EDITORIAL: Eagle Mountain Losing Open Space to High Density Housing

I sit here and watch as the work and efforts of so many citizens are slowly eroded by actions by City Staff, City Administration, City Planning Commission, and the City Council. And to be honest, I do hope that this does make some of them pause from allowing higher density and they take notice. The city of Eagle Mountain will soon become a high-density wasteland if developers and the current tide continue. Yes, this is my opinion as a Resident of Eagle Mountain, but it is also backed up by what I am seeing taking place in the city. Any protection to single-family dwellings as well as agricultural land in Eagle Mountain is dissolving away by Planning Department and Legislative actions. I am not making wild accusations but will show with meeting minutes, discussion by city boards, commissions, and councils that this is happening in the city and that our currently rural way of life is being removed and changed to allow for high-density housing that aligns with the plans of developers. I ask that you don’t just scroll by and not actually read this editorial. You must understand how zoning works and how things are changing in the city. If you don’t understand this, then we will see the way of life that the majority of residents in Eagle Mountain moved to this remote location for destroyed!

Already Vested Growth

When a developer comes to the city and proposes a Master Development Plan (MDP), Final Plat Plan, and/or Improved Subdivision they then get permission to build a specific number of units. This is called vesting, at that point the developer has the legal right to build that number of units unless they change the plans for the Subdivision, plat, or the MDP. For the change to be made and finalized the process has to go through the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. Eagle Mountain, according to a recent Planning Commission discussion has 12,962 Units approved in Improved Subdivisions with 918 units remaining to be built. It is estimated to bring another 3,900 additional people. There are also currently 11,131 units approved in Preliminary Plats, with 8.586 units still remaining to be built. The city also has 25,529 units approved in Master Plans, with 21,570 still to be built.

Between the three types of developments, there are a total of 31,074 units that are vested or can legally be developed in the City above the 18,548 units that are already built. Bringing in an additional estimated 133,900 individuals to Eagle Mountain. Let me state that again. If the City does not approve any more new developments, there would still be 31,074 units that could be built bringing in an additional 133,900 people to the city. That total is without any new approvals by City Staff, the Planning Commission, or City Council. Let’s visualize that. Now let’s put that in perspective with the current City area, and open space. NOTE: I need to add that we are not putting commercial or industrial into the mix. This only illustrates residential units and does not take into account the Facebook Datacenter, Unnamed Datacenter, and the Tyson plant.

High Density Zoning

Eagle Mountain currently has 6 General Plan Residential Categories. The General Plan is the master document that gives the City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council guidance on what type of developments should go where in the city. Those 6 categories are divided into 11 different zone designations. Those designations are what specify what type of housing, density, and lot sizes are allowed in that area. The lot sizes range from 5+ acres down to 4,500 Sq ft lots to 0.1033057 acre lots. (Yes, that is 10 lots per acre or 1/10 acre lots.) Then there are the Multi-Family zones (MF1, and MF2) these zones allow for Multi-Family housing. Currently, the limit is buildings with no more than 12 units per building with a max of 20 units per acre. The following chart from Chapter 17.25 Residential Zoning Illustrates this. But there is now a push by developers to add a third Multi-Family Zone, MF3. MF3 would be added, which would allow up to 24 units per building. I don’t see a limit specified for units per acre. There are setbacks so the number of buildings is limited by some size restraints. If you follow any city and its development you see this is a constant fight for current residents. The reason it is a fight is because organizations like the National Home Builders Association are always fighting for and telling developers that they need to push high density. Here is an example from their website, “Because land costs and home size often limit affordability, a classic solution is to aim for greater density and/or smaller lots and/or smaller homes.” Notice their goal is an aim for higher density, the site continues, “These and other missing middle housing types provide more units on less land that traditional single-family homes.” Their site even pushes for a ban on single-family housing. “Minneapolis, for example, has made news with its new urban plan, Minneapolis 2040. Approved this past December, this plan allows the development of duplexes and triplexes on single-family zoned plots. Similar erroneous headlines appeared soon after that Minneapolis had banned single-family homes. More than 70% of Minneapolis was previously available only to single-family housing, which limited supply, increased housing prices, contributed to urban sprawl and reinforced racial and class segregation.” What most are forgetting is that Eagle Mountain is not Minneapolis, and we currently have a glut of vested housing that has not even started construction yet.

Zone and Lot Size Transitioning

There are two different concepts in transitioning. They both have the same idea in mind, they just use different limiting factors. The first is zone transitioning. Basically, it says what zones can be next to what zones. For example, the code says you can’t put MF2 next to an RA1 zone. And there is also what is called lot transitioning. This does not take into consideration the zone, but the size of the lot that it will be next to. There is a current push to remove the lot size transitioning code and replace it with just the zone transitioning code. For example, the current code requires a progression of lot sizes. If your lot size is 4+ acres, then the smallest lot that can be built next to you would be 2 acres, then down to 1 acre, then down to 1/2 acre, then down to 1/4 acre, then smaller single family, then finally multi-family. The push is to now get rid of this transition type and to make it so that the only transition type is zone transitioning. By removing the lot size transition and only using the zone transition it would allow the transition to allow the following. A lot size of 4+ acres would then be able to have a 1/2 acre lot next to it. That would eliminate two of the transition steps. For example, currently, you could only put an RA1 (5+ acre) or RA2 (2.5 acres) zone next to agricultural property. By eliminating the lot size transition, you would then allow the agricultural property to be next to RA1 (4+ acres), RA2 (2.5 acres), RD1 (1 acre), RD2 (1/2 acre), and FR (1/4 acre) zoned lots. And there is also a push to remove some of the limits on zone transitioning to make it so that there is less of a gradual change. For example, the change would allow RC detached residential lots (4,500 sq ft lots, the smallest Single Family lots) to be built next to R2 zones. This eliminates the buffering from R2 to R3 and then RC. The change also would allow R3 to have MF1 next to it, eliminating the need to moved from R3 to RC then to MF1. Why is this such a big deal? Most people moved to Eagle Mountain for the open space and the rural feeling. By removing the transitioning and allowing higher density in the city this feel will be lost. The buffering also eliminates problems with land use incompatibility. “Land use conflicts occur when one land user is perceived to infringe upon the rights, values or amenity of another. In rural areas land use conflicts commonly occur between agricultural and residential uses. However, land use conflicts can also occur between different agricultural enterprises and other primary industries including mining, forestry, aquaculture and fishing enterprises.” [Source: Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment Guide] We have seen this happen several times in Eagle Mountain, from residents not wanting Gas Stations close to their houses or agricultural properties not wanting higher density housing close to their properties. The main reason is that the property types are incompatible. For example, in Utah agricultural land allows its owners with the right to farm. Basically the law allows them to bypass noise and other nuisance laws as long as the nuisance is done in the process of farming. If you put multi family or high density housing next to agricultural land both sides will complain. The residential housing will complain about the smell/noise/dust, and the agricultural land owner will complain about trespassing and destruction of crops and livestock. Transitioning and buffering zones and lot buffering are essential to keep and protect both types of land owners. Different density lots have different needs, and a lot of times those needs are in conflict with each other. Some considerations would be traffic, noise, air quality, etc. Placing buffers reduces and in some cases completely removes the incompatibility of the land uses.

Developers Have the City Staffs Ears

The reason this is happening is that the developers have the City Staff and Administrators’ ears. They are the ones that get in to see the City Staff and are the ones that spend the time creating the echo chamber that they reside in. I am not saying that City Staff and Administration does not listen to the residents, I am just saying that the developers are the ones that are constantly talking to them and pushing for changes. Most residents have no idea how zoning works, what city code is, or where to find it. This makes the only feedback that the city staff and administration are aware of is that of developers. And no matter what a developer tells you, their main goal is to make money. The higher the density the more money they can make on the property they are developing. It has nothing to do with affordable housing. The developers can get special treatment over residents for access to the planning commission and city council – Eagle Mountain Mayor Facilitates “Special Public Hearing” for Developer Lobbyist.” and there are groups that work for the developers that the residents don’t have working for them. We have several groups that help residents in Eagle Mountain, Eagle Mountain Nature and Wildlife Alliance is a good example. But, they are not as well funded and lack the resources that The Utah Valley Home Builders Association (UVHBA) has. This makes the developers louder, and more forceful voice when working with City Staff, and dilutes the effectiveness of our elected City Councilmembers.

Residents don’t want High Density

I have written about this several times. I even surveyed the residents of Eagle Mountain and have verified that rural life is why people have moved to Eagle Mountain. I am not going to restate the findings from the survey here, but you can read the results in this article, “Survey Shows EM Residents Don’t Want Urbanization – No to Multi-Family and High Density“. Anytime you ask residents why they moved to Eagle Mountain, or what they like about Eagle Mountain one of the main topics is the open rural feel. I have a hard time just sitting back and watching proposal after proposal the will eliminate that feeling. It would not surprise me if we see shortly a push to remove the Ridgeline Protection codes as well. The shift from High Density to Single-Family housing is illustrated in the article, “Can We Save the Planet, Live Comfortably, and Have Children Too?” The article discusses the impact that COVID-19 has had on the housing market with everyone proving that they can still be productive and work from home. There is a shift now from urban areas to the more rural, larger lot areas, which is not the narrative that developers and City Planners are pushing on the public from their echo chambers.

These preferences counter the narrative, so popular with planners and pundits, of the need for greater density and smaller living units in metropolitan areas, amid the expansion of mass transit. If the densification agenda was weak before, it is almost delusional now. Even before Covid, the largest core-city populations have been stagnant or declining, including fabled American cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Nationwide since 2010, 90 percent of major metropolitan-area growth took place in the suburbs and exurbs. Jobs followed this pattern as well before Covid started undermining the economic rationale for high-rise office towers and massive new transit investment. To be sure, some industries may choose to concentrate in the core by preference or tradition, and certain groups, largely the childless and the super-affluent, may remain in the urban playground for reasons of culture, social contacts, or easy access to international airports. But with the rise of remote work, most are likely to labor at home or nearby. They will travel less; upward of 33 percent of all business travel, critical to the health of many inner-city economies, could be permanently lost, as people opt for remote meetings and training sessions.

What Can I Do?

1- The main thing you can do is watch what is coming on the agenda for the Planning Commission and the City Council. I have set up another website https://eaglemountaincity.news that pulls news and feeds from a bunch of different websites and displays information associated with Eagle Mountain. That is not the only place you can check. I have set it up so it receives all of the notices that are sent out by the City Hall, schools, and other news agencies. 2- Sign up for notices from the city. It is a fairly easy process and can be done here: https://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html You just select City, Eagle Mountain, then what type of notices you want. 3- When you see something you want to weigh in on, then send an email or a phone call. I have created a page to help you do this. All the contact information you need as well as a form to email the city decision makers. https://cedarvalleysentinel.com/contact-eagle-mountain-decision-makers/. 4- I have also created (yet another) Facebook page for people who are in favor of Reasonable Development to discuss items, action points, and ways to communicate those points to the city staff. Eagle Mountain Residents for Responsible Growth. 5- Join one of our newsletters. I have two sites, this one and eaglemountaincity.news that have newsletters you can join that send out emails weekly or daily when new information is posted.

Bottom Line

If we are to keep the feel what the majority of us moved to Eagle Mountain for, we need to be vocal and let the City Staff and Elected Officials know how we feel and think about proposals that do come before them. We need to get involved. We need to turn the current echo chamber that staff and officials reside into the echo chamber of residents, NOT the echo chamber of developers. There is a huge shift currently underway to single-family housing over High Density.