TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 23, 2026
Members Present:
Raulon Van Tassell, Chairman
Micah Capener, Commission Member
Karen Ellsworth, Commission Member
Ben Greener, Commission Member
Andrea Miller, Commission Member
Jack Stickney, Commission Member—alternate
Jeremy Lance, City Planner
ChrisDean Epling, Zoning Administrator
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder

Co-Chairman Ellsworth called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held June 23, 2026, in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Van Tassell (arrived at 5:36 p.m.), Commission Members Capener, Ellsworth, Greener, Miller (left at 7:47 p.m. and was replaced by alternate Jack Stickney), Planner Lance, Administrator Epling, and Deputy Recorder Lannefeld were in attendance.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve the June 23, 2026 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Miller. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – absent, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Greener – yes Commission Member Miller – yes. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Approval of minutes—May 26, 2026

Motion by Commission Member Miller to approve the May 26, 2026 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – absent, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Greener – yes Commission Member Miller – yes. Motion approved.

4. Public Meeting and Public Hearings – Presentations by Planner Lance

a. Buchanan Estates Rezone: Parcel 05-173-0044

i. Staff Presentation and Commission Discussion: Amend the existing R1-10/RM-16 split- zone designation by extending the boundary and by amending the remainder of the property from R1-10 to RM-8.

Planner Lance said the applicant is Tyler Farr. This is 36.29 acres located at North 1650 West. The current zoning is a split designation of RM-16 (multi-family) and R1-10 (high-density single-family). The current designation from the 2023 Integrated Land Use Plan is single-family residential. The request is to amend the existing R1-10, and RM-16 split zone designation on this parcel by extending the RM-16 portion approximately 3.57 acres to the parcel’s northern boundary and by amending the remainder of the property from R1-10 to RM-8. Staff has reviewed this request against the Land Use Code and future land use map from the 2023 General Plan. If the Commission finds any merit in this rezone, then the following findings could be considered. One, that the proposed amendment supports future residential development of the property. Two, it is compatible with adjacent residential zoning and development. Three, it promotes logical and orderly residential growth. Four, the subject property is suitable for future development and has access to the existing street network.

Commission Member Miller said what does the RM-8 zone allow? Commission Member Capener said eight units to the acre. The Commission asked Mr. Farr to explain his plan. Mr. Farr said right now we have a section of RM-16. We are working with other landowners to extend the road and connect to 1000 North. We are asking to continue RM-16 where it already has some zoning. Everything to the east of the road, which is currently R1-10, we are asking for RM-8. Our main goal is to make a diverse community. Our desire is to have apartments along I-15 on the west side of the road and then everything on the east is going to be diverse, including some townhomes, duplexes and single-family homes. There will be a little bit of everything through there with about 500 units. This is still very rough until we figure out the density. We are planning on putting in a park and pickleball courts. If the City wants to take care of that, great. If not, it will have an HOA. The apartments will have its own amenities like a swimming pool, park and pickleball courts. Administrator Epling said the applicant can accomplish his goals with a strict zoning of these two types of zones. Anything that would deviate from the zones, like the HOA or City maintained park, would come back in the form of a development agreement. Right now, our applicant is asking to change the zoning so he can have flexibility to make those improvements on these parcels. Commission Member Capener said is the development agreement also coming with it or are we just giving the extra zoning? Administrator Epling said this is just the zoning at this point. If approved, we will move forward to a development agreement. Commission Member Capener said maybe we want to give them some density, but we want to contractually require amenities. If we just rezone it with no development agreement, then there is no nothing to require him to do that. Administrator Epling said we do not have the development agreement prepared because it is not required at a rezone. Chairman Van Tassell said if we change the zoning, then we technically do not have any bargaining tools, and he is within the rights of that zoning. Commission Member Miller said this is the argument I brought up last time, once rezoned then he can do whatever he wants. That is why I want a new ordinance in place beforehand. Chairman Capener said the PUD is applicable for all applicants who had already applied. Planner Lance said yes, but this is just a standard rezone. Mr. Farr said with the zoning we are asking for, we will not need to use a PUD. Commission Member Miller said if we approve this, do we have any leverage? Commission Member Capener said the whole vision was, if we allow density, we want to increase the quality of living by getting parks and trails. That was the whole vision of the PUD and quantified that in a fair way. It is the only legal way we can encourage them to do things the City cannot afford. Commission Member Greener said how do we know we are going to get those amenities. Administrator Epling said that comes with the development agreement, which the Commission would approve. Mr. Farr said the development agreement has to be pretty dialed in, unless we want to keep amending it. To do that, I have to know what zoning we are tackling before I start paying engineers. I have to have my zoning set in stone before I invest in the next steps. The development agreement comes next, which will help dial things in.

Planner Lance said the question really at hand is, is this a place where RM-8 and RM-16 should go? There should not be any other questions considered at this time. I would not strong arm the applicant into changing their request. Mr. Farr said the Commission will still have the opportunity to give input and approve my development agreement once we get to that stage. You could say we are not going to pass it unless XYZ is in there. Commission Member Greener said but then you could always fall back and do what the new zoning is. Commission Member Capener said without an overlay zone or development agreement, there is no central mechanism to require anything beyond the rezone. When asked about units, Mr. Farr said it would be 13.159 acres of RM-16 and 22.907 acres of RM-8 for roughly 500 total. Along I-15 is a great place for apartments. I think this is a good place for this type of community. The main question is, do you see this as a place for RM-16 and RM-8? I know you are concerned about development agreements, but we are going to work through this whole process. That is when I can get specific on the details. Before I keep investing in that engineering, I have to have my zoning dialed in. Administrator Epling said we discussed the PUD overlay tool with the applicant, who felt he could accomplish his purpose with the strict zoning. That was his choice. He has come to our NPI and talked with residents. He has done his due diligence to make sure this fits the character of what they want. The PUD overlay added a bunch of additional costs to the developer to provide all those concept plans and engineered products. He decided to go through the strict zoning route instead.

ii. Public Hearing

Chairman Van Tassell called a Public Hearing to order at 5:56 p.m. to discuss the proposed rezone. There were five people in attendance.

Layne Wilding said I do not live in this area, but I talked to a couple of residents who live along that street at an NPI meeting and asked how they felt about having apartments and high density behind their homes. They did not seem excited about that. As far as having them close to the freeway, they did not have a problem with that. My question is, did you send out a letter to these residents and are they aware of what is going on? I want to be sure residents have an opportunity to voice their opinion. Administrator Epling said two letters have been sent to residents within 300 feet. This is the second public hearing on this rezone.

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

iii. Consideration and Decision: Board deliberation, motion and vote

Commission Member Ellsworth said I feel good about where this density is. Commission Member Greener said I agree. It is in the Land Use Plan. That was the vision for the future. If we keep changing the vision, what do we have? We should get a plan and stick with it. Commission Member Capener said I think it is a good location for it, but I also think if we are going to put in that kind of density, we need help with amenities the City cannot afford. Commission Member Miller said if it does not pass, then you should definitely apply for the PUD since you are eligible. Administrator Epling said this application for a zone change to set the entitlements was brought forth so we are not wasting a lot of the City’s time reviewing engineered plans before entitlements are set, as well as his time putting all the engineering plans together. The application before you is for a zone change. The PUD was costly up front. Planner Lance said the bottom line is, does the zoning fit this area? This is a legislative application. He did not choose to use the PUD version of a rezone. Commission Member Capener said I feel good about the rezone if they can present something so incredible that we feel like it is worth putting additional density in. Essentially, we are adding 235 units without the PUD. Commission Member Greener said is this contingent on the road being built to 1000 North? Administrator Epling said yes because there is only one egress. That has already been discussed with the developer. Commission Member Capener said to add 235 units there has to be some compensating factor for the neighbors. If we give them additional units, we need pickleball courts or whatever the proposal is. We will approve it but bring back the development agreement showing what the amenities will be. We can get the designs later. We just need the pieces of the development agreement that are going to hold him to things so we can trade for the extra amenities that will be advantageous for that area.

Planner Lance said there is no requirement for any open space in the subdivision ordinance. At rezone you have entitlements and the engineer can pull up our code to determine what is allowed and then can design accordingly. That is going to happen and yield a development agreement. Mr. Farr said I am happy to present something like you described. It will basically be what I have already presented to City staff. I am happy to go through the process and present how many apartments, townhouses and single-family doors that would be, along with green space. We are planning on doing a walking trail looping around. The development agreements I have done in the past are very detailed. I do not think I can do that at this time, but if you want to see something visual, we can. Commission Member Capener said we would need to have some sort of agreement that is binding. If he sells the property, somebody else can do whatever they want. We need some high-level stuff that says, we will give you the zoning if you provide X acres and parks with X inclusions. It can still be really flexible. Mr. Farr presented his concept plan. Commission Member Miller said from what I am understanding from the Commission, we are not going to feel comfortable approving the zone change without a formal agreement, no matter what is shown. We will deny it. Commission Member Capener said we could still review it based off of a development agreement being presented to the Council that includes XYZ. I think it is better to do it with a development agreement than to just deny him. He would be voluntarily entering into a development agreement to make sure we feel good about the additional density. We are only recommending approval with a development agreement. As long as the amenities they are proposing are worth the trade. Chairman Van Tassell said what is a formal mechanism that we can attach these concerns to our recommendation? Administrator Epling said the PC overlay that is coming is the mechanism. That is what we were directed by the Commission and Council to develop. That will replace the PUD overlay. Mr. Farr emailed his concept plan, which they reviewed.

Commission Member Miller made a motion for a positive recommendation to the Council. With a required expectation that a development agreement would be brought to the Council and the Council will not pass it without some sort of agreement in place. Commission Member Ellsworth seconded it. The motion failed and Commission Member Miller withdrew the positive motion.

Motion by Commission Member Capener to forward a negative recommendation to the Council, not amending the zoning unless it is coupled and approved with a development agreement that consummates the density, park space, trails, pickleball courts and clubhouse. If the agreement is provided, then we would submit a positive recommendation for approval. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – yes, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – no, Commission Member Greener – yes, Commission Member Miller – no. Motion approved. Motion approved by a 3-2 vote.

b. Adoption of Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan

i. Staff Presentation and Commission Discussion: The plan is based on an assessment of existing conditions and community goals and provides implementation-focused recommendations—Community Services Director Zach LeFevre and Sam Taylor with Landmark Design

Director LeFevre said in 2011, Tremonton City created its first Trails and Open Space Master Plan to guide Parks and Recreation for 10 years. In 2021, I became the Parks and Recreation Director, which was right after COVID. We saw explosive growth within the community for the next two years. During that time, Mr. Taylor and Landmark Design were creating the Integrated Land Use Plan, which had a section for parks, trails and open space, to update the 2011 version. In 2024, we were reviewing the plan and noticed that almost immediately after it was adopted, it was out of date because of that explosive growth during the creation. We wanted to break that portion of the Integrated Land Use Plan out and update the Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan to be its own separate plan. The original Park, Trails and Open Space Master Plan was working with trails and adopting plans to build trails within the community and walking space for connectivity within the City. The Integrated Land Use Plan focused more on adding the Parks section. This is updating both of those and bringing them together, so we have one document to work off of.

Mr. Taylor walked the Commission through the plan and all six chapters. First is an introduction, which outlines the purpose of the plan. The second chapter is focused on parks, particularly looking at the level of service. Chapter three is detailed park design concepts, four is on trails, five is on open space, and it concludes with an implementation and funding chapter, which serves as the roadmap for the plan. This connects to the City’s mission for the goals of connection for its residents. The goal is to give a clear snapshot of where you are today and where you would like to go. We have looked at this through an analytical approach, looking at existing conditions. What is on the ground today and how it stacks up against other communities and national standards. The second angle is through community input and what they desire within the parks system today. This gives staff a roadmap and policies and actions to implement. A community survey was conducted, and we received over 500 responses. We also had the public open house in March, where we presented the various park concepts and key recommendations. Overall, there was a very positive review. Here are the top takeaways. First, residents use parks frequently, with Jeannie Stevens, Shuman and North Park being the most visited and highly rated. Overall, park quality is positive, though there were desires for improvements at Meadow and Civic Center Park in particular. Top priorities are better trail connectivity, having additional parks and improved communication about parks and recreation system. There were various interests in many programs expressed. Aquatics and dog parks lead the way, and recreation centers often accompanies that discussion. A recreation center usually requires a feasibility study. That is a recommendation of the plan. To give an overview of existing conditions, we first looked at the park system from a level of service perspective. This is a metric that is defined by the National Recreation and Parks Association. The national standard is 10 acres per 1,000 residents. We seldom see that in Utah because we have places to recreate. Benchmarking against other Utah communities Tremonton is lower than some. It is evidence that there has not been significant park development in the community for some time. It does make the case for acquiring additional park acres, but it is less important typically than park access. That is an uphill battle because it all hinged on population. As your population grows, the level of service continues to decrease. Most of our population projection data is conservative. You are sailing into the unknown as to where you will actually land. We have stuck with the projected increase from the Capital Facilities Sewer Plan that was adopted. We sort of translated that figure for this plan to work off of. If you want to assume that number over the next 10 years, you need to start acquiring land. That is why the 38.7 acres is there to bring up your level of service. Park distribution is often the more meaningful way to increase impact, making sure there are parks within walking distance of every home. That distribution is influenced by how far people are willing to travel based on what the amenities are within that park. They reviewed a map of their current park locations. There are some significant gaps where folks are not able to walk to a park within close proximity of their home. This plan outlines recommendations. This is based on the full build-out vision. These are general but give us a laundry list of what might help achieve filling distribution gaps and meeting that level of service.

Director LeFevre said our goal is 5.5 acres for 1,000 residents. The last time we met that goal was in 2001 when Jeanie Stevens Park was built. Since then, we have always fallen behind. Our sports have typically been the main source of the need for parks and right now our parks are overused. We have no space to allow our parks to recover. We do have three parks in the works, including Stokes Park, Harvest Acres Park and Rivers Edge Park. They are not built, but we own the land for those. Mr. Taylor said we would typically count those when they are developed with some level of amenity. Those would add nearly 26 acres. Director LeFevre said these are detention basins first and park amenity second. We have to work with Public Works. The stormwater portion will have to be built so we can get the parks built on top.

Commission Member Capener said do you think the $27 million proposed is the best use or should we be building an indoor rec center that could be used year-round? Director LeFevre said there is need for both. Right now, I cannot expand my soccer, flag football or baseball programs. Those are sports that cannot be played indoors. They can to a certain extent. It could add a field or two, but not to the capacity we need. We have very limited indoor use facilities solely owned by the school district and County. That use hinges on our relationship with commissioners. In 2008, there was a feasibility study done for a rec center and it was proposed to build one for $10 million. That did not pass. Now we are looking at $60 million for a basic rec center. We are looking at doing some budget engineering to try to get something that meets our needs. That is something we are working toward, but we have to get funding in place. We need to get this plan in place so we can update our feasibility rates. Our current parks cannot be improved with impact fees. Those have to go to new construction. We would have to come up with a different funding source like a RAP tax, grants or bond to improve our current parks. Currently, we have around $2 million in reserves. A new park is around $7 million for the biggest option. We are nowhere near where we need to be, but with this plan, we can start looking toward the future.

Mr. Taylor said these park concepts are not a final design. They are intended to be a starting point for staff as they begin having conversations about future capital projects and what they want to get designed. That design is going to evolve as they are implemented, but they help form a starting point for financial planning. Finally, the park section concludes with these recommendations. First is to develop the planned parks we have discussed. Second, to upgrade the existing parks. Third, acquire land and develop additional parks. Then there are some additional system-wide recommendations for wayfinding and signage and updating codes for dog use within the parks. The trail section was of high public interest. This is definitely a key priority for the plan. You do not have a significant trail system in place, and this is a major recreational focus statewide. This plan establishes a hierarchy of trail types and minimum standards for the trails to be built to. The open space chapter really addresses open space at a high level. There are no level of service standards or prescriptions for open space and when we talk about open space in this chapter, we are really talking about natural open space, as opposed to developed parks. The chapter does outline an acquisition toolbox of how the City can acquire these areas. Finally, the implementation and funding section summarizes all the plan recommendations and assigns high level planning level cost estimates to each of them. There are many ways to pay for these projects. The goal is to identify which projects you would like to advance forward, work on them a piece at a time and use various funding mechanisms to make them happen. This takes all the implementation items within the plan and gives staff priority and timeline and some additional notes so they can start checking them one by one. We did receive a number of comments from the planning staff of additional edits that need to occur with the plan. The majority of them are clerical in nature.

Commission Member Capener said I would like to give us more time to review this in depth. It would be ideal to have a list of what we are going to do first and next to increase the level of service. I want a real plan, where the rubber meets the road. Mr. Taylor said that is where the difference between a Parks Master Plan and the Capital Facilities Plan typically diverge. One is setting your policy and goals you are working toward; the other is actually budgeting what we are going to work on and when. Commission Member Capener said but can we not in this plan direct the capital facilities in the way of this is priority one, so they already know what we need to do to increase the level of service? Director LeFevre said that is a discussion to have with the Council and determine their priorities on what they want to fund in capital projects. There is only a certain amount of dollars within that and is parks a priority to them? This is the overview of where parks, trails and open space fits with the rest of the needs of the City. It gives us direction on how to move forward and setting those plans based on the priorities that are set. We would recommend those capital improvements to the Council. This is the plan for parks, trails and open space based on the priorities listed within that. We would recommend we move forward with Stokes Park. Once approved we would raise funds. It would be more of a case-by-case basis and project by project rather than specifically putting it in this project. I do believe we are headed in an upward trajectory on how to make things happen. Commission Member Capener said I think we need a one-page vision. This is where we should spend the money in order to get more revenue. I would love to see a detailed plan, showing what we recommend the Council do with these funds as they come in. None of the recommendations listed actually is where the rubber is going to meet the road. Mr. Taylor said that is because this is a policy document, first and foremost. It is intended to be a long-range vision plan.

ii. Public Hearing

Chairman Van Tassell called a Public Hearing to order at 7:25 p.m. to discuss adoption of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. There were two people in attendance.

Mr. Wilding asked has the Commission read this entire document? I have come up with a lot of comments I have given to staff, and I have a couple concerns. First, is about the projected growth of the community. The growth is less than the projected 3%. I think we are going to be closer to 5%. In 2050, we will probably be closer to 50,000 residents. I would suggest we revisit this plan in five years, especially given the explosive growth I expect to see. We talk about a RAP tax. It sounds like there are a lot of residents in favor of that. That would certainly be a source of revenue that would help this process. In the last meeting, we rezoned a piece of property on the west side of the freeway that I believe was going to Parks and Recreation Department. That might be able to facilitate expansion or quickly getting the parks discussed built so you can increase that level of service. On page 34, these are recommendations to acquire land early. Do we have somebody who is watching for property to come on sale that potentially we may want to buy as a City for a park? Page 64 has to do with trails. There were several things in the trails section that probably should be added. Primarily the width of the trail. This is just the paved portion. It does not talk about the size of the easements on either side of the trail or landscaping. It does not talk about water. Are we are going to put lights along the trail for safety reasons. I think we need to take time to look at it closely and to understand it. I would like to see answers to a lot of the things I have put in here.

Jack Stickney said I think it is great that we have a plan, but that will change as time goes on and as the City grows. We need to work on a way to get more impact fees going so we can have those funds to put toward Parks and Recreation. 50 years ago, when I left Spanish Fork, we had about the same population as we do here now. They are just barely putting in a 35,000 square foot rec center with six pools and a whole bunch of other stuff. Their population has doubled in the last 20 years. I think until we get a vision that we can sustain growth and be able to have the funds coming in, it is going to be challenging to have the parks and recreation we want. We have to be open minded to growth in order to have those funds. I would advocate that as a Planning Commission; we keep that in mind that some of these amenities will only come because of growth.

Chairman Van Tassell closed the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m.

iii. Consideration and Decision: Board deliberation, motion and vote

Motion by Commission Member Capener to further review the information and continue their discussion at their next meeting. Motion seconded by Commission Member Ellsworth. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – yes, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Greener – yes Commission Member Miller – yes. Motion approved.

c. Residential Lot Regulation Amendments

i. Staff Presentation and Commission Discussion: Amend Chapter 1.03.005 Definitions, 1.07.010 Uses, and 1.07.015 Lot Regulations of the Tremonton City Code to define small accessory structures, update the residential zoning use table, and allow for development of single-family homes in the multiple residential districts.

Planner Lance said is residential lot regulations code text amendments to help our applicants follow clear guidelines for the subdivision process and using the entitlements they have from the zoning they are granted. We saw a few inconsistencies between chapters and have an opportunity to feature a new addition to our code. First, international building code does not regulate structures that are 200 square feet or less square footage. Where those smaller structures, like tough sheds and chicken coops, they have to follow the accessory structure step backs for the zone, which is across the board five feet. Those structures cannot get closer than five feet to the property line currently under our code. Staff suggests the inclusion of a new definition and regulations to our code to allow for small accessory structures. We drafted, small accessory structures shall not be connected to permanent electrical, water, sewer or other utility service. We are proposing three feet for RR-1 through R1-12, two feet for R1-10 through R1-8, and one foot for RM-8 and RM-16. Those are as close as those structures could get to the property boundaries. The second change is there is contradictory language in the code talking about height regulations for all buildings and districts regulated by this chapter shall be 36 feet and then just a few lines down it says accessory structures are kept at 20 feet. We just proposed the addition of one simple word, the maximum height for all main buildings, meaning homes and other main structures. Therefore, you have the difference between main structures and accessory structures and no conflict between the two. The third proposal is related to the purpose statements of the multiple residential zones in RM-8 and RM-16. Administrator Epling said it is permitted in the purpose but not permitted in the table. Planner Lance said we are proposing instead of a dash for not permitted that we add note 10 in the series. We already had through nine present in the code. Note 10 would be a new note that says detached single-family dwellings are permitted within RM-8 and RM-16 developments. Single family lots shall comply with the regulations of the RM-8 zone. That is a simple way to achieve varied housing. There is just contradictory language, and we have prepared a draft to edit the code.

ii. Public Hearing

Chairman Van Tassell called a Public Hearing to order at 7:44 p.m. to discuss the amendments listed above. There were three people in attendance. There were no public comments. Chairman Van Tassell closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m.

iii. Consideration and Decision: Board deliberation, motion and vote

Motion by Commission Member Capener to send a positive recommendation to amend the chapters listed above to the Council as presented. Motion seconded by Commission Member Miller. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – yes, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Greener – yes Commission Member Miller – yes. Motion approved.

d. Planning Commission Code Amendments

i. Staff Presentation and Commission Discussion: Amend Chapter 1.04.020 Term of Office to clarify the end of term limits for Planning Commission members.

Planner Lance said there is no language in the current code that defines term limits for Planning Commission members. This was directed from the City Council. Staff has prepared a draft to define that rather than to leave it to ambiguity. The terms of the appointed members of the Planning Commission shall be two years and expire in January of the second year following appointments and until respective successors have been appointed, provided that term shall be assigned and adjusted as necessary to maintain staggered appointments so that the terms of two members expire each year. Alternate members shall serve under the same term provisions and may serve in place of absent or disqualified members until a replacement is appointed. Commission Member Miller said I believe a three-year term makes more sense since the Council is a two and a four-year term. By having a three-year term, you are ensuring checks and balance, and not getting new people put in with new Councilmembers. Also, there should only be two members expiring each term. Commission Member Capener said is there a reason to go from three to two years? In my mind, we should go from three to four because it is hard to understand what is going on with Planning Commission even after two years. It is really difficult to have continuity and understanding if you are only here for two years. Chairman Van Tassell said there is the option to reapply. You could go into perpetuity if you just stayed. It is not like they kick you out. Those who want to serve more than two years would reapply and those who do not, we would need to find a replacement for. Commission Member Ellsworth said I think the alternate thing has been helpful because you are training people, so the two-year term makes more sense. Administrator Epling said we did not get directive to do the alternate section. Is there something you would like us to look at? Chairman Van Tassell said alternates cannot discuss what we are discussing? The only comments they have is during public comment. Part of me thinks that should be included as a perk of being an alternate. People step up to do that and to have their voice heard. Yeah, they are not a voting member in that particular meeting, but they should have the ability to speak to any motion. Commission Member Capener said it should also be defined that the alternates should be the first option to fill a vacancy. Lowering the years just gives the Council more opportunity to remove commissioners that do not think or vote in the way they want them to. It sets you up for more problems. I think it would be smart to have the folks who have been here, spent the time and understand the process to fill a vacancy rather than somebody coming off the grid. Commission Member Ellsworth said now that we have created the NPI, I think they should also be potentially added to the list of alternates as they move up the line because they are starting to understand the process. Administrator Epling suggested the Planning Commission could also create bylaws. So, you have your own set of bylaws to follow. That would not necessarily need to be in the code, it would just be the way you want to run the Commission. You can adopt your own bylaws.

ii. Public Hearing

Chairman Van Tassell called a Public Hearing to order at 7:53 p.m. to discuss the Planning Commission code amendments. There were two people in attendance. There were no public comments. Chairman Van Tassell closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m.

iii. Consideration and Decision: Board deliberation, motion and vote

Commission Member Capener said many Utah cities use four-year staggering terms for Planning Commissioners. For a city like Tremonton, which deals with ongoing growth and reasonable subdivision development planning, there is generally a stronger argument for three years or longer staggered terms because land use decisions often span multiple years and there is benefit from continuity. The Council can remove any of us at any time for really any reason. I do not understand why they would want to go through that whole interview process sooner rather than later.

Commission Member Ellsworth made a motion to approve a positive recommendation to the City Council on the amended code as presented. Commission Member Greener seconded the motion. The rest of the Commission voted no and the motion failed.

Motion by Commission Member Ellsworth to create the bylaws and amendments with a recommendation of three-year terms and direct staff to include alternates for consideration first. Motion seconded by Commission Member Stickney. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – yes, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – yes, Commission Member Greener – yes, Commission Member Stickney – yes. Motion approved.

5. Public Comments: None.

6. Business/Staff Questions

Administrator Epling said staff is preparing to bring forth the first draft and outline of the PC Zone (Planned Community) that will replace the PUD. We will plan to hold a workshop for this discussion before our next meeting at 5 p.m. Commission Member Capener asked that they send them the draft version to review before then.

7. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Ellsworth to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 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 ___________, 2026.

______________________________
Cynthia Nelson, CITY RECORDER

*Utah Code 52-4-202, (6) allows for a topic to be raised by the public and discussed by the public body even though it was not included in the agenda or advance public notice given; however, no final action will be taken.