#EM2019 – Candidate Question – Eagle Mountain Benches

I have sent the candidates a second round of questions. There are only 8 questions this round, but each of them discuss a specific item that has been on or will be on the City Council agenda at some point. These are tough questions, and are specific and not general in nature. Let me know what you think and ask the candidates follow up questions of you have any. Here are the instructions that I gave to the candidates for this round of questions:

Congratulations on your Primary Victory. Now lets take the gloves off and ask real questions that you will have to face if you are elected to the City Council. Same thing as before, but less questions. But I think these questions are harder hitting questions. If you could respond by 9/1/2019 that would be great. I will post them the same way that I posted them before. I think the first round went pretty well. If you have suggestions, please let me know. I am going to be vague on purpose here. Part of the questionnaire is to see how much you already know, and how much you are willing to go dig for the info. (Colby, since you are the incumbent, you were involved in some of these decisions. You can elaborate on your vote, or share info you have learned since the action.)

Question: The Eagle Mountain Benches is a development that hit the City Council and Planning Commission agendas several times over the years. It eventually was rezoned, but there were restrictions placed on the Developer. What is your opinion on the initial requests as well as the final restrictions. How would you of voted and why?

Jared Gray

It’s hard, or easy, to criticize those in an elected position after the fact. Let me just say, during the process I voiced my opinion to those making the decisions and now I live with the results they came up with. Did I agree with all of it, no. Do I like the results, not really, but there isn’t anything I can do about it now, so I’ll accept it. What I will say, as a planning commissioner, we have worked on the code to keep these developments easier and more in line with how we feel the city should be built out.

Ben Porter

I don’t know a lot about this, but my understanding is that there were more restrictions placed on the developer involving lot sizes and home type (such as multifamily). Rather than speaking in ignorance, I’ll just take this opportunity to talk about our city’s approach to zoning. I support most of the new code changes. I think they will give us much more predictability and consistency. I do worry though that our city is trying to act like an HOA in some ways with the code. I favor having guidelines and a high-level framework, and then letting HOAs, individual developers, and homeowners make more of their own decisions. Trying to force a one-sized-fits-all policy on the whole city is not productive or effective. When governments attempt to centrally plan too much, they inevitably introduce inefficiencies and absurdities into the system as the stakeholders attempt to work in and around it. It also contributes negatively toward the price of construction and repair work by adding overhead simply for compliance. I would also like to see the code allow for differentiation. Requirements like forcing all multi-family units to have a pool removes the ability of the developer to differentiate themselves on price (by going lower) and removes the ability for another developer to differentiate on luxury services (like a pool) for people willing to pay more for the benefits. The primary goal of the code should be ensuring safety, correct building/construction standards, capable infrastructure, and consistency inside of developments.

Rich Wood

I have trepidation about weighing in on decisions like this without the context of all of the factors that played into it. Because I am on the planning commission, I understand that rarely are applications cut and dry. Because of this, I am going to refrain from passing judgment on how it was handled. Would love to discuss any items that have come before me in the last two years.

Colby Curtis

I voted against it each time and for very specific reasons. As it was a legislative decision, the council has greater latitude in approving or denying in than it does in administrative decisions. The main reasons I was against it was the leapfrog nature of the development and the compatibility issues created by placing residential next to agriculture without a meaningful buffer. The final approval was a compromise, though I still voted against it. The concern I had with that was the lot layout and placement of lots within the power corridor, which staff has previously interpreted as not allowed due to the power and gas corridors being unbuildable. Without a rezone, the corridor may be used in Ag for grazing or non-permanent structures, but otherwise, previous plans called it out as open space, or at the least a citywide multi-use path as we have in most areas of the city.

Devyn Smith

I do not think the entire area should be 1-acre lots. I feel the most recent approval was a good compromise and I wouldn’t want lots to get any smaller than currently approved. I did not like the original proposal and do not think they should be 1-acre lots. I like the compromise made because it allows for small, family farms within the community. I appreciate the care and detail the various members of multiple city councils and planning commissions have placed on the Eagle Mountain Benches. This is widely apparent in the time it has taken, and the number of times this particular plan has been before both the Planning Commission and City Council. As Cedar Valley and Eagle Mountain continue to develop, we need to be strongly aware of development we allow along the hillsides. The General Plan helps to preserve the natural landscape and prevents developments from taking away from the beauty of our surroundings—especially along the foothills. As such, I am in favor of the General Plan as well as the recent zone code adjustments which will further protect the foothills. Given the time-frame for when this particular development came through the city, prior to the General Plan, I appreciate the restrictions placed on the development, including the removal of certain lots which were deemed as unbuildable, as well as the requirements for trails to be included along the road. I appreciate the work being made to protect the foothill areas.

Carolyn Love

My understanding is that there were some special circumstances surrounding this project. As a general rule, I would not have approved the rezoning for two reasons. The first reason is that the rezone is too dissimilar to the surrounding property categories. The property in question is in an Agricultural / Rural Density Two category according to the 2018 general plan. This category is reserved for single family homes on lots between 0.5 and 2.5 acres. The approved project is for duplexes on less than 0.17 per acre per unit. These categories are not compatible and no buffer zone was required between the high density and rural housing areas. The second reason is that the rezone increases the density for the property instead of decreasing it. Currently, 80 percent of the existing and approved homes in Eagle Mountain are on lots that are less than 0.25 acres. Most of the undeveloped land in the city is zoned for homes on lots of 0.25 acres or more. We need to adhere to this zoning guideline in order to rebalance the city in regards to home and lot sizes. Again, I understand that circumstances surrounding the approval of this project were difficult. As far as the restrictions are concerned, I commend the city council for requiring the restrictions to help improve the livability of the project.