in my walker. I don't know. Sorry. Tongue in cheek. I'm a sarcastic Texan. In Texas, this would never have flown. I did not move to Independence at the point for this very reason. I came here because there was nothing there. I found out about an area plan, apartment. My bad. Okay. Should have done my research. Area plan's there. So thank you all so much. Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Brian DiBitello. I'm also a resident on that map. Like someone said before, there's already five apartments up in that area. May not all be Perry, but there's five of them up there. The one thing that they talk about is studies, this and studies. The one thing you won't find in studies is the amount of people who live in an apartment complex. I'm a police officer and have been for twenty years, and you don't have three, four, five people living in an apartment. You have 15 people living in each apartment. And that's family, friends, whoever.

So if you were to take a 500 apartment complex and say that there's a 1,500 people that are supposed to live there, quadruple that at least, and that's the amount of people that are gonna be there. The amount of cars that are gonna be on the road and the amount of kids that are gonna overflow the already overflowing schools. The HOA wants us to keep green grass all the time. The city tells us not to use our water because we're going through a drought, and then we're gonna put five, ten, 15,000 people in a 600 apartment complex. It's gonna use a lot more than that.

The one thing that comes with apartments, and I apologize if anyone gets offended by it, is crime. The low income brings riffraff, and it brings a lot more crime. I go five or 10 to one for calls for service at apartment complexes. And it's not just a citizen assist or something like that. It's violent crimes. It's theft. It's drugs. And we've already started seeing that with the View Apartments. We have a lot more theft in the area, and we had just an armed, vehicle burglary four or five houses away from me just a few weeks ago. Sorry.

I'm going through the the list. Everyone else kinda pretty much saw everything else or said everything else. So my point was just to show how it affects us as homeowners with the the amount that our our property value will decline. But I did actually have one question for Perry if they would be willing to answer it. A lot of us paid that extra money for the view, $15 plus. Are they gonna reimburse us for that when they take it away?

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name sorry. My name is Paul Randstrom. I live on Springbrook Lane just maybe a 150 feet north of the parcel c, that's been discussed there. Thank you for your service in our community, to the planning commission for being here tonight. I'll start by saying I'm not anti development or even anti high density, nor do I have an axe to grind with Perry in particular.

But our quality of life for our family would be greatly affected if this increased high density was allowed to come down to this part of Traverse Mountain. I if I understand correctly, they're proposing an additional 225 units up to an additional 225 units on that parcel that we're showing in red there on the screen. And as was stated by the Perry representative, that means vertical. That's 30 units per acre. It's a lot different product than we would have expected to see there when we purchased our home based on the existing, the Traverse Mountain, area plan.

And that has a big impact on our quality of life when you go from even townhomes or garden style apartments to a six or seven story, you know, these big, tall, massive apartment buildings. I don't feel like that product type, when to get to that 30 units an acre density, is compatible with the the existing neighborhoods that surround those parcels, in that area of Traverse Mountain. As is kind of echoing some of the things that have already been said, the current residents are depending on that existing Traverse Mountain area plan and made decisions based on that plan. It seems to me that the developer is looking for a place that's more profitable for them to build this high density product. It's not that it can't be built there in West Canyon.

It certainly could. It just costs them more money, and it's less profitable for them. And they're trying to pass the buck of that cost onto us by adding the stress and strain to the infrastructure in our area of Traverse Mountain. But really, the developers should be investing in that infrastructure where they already have their entitled rights and build units where they're already approved. Shoehorning more density into this area of Traverse Mountain isn't the answer. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Clint Jorgensen. I bet you can't guess where I live, but it's close. Just as one perspective is I did work for a civil engineering company for ten years, and I 100 know that they do cost analysis before they submit a proposal to a planning commission like yourselves. And that was done. And this is about money, a 100% from my experience. So you're sacrificing residents that are here speaking to you guys and what they purchased versus profitability for a builder. And, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. So thank you.

Thank you. Any mad rush for anybody else? You're welcome to come. Seeing none, we will There are a lot of comments online. You want to give a brief? There were a lot. We won't read every one of them. I promise you we have. But do you wanna give a brief synopsis of what summary of what are in those comments? It's a lot

of similar sentiments that were expressed here tonight.

Some of them, like,

some specific ideas, like this comment says, you know, it's kind of getting up buffering from this kind of thing. So they said, you know, why can't you do it, like, crust Haven with a proper large avenue in between high and low density so they won't look at, you know, considering those types of things.

Yeah. Some of them

just say it's strongly discouraged, more high density housing, traffic problems, strongly posted amendment, significant traffic, safety and quality of life issues. Roads are overwhelmed. So there's a lot of, you know, themes around traffic being an issue, quality of life, overcrowded, traffic safety, vehicles parked on the street, pedestrian safety, especially children. This one's about that road connection to the collective development. Actually, did a survey with the neighborhood.

Well, the developer on that one decided not to do the disconnect. Yeah. Safety. Yeah. A lot of similar sentiments throughout. I'm just trying

to look through anything different. I will note that there was not one overwhelmingly positive one. Right?

There's one.

There is one. I did read that one as well. But I was curious about where it came Thank you for that. We will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Mike, I'm going to put you on the spot. So in the planning commission report, would you mind opening that up I if you have access to want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. So in the planning commission report on page seven, I'm trying to better understand what the difference is between because all of these areas are currently zoned as high density residential. So I want I'm trying to find hard numbers to help me understand how much that density is gonna be increasing if units are actually transferred to those areas. So if you would, on page seven, there is the first table.

I'm This table here?

Yes. That one. So I'm reading that to say so existing dwelling units. I'm reading that to say that the general plan currently has that area slated as having 250 dwelling units. But then if units were transferred over from the West West Canyon, we're increasing that to eight twenty seven. Is that accurate?

So that's the maximum potential, which could happen. The difference appears noted in the staff report. Let's see. So they have a total of a 100 1,182 units within their Central Canyon and West Canyon that they're entitled to. So that's just saying in that district, they could go up to that much, whether it actually goes that much or not. Like, the applicant was saying, it's kind of due to market conditions. That's their choice of what they want to propose on that site. But that's the max potential, but you couldn't max out every single location. But, yeah, that's that's too much flexibility. That's certainly something you can make a recommendation on. K. Not doing that.

K. Thank you.

There were a couple of comments I wanted to address or ask staff, particularly about the infrastructure that's maybe already gone in place. Can you speak to what is already in place up in that area or towards that direction? Yeah. I can't. Yeah.

I don't think there's any infrastructure up in there now. Any utilities that would be going up into that area in the future would all be paid for by the developer. So the city hasn't paid for any utilities up in that area.

K.

I did hear a lot about view lots and the premiums that are made. I have said this before, I'll say it again. Those are never guaranteed. It sucks. It sucks to hear that. I'm not saying they are or they aren't, but those are not a guaranteed thing nor something that we have a purview to protect or to do anything with. However, there was also a comment about the process that this is a out of out of order, out of line that we didn't understand it. This is absolutely the process that they that Perry Holmes would go through to bring a concept plan. A concept plan is exactly that. It's a concept.

There it's someone I'm not sure who it was, but mentioned, that they're kind of testing the water. It's exactly what they're doing, and that is what this is for. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear, that this is the process that they have to go through that. Does not mean we're favor or against. Right? It just this is the process that they have and the mechanism that the city code allows them to bring forward. So I just wanted to be clear that this is not out of the ordinary of what they could or even should do. This is part of the process if they wanna make an amendment to their plan. I do wanna go on that hike.

You'll have

to go real slow

because I am out of shape. We all lost our breath coming upstairs, so it might take us an hour and a half. But

But I I might take you up on that. K. Any other comments before we bring the applicant back up? Questions for staff?

I mean, I think I may have a couple, and it might be for staff or the applicant. In the areas where there's commercial already designated and they're proposing putting potentially housing units there, does that take away from the commercial? I mean, we need more stuff that brings in sales tax and especially in that area, but I'm just so I I guess my does that question make sense?

Yeah. Yep. So currently, the area plan does allow some transfers down, but, obviously, if you're allowing more transfers down, that could take up more of that increase.

Away some of the commercial space.

Yep. Other well, I was just gonna say with commercial, it is a little tough because you need people near it to help support it. So just putting commercial zone on a map doesn't necessarily guarantee you're gonna get Right. Commercial you want to see.

But That's true. Yeah. That's true. Is the track stop still planned for that area? I remember last year, there was debacle about should it be on the East Side or the West side of the freeway? Did we get it back to staying there?

Do you have the point of the mountain transit study that was completed and then updated? So there's a track station identified by Adobe here. There's one identified by the hospital down here. Okay. And then there's one up here identified as well.

Where is that in conjunction to West Canyon?

So West Canyon is up here.

That is up there. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. This top down view is deceiving. Yeah. There there is a significant number. Yeah.

For sure.

It's not Not a flat

plane by any means.

Okay.

I will invite the applicant back up if you wanted to address any of the comments that you heard and any questions.

Yeah. No. We really appreciate this process. We understand that there's a lot of feelings. Growth comes with a lot of feelings. I'm a native Utahn. I I have seen growth around my own home. I I understand what what comes along with that. The the the driving force of this discussion really is where does the density best fit? Where does it work?

This isn't about infrastructure. I I can tell you with all honesty, we have not run numbers on what the infrastructure costs are to go up to West West Canyon. West Canyon is a ways in the future. That's just the reality of it. We have the right to build up there or not build up there.

And so we're just trying to have dialogue to say, okay. Does this make sense in a lot of ways from a ULI land use, land planning perspective? It does make a lot of sense to bring the density down off the mountain for all the reasons that were outlined by the staff in their report, to have it closer to transportation corridors, closer to shopping, to services, to parks. And yes, we will build more parks. I I have not been a part of the residential development here personally.

That's a that's a different division. I can't speak to every complaint that may have been, brought up tonight based upon people's, experiences with what was told to them, what was experienced during their their purchasing process, and and etcetera. I can respect all those concerns. I really can. But what this boils down to really is is is pretty simple, which is you want the density up in the mountain?

Do you want it down here? Or is there something in between that that makes sense? Do you do you allow a certain portion of the density to come down? We're we're open to that dialogue and that discussion. I know that the staff has recommended kind of an all or nothing option where it only makes sense to to do this if all of the density is is brought down.

We're open to discussions to that. If we need to still build some units up there and and to kinda spread that density out, let's talk about that and see what what makes sense. This is the very beginning of a very detailed converse conversation and discussion. And, ultimately, god bless America. I love the experience that we're having here tonight that people can come up and express their feelings and have an impact and have some say within how cities evolve and how they develop.

And we'll take that into consideration. Ultimately, we're not trying to cram anything down anyone's throat. We have no ability to do that. This is a legislative action. It's totally up to the counsel ultimately to determine whether this goes forward in this form or some other form that that we're we can work toward.

And so we're we're just here to have have that dialogue. If it stays the way it is, then it stays the way it is. We'll just build the the houses up in West Canyon, and we'll just move forward with life. If there's a compromise that makes sense for everyone involved, we'd love to have that dialogue and and see where it goes. A a few clarifying facts. So that you had brought up, commissioner, what's gonna happen potentially with the Riverbend property that we don't own.

Mhmm.

So we've just had high level discussions with them and said, hey. What if we were to bring some density down and we do kind of a nice mixed use project, kind of a continuation of what we're doing with Center Cow properties across the street with Whole Foods and and the high end retail that we're doing there, and just kind of continue that down the S R 92 Corridor. So that's the concept is we would bring some of our density down. We would partner with them. We would continue to do a commercial project there, but it would be an integrated mixed use project.

So we're not at all proposing to get rid of the commercial use on that property as a part of this amendment. We don't even own and control that property. It would just be the flexibility to go to the property owner and say, hey. Does this make sense? Does a mixed use concept here work?

As as far as the the parks are concerned, I know there were some comments made about the location that we're showing. That is by no means where that park is going. The park will go in a planned concept when we go and develop that that parcel. We'll do our very best to integrate that into a neighborhood and make it walkable and accessible to surrounding areas. And we are open to the discussion as a part of this to enlarge in the the the park space, the improved park area beyond what's already required of us in the in the area map.

I believe the ask was for a 10 acre park.

That's a big park.

But you're saying you're open.

I'm open to larger than half an acre. I'll put it that way. 10 acres, I don't know that you have a 10 acre park on the mountain anywhere, do you? We should. Probably not.

It's part

of our problem.

So we're we're open to the dialogue. I mean, we wanna be reasonable. We're never gonna be able to fulfill all of the the the hopes and and desires of of everyone in the community. But, ultimately, the the question is, does it make more sense to have people traveling a shorter distance, taking services a shorter distance, as opposed to traveling all the way up to the top of the mountain every time you're going shopping and back down? There there are some real planning and land use policies that I think are a reality in this case.

And we're open to the discussion. We don't we're here for a fact finding. If it doesn't get approved, then it doesn't get approved. We'll just move forward, we'll we'll keep developing under the rights that we currently have under the the area plan. We do feel like there's some real significant merit to this for the long term planning of land use and for the appropriate use of of those land use policies that do densify down toward the corridors. So sorry. That was a little long winded. Happy to answer any questions and have further dialogue.

The question, although very hypothetical, I still think it's poignant to the conversation. If this were granted and agreed upon, is Perry Holmes in a position to cut ties with Geneva's operation up there? And could it happen immediately?

I'm I'm not in a position to to speak to that. I see those as as really two separate items. The the fact of the matter is Geneva has the rights to do what they're doing, and they're gonna continue to do that under the rights that they that that they legally hold.

Do you know if those rights are based on a time limit or a quantity of material

I honestly couldn't I can't speak to what that contract states. That is managed by others within the Perry companies and not by me personally. We can get back to you on that, but the the bottom line is that the response is going to be they have their rights under their legally binding contracts, and they're gonna move forward with those rights. And so these these two things would have to be seen as as two separate items, that we can't link what Geneva is doing to this process.

Respectfully, I disagree. Those are the same project. That project exists strictly because you had plans to develop up there and were not able. You had rights to develop that land, and that was allowed to happen, which in most cases, it would never have been allowed to happen. But because of the conditions that you were needing to happen for you to be able to develop the land that was allowed. So I don't see them as two separate issues, respectfully.

No. And that's fine. I'm talking more from a contractual obligation.

Right. And that's why Timing I ask or quantity of material?

And I can

get back to you on timing. I can research that and see what the actual agreement looks like. We can talk through that. But we're we're bound. They're bound by a contractual arrangement, and that's completely unrelated to our rights as it's related to the developing of of West Canyon. So, again, we we feel like it kinda comes down to, do you want the density there or here? And is there something in between that that that works? Happy to have more dialogue.

Any questions for the applicant? You're off the hook. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks for the time.

Any further discussion or a motion?

Lots of discussion.

Lots of discussion.

If you would, afford me three minutes. Three minutes?

Please put a timer Yeah. Give me the timer.

And we need a buzzer.

Kate, This was a hard decision for me. I think I've made up my mind, but I wanna talk through why I think this was a hard decision. The big reason why I would consider this is because staff is encouraging it. And I put a lot of faith and trust in staff because they're very good at what they do. And so this is gonna take the bulk of my time. I do wanna read this because I think it's very important. So staff encouraged transferring all units out of West Canyon with this amendment. This amendment could provide the following benefits if all units are transferred. One, avoid higher infrastructure and long term maintenance costs associated with developments in West Canyon. Two, avoid severe snow removal challenges.

Three, avoid emergency access constraints. Four, reduce wildfire risks. Five, gives a better opportunity to reclaim the disturbed hillside landscape. Six, reduce geotechnical risks of building on the masqueraded areas in West Canyon. Seven, this is putting density where the infrastructure already exists.

Eight, puts housing closer to regional transportation, employment, and goods and services. And nine, I think I'm on nine, more viable for future transit, walkability, and mixed use development. So those being the reasons why I would support this. However, after hearing what I've heard tonight and also seeing the numbers associated with the units that would be transferred, my thought is to deny it because that is an astronomical amount of units that would be transferred into, granted, a high density residential area. It should not be that high density residential area. So I would be more prone to support a hybrid approach as was suggested by the gentleman from Cary where some of those units would be brought in.

Yeah. I I think I share a lot of those those same sentiments. I I do put a lot of value in what staff, you know, says and and tells us because this is your profession. You you are much more educated than than I am in a lot of things. But living in that area, yeah, I if we could protect views,

I wouldn't have a temple going in my

backyard right now. But, you know, so I I understand the residents' concerns with this is what we bought with you know, we bought here with this in mind, and this is what was planned. We did the same thing. And all of that is is completely different now. And it sucks, but it's it's not necessarily you know, it's it's not an easy decision to make. I I love the idea of promoting walkability and easier access. I would love to live in a walkable walkable spot where I didn't have to rely so much on my car. I'd love to take more public transit to work. I work in American Fork. It would be I would love to live there.

We're not there yet. I know we're we're a ways down the road. And so I do see this as a step towards putting more of that in place. But, yeah, like like you both, it's it's feels like a lot to put it all there in in one spot. I I think I'm I'm maybe also on the side of of denying the the mining, the fact that that was an exception that was granted with the intent that eventually it would be developed.

And now whether that was Perry's intent or not, none of us are are gonna be able to say, but that's the situation that we're that it puts us in now. And it's it's devastating to now look at that mountain and think that nothing's gonna be there. You know? And how long would it take to revegetate it or, you know, put that back to a state where it might be hikable or walkable or usable for for anything else. Yeah, I think we've got to do a little bit more work, maybe.

My turn? Yeah, sure. Nicole.

Go ahead.

All right. I would love to see less up less development in the canyon and more down where there is roads. There's gonna be transit through there eventually. I would think UTA would actually do a bus route through there. It'd be great.

So I am much more inclined to do something in between because I don't like you guys have already said, going from 200 and something units to 800 units seems like an incredible leap that I'm not prepared for. I would also like to see if Perry vacates the West Canyon area, they said that they would mitigate point one two acres. I would like to see that more than that per unit. I think that's a little less. And if that's some of my questions were based on lot size.

If you're going from luxury deluxe lot size of a half acre, quarter acre, even, you know, as small as you're gonna go up there, I think you should at least put in that much of a mitigation effort when they come out. I I think it's, you know, it's wiser for the city and for us to put higher density near the amenities. We all hate the traffic, but I am part of the traffic. I drive on I-fifteen every day, and I look at the people next to me. And I'm like, you're causing me traffic.

So you should stop driving. But I'm not gonna stop driving. And like you, Lindsey, I would love to be able to walk to something. Mhmm. But that's not here nor there. So, yes, I think moving some of the density out of that West Canyon would be great. Higher mitigation, larger mitigation sizes. And then having the density on there is a is a good idea. Yeah. But how much is the question I have.

Yeah. Can I add one more point

to my discussion comments? I'd like to see whatever the density ends up being, I'd like to see more of a focus on ownership versus renting. You know, I mean, I know traditionally tall apartments are rentals, but I think if we can have that adds to the affordability of homes aspect, not just having them available for rent, but having something that is a size that someone can afford and can invest in, I would want to see emphasis on ownership versus rental as well. But that's also not my decision

to make.

It's just a comment.

Or or single family instead of the multifamily. So

I mean, even if it's multifamily, I'd like to see them be able to purchase that unit. More like a condo, I guess, is what I'm saying than a an apartment. But

I agree with you.

Unfortunately, I

don't think there's anything we can do about that.

No. There's not. I'm just putting it out there.

Did you have anything

to I I did. I think that Mr. Hamilton made a great point that changing this doesn't really benefit the residents. It only benefits Perry. And the agreements that they made fourteen years ago were carefully thought through.

They put the density limits in place because they saw what was coming. And if you couldn't see what was coming in West Canyon, then maybe you should have made adjustments at fourteen years ago. If you if you knew that the mining was gonna make it so that you couldn't build there, I don't know. I I I think that that's not the residents' problem. That's Perry's.

Let's see. And and I I appreciate the residents coming out and being prepared and knowing the area plan. That's very that's very helpful to me because I don't I don't live up there, and I I don't know what it's like driving in and out. And I think we should honor the agreements that were made, and that's it.

And and you probably have notes

from I do.

Fourteen years ago.

That's how I do the proof

of it. That's impressive.

Just a point of clarification. We are not approving or denying. We are recommending.

Yeah. So I'm gonna remind you.

Negative recommendations.

Recommendation. Yeah.

That's right.