Lehigh Planning Commission Meeting Summary - November 13, 2025

The Lehigh City Planning Commission convened on November 13, 2025, to review twelve agenda items, including the Downtown Vitalization Plan, multiple rezoning requests, development agreements, and site plan exceptions. The meeting began with the approval of meeting minutes from October 2 and October 9, with a specific correction to replace the word "swindled" with "misled" regarding a previous discussion. The Commission engaged in detailed deliberations regarding traffic impacts, zoning consistency, pedestrian connectivity, and tree canopy requirements, ultimately approving nearly all items with specific conditions or motions to the City Council.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the meeting minutes from October 2nd and October 9th, 2025, with the stipulation that the record be amended to reflect that the word "misled" was intended instead of "swindled" as noted by Commissioner Ayer.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Lyndon Dangerfield (Applicant, Item 3.3): Stated that the proposed flag lot would remain single-family residential; expressed willingness to orient the future home westward to align with neighbors and existing development patterns.
• Mike Bailey (Neighbor, Item 3.3): Expressed strong opposition to the subdivision, objecting to any new housing being built in the back of the property. Position included a specific request that any future structure must face west and not north or south to avoid staring into adjacent yards.
• Porsche Pro Neighbor (Item 3.3): Requested an impermeable fence (in contrast to the current field fence) to securely contain their horses and protect their property from disturbance.
• Keith Hall (Neighbor, Item 3.3): Expressed a desire for the applicant to assist with the cost of a new fence (estimated $15,000–$20,000) due to the presence of his horses, acknowledging the legal limitations on city-imposed fencing.
• Mr. Hall (Item 3.6): Stated that while there is precedent for pedestrian crossings off the trail, the current development's lack of connection was a missed opportunity for connectivity.
• Mr. Robertson (Item 3.6): Argued against the pylon sign height exception, stating that drivers are already aware of the location and that larger signs do not necessarily improve public safety at 55 mph.
• Abram Nielsen (Online Comment, Item 3.6 & 3.7): Stated strong opposition to oversized signs and tree reductions. Position: The city code is well thought out and must be stuck to; justified requests for bigger signs and less parking are not valid arguments.
• Lauren Henry (Online Comment, Item 3.6): Expressed support for the 53-foot height justification specifically for drivers traveling east on the commuter lane, noting the need to see available businesses.
• Evan Howell (Item 3.10): Expressed concern regarding increased traffic congestion at the 1350 East Main Street intersection. Position: The area is already a traffic cluster, and adding more development will exacerbate safety issues without adequate infrastructure solutions.

Discussion Items

• Downtown Vitalization Plan (Item 3.1): Staff and the public discussed the plan as a non-regulatory framework. The DRC raised concerns that the initial unit counts were interpreted as targets rather than ideal build scenarios for analysis; language was updated to reflect this and address utility constraints. Public feedback highlighted a conflict between desires for increased housing/density and concerns regarding traffic impacts and Main Street walkability. The plan proposes concentrating housing in specific districts to support retail and mixed-use needs.
• Jordan Lee Zone Change (Item 3.2): Staff clarified that while the General Plan designation for the parcel (1035 West Main) was previously updated to commercial, the zoning map on the website had not yet synchronized. The applicant, Robert Lee, confirmed the intent was to facilitate commercial development to match the General Plan and current zoning of the adjacent parcels.
• Platinum Peak Flag Lot (Item 3.3): Discussion focused on the applicant's right to develop versus neighbor concerns regarding orientation and fencing. Planning staff noted that while the applicant has the legal right to the flag lot configuration, the commission can impose conditions for orientation as a reasonable mitigation. Staff clarified that mandatory fence requirements for agricultural neighbors (RA1) do not apply to the R18 neighbor to the north due to different grandfathered rights.
• Symphony Developments (Items 3.4 & 3.5): The applicant, Russ Wilson, explained the business model focuses on "move-up" housing with large (22,000 sq ft) lots, differing from high-density townhome models. The applicant stated they do not intend to form a HOA for park strip maintenance and acknowledged the lack of a pedestrian bridge connection to the trail system.
• Skyview Development Pylon Signs (Item 3.6): Applicant Austin Cope argued that a 53-foot height was necessary for visibility and safe transition from the 55 mph overpass. Commissioner Lockhart and a member of the public argued against the height, citing safety and visual obstruction. The Commission negotiated a compromise to reduce the height to 40 feet while maintaining the square footage.
• The Collective Site Plan (Item 3.7): Discussion addressed the request to reduce trees from 580 to 381 due to grade constraints and retaining walls. Staff and the applicant explained that the site's 90-foot elevation drop and utility easements made the code requirement unfeasible without sacrificing significant usable development area or increasing parking to an extent that would not satisfy market demands for specific tenants like Whole Foods.
• Hammond Development Agreement (Item 3.8): The applicant, Justin Hammond, explained the move to a Development Agreement rather than a Heavy Commercial rezoning to address neighbor concerns. The plan involves a light office/warehouse project with a 6-foot rock wall buffer. Neighbor Dennis Schoonover noted the offset of the wall to preserve established Chinese elm trees, though expressed concern that if the trees cannot be saved, the applicant might revert to a mixed-use drive-thru concept.
• JDH Property Development Agreement (Item 3.9): Review of adding 30 residential units to the West Project to increase development viability. Staff and the applicant confirmed no pedestrian railroad crossing would be included in this phase.
• Water's Edge Development Agreement (Item 3.10): Applicant Bob Purdue detailed the agreement for a 330-unit residential development and a 3-to-4-star hotel. Discussion included the feasibility of a 4-star hotel (deemed difficult by the applicant compared to a 3-star) and ongoing coordination with American Fork and Walmart regarding access road connections. Commissioner Lockhart expressed frustration that the Development Agreement circumvents the General Plan's Planned Unit Development (TOD) intent, though others noted it provides necessary control over specific uses.
• December 2025 Scheduling: The Commission discussed rescheduling the December 11th meeting and converting the December 4th work session into a regular meeting to accommodate year-end development agreements. A joint dinner with the City Council was proposed for December 16th at the new City Hall.

Key Outcomes

• Item 3.1 (Downtown Plan): Motion carried to provide a positive recommendation to City Council, finding the plan meets state code requirements and supports moderate income housing goals, with all DRC comments included.
• Item 3.2 (Jordan Lee): Motion carried to recommend approval with findings that the change brings consistency with the General Plan and compatibility with surrounding properties, contingent on including DRC comments.
• Item 3.3 (Platinum Peak Flag Lot): Motion carried to approve the conditional use with the specific condition that the future home must face westward to align with neighborhood patterns, acknowledging that the applicant and neighbors agreed to this orientation. The commission declined to impose a fence condition, citing legal limitations regarding the neighbor's rights.
• Item 3.4 (Symphony Zone Change): Motion carried to recommend approval with findings that the zone change fits the General Plan designation and is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
• Item 3.5 (Symphony Concept Plan): Motion carried to approve the concept plan with findings of conformance to the Development Code and General Plan, contingent upon the City Council's approval of the associated zone change (Item 3.4).
• Item 3.6 (Skyview Pylon Signs): Motion carried with a 3-2 vote to approve the exception for sign height with a maximum limit of 40 feet (reduced from the requested 53 feet), finding the height justified for traffic safety and terrain visibility. The square footage exception was also granted.
• Item 3.7 (The Collective): Motion carried 4-1 to approve the site plan with an exception to the tree requirement (reducing from 580 to 381 trees), finding the applicant met all other landscaping requirements. The vote included a directive to the city to reconsider the 30 trees per acre code requirement for large-scale developments with significant grade constraints.
• Item 3.8 (Hammond): Motion carried to provide a positive recommendation to City Council, finding the development agreement conforms to the General Plan and is consistent with neighboring mixed-use uses.
• Item 3.9 (JDH): Motion carried (3-2) to provide a positive recommendation to City Council, finding the addition of 30 units provides access to trails and roads and conforms to the General Plan.
• Item 3.10 (Water's Edge): Motion carried to provide a positive recommendation to City Council, finding the development agreement allows for necessary residential and commercial development within utility constraints and includes required trail and road connections. The commission noted the compromise on hotel rating (3 to 4-star) and the complex approval status of access connections with American Fork and Walmart.
• Scheduling: Commission authorized the rescheduling of December meetings: December 4th will be a regular meeting (replacing the work session), December 11th will be cancelled, and December 16th will feature a joint dinner with the City Council followed by a council meeting.