Eagle Mountain Planning Commission, 27 October 2026

In short: The Eagle Mountain Planning Commission met October 27, 2026 with only three of its six members present. In a work session, staff previewed a new water rights code that will come back for a vote later. In the policy session, the commission approved its prior minutes and voted to recommend the city council adopt two ordinance changes: one allowing power lines and other utilities in the agricultural zone, and one letting home-based greenhouse and farm businesses sell more types of products.

Present: Commissioners Rod Hess (chair), Brent Strong, and Jason Allen. Bryan Free, Chad DeCoursey, and Laura Jensen (Alternate) were excused and did not attend.

Staff: Brandon Larsen (Community Development Director, presenter for the water rights code and the agricultural zone utilities ordinance), Steven Lehmitz (Planning Manager, presenter for the greenhouse/farm products ordinance), Megan (City Recorder), and Marcus (the commission's legal counsel, who answered questions on exactions and vesting law).

Decisions

#	Agenda ref	Motion	Moved / Seconded	Vote	Result
1	5.A	Approve the October 13, 2026 Planning Commission minutes	Hess / Strong	Strong, Allen, Hess: yes (3-0)	Passed
2	7.A	Forward a positive recommendation to council on the ordinance allowing public/private utilities and power transmission lines in the Agricultural Zone	Strong / Allen	Allen, Hess, Strong: yes (3-0)	Passed
3	7.B	Forward a positive recommendation to council on the amendment to the Greenhouse/Farm Products Home Business code	Hess / Strong	Hess, Strong, Allen: yes (3-0)	Passed
4	11	Adjourn the meeting	Allen / Strong	Voice vote, aye	Passed

Settled without a vote:

• Commissioners directed Brandon Larsen to change the water rights code's wording from the city "determining" the water a development needs to the city "reviewing" or "confirming" a calculation the applicant supplies, so the burden of proof sits with the developer.
• Commissioners asked Larsen to tighten language saying water for residential projects is "required through" the master development agreement, replacing it with wording that ties the actual dedication to the point the agreement is executed, since that is when a project vests.
• The commission agreed the water rights code is not ready for a vote tonight and will return at a policy session, expected November 10, 2026, for formal action.
• Marcus confirmed that a commissioner who missed the prior meeting may still vote to approve that meeting's minutes; there is no legal rule requiring abstention.
• The chair skipped the work session's agenda-review item and, at the end of the policy session, skipped straight past the discussion-items and agenda-review items to next-meeting scheduling, since there was nothing to raise.

Meeting map

Agenda ref	Topic	~Start (elapsed)	One-line note
1.A	Water Rights Code (work session)	0:00	Brandon Larsen introduces a 10-part draft code; long Q&A, no vote.
1.B	Agenda review (work session)	0:53	Skipped by the chair for time.
2–4	Call to order, pledge, conflicts	0:56	Quorum of three; no conflicts declared.
5.A	Minutes	0:58	October 13 minutes approved 3-0.
6	Status report	1:00	Energy overlay tweaks coming; Corrigan agreement and wildland urban interface code both adopted by council.
7.A	Ag Zone utilities ordinance	1:02	Public hearing opens 1:14, closes 1:16; recommended 3-0.
7.B	Greenhouse/Farm Products ordinance	1:18	Public hearing opens 1:20, closes 1:22; recommended 3-0.
9–11	Agenda review, next meeting, adjournment	1:23	Next meeting set for November 10; adjourned.

Discussed but NOT on the agenda: nothing; all discussion stayed within the listed items. On agenda but little/no discussion: item 1.B (work session agenda review) and items 8 and 9 (policy session discussion items and agenda review) were passed over with no substantive comment.

What was discussed

1.A — Water Rights Code

Brandon Larsen introduced a new water rights code, which he described as having ten parts touching several existing titles of the city code, built to formalize a dedication process that had grown informally around one staff member's knowledge. The code would set clear timing for when water must be handed over to the city: for residential projects, at the master development agreement or preliminary plat stage; for commercial, industrial, or institutional uses, at the building permit stage, including for a "shell" building with no tenant yet lined up. It also adds a will-serve letter at the concept-plan stage, requires every land and water owner to be a co-applicant so no owner is surprised later, and formally creates a "water rights analyst" role, currently filled by John Magnus, to manage the city's water rights database, banking, and acceptance process.

Much of the discussion centered on who proves how much water a project needs. A commissioner pressed on whether the packet's language put that burden on the city engineer rather than the applicant; Larsen said he had already swapped the word "determine" for "review" to make clear the applicant supplies the calculation and the city only confirms it, though he agreed the wording could be sharper. Commissioners also asked whether the city has standard water-use tables for commercial uses the way it does for residential lots; Larsen said residential figures are solid, but commercial is still "a work in progress," with Public Works' Bryce McCray building a reference database project by project, citing an example where a proposed car wash in a new Kroger development came back needing 23 acre-feet a year against a nearby low-water retail use. Marcus, the commission's legal counsel, explained that requiring water from a developer is a legal "exaction": the city may ask for less than a project's true impact but never more, or it risks a takings claim, and the main tool for correcting an under-estimate after the fact is water-rate pricing, not a second demand for more rights.

Marcus also tied the code to a long-standing problem: by his account, roughly 20,000 units citywide are "vested," meaning entitled to build, with no water tied to them and no real path to development, because past practice let projects get vesting rights before water was worked out. The new code links water dedication to the moment vesting actually occurs, the execution of a master development agreement for larger projects, or the preliminary plat for smaller ones. Commissioners asked Larsen to adjust a sentence that said water would be required "through" the agreement process, to instead require dedication "at" or "by" the time the agreement is approved. A commissioner closed by praising the effort as work other cities may end up copying, and suggested the city's planned database of commercial water-use data could eventually be shared with other municipalities.

6 — Status report

Brandon Larsen gave a short update on items that had gone to the city council since the last meeting: tweaks are coming soon to the already-adopted alternative energy overlay zone, the Corrigan development agreement was approved, and a wildland urban interface code, presented earlier by a staff member named Beth, was adopted.

7.A — Agricultural Zone utilities ordinance

This ordinance responds to a problem created by a 2024 code cleanup: while removing conditional uses from the agricultural zone, the city accidentally made all public and private utilities, not just power transmission lines, unpermitted there. Because the code's definition of "utility" is broad, covering everything from culinary water lines to electrical and data lines, the change blocked more than intended. The issue surfaced because Rocky Mountain Power's Mercer transmission line project, running from Spanish Fork Canyon to a substation near Meta's facility, needs to cross the agricultural zone. Larsen's proposal makes general public and private utility structures a special use, tied to existing landscaping and siting standards for things like substations and ground-mounted boxes, while making power transmission lines themselves a permitted use, since the code has no special standards written for transmission lines at all.

Larsen also explained why the city isn't creating a separate overlay zone to control routing or appearance: state law lets a city place conditions on utility siting, but only if it pays any "actual excess cost" that results, so when neighboring Spanish Fork tried a similar overlay and ran into that cost exposure, Eagle Mountain's council dropped the idea rather than pay to, as one speaker put it, "make the transmission lines look like pine trees." During the hearing, a resident submitted a written comment raising concerns about voltage levels near homes and fire and health risks, while another resident spoke in favor, saying the use is compatible with agriculture and that existing standards can protect ongoing farming. A commissioner noted the city's code already carries substantial setback and installation requirements in other chapters. The commission voted 3-0 to recommend approval.

7.B — Greenhouse/Farm Products Home Business ordinance

Planning Manager Steven Lehmitz presented this amendment, which grew out of a council discussion roughly two months earlier after staff received a home-business application that didn't fit the existing rules. The change defines "farm products" and "floricultural products" and broadens what counts as a "greenhouse product," but keeps the core restriction that everything sold must be grown, produced, or made on the property, not brought in from elsewhere for resale. Traffic and parking limits stay as they are, the city's animal-keeping rules are untouched, and processing or slaughtering of animals remains prohibited beyond what state law already permits. No one in the audience commented, commissioners asked no questions, and the item passed 3-0.

Notable moments

• A resident's safety concerns, read into the record. A written comment submitted the night of the hearing raised worries about voltage levels near homes and fire and health risks from the proposed transmission line route; a commissioner thanked the sender and noted the existing code already carries protective standards.
• A $23-acre-foot surprise. Larsen described getting a water-use estimate for a car wash in the planned Kroger development that came in at 23 acre-feet a year, far above a comparable low-water retail tenant, illustrating why the city wants firmer water calculations up front.
• 20,000 vested units with no water. Marcus described a long-running pattern of developers securing vesting rights and then selling the property without ever lining up water, leaving a large share of the city's entitled units unable to realistically be built.
• Rough start. The meeting opened with several minutes of audio and slide-display trouble before the work session formally began.
• A compliment for staff. A commissioner called the water rights code "awesome," predicting other cities may copy it and that a shared database of water-use data could help the whole region.

About this transcript

Speaker labels in this transcript are not reliable: at least one label is used both for Brandon Larsen's presentation and for a commissioner's motion, and another label covers both Commissioner Strong's votes and Planning Manager Steven Lehmitz's presentation. Attributions to "a commissioner" reflect that uncertainty; votes and motions are attributed by name only where the chair stated the name directly. Likely misheard names include "DiCorsi" for Commissioner Chad DeCoursey, "Brian Free" for Commissioner Bryan Free, and the in-person public commenter's name, rendered unclearly in the transcript; per instructions, that speaker and the resident who emailed a comment are identified only as residents. The legal counsel referred to as "Marcus" is not given a formal title in the transcript.