OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Lehi City Council Meeting - April 22, 2025

Meeting PortalTuesday, April 22, 2025
BodyLehi, Utah
SessionMeeting Portal
DateTuesday, April 22, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:32:31

Transcript — Verbatim
0:08

Yeah.

0:09

Anyone that asks you I sent you like three years ago.

0:13

Oh no.

0:14

Oh well.

0:24

Welcome everybody to pre-council.

0:26

The date is April 22nd, 2025.

0:29

If you're wondering why we didn't start at 530, we did, but we had a council had a tour and staff had a tour over at the Hutchings Museum, which is uh has a really great tour.

0:40

So that's a great opportunity to have that in our community.

0:43

Everybody needs to take an opportunity to visit that.

0:46

Uh as a matter of matter of roll call, all our council members are here.

0:51

Heather is not here right now, but I know she'll be joining us very shortly.

0:56

I've asked Chris if he did yeah, give us the opening prayer, Chris, if you'll do that.

1:04

We come before thee this evening to thank thee for our many blessings, Father, to thank thee for this opportunity to uh be together and to serve this great city of Lehigh and to um be together with uh staff and residents and to um have the opportunity to tour the Hutchins Museum and to see the wonderful artifacts there.

1:22

And we're grateful, Father, for um this opportunity to serve.

1:26

We pray, Father, for our military and our first responders.

1:30

We pray for the families.

1:31

We pray that they may what that thou may watch over them and protect them.

1:35

We pray that thy spirit may be with us as we have conversations this night and as we make decisions that we may do so in the in a respectful and uh a good way.

1:44

And this we pray in my son Jesus Christ.

1:47

Amen.

1:48

Thank you, Chris.

1:49

Uh as I mentioned, we did the Hutchings tour first.

1:53

We just went over there.

1:54

That was item 2.1, item 2.2 is the potential revis uh revisions chapter 3, Lee Leh Municipal Code regarding public disturbances.

2:05

Kim.

2:06

Okay.

2:17

Okay.

2:30

Okay, so we were uh asked by well, specifically by council member Stallings, and I think there was at least one or two other council members that were somewhat interested in kind of revisiting our current noise ordinance, um noise control.

2:48

So um what I'll do is just kind of walk you through.

2:51

I want to kind of show you what our current ordinance looks like.

2:55

And then we did look into what's how some other cities are regulating noise.

3:01

Um we did some research.

3:04

We found that Provo City had actually just readopted their their noise ordinance.

3:09

I think like a lot of other types of municipal regulations that looked like at some point in time, as we did our research, it looked like a lot of cities had very similar, almost identical ordinances to what our current one is.

3:23

And provos was the same.

3:25

Um they did extensive research and came back with a draft that actually just got adopted earlier this year, a couple of months ago.

3:35

So we based a lot of what we looked into off of Provo Cities.

3:40

Um theirs had some unique things because of BYU and other specific noise issues that they deal with that we don't.

3:48

But we looked at ours, looked at what they did, and so we tonight I think we just kind of want to uh get a general discussion going of do you think it's time to update ours and do you like the general direction that Provost Cities, which is the draft.

4:03

We did put uh it was a you know, Craig uh Chambers and I did uh a quick revision of provost to model it to what it might look like if we decide that we like that uh to readopt ours in that in a similar format.

4:20

So right now our current ordinance it it gets a little bit confusing.

4:24

There's there's eight sections.

4:27

It has this first one on findings, which I don't know if is really necessary.

4:32

And then it starts to go into it describes different categories of of noise and um, you know, it talks about car engines and anyways, um so it has these different levels or types of noise that can be produced.

4:52

Um and then it goes through a series of definitions.

5:00

Um and then it goes through a series of definitions uh and then it has some limitations on the peak intensity and then how we measure the sound, and then it has these series of tables, and it depends on it it's trying to distinguish between continuous and intermittent noises, then the next table is continuous noises, then it has intermittent noises, and then it has impulse noises.

5:18

So it and what we've found in talking to our because the police department is usually the one a lot of times this happens at night and people will call the police and complain about noise, and they're usually the ones that go out to enforce.

5:33

And they've said this is very confusing to, you know, the way it's defined and all you know, which table are we looking at.

5:41

Um and then it does have some exemptions um for carnivals, parades, construction projects, if you dots you're gonna be working on 2100 north, uh they sometimes work around the clock or very late into the night.

5:57

Uh and then of course emergency vehicles, um, emergency repairs, other things are exempt, and then it talks about violations, which it's a class B misdemeanor.

6:09

So that's kind of our current ordinance.

6:11

Um it's probably if I put it in the same format as as this redo that we've kind of been looking at, it would probably be about six pages versus three pages.

6:24

So we would be condensing quite a bit and simplifying is it would be what our goal would be.

6:29

So this is um, like I said, kind of a we took probos and modified it to what it could look like for us.

6:37

Uh but it just simplifies, it just talks about you know what is disturbing the piece, and it just says it's you know, creating a loud continuous or obnoxious noise.

6:46

It just condenses a lot of the wordy language in our current uh regulations, and then it still has definition of terms, but we've simplified those as well to just what we feel like are the essential definitions and then the noise measurements, it does still talk about how to measure the noise, but this does give a little bit of discretion.

7:08

It says that we should use an instrument that measures noise.

7:12

You usually have a decibel meter that you can take out and put out by the where the complaint is uh is at.

7:22

Um but then this does give if it's the responding officer, whoever it does say um though generally sound level measurements though generally preferred are not required to demonstrate a violation.

7:35

So it g it gives just a little bit of a um yeah, I don't know how to describe that, just a rational basis test of is it do they do we think this noise is is a nuisance.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Noise Control███████████████████████████27%
Transportation Safety████████████████████20%
Zoning Regulations██████████10%
Procedural█████████9%
Public Engagement█████5%
Public Transportation█████5%
Budget Equity Analysis████4%
Code Enforcement███3%
Public Safety███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Lehi City Council Meeting - April 22, 2025

The Lehi City Council met in pre‑council at 5:30 PM and regular session at 7:00 PM on April 22, 2025. The pre‑council included discussions on proposed revisions to the noise ordinance and on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding allocations. The regular session featured a public comment period, approval of a consent agenda, and consideration of multiple resolutions and ordinances, most of which passed unanimously.

Pre‑Council Discussions

  • Noise Ordinance Revisions (Item 2.2): Staff presented a draft based on Provo City’s updated ordinance, simplifying current regulations and adding a public nuisance standard. Council members raised concerns about enforcement subjectivity, the potential for grandfathering existing businesses, sound‑study costs ($6,600–$20,000), and the city’s liability for traffic noise. No final action was taken; staff will refine the draft for further discussion.
  • CDBG Funding (Item 2.3): Staff recommended allocating $340,000 in entitlement funds per the original staff recommendation (yellow table) and using leftover COVID‑19 CV funds (blue table) to increase awards to Tabitha’s Way ($35,000) and Family Haven ($9,000). After debate, the council unanimously supported the staff recommendation as presented, with no additional allocation to United Way.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Marshall Gary spoke on behalf of his neighbor about a downstairs unit playing loud bass music that could be felt and measured up to 80 dB. Despite police citations, the problem persists. He asked for code improvements and was directed to contact council members via email.
  • Mike Bentley criticized the noise study methodology used in the HADCO situation, stating that averaging noise over an hour obscures intermittent, high‑decibel events like beeping trucks. He urged prevention rather than after‑the‑fact studies and expressed willingness to work with staff and the business.
  • Alan Stevenson opposed the Station Area Plan, requesting it be tabled until better understood. He expressed concern that the plan conflates two separate transit modes and that approval could be used to move projects forward despite its “visionary” label.
  • Marshall Gary (second appearance) supported the Station Area Plan, noting that BRT reduces traffic and parking issues, and recommended consulting Donald Shoup’s work on parking management. He also argued that transit noise is less disruptive than road noise.
  • Scott Hilton supported the Station Area Plan, stating that road noise is worse than transit noise and that more high‑density housing is needed to make Lehi affordable for him.
  • Leah Jay countered opposition by arguing that cities naturally change and that managing growth with transit‑oriented development reduces traffic and noise. She urged approval of the plan.
  • Evan Hilton supported the plan, linking density to the pioneer spirit and the need to accommodate Utah’s growth.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the March 18, 2025 City Council meeting minutes.
  • Approved purchase orders totaling over $3.2 million, including $1,390,000 for Avail Switchgear Systems, $500,000 for Stuart C. Irby, and others.

Discussion Items

  • Consolidated Fee Schedule Amendments (Cemetery & Literacy Center) – Resolution #2025-19: Approved unanimously after a public hearing with no public comment.
  • Employee Policy Manual Amendments – Resolution #2025-24: Approved unanimously after a brief discussion highlighting the positive changes.
  • Skye Substation Switchgear Agreement with Avail Switchgear Systems – Resolution #2025-25: Approved unanimously. The equipment will serve the Inverness development area and is funded by impact fees.
  • Agreement with Stuart C. Irby Company for Fiber Materials – Resolution #2025-26: Approved unanimously. The city purchases materials upfront, and developers reimburse for them.
  • Development Code Amendment – Dwelling Units & Kitchen Definition (Ordinance #20-2025): After debate, the council rejected the ordinance (unanimous vote) and directed staff to explore a signature acknowledgment for applicants and continued use of plan‑stamp notifications instead of a restrictive definition.
  • Hospital & 2100 North Station Area Plan – Ordinance #21-2025: Approved with unification after public comment. The motion included caveats that the plan is a broad vision granting no vesting rights, may be amended in the future, and that the 2100 North station location may be revisited to improve accessibility and protect existing homes. Additionally, the city may use its detention basin for buffering/landscaping near the station.
  • Tronson Zone Change (901 W State St, .91 acres, R-1-8 to Heavy Commercial) – Ordinance #22-2025: Approved unanimously. The site is planned for an office/warehouse building.
  • Webb Zone Change (1312 N 600 E, .51 acres, RA-1 to R-1-Flex) – Ordinance #23-2025: Approved unanimously. The applicants plan to split the lot and build a second home for family.
  • Warner Zone Change (~7.7 acres at 7491 W 8179 N, A-5 to Light Industrial) – Ordinance #24-2025: Approved unanimously. The property is surrounded by light‑industrial general plan designations.
  • Fisher Main Street General Plan Amendment (1680 W Main St, .3 acres, Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential) – Ordinance #25-2025: Approved unanimously. The applicant intends to build a single‑family home on the corner.

Key Outcomes

  • All votes were unanimously in favor except for the defeated kitchen definition ordinance (unanimous rejection).
  • The Station Area Plan was approved with extra conditions regarding vesting, future amendability, and potential location review for the 2100 North station.
  • Staff will refine the noise ordinance draft and bring it back for future pre‑council discussion.
  • CDBG funding will follow the staff recommendation: $340,000 in entitlement funds, plus CV‑fund increases for Tabitha’s Way and Family Haven as presented.
  • The council directed staff to investigate a signature acknowledgment and plan‑stamp approach for kitchen installations in townhomes and condos rather than a code amendment.

Meeting Transcript

Yeah. Anyone that asks you I sent you like three years ago. Oh no. Oh well. Welcome everybody to pre-council. The date is April 22nd, 2025. If you're wondering why we didn't start at 530, we did, but we had a council had a tour and staff had a tour over at the Hutchings Museum, which is uh has a really great tour. So that's a great opportunity to have that in our community. Everybody needs to take an opportunity to visit that. Uh as a matter of matter of roll call, all our council members are here. Heather is not here right now, but I know she'll be joining us very shortly. I've asked Chris if he did yeah, give us the opening prayer, Chris, if you'll do that. We come before thee this evening to thank thee for our many blessings, Father, to thank thee for this opportunity to uh be together and to serve this great city of Lehigh and to um be together with uh staff and residents and to um have the opportunity to tour the Hutchins Museum and to see the wonderful artifacts there. And we're grateful, Father, for um this opportunity to serve. We pray, Father, for our military and our first responders. We pray for the families. We pray that they may what that thou may watch over them and protect them. We pray that thy spirit may be with us as we have conversations this night and as we make decisions that we may do so in the in a respectful and uh a good way. And this we pray in my son Jesus Christ. Amen. Thank you, Chris. Uh as I mentioned, we did the Hutchings tour first. We just went over there. That was item 2.1, item 2.2 is the potential revis uh revisions chapter 3, Lee Leh Municipal Code regarding public disturbances. Kim. Okay. Okay. Okay, so we were uh asked by well, specifically by council member Stallings, and I think there was at least one or two other council members that were somewhat interested in kind of revisiting our current noise ordinance, um noise control. So um what I'll do is just kind of walk you through. I want to kind of show you what our current ordinance looks like. And then we did look into what's how some other cities are regulating noise. Um we did some research. We found that Provo City had actually just readopted their their noise ordinance. I think like a lot of other types of municipal regulations that looked like at some point in time, as we did our research, it looked like a lot of cities had very similar, almost identical ordinances to what our current one is. And provos was the same. Um they did extensive research and came back with a draft that actually just got adopted earlier this year, a couple of months ago. So we based a lot of what we looked into off of Provo Cities. Um theirs had some unique things because of BYU and other specific noise issues that they deal with that we don't. But we looked at ours, looked at what they did, and so we tonight I think we just kind of want to uh get a general discussion going of do you think it's time to update ours and do you like the general direction that Provost Cities, which is the draft. We did put uh it was a you know, Craig uh Chambers and I did uh a quick revision of provost to model it to what it might look like if we decide that we like that uh to readopt ours in that in a similar format. So right now our current ordinance it it gets a little bit confusing. There's there's eight sections. It has this first one on findings, which I don't know if is really necessary. And then it starts to go into it describes different categories of of noise and um, you know, it talks about car engines and anyways, um so it has these different levels or types of noise that can be produced. Um and then it goes through a series of definitions. Um and then it goes through a series of definitions uh and then it has some limitations on the peak intensity and then how we measure the sound, and then it has these series of tables, and it depends on it it's trying to distinguish between continuous and intermittent noises, then the next table is continuous noises, then it has intermittent noises, and then it has impulse noises. So it and what we've found in talking to our because the police department is usually the one a lot of times this happens at night and people will call the police and complain about noise, and they're usually the ones that go out to enforce. And they've said this is very confusing to, you know, the way it's defined and all you know, which table are we looking at. Um and then it does have some exemptions um for carnivals, parades, construction projects, if you dots you're gonna be working on 2100 north, uh they sometimes work around the clock or very late into the night. Uh and then of course emergency vehicles, um, emergency repairs, other things are exempt, and then it talks about violations, which it's a class B misdemeanor.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com