There is an approved development called Eagle Heights. The Master Development Agreement (MDA) was originally approved in June of 2019. The original agreement had a maximum residential unit limit of 284 attached residential dwelling units. Of those 284 units 147 of them were to be built during phases 3-5. The developers proposal does still include 148 build able units in phase 3-5. The lots were originally proposed to be single owner duplex with 2 rental units per lot. The developer, Kirt Peterson, is requesting to subdivide each of the lots into two lots and either build Town Homes or Single Family Units.
The developer originally planned on getting government funding to help subsidize the housing in this area. But “current economics prevent the development from being built out as an affordable housing development.” So the developer is asking the City Council to allow him to double the number of lots in phase 3-5 and increase the size of the units, which is in violation of current city code.
The Developer
Kirt Peterson currently is the registered agent of over 100 different entities with the State of Utah. The Eagle Heights waiting list application states, “The majority of units in this community are part of the Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program”. “The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program was established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Internal Revenue Code Section 42) to create market incentives for the acquisition and development or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. It is the federal government’s primary program for encouraging the investment of private equity in the development of affordable rental housing.” Eagle Heights village is just one of the properties owned by Kirt Peterson that is found on the Completed Housing Projects list. The projects list can be found on the Utah Housing Corp (UHC) website. UHC is the legislative created entity that oversees Utah’s LIHTC program. Some other LIHTC properties that are associated with Kirt are Murray Depot, The Springs At Logan River (including II,III,IV), The Station at Pleasant View (including II, III), Old Mill at Stansbury (including II), and Cottonwood Grove. According to UHC those developments have a total of 967 units (including what is reported about Eagle Heights).
Amendment
The City Council Agenda and Packet contain the following information about the proposed changes to the originally approved plan.
Background: “On March 1st 2022, the applicant (owner/developer) of the Eagle Heights Village project solicited the City Council for their feedback on how they would prefer to see the project build out as current economics prevent the development from being built out as an affordable housing development. The City Council provided the applicant feedback and ultimately tabled the application to allow the developer to finalize a proposal to bring forward amending the Eagle Heights Village Master Development Agreement.”
The developer proposed two different options, each increasing the total lot size from 148 to 296.
Option 1 Single Family Lots: “This proposal would split all duplex lots in phases 3-5 into two single family residential lots. While this would double the lot count of these phases, the overall dwelling unit count would remain the same.” This option would require the city to allow 20′ driveways instead of the required 22′ driveways. It also requires a lot frontage of 55′-60′ and the proposal would include lot frontages under the 55′ requirement.
Option 2 Twin Homes: “Option two would construct twin homes, attached single-family homes (sometimes called semi-detached) with a zero lot line between the two units, with an individual homeowner of each lot. Option 2 would not make any changes to the layout of the currently approved site plan.” It should be noted that this option is asking for a side setback of 0′ which would be in violation of the required 10′ side setback required by code.
Planning Commission
The planning commission on February 8th, 2022 voted 4-0, 1 commissioner was absent, to recommend that the City Council DENY the MDA amendment.
City Council
The following is taken from the DRAFT version of the City Council Meeting Minutes. It is set to be approved by the City Council during the April 5th City Council meeting.
Senior Planner Tayler Jensen reviewed the item as presented during work session.
Councilmember Gray stated he felt the applicant did not incorporate the Council’s feedback in the proposal as the options presented have not changed since the previous meeting.
Applicant representative Kirt Peterson said he received different feedback from various Councilmembers and he was unable to incorporate the larger lots requested by Councilmember Gray. They desire to provide an affordable product and their preference is the single-family option. Being allowed to reduce the buildable area would result in a lower price for the 2,400- to 3,600- square foot single-family, two-story homes with basements.
Councilmember Love clarified that although she is concerned with affordability, she is not in favor of reduced frontages for the single-family homes based upon the problems she has seen in other areas in the City. She would prefer to continue with the current affordable product type with zero lot lines to be sold as individual units rather than single-family homes that are not compliant with current Municipal Code standards. Even though the new twin home would not be subsidized, they would still be more affordable than many products.
Councilmember Burnham said she does not object to basements and two-story single-family homes but would like a transition from the existing duplexes to the single-family units; however, she prefers the individually-owned twin homes as those units are most similar to what was approved, previously. Her only concern is with the impact on the neighborhood should various landlords own and rent the units.
Councilmember Wright stated although he appreciates the side setback exceeding the minimum requirement, he is against approving exemptions to the current RC standards for frontage width, minimum lot size, minimum average lot size, driveway setback length, and garage sizes. With the twin home options, he prefers the subdividing of the lots to allow for individual homeowners rather than landlords. Although the location is contemplated for other uses, he recognizes the need for less expensive product in the City. However, allowing the twin homes to be increased from the approved 1,100- to 1,400-square foot units by adding second floors and basements raises the price.
Councilmember Curtis stated that allowing zero lot lines for the current units would be significantly different from the applicant requesting to increase the size of both unit types, which renders the products not as affordable.
Councilmember Gray stated that the Council would entertain a market-rate product that meets Municipal Code.
Discussion ensued regarding whether to table or deny the request to allow the applicant time to prepare a proposal that adheres to current Municipal Code standards including transitioning considerations that the Council would be willing to entertain as the majority of Councilmembers
are not in favor of either option proposed.Mr. Cook stated that a denial would not prohibit the applicant from returning with another proposal in the near future.
Mr. Peterson requested the item to be tabled rather than denied due to the need for a new application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Gray said a pool needs to be included in a future proposal for the duplex units. Whether any new single-family homes would also have use of the pool is at the discretion of the applicant.
Councilmember Curtis stated that either the approved product needs to be developed, or new units need to meet current standards. He is against increasing the density in the project.
MOTION: Councilmember Wright moved to deny a resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving the first amendment to the Eagle Heights Village Master Development Agreement and conditional approval of partial assignment.
Councilmember Curtis seconded the motion.
Councilmember Wright explained that his motion to deny rather than table the item is due to the lack of consensus between the applicant and the Council. As the project will undergo significant changes, he feels it would be appropriate to require the review of the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Gray expressed concern that denying the application will result in the applicant constructing the project as approved and he is in favor of a mixture of R2 and R3 single-family homes in that area of the City, rather than duplexes.
Those voting aye: Colby Curtis, Carolyn Love, and Brett Wright. Those voting nay: Donna Burnham and Jared Gray. The motion carried with a vote of 3:2.
Mike Kieffer is an IT geek by hobby and trade, with a BS in Information Systems & Technology. He is a proud father of 10, a grandpa, an author, a journalist, and internet publisher. His motto is to “Elevate, Inspire and Inform”, and he is politically conservative and a Christian. Mike has a passion for technology, writing, and helping others. With a wealth of experience, he is committed to sharing his knowledge with others to help them reach their full potential. He is known for his jackassery or his form of self-expression that encourages boldness, creativity, and risk-taking. It can be a way to push the boundaries and challenge traditional norms, leading to creative solutions and positive change.