Clayton council reconsiders preliminary zoning for SDG Warner Village Lehi after heated debate on transparency

The Clayton City Council voted on a motion to reconsider its earlier action on Ordinance 00125-02 and then voted to approve the ordinance on first reading, sending the measure to a second reading Feb. 20.

The ordinance would adopt, reject or modify the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the application by SDG Warner Village Lehi to change zoning for a parcel near the intersection of Sweet Potato Ridge Road and Main Street (parcel ID M600301000001). Council members who voted to approve the ordinance on the first reading were Merkel, Kelly, Bachman and Stevens; members voting no were Farmer, Henning and Gorman.

The vote came after more than two hours of discussion focused on process and transparency rather than specifics of the development. Council members, the city manager and the city attorney debated whether staff or legal counsel should have informed council and the public earlier that the developer had requested a motion to reconsider and whether an attorney‑client privileged email from the law director could be discussed publicly. Multiple council members told the record they felt residents were not adequately notified about the reconsideration.

Councilmember Baker (title not recorded in the transcript) moved to bring the item back; the motion to reconsider received the four affirmative votes required to reopen the ordinance. After the reconsideration motion passed, council returned to the point in the prior meeting where a motion to approve the preliminary plan had been made and then debated the merits. The council then held a roll‑call vote on the motion to approve the ordinance on first reading; the motion passed 4–3.

During the discussion, staff and department chiefs said the city still requires technical studies before any final approval. City Manager Amanda confirmed that, if the preliminary approval passes tonight, the developer must return to the Planning Commission with a final development plan and the council would consider that final plan on a future agenda. Planning and engineering studies cited in the meeting as necessary at the developer’s expense included a traffic study and a water study. The police and fire chiefs said their departments expect to absorb any modest increases in calls for service: Fire officials cited a past estimate that a similar project could add roughly 30–35 calls per year, which they described as manageable under current mutual‑aid and collaborative staffing arrangements.

Much of the council’s dispute focused on process: Councilmember Henning and others criticized staff and the law director’s handling of an email they said had been labeled “attorney‑client privileged.” Martina, the city attorney, read aloud the council rules and Robert’s Rules of Order governing motions to reconsider and advised caution about reading attorney‑client communications into the public record. City Manager Amanda said council members were permitted to discuss a possible motion to reconsider under Robert’s Rules, and that staff had informed the developer of the procedural steps for reconsideration when the developer requested it.

Council members also raised standard development concerns including stormwater retention vs. detention, road alignments and potential need for additional signage at the project’s frontage on Main Street, and long‑term implications such as construction on bedrock and infrastructure impacts. Several council members said they relied on the Planning Commission, city staff and professional engineers for technical vetting but retained responsibility to weigh long‑term city impacts and residents’ concerns.

Because council approved the motion on first reading, the ordinance will appear for a second reading at the Feb. 20 council meeting. If the council were to change its vote after the second reading, the city attorney noted the matter could require a subsequent reading consistent with council rules and Robert’s Rules of Order.

Votes on both the motion to reconsider and the motion to approve were recorded by roll call. The council also discussed that the developer had up to 10 years to build after approvals, and that the final layout and mitigation measures (roadwork, stormwater design, utility extensions) could change substantially between the preliminary plan and a final development plan.

The meeting record shows residents in the chamber numbered three during the discussion of this item; multiple council members urged that more public engagement occur before final action.

The council took no other final action on this item tonight; staff will await the second reading and further filings from the applicant.