OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Lehi, Utah/Meeting Portal
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Lehi Planning Commission Meeting - June 11, 2026: Zone Changes, Signs, Subdivision & Code Updates

Meeting Portal — Thursday, June 11, 2026
BodyLehi, Utah
SessionMeeting Portal
DateThursday, June 11, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:29:05

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:36

We'll start with the consent agenda.

0:38

Items two point one, two point two, and two point three.

0:44

Make a motion that we accept the meeting minutes.

0:49

Second.

0:50

It's a motion and a second.

0:54

All in favor?

0:55

Aye.

0:56

Aye.

0:56

Aye.

0:57

Any opposed?

0:59

That was right.

1:01

Okay, motion passes.

1:05

Motions.

1:09

All right.

1:10

We're ready for our regular agenda items starting with 3.1.

1:17

Okay, item 3.1 public hearing and recommendation of TN contracting LLC's request for review of the Prestwit zone change on 1.09 acres located at 2004 North 900 West, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2.

1:34

This is consistent with the general plan designation of medium density residential.

1:40

R2 would allow six units per acre.

1:43

And so with the 1.09, it would be six units.

1:52

And yeah, with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

1:56

Can we see anything?

1:57

Wait, there we go.

1:58

Thank you.

2:00

So there you go.

2:01

There's the zoning, current RA1, and then this is the general plan that has medium density in pretty much that whole area.

2:09

Okay.

2:12

Does anyone have a questions for staff on this?

2:17

Is the applicant here?

2:20

Okay.

2:21

Do you have any anything to add?

2:23

No.

2:24

Okay.

2:25

Is there anyone here?

2:26

We'll start the public comment.

2:30

Is there anyone here to comment on this item?

2:35

Please come forward.

2:39

Okay, seeing there's no comments and none online.

2:43

Yep, none online.

2:44

Okay.

2:45

Thank you.

2:46

Uh we'll close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion or motion.

2:55

Given that this proposed change is consistent with the general plan, I'm good with it.

2:59

I don't have any issues unless anyone else wants to discuss anything.

3:03

All right.

3:24

So the motion being that we recommend approval.

3:27

With the findings being that this change will allow for life cycle housing and diversity of housing types in this part of the city consistent with the goal stated in the general plan use element.

3:43

And please include those DRC comments.

4:14

No, I think we got to we're at 3.2.

4:17

All right.

4:18

You caught it from the side of the room.

4:20

Let's move forward forward with 3.2.2.

4:24

Public hearing and consideration of trademark visuals request for conditional use approval of two pylon signs for the collective commercial development located at 1050 West Sunrise Way and requesting an exception for greater height and sign area.

4:39

And there were some online comments that we can get to during public comment, but I think the addressing for this confused a lot of people.

5:13

And so it's coming before you because all pylon signs are conditional use, but they're also asking for an exception for the height and sign size for both of them.

5:25

So the code allows 25 feet and then an exception up to 70 feet, and they're asking for 60 feet.

5:34

They did bring it down from their initial request of 70.

5:38

And then the maximum sign size is 200 square feet with the ability for you guys to give an exception up to 600 square feet, and they're asking for 595.88 square feet.

6:11

Also for wayfinding, and that there is an existing monument sign and the view apartments that obstruct visibility a little bit.

6:20

So you know they provided some visual examples of what it would look like.

6:40

Should be noted that the grade, uh the signs will be on higher grade than right next to Timpanogas Highway.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Community Development██████████████████████████████████████38%
Engineering And Infrastructure████████████████████████████████32%
Procedural████████████████16%
Water And Wastewater Management████████8%
Community Engagement██2%
Economic Development██2%
Pending Litigation█1%
Public Safety█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Lehi Planning Commission Meeting - June 11, 2026: Zone Changes, Signs, Subdivision & Code Updates

The Lehi City Planning Commission met on June 11, 2026, to review a diverse agenda including zone changes, conditional use permits for signage, a preliminary subdivision plat, a site plan for a science center, and amendments to the city’s development code covering automobile sales and neighborhood exchange structures. The meeting featured significant public testimony and a split commission vote on one item.

Consent Calendar

  • Unanimously approved the minutes of previous meetings (Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3).

Item 3.1: TN Contracting Zone Change

Public Comment:

  • None.

Discussion:

  • Staff presented the request to rezone 1.09 acres at 2004 North 900 West from RA1 to R2, aligning with the General Plan’s medium-density residential designation allowing six units per acre.
  • The applicant had nothing to add.
  • The commission expressed no concerns, finding the change fully consistent with the General Plan.

Outcome:

  • Motion passed to recommend approval to the City Council, with findings related to life cycle housing, diversity of housing types, and General Plan consistency. (Unanimous)

Item 3.2: Trademark Visuals Pylon Signs

Public Comment:

  • Several residents (Kate Chavez, Sasha, Jin Lee) submitted comments opposing the placement of a 60-foot sign on Sunrise Way, arguing it belongs on the highway and would be an eyesore and source of light pollution for the neighborhood.

Discussion:

  • Staff explained the request for two pylon signs at the Collective Commercial Development, with exceptions for height (60 ft vs. code 25 ft / max exception 70 ft) and area (595.88 sq ft vs. code 200 sq ft / max exception 600 sq ft).
  • Applicant Justin Grubb and developer Juan Montoya defended the size and placement due to site constraints (easements, grade, setbacks) and visibility issues. They offered to reduce the height and collaborate on design adjustments.
  • Commissioners Jackson and Tyson expressed strong concerns about the eastern sign’s effectiveness and its impact on adjacent apartments, suggesting a single, well-placed sign or a reduction in height.
  • The commission debated splitting the request but opted to table the entire item.

Outcome:

  • Motion carried to table the entire request to the July 9, 2026 meeting, allowing the applicant to refine the proposal based on commission feedback.

Item 3.3: Cortiz Preliminary Subdivision

Public Comment:

  • Mark Peacock, a neighboring property owner, expressed concerns about access to a private irrigation ditch and headgate for his water rights. He requested the item be tabled until the irrigation access was resolved.

Discussion:

  • Staff confirmed the ditch is a private lateral and not maintained by the main irrigation company.
  • Applicant Jake Hone stated they are working with the irrigation company and neighbor to provide recorded access easements.
  • The commission and legal counsel discussed water rights and prescriptive easements, concluding the matter is largely between the private property owners but was being addressed by the developer.
  • Commissioners felt the developer had adequately addressed the concerns within the property boundaries.

Outcome:

  • Motion carried to recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision to the City Council, with findings stating it meets the development code requirements, accompanied by DRC comments. (Unanimous, City Council hearing set for July 14).

Item 3.4: Walker Zone Change

Public Comment:

  • Several neighbors (Sheena Welch, Kathy Sunderland, Kyle Welch, Andrea Hansen) and a business owner (Steve Johnson, online) spoke and submitted comments in opposition. They argued that Heavy Commercial zoning is incompatible with the surrounding established single-family homes and would harm property values, safety, and the character of the neighborhood. They urged the commission to recommend denial.

Discussion:

  • Staff noted the request aligns with the General Plan’s Heavy Commercial designation for the area.
  • Applicant Deborah Walker stated she simply wished to rezone the property to facilitate a sale.
  • A lengthy debate ensued about the General Plan’s role, vested rights, and whether the zone change would “unduly affect” nearby properties.
  • Commissioner Jackson moved to recommend denial, citing a lack of vested rights and that approving the change was not currently in the general welfare given the impacts on the residential neighborhood.
  • Commissioner Nicole seconded.

Outcome:

  • The motion to recommend denial, with findings citing a lack of vested rights and the current lack of general welfare benefit compared to the impact on residents, carried with a split vote.

Item 3.5: Thanksgiving Point Science Center Site Plan

Public Comment:

  • John Peterson spoke in strong support, calling the museum a unique regional draw and justifying the design exceptions based on the building’s use.

Discussion:

  • Staff presented the proposed museum addition to the Red Barn, requiring exceptions for EFIS use (above the 20% code maximum), glass (below the 40% code minimum on facades), and the street setback.
  • Applicant McKay Christensen and architect Brad Beecher detailed the design rationale for the exceptions, citing interior exhibit, theater, and lab requirements.
  • Commissioner Tyson voiced concerns about setting a precedent by granting multiple exceptions, comparing it to previous commission decisions on other projects.
  • After further discussion, Commissioner Nicole made a motion to approve.

Outcome:

  • Motion carried to approve the site plan with specific findings recognizing the unique nature of the nationally-drawing museum structure, accompanied by DRC comments.

Item 3.6: Development Code Amendment (Automobile Sales)

Public Comment:

  • John Peterson of “The Ridge” development spoke in support, advocating for allowing first-class dealerships while protecting the area from lower-end lots.

Discussion:

  • Staff explained the amendment removes the 1-acre minimum lot size and updates redundant regulations, per City Council direction.
  • Commissioners discussed the reasoning for the original limitation versus the current market needs.

Outcome:

  • Motion carried to give a positive recommendation to City Council, with DRC comments. (Unanimous)

Item 3.7: Development Code Amendment (Neighborhood Exchange Structures)

Public Comment:

  • None.

Discussion:

  • Staff presented the amendment to add regulations for Little Free Libraries and food pantries, permitting them in residential zones and restricting them from public rights-of-way without permission.

Outcome:

  • Motion carried to give a positive recommendation to City Council, with DRC comments. (Unanimous)

Administrative Items

  • Acknowledged the upcoming Rodeo / July 4th holiday. No late June meeting.
  • Next regular meeting scheduled for July 9, 2026.
  • Motion to adjourn passed.

Meeting Transcript

We'll start with the consent agenda. Items two point one, two point two, and two point three. Make a motion that we accept the meeting minutes. Second. It's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That was right. Okay, motion passes. Motions. All right. We're ready for our regular agenda items starting with 3.1. Okay, item 3.1 public hearing and recommendation of TN contracting LLC's request for review of the Prestwit zone change on 1.09 acres located at 2004 North 900 West, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2. This is consistent with the general plan designation of medium density residential. R2 would allow six units per acre. And so with the 1.09, it would be six units. And yeah, with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions. Can we see anything? Wait, there we go. Thank you. So there you go. There's the zoning, current RA1, and then this is the general plan that has medium density in pretty much that whole area. Okay. Does anyone have a questions for staff on this? Is the applicant here? Okay. Do you have any anything to add? No. Okay. Is there anyone here? We'll start the public comment. Is there anyone here to comment on this item? Please come forward. Okay, seeing there's no comments and none online. Yep, none online. Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion or motion. Given that this proposed change is consistent with the general plan, I'm good with it. I don't have any issues unless anyone else wants to discuss anything. All right. So the motion being that we recommend approval. With the findings being that this change will allow for life cycle housing and diversity of housing types in this part of the city consistent with the goal stated in the general plan use element. And please include those DRC comments. No, I think we got to we're at 3.2. All right. You caught it from the side of the room.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com