TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 13, 2025
Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Karen Ellsworth, Commission Member
Andrea Miller, Commission Member—excused
Mark Thompson, Commission Member
Ashley Phillips, Commission Member
Jack Stickney, Commission Member
Raulon Van Tassell, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Jeff Seedall, City Planner
Bill Cobabe, City Manager—excused
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held May 13, 2025 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Ellsworth, Phillips, Stickney, Thompson, Van Tassell, City Councilmember Rohde, Manager Cobabe, Planner Seedall, and Deputy Recorder Lannefeld were in attendance. Commission Member Miller was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Ellsworth to approve the May 13, 2025 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Thompson. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – absent, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Public Comments: None.

4. Approval of minutes—March 25, 2025

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to approve the March 25, 2025 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Thompson. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – absent, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:31 p.m. to receive public input on zoning for the proposed parcels listed below. There were 45 people in attendance.

5. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input on the proposed zoning of tax parcel numbers:
05-081-0016, 05-199-0015, 05-199-0007, 05-199-0008, 05-199-0006, 05-199-0005, 05-079-0055, 05-079-0037, 05-079-0056, 05-079-0093, 05-079-0073, 05-079-0074, 05-079-0075, 05-079-0076, 05-079-0077, 05-079-0078, 05-079-0079, 05-079-0080, 05-079-0081, 05-079-0082, 05-079-0083, 05-079-0084, 05-079-0085, 05-079-0086, 05-079-0087, 05-079-0088, 05-079-0089, 05-079-0090, 05-079-0091, 05-199-0003, 05-199-0002, and 05-199-0001.

Planner Seedall said about a year ago the developer approached the City with the idea of developing these parcels. We started talking to people near this area about bringing City utilities there. Through meetings with various existing residents, we discussed and negotiated some of their wants and desires and put that into a pre-annexation agreement that the Council adopted last week. Looking at zoning this area and following guidelines of the Integrated Land Use Plan, we have tried to work on two things. First is allowing the existing residents to have the zoning and regulations in place to help sustain why they bought here, which was obviously country living with the ability to have animals. We did research and updated the animal code. The other balance is creating enough units in the development that the capital infrastructure needed to meet City standards would still create affordable housing options. We are striving to meet the balance between maintaining what is there while also creating affordable housing for new growth. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the Council on what you feel is the best zoning to meet that balance.

Manager Cobabe said after the annexation, this land is currently within City limits. The developer is now subject to our requirements and expectations regarding building permits and other standards. The zoning of the property was not addressed and that is what we are doing tonight. We have made a recommendation. You can either forward it on to the Council for approval or make modifications. If you decide not to make a recommendation that is viewed as a negative recommendation and would be kicked back to the developer and staff to figure something else out. What we are recommending involves a PUD (Planned Unit Development) overlay requiring the developer to enter into a development agreement with the City. That would govern the development and would involve certain restrictions and requirements not in our code. That needs to be in place before it goes to the Council for approval. That could take a couple months. This is just step one. If the Planning Commission makes this recommendation, it would be on condition that the development agreement is figured out for the PUD before it goes to the Council. Once a zone is in place, there are entitlements that are associated with the granting of that. When the Council makes that determination, the entitlements are legally binding. This is our leverage to get the developer to say, we are going to do x, y, z, per the code and also meet the requirements and parameters of a development agreement. Things will be given and taken in both directions.

William Shipley said I was here a couple weeks ago when they first talked about this annexation, and I raised concerns about the density of the housing that was being proposed. Looking at this map, this is different from what I was hearing, which is good. What I had first heard was that the whole 216 acres of annexation were going to be zoned RM-8, which is up to eight houses per acre of attached housing. That would have been about 1,600 people. This shows about 40 acres having that, which would be more like 300 people. The two big concerns I have when I hear from our neighbors are about water runoff. This area is the lowest part of the valley and in the spring the ground is completely saturated. Extra displacement of the ground surface results in that runoff water going downstream. On top of that there is traffic concerns. There is relatively limited access. There are three two-lane roads and not a lot of space to widen them under the freeways. I do not have anything against attached housing. There needs to be a certain amount of greenery to enable the absorption of the groundwater. If you had 8,000 square foot total per house, which is about 6,000 square foot extra per residence of greenery that would offset the runoff concerns by 75% and would offset the traffic concerns by about 45%.

Michael Allen said a group of us started conversations with Planner Seedall back in April about annexation and our property. We have an acre and a half property and a house on each of those lots. The concern I have, and it was brought up many times is originally the City did not want us south of the freeway. A long time ago there was discussion on that. South of the freeway, we do not want multi-housing, we want to keep it as a farming style community where you can have your horses and cows. Many times, people have had those animal rights taken from them when people start building around and do not like the smells that come from horses and cows. Those things get taken to court and force those original homeowners out of their homes. We love the farming community and open spaces. We would hope that when this is zoned it is zoned to maintain the fewest number of homes possible within that area. The area I live in will be fine, they cannot build behind us but can build across the street. Iowa String is busy and trucks going down there can rattle your homes. The speed limit needs to be lowered and enforced. Please consider that we want to maintain a farming style community south of the freeway. Thank you.

Chris Barfuss said I am over the Iowa String Drainage District, and we have many drains out through this farming country. There are laws in place that you cannot build on them and you cannot put any runoff in our drains. You will have to propose a way to take care of all your water because it cannot be put in our drainage systems. They must move that drain in the ground or pipe it solid or whatever, but just so you know. I have maps of that drainage system.

Ralph Craven said I have two concerns about what is about to happen. First, what is affordable housing to you? Affordable housing for 80% of people that live here in the community is not what I believe you are building there, but that is a 20 percentile. Those people in this community that are in the 20 percentile probably will be the only people that can afford to live there, especially if you are going to have one and a half acres of property. That being supported by the whole 8,000 square feet. You mentioned you have communicated and got the opinions of the citizens who live there. There are roughly 30 families I would like to see the names of the residents who live there and whether they have been talked to and whether or not they support this. Thank you

Kelly Wood said I live in that annexation area. In December after several discussions regarding this annexation I asked the City Planner if we could have a meeting with our neighbors, leaders, the developer. Those of us who live in this area traditionally referred to it as Third Ward. I asked if we could discuss our concerns regarding future development in our neighborhood. His exact words were, I highly doubt that any of you have any ideas worth penciling down. Needless to say, this conversation ended badly, and it has taken me four months to work up the courage again. It is scary and vulnerable to speak up and I feel like a lot of people I am talking to feel like it does not matter if they speak up because it is not being heard. We are here because we love this community and want to continue to be proud of living here. We are deeply concerned about the direction development is going in our City and specifically the possibilities of this area. In surveys conducted by Box Elder County and Tremonton in recent years, residents overwhelmingly responded that their top priority and concern for both the County’s and City’s future is to preserve the agricultural rural and small-town atmosphere we have enjoyed in this valley. Tremonton’s land use and planning documents say it is clear that Tremonton residents want to preserve the small-town atmosphere. For many this is the primary reason they chose to live here. In the same document in the section outlining the community vision and design priorities, the number one key principle of guiding growth and development is as follows: preserve and enhance Tremonton’s agricultural character, peaceful lifestyle and rural atmosphere. Using carefully considered zoning ordinances, preserving environmentally sensitive lands and providing high quality open space. Allowing moderate to high-density housing south of the freeway boundary on Iowa String does not feel like carefully considered zoning to those of us who live there. Such development will detract from the rural fields that currently exist south of that boundary and reduce the high-quality open space we now enjoy. Studying communities that have successfully maintained a small-town agricultural through periods of growth and expansion, one line is stuck out to me, communities who have done this well in a way that appeals to its residents and those moving there have done so with the primary guiding principle being developed to preserve. Growth is coming to Tremonton but let us be careful and wise in our planning so the growth is guided in a way that preserves what we love about living here. Our plea is that you do not sacrifice our community to the hands of short-sighted development. I have been repeatedly told by the City we are not going to tell developers what they can or cannot do on their land. If I understand correctly that is one of the reasons why we have city planners, councils and committees, so that through thoughtful discussion and planning, strict guidelines and regulations can be created and enforced to tell developers what they can and cannot do. This ensures that when the dust settles, we still have a City we feel safe in, that we love to live in and are proud of. I remind you of the first key principle in your land use plan, which is to preserve and enhance Tremonton’s agricultural character, peaceful lifestyle and rural atmosphere using carefully considered zoning ordinances. Tremonton is at a pivotal point in its history. We are seeing rural communities disappear all along the Wasatch Front. While we know growth and development is coming and our City is going to change, we are asking you and begging that you take careful consideration into the planning and zoning of all future development in our City so that it is done in a way that protects the priorities of our community, which is maintaining a rural, agricultural, small-town feel. This applies to the area south of the freeway. We all have a responsibility to develop to preserve.

Jamie Crowther said I just have a couple questions for clarification. The white spot in between those two green areas is that not part of this annexation. Also does zoning set a speed limit? Planners Seedall said no the white part between there is already part of the previous annexation. The other white part on the right side is part of a larger parcel on the other side of the railroad tracks. The top right was zoned R1-10 when we adopted it. Mrs. Crowther said, and it talks about what type of dwelling can be on each type of these parcels. These are single-family residences. You can operate out of your home as a business, not a single commercial building that would come in, they have to be a residence? You mentioned that you have changed the animal restriction rights for the RR-1 area. Manager Cobabe said I can meet and answer your questions. Chairman Capener said normally we do not answer questions at this point. You just give us your concerns and then we talk through them.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:54 p.m. Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:55 p.m. to receive public input on amendments to the annexation chapter. There were 45 people in attendance.

b. To receive public input on the proposed amendments to Chapter 1.34 Annexations.

Planner Seedall said the chapter over annexations was a little outdated and hard to read so the City Recorder and I went through it along with our City Attorney. We tried to take our best stab at interpreting the State code and putting that into an understanding procedurally where deliverables must be. What the process is internally for the City, so it really was just us trying to clearly set the expectations for the annexation process. Now we do not have to dig through several sections in the State code.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:57 p.m. Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:58 p.m. to receive public input on amendments to the chapter listed below. There were 45 people in attendance.

c. To receive public input on the proposed amendments to Chapter 1.08 Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts.

Planner Seedall said these changes were to alter the approach the City takes with industrial development. As the Inland Port continues to grow and become a more popular tool for the State, City staff sees the need to alter our approach to the vetting process for industrial development. These are our proposed changes to what we would require in terms of documentation and standards in order to go through the DRC for that land-use approval.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:58 p.m.

6. New Business:

a. Discussion and recommendation for the zoning of the parcels within the LB Land Holdings Annexation.

Commission Member Van Tassel said Planner Seedall mentioned there had been considerations from the neighborhood, what did that process look like in determining the proposed zones. Planner Seedall said last April I prepared letters based on Box Elder County’s GIS information and invited any of the residents who own parcels around this area to a meeting. Quite a few showed up. Around September we held our second meeting and started an email chain to negotiate and understand what residents felt they needed. We did get some signatures from residents. All terms were outlined in the pre-annexation agreement that the Council adopted last week. The zones you see are personal recommendations, the only one I really had discussions on were the existing residents of Freeman Farms and with the developer so he could start estimating how many units he would need to make the capital improvements work with this development. He will be required to add a lift station and a few miles of sewer and water pipelines before he can start servicing this area. There are a lot of upfront costs.

The Commission asked a few questions about development requirements. Manager Cobabe said it is a little early to be asking those kinds of questions and getting specific answers, but rest assured we will look into that and if it does not work it does not work. Commission Member Ellsworth said I went out there today and I cannot picture what this is going to look like. It kind of scares me to be honest. We recently attended a conference that explained our job is to make recommendations. They talked about when something that looks so completely different from the neighborhood and surrounding it that it changes the overall area. That is a lot of what people are saying. This is so vastly different from that area that it feels incredibly uncomfortable. What is within our purview for this area? I understand people own their property and I love the idea that they can do what they want with it, that is America. I do not want this taking away from anybody else though. We want to ensure this fits. This is just the beginning, but what do we do right now to make sure of that. Manager Cobabe said that is a great question and one of the reasons we put the PUD ordinance in place is to find creative solutions to help protect people’s enjoyment of their property and also protect property rights on the side of the property owners looking to develop. We believe in property rights. You have the right to develop under the laws that exist at the time of zoning. That is what we are discussing and trying to figure out. The creative solutions they can take advantage of as part of the development process enables them to create places that are beautiful and meaningful and would minimize impact on adjacent properties. We would look to put open spaces between and maybe the lower density properties would be in and amongst those areas. We want the impact on those developments to be minimized. There is going to be some impact. There is already property rights associated with this area. These could be developed as acre and a half sized lots under the County’s current ordinance. Allowing about 200 homes here. That does not reduce the burden on additional housing requirements. This is supply and demand that we are trying to address to help keep affordability. We also do not want to change the overall character of what it means to live in Tremonton. The hope is that by adding more units on this property that pulls the burden to develop off other farms in unincorporated areas. It would pull it into City limits where we can manage it and help contain and control it. The best approach is to create higher density in the City. The idea is to get the property out of the County’s control and into the City’s regulations where we can help guide and manage it.

Planner Seedall said the PUD is a Planned Unit Development that allows the City to have a stronger regulatory environment for how lots get organized, and standards are met. This gives the City more leverage than the State code does to help create a development that hopefully blends into where it is. The PUD allows for standards and design regulations for developments. We hope to work with the developer on these design standards so we can try and conserve as much green space as possible while still meeting requirements for storm water, sewer, water supply, secondary water, roadway and infrastructure. That has been the hope as we created and adopted the PUD ordinance about a year ago was to give the City a better standardization for creative solutions. Manager Cobabe said it starts with the zoning allowed for a certain base density. If these 40 acres has an R1-8 that would mean about five units per acre or about 200 units. The developer then may apply for and agree to, in a legal binding contract called a development agreement, certain amenities that could earn additional density bonus. If the developer gives additional open space above what is required that leads to additional units being considered. If the developer puts in affordable housing units that allows for additional units to be considered. Commission Member Van Tassell said what if we just said R1 for everything, how does that affect the developer? Manager Cobabe said that they will change the base density and would be unlikely that the development would take place because it is too expensive to run utilities out there based on that density. Our aim is to make sure things are done according to the requirements of the City with regard to health, safety and welfare. Our driving concern is quality development that is healthy, safe and is not deleterious to the general welfare.

The Commission spent time discussing what would be allowed in the area and how it could look based off the proposed zoning. Councilmember Rohde said I am getting the feeling that people are not feeling heard. I wonder if we take the opportunity to do a town hall to answer questions. I think it is important that people feel heard. Manager Cobabe said the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council so my recommendation to anyone who feels unheard is to reach out to their City Councilmembers. We do hold public hearings and public meetings for this reason and City staff is available to listen and discuss these concerns. They are valid and this is a big change to people’s lifestyle out there. Councilmember Rohde said if I as a Councilmember have answering questions I would like to know more. Commission Member Van Tassell said people are here because they want to affect the zoning. That meeting could have an impact on our decision. The Planning Commissions would be doing their due diligence. We are happy to talk. I am part of the City, so I like to hear people’s concerns. Commission Member Phillips said my decision is a percentage right now so if we were to vote on something I would feel like I am still missing information. I would not mind having more conversations.

A woman in the audience said I am getting frustrated because I hear about all this growth for bringing houses, townhouses and apartments and everything, but what are we doing to grow the community so people will stay here and shop? When was the last time you brought a store? What are we doing to help the community be better and have places where people can eat? Chairman Capener said that is another discussion for another day.

Councilmember Rohde said I think the important thing here is to realize what you are voting on is the zoning. We still need to go through our due process, but what is at hand for you is do you agree with this zoning and if so, then move forward. If not, then what would you do differently? Chairman Capener said honestly, I am a little stunned that more people did not say oh my gosh the multi-family is missing and be more supportive. The fact that the developer has removed the multi-family is a significant thing.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to table and discuss at a future meeting. Motion seconded by Commission Member Ellsworth. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – absent, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of Chapter 1.34 Annexations.

Motion by Commission Member Stickney to accept the changes as written. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – absent, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

c. Discussion and consideration of Chapter 1.08 Commercial and Industrial Zones.

Motion by Commission Member Ellsworth to table this item. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Miller – absent, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

7. Planning commission comments/reports:

The next meeting will be held on May 27. Commission Member Van Tassell said I would like to thank everybody who came today, I appreciate seeing faces instead of empty chairs.

8. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m.

The undersigned duly acting and appointed Recorder for Tremonton City Corporation hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission held on the above referenced date. Minutes were prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this _____day of ___________, 2025.

______________________________
Cynthia Nelson, CITY RECORDER

*Utah Code 52-4-202 (6)(b) at the discretion of the presiding member of the public body, a topic raised by the public may be discussed during an open meeting, even if the topic raised by the public was not included in the agenda or advance public notice for the meeting.