[{"_1":2,"_94":-5,"_95":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,84],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6614730,"mediaKeyId","3381526-e630b572ac391a2be697cb1076bacc7e","parentId",3381526,"title","Planning and Zoning records: minutes accepted and meeting adjourned March 5","audioSeconds",3499,"startMs",57000,"endMs",3556000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3381526-e630b572ac391a2be697cb1076bacc7e&start=57&end=3556","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6614730/Mona/Juab-County/Utah/Planning-and-Zoning-records-minutes-accepted-and-meeting-adjourned-March-5","mediaUrl","author","Mona Planning and Zoning","date","2025-03-05T19:31:00Z","article","The Mona Planning and Zoning Commission recorded motions on March 5 to accept minutes from its February 5 work session and February 5 regular meeting and later moved to adjourn the March 5 meeting.

During the meeting the chair asked for motions regarding the work session minutes (02/05/2025) and the regular meeting minutes (02/05/2025). In both cases a participant said, “I'll make that motion,” and another person said, “Do I have a second? Second,” after which the commission proceeded. The transcript records motions and seconds but does not include a roll-call vote tally.

Near the end of the meeting the chair asked for a motion to adjourn the March 5 meeting. A motion and a second were given and the commission closed the meeting. The transcript contains those spoken motions but no formal roll-call tally was recorded.

Ending: Because the transcript records motions and seconds without an explicit roll-call tally, the administrative outcome entries in official minutes should be checked against the approved meeting minute document on file with the planning office for the formal recorded result.

","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Meeting Recording - March 5, 2025 Meeting Recording","oneSentenceSummary","At the March 5 Mona Planning and Zoning meeting commissioners moved to accept prior minutes from February 5 work session and February 5 meeting, and later moved to adjourn; motions and seconds were recorded though no roll-call tallies were spoken on the record.","taxTitle","Mona, Juab County, Utah","taxId",80050,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6614734,"Commission discusses Oliver property DUP conversion, historic designation and lot adjustment; parking and meter allocation raised",301,1759000,2060000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3381526-e630b572ac391a2be697cb1076bacc7e&start=1759&end=2060","/articles/6614734/Mona/Juab-County/Utah/Commission-discusses-Oliver-property-DUP-conversion-historic-designation-and-lot-adjustment-parking-and-meter-allocation-raised","The Mona Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a proposal from the Oliver family to divide an existing full-acre lot so an older house could become a DUP at their March 5 meeting. Commissioners asked whether a lot adjustment, minor subdivision or historic designation could allow the change without violating parcel-size standards.

“Is it residential? Do we need a full half acre for…?” a commissioner asked as the group reviewed the lot’s configuration. Laurie (staff) described the lot as currently a single full acre with two houses and said an existing arrangement leaves the proposed DUP with less than the typical half-acre standard if the corrals behind the house are removed.

Why it matters: Commissioners said that while the parcel is currently one legal lot with two houses, converting the property could require a minor subdivision or lot adjustment, and that historic designation or variance might be alternative routes. The group noted prior instances where small lots had been grandfathered or granted variances.

Staff and commissioners reviewed practical constraints and potential solutions: water hookups and meters will need clarification (planning staff said she would double-check meter allocations after the meeting); parking and crowding were raised as potential concerns if the DUP held frequent events; and the commission suggested a lot adjustment might be the most straightforward path. Laurie said she had provided the Olivers with a minor-subdivision application and would verify whether the existing meters could be dedicated to the duplex/dot house if the lot were divided.

The commission discussed involving the historic society if the Olivers sought preservation status; several commissioners said the town would likely consider the building’s age and community value and that the historic society might support protection. Commissioners cautioned that a minor subdivision may not be the correct procedural path for a property seeking historic treatment.

Ending: Staff said she would confirm water-meter assignments, review the minor-subdivision application with the Olivers, and advise them on whether a lot adjustment, variance, or historic designation would be the appropriate next steps. The commission recommended the applicants pursue the recommended administrative path and consult the historic society if preservation is a goal.

","Planning commissioners discussed a proposal to convert an existing house to a DUP (domestic use property) on land owned by the Olivers, including whether a lot adjustment or historic designation could permit the change and how water hookup meters and parking would be handled.",{"_33":85,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":86,"_41":87,"_43":88,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":50,"_51":91,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":92,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":93,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6614740,"3-acre parcel on South Main constrained by lack of water shares, sewer access; commission advises city council review for rezoning or variance",1270,231000,1501000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3381526-e630b572ac391a2be697cb1076bacc7e&start=231&end=1501","/articles/6614740/Mona/Juab-County/Utah/3-acre-parcel-on-South-Main-constrained-by-lack-of-water-shares-sewer-access-commission-advises-city-council-review-for-rezoning-or-variance","Mona Planning and Zoning commissioners on March 5 heard a presentation about a 3-acre parcel near 600 South Main that a real-estate representative said has repeatedly failed to develop because of utility and zoning constraints.

“I'm a local real estate agent. My name is Meadow, and I'm here tonight to represent, Joe Humphrey. He is a property owner, approximately 600 South Main Street here,” Meadow told the commission, outlining past attempts to develop the property and asking for guidance on rezoning or a variance.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the parcel’s lack of irrigation shares, limited sewer access and the cost to bring power and other mains to the site make many otherwise allowable uses infeasible. Those constraints have repeatedly undermined past purchase-and-development agreements, they said.

Meadow described prior proposals that fell through: Giles Dairy sought a small equipment-storage area but was turned down by a prior council as being too industrial; residential development was hampered by the absence of water shares and by sewer elevation constraints; a proposed strip mall was not feasible because the property has only one city culinary hookup, which does not support multiple commercial buildings. “Most recently, we explored putting storage units on that property, but after looking at the zoning on that, it is it does not qualify for that, obviously,” Meadow said.

Staff and commissioners identified specific infrastructure facts the applicant must confront: a culinary water hookup exists but the parcel has no irrigation (outside water) shares; the sewer does not run along the entire south side of the site and may require a major drilling operation or new sewer line to reach existing manholes near Cemetery Lane and Carter’s property; the nearest fire hydrant was identified on the west side of Main Street at about 700 South; and power would be most practical to bring from Cemetery Way. Chad (staff member) said the last sewer manhole is “just north of Carter’s” and noted elevation and flow would have to be assessed.

Commissioners discussed what uses might bypass the need for irrigation or sewer. One commissioner said, if an ordinance change allowed it, storage units could avoid irrigation and sewer requirements and only need power for lighting—potentially enabling solar or similar options. Another commissioner noted the land-use matrix shows warehouse/wholesale storage is not permissible in the parcel’s current combined-use designation.

Next steps and options discussed: staff recommended the applicant present a rezone or variance request to the city council. Meadow said she has a rezone application and that the fee is $400. Commissioners noted rezoning typically requires the whole parcel to be rezoned rather than a partial strip in front, and that the city council would decide whether to remove the property’s “flag” (a hold on development) if utilities and standards were brought into compliance.

Commissioners and staff also suggested other options that would involve higher upfront cost: bringing utilities from the back of the parcel, negotiating utility easements (Jeff said he previously asked for a quarter acre for a utility easement), or coordinating a sewer extension along the future road corridor. One attendee estimated a sewer main could cost about $42 per foot for an 8-inch line in prior projects, offering a rough cost illustration.

Ending: Meadow said she would ask the city to place the rezoning request on a city council agenda and return to the commission after the council discussion. Commissioners and staff recommended the applicant gather engineering data on sewer flow and elevations, estimate the cost of bringing mains to the site, and consult the land-use matrix before a council application.

","A planning and zoning work session discussion on March 5 centered on a 3-acre parcel at approximately 600 South Main owned by Joe Humphrey. Commissioners and staff identified missing irrigation shares, limited sewer flow, and costly utility runs as primary obstacles; staff recommended the owner pursue a city council rezoning or variance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning and Zoning records: minutes accepted and meeting adjourned March 5

Commission discusses Oliver property DUP conversion, historic designation and lot adjustment; parking and meter allocation raised

3-acre parcel on South Main constrained by lack of water shares, sewer access; commission advises city council review for rezoning or variance