Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Lehi Planning Commission Meeting - October 9, 2025

Meeting Portal — Thursday, October 9, 2025

BodyLehi, Utah

SessionMeeting Portal

DateThursday, October 9, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:57:43

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:26

And welcome to the public and our applicants and our staff.

0:30

This is the uh uh planning commission meeting for October 9th, 2025.

0:35

We excuse Commissioner Chair Greg Jackson, he is not able to attend tonight, so I'm Commissioner Everett.

0:41

I'll be sitting in his vice chair and managing the meeting today.

0:46

Uh we have a consent agenda item number two, minutes from the September 4th, 2025 meeting, which was a work session, and it was with uh Dania Rumore who was here teaching to us.

0:58

And I just I want to commend you Kate on the detail of the minutes.

1:01

Thank you for that.

1:03

Um entertain a motion or if there's a discussion to the minutes, a pre-motion to discuss.

1:15

As they have been um presented.

1:20

We have a second.

1:21

I'll say it.

1:22

I noticed that I didn't I just made a motion without a I I move that we approve the minutes.

1:29

Not that I just make a motion.

1:30

So I sorry, I make a motion that we approve the minutes from we'll still second.

1:35

September 4th.

1:35

Okay.

1:37

We have a motion and a second all in favor of of the motion to approve.

1:41

Say aye.

1:41

Aye.

1:42

Aye.

1:42

Any opposed?

1:44

Motion carries minutes are approved.

1:47

We'll go to our regular agenda.

1:48

Item 3.1.

1:51

Item 3.1.

1:52

Consideration of Clyde Capital Group's request for approval of revisions to the vistas at the point amenities, removing the amphitheater from their required amenities.

2:00

I guess it really should say substituting the dog park for the amphitheater.

2:05

This was tabled from the September 11th meeting this year.

2:09

So I'm just gonna give you a little bit more background because I think this is some of the stuff that came up.

2:13

Um, and then I'll let them share.

2:17

Um so this is the minutes.

2:21

I don't know if you saw this was included in the packets in the packet, the minutes from the meeting where the preliminary subdivision was approved, which was September 14th, 2021.

2:31

Um, and a bunch of people from Flight Park had come and shared their concerns and wanting a wind study.

2:36

And so Councilor Hombrecht moved to approve consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for the vistas at the point phase one.

2:45

Um drawing attention to critical infrastructure and as part of the approval, instruct the developer to do as he agreed to conduct a wind study because we couldn't require it, but they agreed to do a win study, and then to coordinate with ingress egress to phase and units and to work with fundamental issues with staff as they occur in a timely manner to keep the development process moving.

3:05

Um so from that, and after the wind study, which the wind study was included in your packet too, it takes you to a link online.

3:14

Um the layout was updated, taking the amphitheater away from the middle area over to be closer to the actual flight park, um, which lower it reduced some of the wind impact, and they also lowered the height of the building that's over um the apartment building that's close to it.

3:36

And so those were two things they were willing to do because of the wind study, and we administratively approved that because it was part of the motion to make things move forward in a timely manner.

3:46

So that's the history of how it ended up over in this corner.

3:51

And um, you know, they had originally said they would do an overlook park and they had some examples, but now what they're showing is you know, much more detailed, um, and it really has a little bit more than what was maybe initially proposed of just kind of a bench or something to overlook.

4:07

And then the other thing instead of the amphitheater, you know, they're saying and this is going to be either way the amphitheater or the dog park, either way would be an amenity for the residents.

4:18

It's not a city amenity that they're um dedicating to the city or anything.

4:23

So this is just for their apartments and townhomes.

4:27

So now they're proposing a dog park, um, and they provided you know a little bit more information on what it would look like.

4:33

But again, they'd have to do a full site plan and show more detail and make sure they're meeting all the requirements before that got final approval for construction.

4:41

Um so hopefully that gives a little bit more background and information, but with that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions for me.

4:49

Thank you, Brittany.

4:49

I do have a question.

4:50

The the wind study, all I got was a 3D model.

4:53

There was no narrative that explained anything like prevailing winds or time of day.

4:57

Is that all there was?

4:58

Was just that 3D model?

5:00

Um yeah, so they didn't really submit it to us, right?

5:03

Because I mean they shared the information with us afterwards, but it was really the developer working with Flight Park and with um I don't remember who did the wind study, but with the wind study group.

5:14

And so they did I know they did a couple iterations and different things like that, but in the end it was kind of just a summary of, you know, this is what we've discussed, this is the impact, because none of us on staff know how to read a wind study, you know.

5:26

Well, I appreciate you included the link, but there was no narrative, it was just a 3D picture, which doesn't really tell me much relative to their conclusions and their different model iterations.

5:37

So I just thought it was there more that we should be looking at or so again, it wasn't I mean we maybe got a little bit in like email explanation of you know, this is but pretty much it is what I said that they said having buildings there is gonna impact the wind more.

5:52

So having lower buildings or having it be flat.

5:55

Um and there's also some things with plantings, you know, having trees and stuff made a difference, but that's the only information we ever got on it either.

6:03

Thank you.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Planning and Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████55%

Parks and Recreation██████████████17%

Public Engagement███████9%

Procedural██████7%

Community Engagement█████6%

Community Development███4%

Engineering And Infrastructure██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Lehi Planning Commission Meeting - October 9, 2025

The Lehi Planning Commission met on October 9, 2025, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. The meeting included approval of minutes, a request to swap an amenity from an amphitheater to a dog park, a conditional use for a 70-foot flagpole, and a discussion on a development code amendment. The commission voted 3-2 to approve the amenity swap, unanimously approved the flagpole, and voted 4-1 to table the code amendment for further refinement.

Consent Calendar

Approved the minutes from the September 4, 2025, work session unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

Candice Clark (resident near Pioneer Crossing and 300 East) expressed concerns about high-density development being placed near existing low-density neighborhoods, urging the commission to be mindful of the city's growth and character. She noted that while she understood the code amendment was different, she wanted to voice general concerns.
Chase Clark (husband of Candice) thanked the commission for their service, stating he is pleased with Lehi City's management of growth, utilities, and zoning, and expressed gratitude for the commission's work.

Discussion Items

3.1 – Clyde Capital Group’s request to swap the amphitheater for a dog park at Vistas at the Point

Staff provided background: the amphitheater was moved to its current location after a voluntary wind study with Flight Park. The applicant now proposes substituting the amphitheater with a dog park, arguing it will be more used by residents. The applicant (Clayton Rackham) presented a cost comparison showing both amenities around $250,000. Commissioners expressed frustration over inconsistent information and lack of full wind study data but acknowledged the dog park could be a better amenity. After debate, Commissioner Roberts moved to approve the swap with findings that the dog park is of equivalent value and including DRC comments. The motion passed 3-2.

3.2 – Thanksgiving Park’s request for a 70-foot flagpole at 3401 North Thanksgiving Way

Staff noted that flagpoles over 30 feet require conditional use approval. The applicant (Mark Ostabo) stated the flagpole will be at the height of the adjacent buildings (about 70 feet) and will be lit per flag code. The commission supported the request, noting precedent in the city (e.g., Tag and Go car wash). A motion to approve with standard findings carried unanimously 5-0.

3.3 – Lehi City’s Development Code Amendment to Chapter 4 (adding exhibit for General Plan, Zoning, and Development Code Amendments)

Staff explained the amendment would allow applicants to submit an illustrative exhibit concurrent with a general plan or zone change application, providing clarity without the full review of a concept plan. Commissioners debated the need for codification, concerns about potential bait-and-switch, equity issues, and whether exhibits could unduly sway decisions. Commissioner Ayer moved to table the item to allow staff to refine language that maximizes transparency and avoids vesting rights. The motion passed 4-1.

Key Outcomes

Consent Agenda: Approved.
Item 3.1: Approved (3-2) to allow swapping the amphitheater for a dog park, with findings of equivalent value and DRC comments.
Item 3.2: Approved (5-0) for conditional use of a 70-foot flagpole at Thanksgiving Park, with standard findings.
Item 3.3: Tabled (4-1) for further refinement of language to increase transparency and streamline the process.
City Business: Noted upcoming public input on the Downtown Revitalization/Station Area Plan and a joint work session on updating design standards.

Meeting Transcript

And welcome to the public and our applicants and our staff. This is the uh uh planning commission meeting for October 9th, 2025. We excuse Commissioner Chair Greg Jackson, he is not able to attend tonight, so I'm Commissioner Everett. I'll be sitting in his vice chair and managing the meeting today. Uh we have a consent agenda item number two, minutes from the September 4th, 2025 meeting, which was a work session, and it was with uh Dania Rumore who was here teaching to us. And I just I want to commend you Kate on the detail of the minutes. Thank you for that. Um entertain a motion or if there's a discussion to the minutes, a pre-motion to discuss. As they have been um presented. We have a second. I'll say it. I noticed that I didn't I just made a motion without a I I move that we approve the minutes. Not that I just make a motion. So I sorry, I make a motion that we approve the minutes from we'll still second. September 4th. Okay. We have a motion and a second all in favor of of the motion to approve. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries minutes are approved. We'll go to our regular agenda. Item 3.1. Item 3.1. Consideration of Clyde Capital Group's request for approval of revisions to the vistas at the point amenities, removing the amphitheater from their required amenities. I guess it really should say substituting the dog park for the amphitheater. This was tabled from the September 11th meeting this year. So I'm just gonna give you a little bit more background because I think this is some of the stuff that came up. Um, and then I'll let them share. Um so this is the minutes. I don't know if you saw this was included in the packets in the packet, the minutes from the meeting where the preliminary subdivision was approved, which was September 14th, 2021. Um, and a bunch of people from Flight Park had come and shared their concerns and wanting a wind study. And so Councilor Hombrecht moved to approve consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for the vistas at the point phase one. Um drawing attention to critical infrastructure and as part of the approval, instruct the developer to do as he agreed to conduct a wind study because we couldn't require it, but they agreed to do a win study, and then to coordinate with ingress egress to phase and units and to work with fundamental issues with staff as they occur in a timely manner to keep the development process moving. Um so from that, and after the wind study, which the wind study was included in your packet too, it takes you to a link online. Um the layout was updated, taking the amphitheater away from the middle area over to be closer to the actual flight park, um, which lower it reduced some of the wind impact, and they also lowered the height of the building that's over um the apartment building that's close to it. And so those were two things they were willing to do because of the wind study, and we administratively approved that because it was part of the motion to make things move forward in a timely manner. So that's the history of how it ended up over in this corner. And um, you know, they had originally said they would do an overlook park and they had some examples, but now what they're showing is you know, much more detailed, um, and it really has a little bit more than what was maybe initially proposed of just kind of a bench or something to overlook. And then the other thing instead of the amphitheater, you know, they're saying and this is going to be either way the amphitheater or the dog park, either way would be an amenity for the residents. It's not a city amenity that they're um dedicating to the city or anything. So this is just for their apartments and townhomes. So now they're proposing a dog park, um, and they provided you know a little bit more information on what it would look like. But again, they'd have to do a full site plan and show more detail and make sure they're meeting all the requirements before that got final approval for construction. Um so hopefully that gives a little bit more background and information, but with that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions for me. Thank you, Brittany. I do have a question. The the wind study, all I got was a 3D model. There was no narrative that explained anything like prevailing winds or time of day.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com