#EM2019 – CC Question – Vested Rights

I understand what “density vesting” is, but would like to copy the exact definition so others understand what “density vesting” is, and understand that it would be outside anyone’s power to force anything different. ” A right belonging completely and unconditionally to a person as a property interest which cannot be impaired or taken away (as through retroactive legislation) without the consent of the owner.” So there isn’t anything I can do to “deal” with it when it’s higher then I want. What I plan on doing is making sure no new vesting happens that I’m uncomfortable with. What I can do when something is vested? I will listen to residents questions, comments, and concerns on an individual basis, and use whatever negotiating tactics I can to better what they already have the right to do. Whenever there is no negotiations possible by the land owner, I would make sure we hold them to the highest standards of the code and not give any concessions without lowering density.

Density vesting is where a developer seeks to adjust the density allowed under a master plan. Outside interests are regularly trying to get cities to adopt higher density planning with the promise of more tax revenue for the municipality. I will work with stakeholders to protect our cities safe neighborhoods and respect for our culture of defending individual property rights.

It is morally and ethically responsible to uphold previous agreements and vesting. However, we learn from our mistakes. If there is too much high density, I will work to treat the problem, not the symptom. Limiting high-density housing is a band-aid fix, not a long-term solution. The problem isn’t too much high-density housing, the problem is not enough suburban housing. We can continue to improve city code and adjust how we handle future vesting.

I am in support of a city development plan that provides for a wide range of housing densities. With less expensive land than our neighbors and rural financing, Eagle Mountain is in a position to provide housing solutions to those who are buying their first home, those who want to get the most for their money, and those that want to own large lots with animal rights. I feel that the current city guidelines for high-density housing already provide the density necessary for affordable housing solutions. Theses guidelines should not be increased but instead should be accompanied with usable, strategically-located open space and amenities to enhance the aesthetics and livability of a high-density development. The density should be consistently distributed throughout all phases of the development. These higher-density housing projects should only be allowed in the areas currently zoned to accommodate them. This ensures that high-density developments are not adjacent to the rurally zoned areas.

Density vesting is the dwelling units per acre that are guaranteed to a developer by means of a master development plan, master development agreement and preliminary plats. I have already gone on record many times that I don’t believe that our city needs high density housing in the stage our city is in. We don’t have services that are appropriate for dwelling units per acre exceeding 22d/u. In fact, our the zone code that I proposed removed the dwelling units per acre verbiage to discourage that as the goal of developers. I believe we can and should do better at creating safe street design to slow traffic, requiring a variety of lot sizes per street not just per development, increasing our building standards so that inferior building exterior products don’t leave our city looking run down and institutional in nature.

I am not 100% familiar with this term; however I think I understand somewhat what density vesting is referring to. As I understand it this is about the vested rights of landowners vs the city and how they see a certain project moving forward. In this case we are talking about the vested right of the landowner and how they see to develop a parcel of land into high density housing and what control the city would have throughout that process. I am opposed to super high density housing. I know Utah faces issues with housing being affordable, but the burden and change that this can have is high. When we look at having 24.2 units per acre I think it needs to be limited at some point. I think proposals need to be thoroughly vetted first and foremost. We need to be aware and ask questions of those who have some answers. We need to do this day one. I need to become more familiar with this issue and how it applies to our city currently.

At its most basic, vesting a developer means granting them rights to build that cannot be revoked later. What this means is that if a developer has the agricultural zone on their land, if they put in an application to build on that land, as long as they meet the code and requirements for the zone, they are entitled to be approved. What this also means is that a developer with agricultural land, who seeks a rezone to residential would be asking for additional development rights. City councils have wide latitude on legislative rezone applications but far less latitude on administrative applications on land that is already vested. As far as how I plan on dealing with density that is higher than I’m comfortable with, it depends on the circumstances of the proposal. 1) If the proposal is already vested, a developer is entitled to a certain density, but they still have to abide by code. I have negotiated, and will continue to negotiate, removing units in exchange for other minor exceptions or variances. 2) If the property is not vested, and is seeking rezone, I have and will continue to push back against proposals that contain multi-family and high-rise housing, especially in single family neighborhoods.