Politics & Government
Debate coverage: City council candidates address land use and transportation issues
Matt Hemmert
All candidates for Lehi City Mayor and City Council discussed issues in a question-and-answer session hosted by the Lehi Free Press and the Point of the Mountain Chamber of Commerce last Thursday evening. PhD and UVU professor Dr. Greg Jackson moderated the debates and explained that the topics he chose were representative of questions collected through public input and the Lehi Free Press editorial board.
Some candidate answers are summarized due to space limitations; however, all candidates have one answer quoted verbatim. The debates may be viewed in their entirety, including candidate closing statements, can be viewed on the Lehi Free Press Facebook page.
The City Council debate began with a hypothetical and a question related to a zone change request. The scenario described a request for a zone change from Medium-density Residential (R2 as aligned with the General Plan) to Neighborhood Commercial in order to build a small grocery store. Some residents are opposed to the application, while others support it. Candidates were asked to address due process, property rights, and the General Plan.
Property rights are very valuable, and businesses and individuals have property rights, Kenneth Glade said. He explained that if a developer comes in to develop in an R2 zone and wants to build a medium-density residential project, that’s allowed because of the current zoning. However, Glade said in conclusion, if a developer wants a zone change to Neighborhood Commercial, it’s possible, but residents have equal weight to present theirpositions; there shouldn’t be a presumption that a developer will get what they ask for, and must prove that what is requested is valuable to the community.
Tyson Hodges said that it’s up to the city council to approve a zone change to Neighborhood Commercial, and there should be higher consideration given to residents affected by the change. If residents more proximal to the land want the zone change, he continued, he’d be more inclined to approve the zone change. However, Hodges concluded, if residents living further away favor it and those with closer proximity don’t, he would give more weight to those who will see impacts given their proximity.
Emily Lockhart said that this wasn’t just a hypothetical for herand that as a member of the planning commission, amendments to the General Plan and zoning changes come before the commission frequently. The commission makes difficultdecisions, she continued, and she’s generally opposed to General Plan amendments. In conclusion, she said that residents rely on the General Plan, that updates are expensive, and that the city needs to fulfill the expectations of the social contract made with residents through the General Plan.
Jordan Hutchinson stated that the General Plan is in place for a reason, and the city shouldn’t generally change it. A city should listen to the voices of residents, he continued, especially those affected by the request for a change. In conclusion, he said that if a plan for development is aligned with current zoning but faces resident concerns, the city council should push back on the developer to ensure that issues like traffic and infrastructure can be supported.
LaRell Stephens said that in looking at due process and property rights, the city council should ensure a balance of both sides of arequest. It feels like developer rights have been favored over the rights of residents, he continued. In conclusion he said that due process is outlined in state code, the state has given the city the right to control growth and that it should be done in a balanced way.
Yes, a person has a right to ask for a density change, Rachel Freeman said. However, she continued, the General Plan is a guideline that does not grant entitlements, and the city council needs to consider other properties impacted by a request for a change. In conclusion, she said that the city needs to consider the health, safety, and needs of existing residents, including noise and nuisance considerations.
Stephen Suafilo explained that he’s been on either side of the issue and the development of a General Plan. He said he prefers being slow to change plans given the time and expense to create them. In conclusion, he stated there is a right to ask for a change through due process, but issues like impacts to property value, infrastructure, and public safety officials’ input should be considered.
Jared Peterson said, “In the previous version of the GeneralPlan, we had several areas of the city that had incompatible zones. Neighborhood commercial is definitely a great tool to use to bring certain types of development into certain areas. And as has been said, those property rights those developers absolutely have the right to bring those forward to the city, the planning commission, and on to the city council. Generally, I would be very opposed to making changes to this new version master planbecause a lot of those issues have been fixed. In this particular case, in this particular scenario, there’s not enough information here to really make a sound judgment. So, I would absolutely look at it, look at the data, but in general, I would be leaning toward not doing it. I would need more data to give a solid answer.”
Paul Hancock responded, “As a city council, it’s our job that we are granted by the state to have a Land Use Authority. Certainly, the applicant has an opportunity to come and ask, and it’s our opportunity as a city council to grant that exception or change if we want. I’m going to take a different slant on this because I think some of the previous answers were pretty good. Neighborhood Commercial, to me, is actually a problematic zone. It’s one we created years ago as maybe a way to fit in neighborhood-type markets. My experience, having been on the city council for nearly 12 years, is that there are very few applicants that come to Neighborhood Commercial where it actually fits, and where there are neighbors who are actually excited about it. And so, this is one of those instances where, as we think about what comes before the planning commission, what comes before us, this needs to be a zoning area we need to look at and maybe not even have anymore.”
James Harrision (attending by video conference) answered, “The scenario is a good one and it brings up two main principles. The General Plan, which is exactly that, is a plan. I think we stick to it most of the time, of course, but the residents [and applicants]have the right to request those exceptions. The second is the ability and the discretion of the city council to make decisions that’s best for the city. Nobody could have seen the growth in Lehi fifteen years ago; nobody would have guessed it would have grown this fast and so we do need to ensure that we’re sticking to our plan, but also adjusting where needed.”
Question 2 was another hypothetical posed to the candidates: There is a city council meeting, and a developer is looking to build a 45-foot structure with commercial on the ground floor and residential units above. The zoning is mixed use. Opposing comments include neighbors who have lived in an adjoiningneighborhood for 10 years, who bought their homes because of the scenic views at a $30,000 premium. This new development would block the view, and the real estate agent promised this would never happen. Candidates were asked how they would respond.
That’s a tough situation, Harrison said, and the initial issue of mixed-use zoning being set there in the past shows that planning and the city council had failed. In conclusion, he acknowledged that the developer has a right to build, but that the next step for the city council should be to try to solve the issues between the neighbors and the developer.
Paul Hancock explained that this scenario involved an entitlement and an amendment to the General Plan, and that a council member needs to consider the property rights of both individuals. He continued by sharing an anecdote about purchasing an oversized lot at a premium and a neighbor above him who paid a premium for a view lot. The neighbor asked him to consider not planting trees that would obscure the view, Hancock explained, because he had paid for a view lot. In conclusion, Hancock said it was not his legal responsibility to plant trees to preserve that view because a view isn’t an entitlement, just as the neighbors’ views in the hypothetical were not entitlements.
Jared Peterson said that this was a tricky situation becauseentitled pieces of property all that fit the zone, master plan, and development code. The developer has the right to build that building, he continued, and that the city has seen the issue of real estate agents’ making statements about adjacent land that aren’t true. In conclusion, he said that property owners need to do some diligence and that while this is a difficult scenario, the developer has a right to build the project.
Stephen Suafilo answered, “I have this opportunity right now on my own property. I live up in the Pointe Meadows neighborhood and there’s a large development behind me that hasn’t quite been built yet that’s zoned Mixed Use, Commercial Mixed Use. They have the right to build what they want there. That’s their right as long as it fits to the city code and the city has it already zoned for it. I would just ask that whatever gets put there follows the city code that’s been planned out.”
Rachel Freeman responded, “Similarly to what I was responding to last time, we do need to consider the residents’ voice, the residents that are existing and already there, and the impact it will have on them even though it’s an entitled property. We need to consider possible nuisance. Is there adequate parking? What are the requirements we’re putting in for this developer? We can negotiate sometimes with developers—that’s the role of the city council. And so, I think that’s something we need to take into consideration, and that’s a wonderful privilege that we have.”
LaRell Stephens: “This is a really good hypothetical. I agree and say, can we talk with the developer? I know the developer has the entitled right, the landowner behind has the entitled right as well. Why don’t we talk to the developer and come up with some other plans? Is there a way that we can build this project to meet his specifications that still allows for the view or part of the view? There’s got to be ways we can work together on that. But the developer does have the right to come and ask for that and we have a right, as a city council, to review that and see if we can come up with a way to make both parties happy.”
Hutchinson emphasized that in his experience working with developers, they have the margins and ability to adjust; however, according to the law, the developer in this scenario was allowed to build their project. It’s the city council’s role to be the buffer between the citizens and the law, he continued. In conclusion, he said that the city council should step in and, while acknowledging the right to build, push for revisions to be made to mitigate the negative impact on the residents.
Lockhart said that the tricky thing about property rights is that people love them when they have them and don’t when they don’t have them. She explained that during her four years on the planning commission, she has noticed a lack of understanding related to property rights and would like to see it as part of the school curriculum. She stated that it was unethical for the agent to sell a lot with a guaranteed view for more profit; a scenic view is not a property right. In conclusion, she stated that she would like to review the site plan to determine what can be done.
Hodges said that it’s important to look at the General Plan andmake changes proactively to keep this type of issue from happening. The role of the city council is to fix things before they become issues, he concluded.
Unfortunately, the zone is mixed use, and the developer has the right to develop, Glade said. He explained that the city council should help developers design the project to minimize its impact on residents. Oftentimes, it goes the other way, he stated, and provided an example where the city placed a new overlay on property near him that changed low-density residential to high-density mixed use. He stated that he was successful in helping the community resist the implementation of the overlay, and in conclusion, noted that the city could do better as a community and not simply repeat the same actions over and over again.
The third question posed to candidates was related to the state mandate to municipalities to take steps to increase the attainability of sustainable housing using fees, assessed daily, as a threat for non-compliance. Candidates were asked if the state was right and how Lehi should respond.
Glade said that the city, in response to the state, has been working on an overlay zone called a SHAR that would radically change the look and feel of the city. Under this concept, he continued, any property can have density increased by up to 450 percent. In conclusion, he stated that most residents are unaware of this concept and that the city needs to provide more information to residents on the matter.
Hodges responded by saying that the city has rights and should stand up for them without mandates from the state.
Lockhart: “So I haven’t actually heard of the SHAR [mentioned by Glade], but I have heard what was called the CHOZ [Critical Housing Overlay Zone]. The state, as was mentioned, requires all cities to set a number of goals, and they tie some of those goals to infrastructure funding. So that’s their way of forcing us because we’re political subdivisions of the state, they can tell us what to do. So, they say, ‘Hey, we have a housing crisis, we want you to make six goals,’ six of the twelve they’ve offered. We have to pick six of theirs, and they tie it to infrastructure funding. So, the CHOZ is an effort to do that, and I firmly opposed it because it grew the size of government, and I don’t believe that the answer to affordable and attainable housing is growing government. But I do want to work incredibly hard to get our children into homes and to solve the housing crisis.”
Hutchinson: “As part of the Land Use Authority, at the end of the day, the state does control what we do. One thing I’ve found with a lot of my discussions around here is that there’s a sense of victimhood for being subject to what the state’s doing. Yes, we have to follow the laws. But we also have the ability to push back. Part of the thing I’m running on is that I have somesignificant connections with the county, the state, and even thefederal level that I’m utilizing even in the past 48 hours to specifically get things pushed for Lehi. We don’t have to sit here and say, okay the state’s done this but they’re not providing any funding, infrastructure, legislative abilities to do it. We can go knock on their doors and get in enough people’s faces to get the funding that we need, whether it’s UDOT, whether it’s the state legislature, or whether it’s our congressmen back in DC, there’s funding and resources available to provide for the growth they’ve mandated and they can help us.”
Stevens responded by stating that he would push back on the state mandate and work to find ways to lessen the burden on the city. He said that the city already has strained services and infrastructure and that there is a right to push back on the state when mandates aren’t in the city’s best interest.
Freeman explained that the city council is delegated land use authority from the state, which was granted under the Constitution. The city is subject to the state, she continued. In conclusion, she stated that the mayor had recently reported on a meeting with the governor regarding the matter and that, to her understanding, Lehi is fulfilling the mandate at this point.
There has been a lot of conversation about traffic and infrastructure and the city needs help from the state for funding, Suafilo answered. He said that the city should be careful with what it gives and takes, that the city can push back and work with the legislature, and work hand in hand to ensure funding isn’t withheld.
Peterson said that attainable housing is something that should be at the forefront of residents’ minds if they expect children and grandchildren to live here. He stated that the governor is frustrated with the issue and that he, as a banker, is meeting with other lenders to discuss the issue. In conclusion, he said that there are options that the city can use moving forward.
The CHOZ concept was developed as a creative way to view the state’s mandate, Hancock said, and the city isn’t required to implement the CHOZ; instead, the city needs to continue examining it. He continued by saying he has no issue with the state’s mandate, given it’s a worthy goal, but that the problemsof other cities aren’t the same as Lehi’s, and there should be flexibility to do what is best for the Lehi community.
Harrison said that the state has overreached by pushing a one-size-fits-all requirement. The city has done its fair share in the building of attainable housing, and the city’s infrastructure is overwhelmed, he continued. In conclusion, he noted that State Senators Maloy and Kennedy have endorsed him and want to work with the city.
The final question posed to candidates was to select one east-west transportation issue or road and explain the steps they’d take to address that issue within a councilmember’s defined authority, and possibly outline how they’d work with other cities or entities to assist beyond the office’s defined powers.
Harrison responded that there are currently 120,000 residents west of Lehi that pass through Lehi to commute, with 500,000 residents expected in the future. Pioneer Crossing represents an opportunity to collaborate with Saratoga Springs, he continued, and to bring a shoreline artery that will relieve traffic pressure on Pioneer. In conclusion, he stated that Pioneer Crossing wasn’t planned well enough to accommodate expansion without demolishing homes, and that the city needs to pursue a shoreline route.
Expanding Pioneer Crossing will wipe out Lehi Homes and businesses, Hancock said, and the city must coordinate with MAG [Mountainland Association of Governments] and the state. If each city comes to the state and advocates for the expansion of Pioneer Crossing, for example, the state will do it, he continued. In conclusion, he stated that the state needs to consider bonds as a source of funding for its infrastructure needs.
Peterson said a northern connector route from I-15 to Redwood Road would create a beltway around Lehi, keeping traffic from coming through it. Before Pioneer Crossing Peterson continued, Main Street was the only east-west corridor and had to be rebuilt because of damage caused by heavy traffic. In conclusion, he stated that Pioneer Crossing is overcapacity and that the cityneeds a belt route.
Suafilo said that he agreed with other candidates’ views on the belt route and said that the 2100 North freeway project will alleviate traffic stress. In conclusion he said that the city needs to always be involved in these discussions early to make sure that the city has created rights-of-way and that the shoreline option is a good example of that.
There are many options for east-west commuting, Freeman stated, and focusing on the Point of the Mountain near Camp Williams is a great option along with the north shore proposal.
Stephens said that when Pioneer Crossing was built, the state claimed it was 20 years behind in infrastructure planning. In conclusion, he stated that he was excited to see the 2100 North project get underway and that the city needs to continue pushing the state for a resolution.
Hutchinson stated that the north shore freeway and north corridor will eliminate pass-through traffic, and the state and federal government will fund roads accommodating pass-through traffic. In conclusion, he stated that the city needs to collaborate with the legislature to secure funding, thereby avoiding the need to cover expenses for which it’s not responsible.
The north connector will connect to Mountain View Corridor, Lockhart said, but the connection will cost $3B that the state has not allocated. In conclusion, she stated that the state allocated $1.4 billion to the traffic issue last year, but that funding is on a 10-year cycle and can be influenced by where the current leadership in the state resides.
Hodges said, “I agree that this is a multi-regional issue with the city, state, and federal that needs to come in and take care of our east-west corridors. There’s a whole lot of different ideas on which we can take and do and other ways we can do it. There’s been a causeway talked about going over Utah Lake gettingOrem traffic to and from. The biggest reason people are traveling is commuting, There’s not enough businesses and jobs to afford that housing out west and so they have to come to the east side to afford to work, to afford their housing. That’s why most of them moved out west because that’s where the cheap homes and cheap land was. So, as the west continues to grow, hopefully traffic won’t get as bad as they develop their commercial industry and they can work, live, and play in their own communities and not travel so much through Lehi. But we need a lot more roads coming through Lehi and we need to allwork together for that.”
Glade responded, “We have a big problem with traffic. We’ve all talked about it. My biggest concern is Pioneer Crossing as we start talking about expanding it and widening it—100 businessesand homes may need to be removed. I’m not in favor of that. That impacts everybody who has their land taken away, their homes taken away, but it also impacts the other parts of the neighborhood that are around there. And it starts to segment our city from one segment to another segment and starts to chop it up. And so, I’d like to make sure that when we’re looking atthese roads, like other candidates have said, we’re trying to get the passthrough traffic to pass through us and not stay with us here in the city. One of the reasons it would be nice to have the traffic sometimes is if we had some planning in place that put some businesses and commercial on the west side of Lehi. But our city has failed to do that and so we don’t have any tax revenue from the west side. All of you that live on the west side, including myself, we all shop in Saratoga Springs because they have captured all of our taxes and then they send us all of their traffic. And that’s poor planning. That’s what’s been happening the last 15, 20 years and a lot of the people that are running were part of those decisions.”
