TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 2025
Members Present:
Raulon Van Tassell, Chairman
Micah Capener, Commission Member
Karen Ellsworth, Commission Member—excused
Andrea Miller, Commission Member
Mark Thompson, Commission Member
Ashley Phillips, Commission Member
Jack Stickney, Commission Member—excused
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Jeff Seedall, Community Development Director
Bill Cobabe, City Manager
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Van Tassell called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held August 12, 2025 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Van Tassell, Commission Members Capener, Miller, Phillips, Thompson, City Councilmember Rohde, Manager Cobabe, Director Seedall, and Deputy Recorder Lannefeld were in attendance. Commission Members Ellsworth and Stickney were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Commission Member Capener suggested having Director Seedall provide a brief summary prior to the public hearings so people have more information before their opportunity to speak about those items. Commission Member Miller also suggested they move item 3. Public Comments toward the end of the meeting, in between items 6. and 7. so the Commission can obtain feedback after their discussion.

Motion by Commission Member Thompson to approve the August 12, 2025 agenda with the proposed amendments. Motion seconded by Commission Member Miller. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – yes, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – absent, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – absent. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Public Comments: (moved between items 6. and 7.)

4. Approval of minutes—June 24, 2025 & July 8, 2025

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

Director Seedall then provided an overview of the two public hearings. We discussed this application once before as a RM-16. The Planning Commission denied the application. The developer came back with RM-8. When reviewing it further with the property owner, the ability to access off that cul-de-sac is not there, they do not have the frontage with the property line to have an access off that road so it will have a single driveway. He would cluster units based on the design. The other item is for Overlook, which was discussed in May. The Planning Commission approved the application for RM-8 to help with the base density to complete needed infrastructure, but the City Council denied it. The developer came back asking to go from R1-12 to R1-10, which would give them about 100 extra units for the base density. In the concept plan, the density is over on the western half and tied to the main access. They have a lot more single-family lots or smaller lots buffering the existing developments on the east.

5. Public Hearing:

Chairman Van Tassell called a Public Hearing to order at 5:39 p.m. to receive public input on a proposed rezone. There were 18 people in attendance.

a. To receive public input of proposed rezoning to RM-8 for parcel 05-068-0075.

ChrisDean Epling said in the past, I have claimed that infrastructure should drive development. I have humbly been corrected that infrastructure does not ever really drive development, because that is not how things work. However, I do stand to say that infrastructure should be taken into consideration when considering development. In the Land Use Plan, it says when considering new zoning or annexations proposals from landowners, the City should review the proposed land use and consider the City’s ability to provide sufficient infrastructure for services. So, when you are considering multi-family what is the infrastructure going to look like? We had a neighborhood meeting, where we discussed a more unified plan and vision, where we as citizens could work with the City to create something better. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on these items, but I feel there is a discrepancy between what is being proposed and the current Land Use Plan. We are growing at a faster rate than what the current Land Use Plan states, and there needs to be updates in that. I am not as knowledgeable on what the current zoning is in this area, but I would ask you to say, do we have the infrastructure for it? Are there sidewalks along that bank? Is there proper access to the businesses and different things that that area needs? I feel like there is a lack of infrastructure all the way to Maverik. There are not sidewalks for the current homes so how do we bridge that gap? It would be really nice to work with you as a Planning Commission on that. Infrastructure does not drive development, but it really should guide it and be taken into consideration so there is a balanced usage. We have rural infrastructure throughout the City. It is hard to create an urban society with a rural infrastructure without overtaxing citizens. Please take that into consideration when putting multi-family housing in. Does it match the current Land Use Plan or does it need to be addressed in a bigger vision? Can we combine that and maybe pause on what needs to be put forward so we can get a better sync plan?

Kristi Bowcutt said in May at the Council meeting, it was stated maybe we should slow down a bit until we get the General Plan revised. That has not happened. Right now, we are throwing everything out there that we can just to say we have it done. Developers come in and the City says we are going to check it off. This week I received a phone call from someone in Salt Lake and it had to do with water use. Tremonton better hope like heck there is not a fire because every one of you are going to burn out. You do not have the water. You are not listening to what is going on. We know we do not have the water. Until the infrastructure is in place, things need to be stopped because we are not in a good place.

Lisa Christensen said is there enough water to sustain an extra hundred homes in that area? Water, sewer, sidewalks, and all those things are my biggest concern.

Russell Scott said I live on Radio Hill. On the topic of water, the average person uses 82 gallons per day (indoor use). That is about 10,000 gallons a month and 120,000 gallons a year. If you add 100 homes, that is a lot of water going in and out. I know we have not updated our sewer system to take care on that many homes. In 2021, Tremonton put out 434 building permits. In 2022, it was 214. The average is about 134 per year. If that development goes up there, I know it is going to be way more than that. We do not have the water. You cannot build any higher than my neighbor. At my house, on a good day, we have 35 pounds of pressure. You cannot run two units in your house at the same time. There is not enough pressure. When we had the fire on the hill, they tried to hooked up the fire engine and pull water, but you could hear the water being pulled from the homes because there was no pressure. They had to run the hose all the way down to the bottom of the hill and bring it up. We have problems with water that have not been addressed. The last time we talked about the road, we were told it would get done up to 2650. They did that and now we have been forgotten. I do not think we should change that from R1-12 to a R1-10. That is too many homes up there and not enough water.

Debbie Brantner said when the Holmgren building caught on fire there was a water shortage after they fought that fire because they ran out of water. We were put on restrictions. They keep telling us that we have plenty of water, but cut down on water, because that fire took a lot of our water. We do not have enough water for all these homes being built. Where I live on 800 West in Tremonton, about once a month, they are pumping out the sewer. Why is that? Is that an old sewer thing? Somebody is having sewer problems. Maybe that should be looked at before I have an issue. Fix those issues before you start building more houses.

Heather Flood said I live on Mountain Road and coming out of the neighborhood, on multiple occasions, I am almost hit by the current amount of traffic that is coming off the hill. They are moving too fast and there are too many of them. If we put more and more homes up there is their intent to reduce the speed limit? Traffic is already a problem in the area and if we add more vehicles on the road, what are we doing to make sure we are safe, that our kids are safe?

Chairman Van Tassell closed the Public Hearing at 5:52 p.m. He then called a Public Hearing to order at 5:52 p.m. to discuss another rezone. There were 18 people in attendance.

b. To receive public input of proposed rezoning from R1-12 to R1-10 for the Overlook Development, parcels 06-059-0082 and 05-175-0030.

Tiffany Purcell said I live in that area. It is beautiful and I love it. I have great neighbors. We have enjoyed getting to know them. However, there are not sidewalks. That road is not safe. There is a lot of traffic. In January, I went down to the bus stop with my children. I took a picture of five teenagers dressed in black in the middle of the street looking for the bus. People are going to get hurt. We do not need to add more traffic. I understand it is zoned for houses. I understand that we should be able to build. I also understand we do not need to increase the density. Growth is good. We need to have growth in order to build our City. We do not need to build to have more and more houses. I think one reason we are struggling with home ownership and townhomes is because we are building so many low-income housing, we are forgetting that median income. Why not build single-family, starter homes so townhomes are not going for $500,000. Let us build more of these homes in a residential area with yards so they have someplace to go. We have so many multi-family dwelling homes right now. Let us focus on something else. Let us keep the zoning like the Land Use Plan says. Let us still invite neighbors and get to know people. Let us not see how many people we can build in an acre to see how much road or traffic we can increase. Let us just slow down. That is all I ask.

David Jones said I live on 1000 North. There are no sidewalks and the road is narrow. Right now, with the traffic due to the bridge being closed, there is a lot of times I cannot get out of my driveway. I have to sit there and watch the traffic go by. If we put another 800 homes on the hill, and everybody has two cars, that is 1,600 more cars. That road is not wide enough to take the traffic. Kids are on the road with their bicycles. People are walking and jogging along the side of the road. You have to move over or you will hit them. I think before we do anything, we ought to look at how are we going to get those things resolved. Everything on that hill goes down to 1000 North. There is no other place to collect it. It is going to impact that whole road if we continue to build like crazy.

Russell Scott said this road is the only entrance and exit for that subdivision. A couple of years ago, they dug up a natural gas line. People were stuck outside and inside. Nobody could go in or out. The Mayor and Council told us they were working on a plan. That was in 2019 and they said, we are working on it. You have all those kids and families with one way in, one way out. That is a problem.

ChrisDean Epling said I echo that this is a beautiful, wonderful area. I have studied the Land Use Plan and there are three different maps that say this section of land is currently zoned appropriately. That there is no reason to change the zoning. However, I do understand there is a bigger vision. I understand you want to have other roads for connectivity. I do not want to limit ourselves on what the current Land Use Plan is because I have learned it is not adequate for the growth we have. We should pause any rezoning until we have more cohesive direction on where we want to go. If you are going to use the current Land Use Plan, it is already zoned to where it should be. In our meeting last night, we created a survey for all the citizens in that area that we will present to the Council. As citizens we would like you to listen to us on how we can be a part of the solution. The question was asked, on a scale from one to five, how confident are you on the current City planning process that it reflects your values? Almost 100% of the surveys we received, which is around 50, put a one. Let us change that. Let us pause what we are doing and not do any rezoning. Help us as a neighborhood and give us time so we can put together a vision. Then you can go over it and see how it can work as a better vision for the entire community. The infrastructure, the traffic, everything needs to be taken into consideration so we can grow together and move forward without constantly fighting over what we want as citizens.

Lisa Christensen said do you know how many homes it would increase by changing the zoning? Chairman Van Tassell said it would be less than 100, but we do not know exactly how much less.

Laura Wear said I also live on Radio Hill. I would like the hill to remain single-family homes. Honestly, I might not be opposed to a change from R1-12 to R1-10, but I feel like as you make this change it is going to open up a pathway to do a PUD. That will then allow for multi-family housing and commercial. I do not want that and everyone I have talked to in my neighborhood, does not want that up there. We all want it to remain single-family homes. We understand there is a need for more affordable housing, but townhomes are going up all over Tremonton. We would just like more medium-income homes. You can do starter homes and give them a little plot of land, but the main reason I am opposed to this is because I feel like it is going to be used as a way around the zone to put in a PUD and I do not want to see that happen up there.

Jerilyn Tesche said my biggest concern about increasing the density is safety for our kids who currently walk along 1000 North to get on the bus. The average home in Utah has three children. 32% of the homes in Utah have children. Based on those numbers that would add another 945 children. That is a lot of children walking and crossing these streets. I also have concerns about the number of egresses. All that traffic is going East and we only have one egress. We currently need another. With this kind of development, we need way more than just two. I looked at some of the other subdivisions in town. East Holmgren Estates does not have anywhere near these kinds of numbers and they are already getting a third egress.

Michelle Martineau said I live on 1000 North. My concern is infrastructure and roads into town. There is one road, 1000 North. I have heard, we are going to build more roads, but they all funnel down. This piece of property sits between two freeways. There is no way to make additional East-West roads unless you go over the freeway. You can have all the roads you want coming North and South, but they will all still funnel down onto 1000 North. Anything you do in town—all of those homes are going to 1000 North. You also have Stokes Trucking and West Liberty Foods. Trucks are going down there all the time. I live right across the street from Stokes Trucking. I have been out there counting trucks and they averaging about 12 an hour. They slow traffic down. I am very concerned about having gridlock on 1000 North. Allowing too many homes up there without building another East-West road is a problem.

Eric Richardson said I live in Spring Acres. Most of my children were born here. We like being here, but there has been rapid growth in that period of time. I helped people get back into the neighborhood after that single inlet and outlet road was blocked by a gas leak. We had people in our ward who had oxygen tanks that were running out. They took down fences so they could drive through yards and get families back to their homes. It was a big deal. You are going to say, well we will give you another egress, inlet and outlet, and all these things, but you are missing the point. The point is we love our City and this area the way it is. Do not change it to an R1-10 or R1-12. I propose going to an R1-20. I do not understand why everything is trying to go higher density. It does not make sense. We do not want Tremonton to grow the way it has been proposed. We are all for growth and the City has been zoned for growth in certain areas. The Council met last month and were planning to put together a new plan. The City’s plan for growth is a little outdated. In the meantime, leave this section alone. That is what the voice of the people are saying. If you want us to go door to door and petition, we will bring in more people. We had 120 people here last time at the City Council meeting. If you want us to fill this room, we will come out in the masses so please listen to us. We are here as partners to come to a sensible solution.

Ben Greener said I also live on the hill and think this should stay R1-12. The developers bought it as that. They can develop it as that. I am all for growth as long as it is done right. I am counting on you guys to help make sure it is done right. I live to the east and it is like living on an island. When you get to the main roads, you have to walk in the road. It is just dangerous. I do not know why Tremonton builds all these islands everywhere. I see people on wheelchairs going down roads to get to McDonalds and it is crazy. I am just asking you to be responsible and figure out the best way to do this. This is what you have chosen to do. You are on this Planning Commission so figure out the best way to serve citizens and to make this development work to our advantage. Everybody has legitimate concerns. 1000 North is very busy. We waited 17 years for a partially built road. It is great and we love it, but it ends too quickly and goes back to a narrow road. Please consider what the people are asking and do it right.

Michelle Striley said I live on this hill and am a newer resident. I searched for a long time, to find a good spot to put down some roots. This was it. I agree with everyone here today. I was at the meeting last night. They are all legitimate concerns. We have to embrace growth in some way, shape, or form, but I am pleading with you to really think things through before you grant permissions to rezone. I am opposed to the rezoning at this point.

Molly Tisdol said I am also new and live on the hill. I run 1000 North every day and it is scary. I am jumping off the road, that is not even a road, to get out of the way of semis. If you cannot commit to sidewalks here and keep these commitments with water, what kind of commitments are you going to make to them up there? How are you going to keep those commitments?

Chairman Van Tassell closed the Public Hearing at 6:13 p.m.

6. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of proposed rezoning to RM-8 for parcel 05-068-0075.

The Commission agreed this would be the best use for this land.

Motion by Commission Member Miller to recommend the proposed rezone to RM-8 for this parcel. Motion seconded by Commission Member Phillips. Vote: Chairman Van Tassell – yes, Commission Member Capener – yes, Commission Member Ellsworth – absent, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Phillips – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Stickney – absent. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of proposed rezoning from R1-12 to R1-10 for the Overlook Development, parcels 06-059-0082 and 05-175-0030.

Director Seedall said as an FYI, the developer was unable to attend the meeting due to a conflict, but was hoping we could table this decision until he is here. That being said, I wanted to have the discussion with the Planning Commission. Currently, we are working on three new egresses onto 1000 North with different developers that would span all the way from 2000 West to this. There would be connectivity into all of the developments up there that we are reviewing. In speaking with the developer for Overlook, they are interested in entertaining the idea of participating in widening 1000 North. To help share these off-site costs they have to have rooftops so their products meet the market demand.

The Commission spent time discussing road widths. Manager Cobabe said a couple things drive improvements on this road. First, is the level of service would have to diminish to the point where the City has to take action. That is less desirable because the level of service deteriorating means that the road is not functioning like it should. We need to work with developers in the area to help pay for some of the costs they will have on this existing roadway. That would be done through a traffic study. It would be based largely on the density that is proposed. Obviously, more density means more car trips, but that also means the road would have to change to accommodate additional trips. It also means that the developer can anticipate greater profits. We can put proportionate exactions on the developer to participate based on their impact. That is everything from roads to water, sewer, storm drain, all of the above. The road would have to be brought up to whatever standard is required prior to any new homes going in. The impact starts as soon as you build the first house so you would want all the infrastructure in place before you start selling. Some developments are at an elevation that could be serviced by the existing water line. The question about water pressure is valid, but it is not a question of capacity, it is a question of pressure. We have plenty of water. We just do not have the pressure to service above a certain elevation. We need to work with developers to get additional tanks built on the hill and make that pressure available. We are working with the Conservancy District to pull water from the Bothwell Pocket and are looking at acquiring other wells in the area. In this area, the water quality diminishes rapidly. These are solutions that are expensive and more long-term.

Commission Member Miller said having other exits would help resolve traffic on 1000 North to expand the road and have sidewalks. Manager Cobabe said we would work with the developer to put in some of those off-site improvements on 1000 North. It would be a pro rata share. The City would be on the hook for some, because that is an existing road. Based on their impact we would require the developer to put in some of those improvements. Commission Member Capener said it seems like a lot of traffic, but I bet it can take a lot more than it seems. The traffic study would determine what needs to be done. We need to let the professionals tell us what the code allows on a road of that scope, because we do not even know exactly what is going to be built at this stage. Until we have a design and can quantify that plus all the other existing development with the traffic study, traffic is hard to analyze. Manager Cobabe said that is one of the reasons why we do not discuss a lot of the specifics at this point. You have to assume the maximum number of lots will go in on the property when you make these decisions. Once the zoning is allowed, then all of the rest of the constraints come in, including topography, stormwater capacity, water availability, road capacity, all of the other infrastructure concerns come into play. But until that point, the developers do not know what to plan for, because the zoning is currently what it is, and they are asking for something different.

Commission Member Capener said we probably should clean up the comments that were made earlier, because there were some fallacies. The biggest one being the PUD is already currently allowed at the R1-12 zone. In its current zone, it would allow up to 486 units and it does allow multi-family, technically, in the PUD. If they choose to meet the points. If we allow them to have points to help improve sidewalks and roads that are not necessarily their requirement. If it really is that big of a demand, it should have been the requirement of the subdivisions that already came in to pay for those things. If the problem already exists, it is not necessarily born by future development. My personal opinion is a development of this scope will fix almost all of those problems. When these subdivisions went in before the sidewalk was not required, but it is now. The code requires them to meet all of these things in order to develop. In order to put a development in they have to prove they are not going to further the existing problems.

Chairman Van Tassell said what are the requirements for water tanks and capacity? Director Seedall said the City engineer will judge that based on density. When asked about potential fires, Manager Cobabe said the engineer bakes that in. There is a balance between requiring too much of the developer and getting everything we want. Commission Member Capener said the problems are already there. This development will fix those problems, because they are not going to be able to make it worse. They have to prove with engineering that whatever they are going to do is going to help not make it worse. Manager Cobabe said we are looking at a two-million-gallon tank. We want to be able to service all the homes planned up there. The one up there now, is a half a million-gallon tank. With a fire you would burn through that quick. I am not sure how this got through. This was bad planning. Commission Member Capener said when we do a zone or subdivision, we are not guaranteeing any of these people that there will be water. We are just saying, if you were to submit a building permit, then we will allocate the water. The zoning and even the subdivision, do not necessarily allocate water from the City. If the City ran out of water, all those homes would not get water unless they have an active approved building permit prior to the moratorium. We are not here to decide whether there is water or not. That is for the higher ups to decide and the engineers to quantify. All of those questions are not necessarily brought up at this stage. Manager Cobabe said residents have expressed concerns about traffic, sidewalks, safety and water flow and the City wants to respond. I do not speak for the City Council, but cities are set up to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents, businesses, and homeowners. The way to do that is through lobbying taxes and to use those to make sure things are being addressed. One of the best and easiest solutions is to work with developers to come to an equitable solution where they put in a little bit and the City puts in a little bit. That way we all get what we need and want. Officer Greg Horspool said this is the importance of our code and keeping on top of the code.

Commission Member Capener made a motion to table the proposal until the developer can bring forth ideas on layout and how they would address concerns. Maybe they could even bring a proposed sketch of what they may develop if approved. We are asking for the cart before the horse, but maybe if they are far enough along, they might be able to help us feel better about the difference in density.

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

Item 3. Public Comment was moved to this point in the meeting.

ChrisDean Epling said I want to thank you for tabling it. I like the strategy of working with the developers to get a better generalized plan. As you work with the developers, as a City and a Committee, please take our suggestions. We will work on our side to give you our perspective as citizens so you can have all the information. Is the PUD on R1-12 zoning? I was not aware that it was already approved with a PUD. How do I find that information? To my understanding, PUDs had to be done separately. Commission Member Capener said the PUD Tremonton City ordinance is Chapter 1.33. Basically, the PUD is allowed on any parcel. Citizens were upset about overlay zones and things happening between the City and developer without the public’s knowledge. So, the City decided if things would be allowed, it would be allowed for everyone equally if they met certain requirements. They have to meet a point system and the chapter goes through it very clearly. Commission Member Miller said the PUD still has to be approved for each specific development. Manager Cobabe said we really set up a base standard for any PUD in the City. These are the minimum requirements that will be governed by a development agreement between the developer and City. it protects the rights of the property owner, but also the interests of the City and allows for a more flexible application of standards. The minimum standards are there, but other things could be more flexible. We are limited as to what we can require. It has to be a rough proportionality between the anticipated benefit to the City and what is being required of the developer. It is based on this negotiation through the development agreement.

Michelle Martineau said on widening 1000 North, if you are going to widen that very far, you will have to take out houses. Right now, houses are built right up to it already. You would have to require houses to be bought out. Is that really feasible? Who has the money to pay to buy out all those houses all the way up the road on one side or the other to widen the road? Commission Member Capener said it partially depends on the traffic study. My gut is that it is not even close to requiring the widening of the road. That road can handle a lot more traffic than you think. It might not be comfortable. Martineau said I live on that road and there are times I cannot get out of my driveway because cars are streaming down the road. Cars are coming off 2300 West as fast as they can to beat the traffic down the road. There is no way all those people can get out of their driveways. If that is honestly going to be one of your reasons to address, it needs to be feasible. Commission Member Capener said that is what they have to have the engineers help us prove, because we cannot make them widen the road if the road is adequate. If there is a lot of traffic now, the City would have to bear that cost as of today. If they are adding 20%, the City would have to pony up 80%, while the developer paid 20% for their proportionality. Some of the traffic will go to the freeway. Some of it is going to go to the next road that will connect these developments together.

Russell Scott said going back to the road they fixed in between McDonald’s Road up to 2700. They did widen it. They put the two lanes and the suicide lane in the middle, but they only put curb, gutter and sidewalk on one side because they do not have room. The plan for a 66-foot-wide road is just a hope. How many of you have driven up there during the day when all this is going on? How many of you have been up there when the kids are in school? During school times I head to the road sheds to get on the freeway because I do not want to drive down that way with all the kids.

David Jones said one of the things I do not think you are addressing is the difference between R1-10 and R1-12 and the additional 100 homes, plus 200 more cars. Every home causes more problems and more infrastructure. We are for progress, but we do not want to overdo. We would like to remain kind of a rural city. Adding even more, smaller lots, creates more congestion. We would like to see it done with a good plan in mind and not just pack everything in as much as we can. I would encourage you to keep it as R1-12.

Jamie Poppleton said is there a way to also include the potential cost of these homes? If we are dealing with all of this as a whole for the community, for extra development, for extra homes, is affordable housing going to fit into this? Is that going to be part of the requirement? We know some people cannot afford them because they do not make the amount they need to afford a home. So, when that information is given to you, that could be useful. Manager Cobabe said one of the points developers can get in the PUD is by creating affordable housing. They are given a bonus density of 20% if it is a deed restricted, affordable housing unit. That is defined by State code. They can get all of those units (up to 20%) basically free. It does not count toward their entitled units. So, if they are entitled to 400 units, they can get up to 20% additional units if they are restricted as affordable housing. That can be hard to do, but it is something we put in there as an incentive for developers to explore.

7. Planning commission comments/reports: None.

8. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Capener to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:11 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) 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.