Eagle Mountain Planning Commission, 8 September 2026

In short: The commission gave an hour to ethics training, then voted 5-0 twice to tell the City Council that Eagle Mountain should adopt updated water and sewer plans, which raise the construction costs that impact fees on new homes are meant to cover. Nobody spoke at either public hearing. The rest of the night went to Cedar Pass Ranch, a neighborhood that was never assigned a zone, and the two draft zones written to fix that.

Present: Chair Rod Hess, Commissioner Jason Allen, Commissioner Chad DeCoursey, Commissioner Bryan Free, Commissioner Brent Strong, and Commissioner Laura Jensen, who declared a conflict of interest along with the others but did not vote. No commissioner was recorded as absent or excused.

Staff: Marcus, city attorney (ethics and open meetings training, legal answers during the zoning discussion); Vince Hogge, city engineer (both impact fee items); Robert Hobbs, planner (Cedar Pass Ranch zoning discussion); Brandon, staff (status report, meeting logistics). Speaking from the audience: Dylan Anderson, president of the Cedar Pass Ranch homeowners association, and Susan Morandi, a member of its zoning committee.

Decisions

#	Agenda ref	Motion	Moved / Seconded	Vote	Result
1	5.A	Approve the August 25, 2026 Planning Commission minutes as presented	Allen / Strong	5-0	Passed
2	7.A	Forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the culinary water impact fee facility plan update	Allen / Strong	5-0	Passed
3	7.B	Forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the wastewater master plan and impact fee facility plan update	Hess / DeCoursey	5-0	Passed
4	11	Adjourn at 8:03 p.m.	Hess / Allen	Voice vote	Passed

Settled without a vote:

• The commission and staff agreed that the general-purpose large-lot zone should wait, and that the Cedar Pass Ranch historical zone should move ahead on its own, after Brandon said he did not want the second draft to slow the first one down.
• Hobbs offered to put the proposed zones side by side against the city's existing agriculture and RA-1 zones, and Hess, Allen and Strong all said that comparison would help them; Hobbs said it can be done either before the item returns or as part of the packet for the formal hearing.
• Hobbs told the commission the Cedar Pass Ranch item is expected back before it in about October for a public hearing and formal action, and then on to the City Council.
• Strong asked the drafters to replace the flat cap on accessory building size with a sliding scale tied to lot size, and Morandi called it a good suggestion.
• The commission left open whether the historical zone or one of the city's existing zones is the right vehicle, with Hess pressing the question and Hobbs answering that the standards largely match but the nuances the residents want do not.
• Commissioners told Brandon they were interested in a tour of the Meta data center in October or November, which Brandon said would have to be noticed as a public meeting of some kind.
• The next meeting is September 22. Strong and Hess both said they expect to be away.

Meeting map

Agenda ref	Topic	~Start (elapsed)	One-line note
1.A	Training on ethics and the Open and Public Meetings Act	0:02	The city attorney walked through quorums, gifts, conflicts and civil discourse, with movie clips and hypotheticals.
1.B	Agenda review	0:46	Two minutes; the engineer had nothing to preview and commissioners held their questions.
2, 3	Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance	0:49	Policy session opened at 6:30 p.m.
4	Declaration of conflicts of interest	0:50	All six commissioners declared none.
5.A	August 25, 2026 minutes	0:51	Approved as presented with no corrections offered.
6	Status report	0:52	Brandon reported three City Council outcomes and this week's planning conference.
7.A	Culinary water impact fee facility plan	0:54	Five-year cost estimate rises from about $73.2 million to about $109.1 million.
7.B	Wastewater master plan and impact fee facility plan	1:05	Cost estimate rises from about $193 million to about $259 million, mostly the treatment plant.
8	Cedar Pass Ranch historical zone and the agricultural rural large-lot zone	1:12	Long discussion with the homeowners association; no action taken.
9, 10	Agenda review and next meeting	2:19	Next meeting September 22; two commissioners expect to be out.
11	Adjournment	2:22	Adjourned at 8:03 p.m.

Discussed but NOT on the agenda: Brandon raised a possible group tour of the Meta data center in October or November, and commissioners said they were interested.

On agenda but little/no discussion: The minutes drew no comments before the vote, the agenda review was folded into a two-minute exchange at the end of the work session, and neither public hearing drew a single speaker or an online submission.

What was discussed

1.A — Training on ethics and the Open and Public Meetings Act

Marcus, the city attorney, opened the work session with an hour on the two laws that govern how commissioners talk to each other and what they may accept. A quorum here is three of the five voting members, and three members may not work outside a meeting to predetermine how the body will act. He ran three hypotheticals. Two commissioners agreeing in advance is lawful, if unwise. A chain of three, even one at a time and even where the third refuses, he called a violation. Text messages change nothing except how easy the violation is to prove.

On ethics, he set the practical line at $50 for gifts. Above that a gift is not automatically improper, but it leaves the safe harbor, and "the further we drift from $50, the more in trouble we're getting." A commissioner recalled an offered helicopter ride, which Marcus agreed would count as a gift because the party offering it had business before the city. He walked through the disclosure forms for business interests, said state law requires disclosure while city code also requires stepping aside, and answered a question about a brother-in-law by saying he would both disclose and recuse. His summary was blunt: when in doubt, disclose.

He closed on the city's civil discourse standards, which apply to boards and commissions as well as the council. He said he had seen no problem in the Planning Commission and covered the rules anyway: no condescending or abusive conduct, no attributing improper motives without a factual basis, and courtesy toward staff and the public.

6 — Status report

Brandon reported what the City Council did with three items the commission had seen. The Gateway Park Phase 3 preliminary plat, near Spring Run Plaza, was approved. The Pinnacles rezone, covering a strip of commercial land on Aviator, was denied. The retaining wall code changes were approved. He also noted that the American Planning Association conference runs this week and that several commissioners are registered.

7.A — Culinary water impact fee facility plan

An impact fee facility plan lists the water projects the city expects to build and what they will cost, and those costs set the impact fees charged on new construction. Vince Hogge, the city engineer, said the 2025 version is out of date for three reasons. The Spring Run and Talons Cove area, on land Hadco mines, was assumed to be 30 years or more from development, but commercial applications are already arriving for the parts outside the pit. The new Central Utah pipeline along SR-73 came in above estimate at 30% design, partly because the city upsized the pipe so it never has to lay a parallel line. And bids on wells and a tank now under construction showed the plan's future unit costs were low.

Hogge explained why the pipeline matters. Central Utah supplies about half the city's culinary water and the city has contracted for more, but the existing line up Pony Express from a pump station just inside Saratoga Springs is at capacity. Central Utah's terminal reservoir on SR-73 holds about 20 million gallons, and getting that water the rest of the way in means a new pump station and a new route. The five-year total rises from about $73.2 million to about $109.1 million. The point of the exercise, he said, is that new homes pay for the growth rather than existing residents.

Commissioner Free asked what happens if the growth, and the impact fees with it, do not arrive. Hogge answered that slower growth means the projects are needed later too, so the two sides tend to balance, and that the larger projects are bonded against water and sewer rates rather than impact fees. The Central Utah connection, he added, has to happen either way. Commissioner Strong asked where Central Utah's water originates: Deer Creek Reservoir, the Provo River, and wells around Orem and Vineyard. Nobody spoke at the public hearing, which opened and closed at 6:43. Commissioner DeCoursey thanked staff for updating costs early, saying it "is never as painful the first time as it is to go back and try to do it once everything's built in."

7.B — Wastewater master plan and impact fee facility plan

This item covered both the plan for the sewer system and the fee schedule built on it, because Hogge said enough had changed to justify redoing both. Adding Spring Run and Talons Cove does not only add pipe in that area; it forces upgrades along Ranches Parkway to carry flows down to Pony Express. Everything ultimately reaches the Timpanogos Special Service District treatment plant.

Two projects drove most of the increase. The wastewater treatment plant expansion, now at 60% design, takes capacity from 2.4 million gallons of treated water a day to 8 million, and the refined cost is much higher than the earlier estimate. The east trunk line, at 30% design, is needed because the existing trunk line down Pony Express is close to full, which would block any growth along that corridor or on the north end. The total moves from about $193 million to about $259 million.

DeCoursey asked two questions. Talons Cove here is not the Saratoga Springs golf course; Hogge said it is the name of the pit. On the second, Hogge confirmed the development sits on the Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs boundary, and that sewer from the northeast corner would flow more easily into Saratoga Springs than back into Eagle Mountain. Discussions with the neighboring city have started, and Hogge said that corner is far enough out to leave time to work it out. The hearing opened at 6:50 and closed at 6:51 with no comment, and the commission voted without further discussion.

8 — Cedar Pass Ranch historical zone and the agricultural rural large-lot zone

Cedar Pass Ranch predates the city, and Robert Hobbs told the commission that the best records he could find suggest no zone was ever assigned when the community was annexed. One planner who used to work for Utah County believes the county's RA-5 zone carried over. The practical effect, according to both Hobbs and the residents, is that city code enforcement has told them it cannot act on land use complaints there. Two drafts are now in play: a historical zone written with a resident committee, and, added late, a generally applicable agricultural rural large-lot zone that the city could apply elsewhere.

Hobbs laid the two side by side. The historical draft keeps a 5-acre minimum lot and grandfathers the smaller lots that exist; the large-lot draft drops the minimum to 3 acres. The historical draft allows commercial equestrian operations as a special use and permits indoor riding arenas; the large-lot draft removes both, while adding farm stands and agricultural sales. The historical draft regulates shipping containers and semi-trailer storage, one at a time per lot; the large-lot draft deletes those provisions. Animals, fencing, dark sky and habitat standards are close to identical.

Dylan Anderson, the homeowners association president, said he came looking for horse property in 1994 and built in 1999. A committee of residents, including John and Susan Morandi, Jeff Myers and a person the transcript names as Mayor Burningham, worked with Hobbs weekly or monthly across about ten months, inside an effort that has run roughly two and a half years. Susan Morandi said the missing zoning surfaced while the association was rewriting its covenants, and that when the city later asked to reuse their language elsewhere, the committee pushed back: Cedar Pass Ranch has no animal limits, never has, and residents do not want the residential animal tables the large-lot zone would import. "They want to be agricultural," she said, not residential with an agricultural component.

Chair Hess pressed the question none of the drafts answers directly: the city's agriculture zone and its RA-1 zone both already carry a 5-acre minimum, and in recent years the city has moved developments into existing zones rather than writing new ones for them. Hobbs agreed that on the totality of standards an existing zone probably fits, and said the difference lives in the nuances, plus the practical problem of selling a generic zone to the community. He showed the two land use tables to make the point: the proposed zone lists ten uses, while the agriculture zone carries a long list of entries, many of them irrelevant to Cedar Pass Ranch.

Commissioner Strong raised two objections. He dislikes special uses as too gray, which drew a correction from Marcus: there is no such thing as a special use permit, a special use is a permitted use with additional standards written into the code, and a future council can change a permitted use just as easily. "I'm still concerned, and I will stay that way," Strong replied. His second objection stuck: the draft caps accessory buildings at 10,000 square feet, 15,000 total, whether the lot is 2.5 acres or 10. Cedar Pass Ranch already has two lots with buildings over 15,000 square feet. He asked for a sliding scale, like the one the city uses for animal counts.

Commissioner Allen backed the historical zone on its own terms, arguing Cedar Pass Ranch set the culture and direction of the city and that a 30-year-old character is worth locking in. On the second draft he sided with Hess: it looks close enough to RA-1 that if the city writes a new zone it should raise the minimum back to 5 acres and give the zone a distinct purpose, such as a second equestrian area placed on purpose. Commissioner DeCoursey worried the historical draft reads like homeowners association enforcement dressed as city code, and singled out the 12 vehicle trips per day standard as something the city cannot realistically monitor. Anderson answered that the covenants are more restrictive than the code and that the association enforces them itself: "We're not asking the city to come in and police our CC&Rs."

Commissioner Free asked whether anything in a new zone could stop a developer from assembling lots and persuading a future council to rezone. Hobbs paraphrased legal counsel: no council can bind a future one, and while covenants are contracts that buyers take on, they can be amended too. Commissioner Jensen asked whether a historical label would itself block development, and Hobbs said this is not that kind of historic zone, unlike a downtown district where shingles need approval. Anderson listed what the community has already turned away, including an Alpine School District plan in 2005 to demolish two houses for an elementary school, and described a resident who mined and sold material off a hillside years ago while the association could only fine him. Brandon closed the item by asking that the historical zone be finished first: "I don't want to see that stopped." Hess agreed the second zone can wait.

Notable moments

• Nobody came. Both public hearings, on plans that raise the city's five-year water and sewer cost estimates by a combined $102 million, drew no speakers in the room and nothing submitted online.
• The attorney corrects a commissioner, twice. When Strong objected to "special use permits," Marcus interrupted to say the term does not exist and that a special use is the same as a permitted use with extra standards attached: "There's no difference between a P and an S." He added, "I'm not advocating for or against any particular use. I want to clarify the law."
• Casino as a training film. Marcus opened the ethics session with a clip of a gaming commission voting down an application it had clearly settled in advance, then walked back through the statute to show why that would be unlawful in Utah.
• A helicopter ride, remembered. A commissioner volunteered that the commission had once been offered helicopter rides. Marcus said he knew the situation and that it would count as a gift, because the party offering had business before the commission and the council.
• Roots as an argument. Anderson pointed out that early advertising for Eagle Mountain used footage of Cedar Pass Ranch and the Ranches: open space, room to grow, room for animals. "That's also the roots of the city."
• 276 horses. Anderson cited the number, along with the lack of sidewalks, as part of what residents told the school district in 2005 when it proposed putting an elementary school inside the subdivision.
• Thanks for a hard one. Strong told Hobbs the two-decade documentation gap made this a rough assignment: "You ought to get a badge for taking this one on." Hobbs answered, "A lot of people should."

About this transcript

The automatic transcription mangles several surnames. Vince Hogge appears as "Vince Hoag." Chad DeCoursey appears as DiCorsi, DeCourcy and "Drew Corsey." Brent Strong appears as Strom, Strum, Schum and Schronce. Bryan Free appears as Fried and Freeh. Timpanogos Special Service District is rendered "Temponoga." Cedar Pass Ranch is once written "Cedar Patch Ranch." One sentence about a past mining complaint contains an unintelligible word, transcribed as "Edwood," and the name of the recent citywide rezone is uncertain in the recording, given as both "Scenic Mountain" and "Cedar Mountain." Speakers use AR-1 and RA-1 interchangeably for what appears to be the same zone.

Only first names are recorded for three staff: Marcus the city attorney, Robert Hobbs the planner, whose surname Anderson supplies once, and Brandon. Whether the drafts run to 2.5 or 3 acres as a minimum is stated both ways during the discussion. The person the transcript names as "Mayor Burningham" is listed as a member of the resident committee; the meeting does not say whether that person was in the room.

Speaker labels are unreliable in two places. Susan Morandi, speaking from the audience, shares a diarization label with Commissioner Jensen, and a few short roll-call answers drift between the engineer and Commissioner Allen. Where a comment could not be tied to a name with confidence, it is reported here without one. The vote tallies and the movers and seconders are taken from the chair's own restatements, which are explicit each time.