Lehi Planning Commission Meeting Summary, August 27, 2026
Lehi Planning Commission Meeting Summary, August 27, 2026
The Lehi Planning Commission met on August 27, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Lehi City Council Chambers to consider four agenda items, including a controversial area plan amendment, two zoning-related items, and one withdrawn application. Public testimony was heard on each item, and the commission took votes recommending actions to the City Council.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 3.1 (Perry Commercial Area Plan Amendment): 19 online commenters opposed the change. Public speakers included:
- Rob Ludlow, a 20-year Traverse Mountain resident, argued that the developer had exhausted vested development rights, opposed granting new commercial rights without extraordinary community benefits, and highlighted historical negotiations and code requirements.
- Aaron Ethington, a neighbor, opposed the change, stating the developer had deliberately exhausted its density rights and should instead develop the land as currently zoned.
- Applicant representative Matt Swain countered that the change was appropriate land use, that vested residential rights remain, and accused opponents of having personal vendettas.
- Item 3.3 (Pasture Walk Annexation): No public comments were submitted or presented.
- Item 3.4 (Nelson Zone Change): No public comments were submitted or presented.
Discussion Items
- 3.1 Perry Commercial – Traverse Mountain Area Plan Amendment: Proposed changing approximately 5 acres at Timpanogos Highway and Mountain View Road from High Density Residential (HDR) to Highway Commercial. Staff noted the site is adjacent to existing commercial and supports the area plan's commercial corridor. The applicant argued the change is consistent with surrounding land uses and would generate tax revenue. Public opposition centered on the developer having used up density rights, the lack of extraordinary community benefit, and concerns about traffic and precedent. Commissioners discussed whether the change demonstrated a significantly better scenario; some noted staff's point that commercial buffers the highway better than residential. The motion to recommend denial passed unanimously, citing insufficient demonstration of improvement and reflecting citizen sentiment.
- 3.2 Ryan Harmison – 235 Office Suites Setback Exception: Withdrawn by the applicant before discussion.
- 3.3 Jeanne Walker – Pasture Walk Annexation (R-1-22 Zoning): Staff recommended approval of R-1-22 (very low density residential) on 4.4 acres, consistent with the general plan. The DRC requested including a UTA parcel in the annexation. No opposition was noted.
- 3.4 Nick Nelson – Nelson Zone Change (TH-5 to A-1): Staff recommended approval of A-1 zoning on 1.75 acres (after lot line adjustment) for a single-family home, consistent with the general plan. No opposition was noted.
Key Outcomes
- Item 3.1: Motion (by Commissioner Bo, seconded by Greg) to recommend denial of the area plan amendment to the City Council, with findings that the proposal does not significantly demonstrably create a better scenario than the current plan and that the current plan reflects citizen sentiment. Vote: All in favor (5-0). The item will go to the City Council on September 22, 2026.
- Item 3.3: Motion (by Commissioner Bo, seconded by Greg) to recommend approval of R-1-22 zoning for the Pasture Walk Annexation, including DRC comments. Vote: All in favor (5-0). The item will go to the first City Council meeting in October 2026.
- Item 3.4: Motion (by Commissioner Nicole, seconded by Polo) to recommend approval of the zone change from TH-5 to A-1, consistent with the general plan and including DRC comments. Vote: All in favor (5-0). The item will go to the City Council on September 27, 2026.
- Other: The commission noted that a work session scheduled for the following week might be cancelled.
Meeting Transcript
This meeting is now in order. And we will jump right into the regular agenda. All right. Item 3.1 public hearing and recommendation of Perry Commercials request for review of an amendment to the Traverse Mountain Area Plan changing approximately five acres located at Timothy's Highway and Mountain View Road from high density residential to highway commercial. And this was previously tabled at uh the August 13th meeting. Um so the proposal is on approximately uh five acres next to the existing Sunrise office building and central bank. Oh yeah, do you want to display my teacher you not share? Yeah, T Sue community. Sorry, yeah, just remind me. Okay. Um just be an extension of the existing commercial that's in this area. Um they're not proposing any other changes to the Traverse Mountain Area Plan at this time, we've just changed this to highway commercial. Um just a few things to be aware of from some of the public comment we got. Uh both of these were previously changed. Uh there was an amendment in 2013. And when they first came through, it was a little bit ambiguous uh what how big of a property they wanted to change. And so uh planning commission had actually recommended going up to six acres, um, and then city council approved it for three acres. And right now it's like two point six acres. So in theory, maybe there is a little bit that could be um still, but you know, not the full of what they're wanting. Um also that doesn't have to impact your decision all, but just it has been considered in the past, and um you know, I think they since at least 2013 saw that there was some commercial bike um opportunities in this area. And um, you know, I guess a planning principle to keep in mind is can be good to separate residential from busy roads. I look at the view apartment and question why we allow them to build a little pocket park right next to a really high busy road. I don't know if that's great for safety and quality of life. Um so some of those things to keep in mind. Of course, there's also impact from commercial, it can increase traffic. And um, you know, if it it's a large traffic generator, they would have to do a traffic study and make improvements based off of that. But that does also have impact. Um yeah, just some things to consider, and with that I'll turn it back to the commission for discussion. Thank you, Brittany. Uh is the applicant present. No questions there's a tell that in a minute. I forgot. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Matt Swain representing uh the Perry Companies that is the applicant for this property. Um just just a uh a few points to reiterate what what Brittany has already stated and what's in the staff report. Um all we're asking is for a continuation of the commercial zoning that we feel like is consistent with the rest of the frontage that's heading really from this property to the east. And um being a compliment and and echoing um reasonable land use and and planning to to put commercial down toward the commercial corridor for uh traffic circulation purposes, for noise purposes, just from a land use perspective. We feel like this is uh long term is the appropriate use for this piece of property. Um I think is outlined and and frankly, we we probably should have just brought this through uh at the same time that Central Utah Bank was doing their um uh use amendment within the area plan back in 2013 because the commission at that time was also just considering, you know, in approving a larger parcel uh for commercial use in the same area uh that would be contiguous with the existing central Utah Bank. Um so it it's really pretty straightforward. We're just asking for an amendment. Um I would hope that we could just focus on this. I know that we've been here on other uh applications recently. We've um we understand where the council stands on that application. And we have a lot of um interest within Traverse Mountain, right? And in previous uh dialogue, there's been a lot of other things brought into whatever it is that Perry brings forward that are unrelated to the current application. So I I would just hope tonight that we can have a discussion based upon solely what is the the appropriate land use on this particular application and be able to move forward one way or another. Um but we we feel like it's a uh in addition to the city that it creates a new commercial property that will obviously produce um tax revenue uh aside from what's already entitled for the property, and we feel like it long term is just the appropriate use for the for the piece of ground. So happy to answer any questions. Any questions for the applicant?
openpublica.com