Traverse Mountain Area Plan Amendment Concept

I strongly oppose the proposed amendment to increase high-density housing on Traverse Mountain. The developers are profiting while families here absorb the real costs in safety, congestion, and quality of life.

I paid a premium to buy my home and live in Traverse Mountain- the Crossing community, based on the density and development expectations represented to residents. I feel deceived, and this shift undermines trust and sets a precedent that promises to residents do not hold.

The “benefits” listed in the amendment are not meaningful improvements for residents, they are vague, unproven, and appear designed to justify developer advantage rather than protect the community. If the city and developer claim cost savings or wildfire-risk reductions, they should publish the actual numbers and clear, verifiable plans for how those improvements will be delivered.

Putting more density where infrastructure already exists does not automatically help, it concentrates pressure on roads, emergency access, and daily life. This proposal also ignores the lack of meaningful recreation and safe places for families to walk, play, and gather, something Perry never followed through on.

I respectfully ask the City of Lehi to stand by residents by rejecting and canceling this amendment and not approving the proposed high-density changes.

Perry homes has continuously flouted the masterplan of Traverse Mountain. For years we have had to deal with their mining under the guise of "mass grading" which as affected both the spirit and health of the community. Now that they are looking at the financial aspects of this they want to pivot to cramming more high density housing in an area that it was never planned to exist. This plan is only of benefit to the developer which resides out of state and will never have to deal with the consequences of their actions. It is time for the city of Lehi to stand with their actual citizens and push back of corporations and developer's that do not have the citizens of Lehi in their best interest. This boils down to how much profit Perry Homes can extract out of the city of Lehi at the great extent of the families that live here. They already presented a plan and now they stand to make a substantial profit changing that plan at the expense of every person that lives in Lehi. The purpose of Government it to represent and protect it's citizenry. This proposal is an affront to everything the constitution of Utah represents. I vehemently oppose this change and demand the council truly represent the citizens living in Lehi and put their interests first as opposed to the corporation looking to exploit the city and it's citizenry.

This is a complex issue with a lot of history. It’s not a simple “it’s better to have high density by SR 92.”

Did you know that the open mine in our backyards was allowed bc Perry Homes sold the right to mine that area to Geneva under the premise that they were simply “mass grading in preparation for future home building” and Lehi City signed off on that plan?

Did you know that Lehi City Code prohibits mining but has done nothing about it bc Perry Homes has been claiming that they were just doing this to prepare to build future homes there?

Surprise! Now they have a giant open mine in a residential neighborhood and it is no longer suitable to build on that land so they want to move the density that was allowed there further down the mountain.

This is QUITE the bait and switch.

Yes, we absolutely have a housing shortage but we aren’t going to solve it by allowing developers to continually have their cake and eat it, too.

I am writing city officials to oppose this request from Perry Homes.

I’m not against building more houses or high density housing. I just want to do it thoughtfully, in ways that actually benefit the community as a whole. And this ain’t it.

oppose this proposed amendment because it is not just a technical redistribution of units. Even if the overall unit count does not increase, moving housing into different areas changes the real impacts on traffic, parking, safety, infrastructure, and neighborhood character. Residents relied on the adopted area plan when choosing to live here, and shifting density after the fact undermines trust in the planning process.

This proposal appears to give developers more flexibility while asking residents to absorb the consequences. “No additional units” does not mean “no additional impact.” Concentrating more residential density in commercial and already active areas is a meaningful land use change and should not be approved without compelling public benefit and a clear demonstration that the surrounding area can support it.

Please do not allow a major change in where density is placed simply because it is easier for the applicant. The burden of that convenience will be carried by current residents.

Ethan Kirk, Traverse Mountain resident

Citizens over corporations... Time and time again it seems that special privileges and advantages are given to developers. Please don't make residents suffer for the poor planning done by these real estate/housing gurus.

We moved into the neighborhood with the understanding that some high density housing was to be expected, and we feel like we made a good decision based on that knowledge. It feels like a total bait and switch to increase the number of units this significantly, purely because Perry asked to do it.

We are already wary of the commercial traffic increase on the horizon (new temple, target, whole foods) as well as existing plans for future high density housing but the additional traffic from an increase of 200+ more units to this area will be devastating.

As someone that is already losing faith in the governments ability/willingness to protect and prioritize the livelihood of it's citizens I'd ask you to please not approve this change. Thanks for the consideration.

May I remind the Planning Commission and the City Council that Perry Homes needs no special treatment. They’ve been “leasing” their land to Geneva Rock for extracting silica rich dirt for many years now, at Traverse Mountain Residents expense. There is no reason to grant them this special request. They’ve already taken full advantage of the property they already own and have been horrible neighbors. Do not grant them this Area Plan amendment.

I live on Spring Brook Lane, very close to the "Perry C HDR" parcel. Our household is strongly against this transfer of high density housing. We purchased our home with a knowledge of the current Area Plan and the density that the plan allows. If the City allows Perry to transfer more high density housing to our side of the mountain rather than where is was originally master planned, it has a detrimental effect on our property and our quality of life. We understand that there is already some higher density housing master planned in our area, and we are OK with what was already master planned. But adding 225 additional units (to what was already master planned) to the parcel near our homes could mean a HUGE change in the type of housing that will go on that parcel. Taller structures, large apartment buildings vs townhomes, traffic, parking, and the list goes on. Increasing the density on these parcels to 30 units per acre (or it appears more than that in some situations) is not a compatible use with the adjacent single family neighborhoods, when the residents in those neighborhoods researched and purchased their homes based on the already approved Traverse Mountain Area Plan and the density that it allows.
Most of the "benefits" listed in the staff report, are benefits to the developer, but are not beneficial to the residents of the City of Lehi, and especially not for the residents in the Timpanogos highway area of Traverse Mountain. This proposal allows the developer to build higher density housing in areas that are easier (more profitable) for them to develop. But the Developer knew (or should have known) that the West Canyon area had additional costs involved with developing in that area. Issues with soils and adding the needed infrastructure to develop those 600 dwelling units in the West Canyon area are the burden of the developer. They shouldn't be able to just transfer that density to an area that is easier (more profitable) for them to develop because they don't want to invest the needed expense into developing the area where those 600 units are master planned and supposed to be built. This proposal is not helping the City, it certainly is not helping current residents in our neighborhood, it is simply allowing the developer to transfer the burden and expense of developing the West Canyon area while taking away from the quality of life for those of us who were depending an the current Traverse Mountain Area Plan. Please do not allow the developer to transfer that cost and burden to us (residents of Traverse Mountain). Please do not approve this proposal. This proposal is not about a better master plan for the area, it is about saving the Developer time, effort, and money. We are asking the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the rights and the quality of life of current residents, and put those above convenience and profitability for the Developer.

Please reconsider. Our family lives in the traverse mountain in a Perry Homes development and surrounded by high density housing they are still currently working on. Our household is strongly against this proposal. We moved away from an area that began to focus turned towards high density that cause an increase in traffic, crime and a loss in property value. Our area is already overrun by the apartment buildings and the mass amounts of high density housing built by Perry and now the onslaught from the Inverness development.

As a home owner that owns a home on both sides of the mountain I have a unique perspective. One house is close to the West side and one house is down by the highway. People make home purchases based on existing plans. This only seems like a developer favor. They destroy the west side, sell the rights to Geneva, get approval for a high amount of units on the west that would cost a lot to actually implement. Then just “transfer” it now that it’s convenient. It’s a developer bail out. No thanks.

Please reconsider this extra housing. Traverse Mountain and Lehi in general is already dealing with water concerns. Pumping water up this high during the summer in Traverse Mountain would put a huge strain on our water system. We already have very poor water pressure. Please no new units until a long term resolution to the drought is resolved. Cities have poor a hold on development in the past to ensure current residents have access to enough water for lawns and gardens. It can be done!

I understand that this is not an approval for more high density housing, but movement of current high density to another location.

While I do not love high density housing, at either location, it makes more sense closer to the highway than at the west canyon. I watched the city council meeting. Based on the traffic engineer, it sounds like this would be up to 6000 cars per day. Being near the highway, moving the high density would prevent a need for all of those cars going through our neighborhoods to the top of the mountain. I vote yes!

I will ask nicely first to please not go through with this. As someone who has a interest in not allowing more High density homes and the crime, traffic, and property value decrease that we have seen go along with it. I intend on gathering and putting all resources, time and funds towards not allowing this.

From what I understand the number of units is not be increased but redistributed. As a resident of Traverse Mountain I am against this. The units should stay assigned where they are. The traffic already is an issue in that proposed area and that is not a benefit or positive impact. Also, the cited positive impact of "Reduced geotechnical risks of building on the mass graded areas in West Canyon" is quite concerning. This means to me that no building should be happening in that area. I know there have been structural issues with homes built up Fox Canyon.

As this proposal is just to move around units, I would support moving them out of West Canyon. I like the idea of building them close to Geneva Rock in order to put contracts on their future access to digging away more of the mountain…… But anyway, why that West Canyon site was ever approved for so many units is beyond me and outside the scope of this proposal. But yes, the West Canyon site, in my opinion, cannot support the amount of approved units. Spreading out the units to other locations closer to existing infrastructure would be much better than the current plan.
-Paul Kuiken

Please no more high density housing in Traverse Mountain. Many of us residents picked this area specifically because the plans for future development did not include high density housing, and paid a premium to be in such an area.

I really feel like the city of Lehi continues to not care about those residents who live on Traverse Mountain. You are getting so much tax base and yet you continue to make decisions that adversely affect the residents lives.
Perry Homes though have really been the bad guys in this story. When we moved in more than 10 years ago, we were told that homes were being built in parcel C. We were also told that a beautiful park was being built where the town homes are. They moved the park and basically placed it in a place that is blocked by a school and very difficult to access.
Then they added extra charges to our homes for our views. When they put in the Vue apartments they basically say -there goes your view and we will give it to someone else. They should rename our subdivision Lost Horizons.
Then the city allowed the residents from the apartments to park along the street day and night
The next thing was the opening of the road into our subdivision onto Sunrise. Even though you asked our opinion - again the developers were considered FIRST before any of the residents. Now you are going to block our natural entrance into our subdivision with an island. The lack of concern continues.
This is the latest nightmare of PERRY HOMES and LEHI CITY, now they want to squeeze even more residents and buildings onto Parcel C.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
I would be at the meeting but have a family commitment in Georgia at the same time.
I am enraged and totally disgusted. I feel that Perry Homes should be held accountable for their actions and poor choices. They should NOT be able to pass the amendment. We are not really served in any way in our area by the canyon property. It is far from our homes, we should have more green space in our area. PLEASE REJECT THE PROPOSED CHANGES!
Cindra Bush

As many have stated, this area is becoming increasingly overcrowded, and there are legitimate traffic safety issues that should not be dismissed.

We have previously tried to work with the city regarding the connection of Sunrise Way to the new commercial development. At that time, even the traffic study projected an unreasonably high volume of traffic on this residential street. Now, with this proposed amendment, even more traffic would be added as additional drivers cut through to access the commercial area.

Our neighborhood is already dealing with apartment residents’ vehicles lining the street, which has made conditions more congested and less safe. It is reasonable to ask: how is this safe for pedestrians, especially children?

It is especially concerning that the city itself conducted a neighborhood vote on this issue, and the majority of residents opposed connecting the road—yet that outcome was ultimately disregarded. That decision has left many residents feeling that their input was not meaningfully considered.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and give greater weight to the real and growing safety impacts on the surrounding residential community. Will resident concerns be taken seriously this time?

As a resident who lives directly adjacent to the proposed development area, I am strongly opposed to this amendment. The existing high density housing has already created significant traffic, safety, and quality of life issues for those of us who live here. Adding even more density — regardless of where the units are relocated within the plan — is not the answer.
Our roads are already overwhelmed, our schools are at capacity, and the character of this neighborhood is being eroded development by development. The Inverness project alone has dramatically changed what we experience daily. This proposal would only accelerate that decline.
I also want to be clear: the residents of Traverse Mountain are watching closely. How the Planning Commission handles decisions like this one will absolutely set the tone for how we vote in future elections. We expect our elected and appointed officials to listen to the people who already live here, not just the interests of developers.
I urge the Planning Commission to reject this amendment

I am a resident in Traverse Mountain and I would like to strongly discourage more high density housing. Traffic is already getting very difficult to navigate. I am worried for the safety of our residents and the value of our investments due to so many multiple family units going in all around us. Please do not make this change.

I get the concept but adding MORE high density to this area is not the solution. It's an eyesore for the entire neighborhood, it creates conflict between residents and it creates a very unlivable high density area that only invites more conflict. I implore the council to try walking around the area and see how bad it looks and how much traffic there is already. You want high density? Do what you did at Crest Haven with a PROPER large avenue in between high and low density.