[{"_1":2,"_95":-5,"_96":-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",[32,75,85],{"_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":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6552179,"mediaKeyId","5127947-bdb5350d1309fcfd4dbcf5ca0e8855a4","parentId",5127947,"title","Mona planners begin 30‑day review of Mona Draw flood model, discuss irrigation-pond reviews and regional water project","audioSeconds",1388,"startMs",998000,"endMs",2386000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5127947-bdb5350d1309fcfd4dbcf5ca0e8855a4&start=998&end=2386","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6552179/Utah/Mona-planners-begin-30day-review-of-Mona-Draw-flood-model-discuss-irrigation-pond-reviews-and-regional-water-project","mediaUrl","author","Mona Planning and Zoning","date","2025-07-02T19:34:00Z","article","Planning staff informed the commission that consultants released materials for the Mona Draw South branch flood study and model and that Mona has a 30‑day comment period starting from the July 1 posting. Staff asked the commission to decide who will submit comments on the model methodology, which relies on lidar and characterizes channel slopes generally under 10 percent for portions of the watershed.

Commissioners and staff discussed localized flood risk along washes and alluvial fans coming off NEBO, including prior flooding after a fire and a breached irrigation pond reported by a commissioner. Staff noted that parts of the area being modeled include properties that may lie in the flood plain and that the draft model uses lidar-based modeling of channels. The transcript records that staff had participated in prior discovery calls with the consultant and that comments are due within 30 days of the posting; commissioners agreed the city should submit comments but asked staff to coordinate which commissioner would transmit them.

Separately, the commission addressed a developer-submitted irrigation pond whose engineering plans were delayed. A developer referred to as Mr. Davis has already paid and invested funds with his civil engineering firm but had not delivered revised plans to staff on the timeline promised. Commissioners said the city should obtain an independent structural review of the pond plans; staff said the city could pass the review cost back to the developer. Staff also said the Development Review Committee (DRC) had already reviewed an earlier plan set and would re-review revisions.

At the meeting planning staff reviewed a draft of commercial lighting standards intended for planning and zoning guidance, emphasizing downward-directed lighting and controls; one provision would require flags and flag mounts to be lit from above unless the City Council grants an exception. Commissioners were asked to review sections pertaining to planning and zoning and provide feedback.

The commission also received an update from staff who attended a Central Utah Water Project meeting. The East Juab Water Board and regional representatives presented a phased treated-water pipeline proposal that could reach the area by about 2032; staff said treated water in the pipeline would be potable and that cities would request turnouts where they want to receive supply. A staff member reported that per-acre-foot pricing figures were not finalized but discussion at the meeting mentioned ranges “from $20,000 to $45,000” per acre-foot in the materials reviewed and that the project funding and route were still under study. Staff noted the project would require right-of-way decisions and that member cities would appoint representatives to participate in future meetings.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Public Hearing and Meeting Recording - July 2, 2025 meeting recording","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff told the commission that consultants released a Mona Draw South branch flood model with a 30‑day comment window and asked commissioners who should submit the city’s comments.","taxTitle","Mona, Juab County, Utah","taxId",80050,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6552184,"Mona amends accessory building rules; greenhouse application cleared to proceed to city council",699,139000,838000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5127947-bdb5350d1309fcfd4dbcf5ca0e8855a4&start=139&end=838","/articles/6552184/Utah/Mona-amends-accessory-building-rules-greenhouse-application-cleared-to-proceed-to-city-council","The Mona Planning and Zoning Commission on July 2 approved changes to accessory building definitions in the Mona City Code (Ordinance 2025-12) and reviewed a homeowner’s greenhouse application that commissioners agreed to forward to the Mona City Council.

The code amendment clarifies accessory-building terminology in section 10-2-2 and adjusts setback language in the land use matrix (10-6-1). The update noted that accessory buildings must obtain a city permit when larger than 400 square feet and restated a 30‑foot measure from the front of a primary house; discussion at the meeting flagged ambiguity for corner lots and whether a five‑foot “drip line” offset applies. Commissioners instructed staff to reconcile language for corner-lot setbacks in future code work.

The commission also reviewed an application by resident Gail Harvey for an accessory greenhouse at 684 South 400 West. Harvey described the structure as approximately 29 feet 6 inches by 20 feet (roughly 590 square feet) with four‑foot walls and a partially below‑grade design. Because the footprint exceeds 400 square feet, it requires a permit and inspection. The commission moved to accept the greenhouse application and send it to the City Council for final approval; staff said the council would take it up next Tuesday and, if approved, Harvey will apply for a building permit and pay applicable fees.

Staff and commissioners discussed utility hookups: the commission advised separate lines for city potable water and secondary irrigation water to prevent backflow or cross-contamination, and recommended that Lane, the city engineer, inspect electrical and water connections. Staff (Laurie) said major structural changes after approval should be reported so the city can re-review if necessary. The transcript records motions and seconds for both the accessory ordinance and the greenhouse referral, but does not include a complete roll-call tally in the record.","The commission approved Ordinance 2025-12 updating accessory building definitions and recommended a greenhouse at 684 South 400 West be forwarded to the Mona City Council for final approval; staff noted permitting, setbacks and utility hookup requirements.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6552189,"Mona planning commission adopts private stormwater facility rule",115,21000,136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5127947-bdb5350d1309fcfd4dbcf5ca0e8855a4&start=21&end=136","/articles/6552189/Utah/Mona-planning-commission-adopts-private-stormwater-facility-rule","The Mona Planning and Zoning Commission on July 2 adopted an amendment, listed as Ordinance 8-6, adding a private stormwater facility requirement to the Mona City Code. The ordinance requires developers to collect and maintain stormwater from subdivisions or businesses on their property using ponds, sumps or similar measures.

Commission members said the revision fills a gap in the code. Commissioners noted a recommended addition addressing design for a 100‑year storm that had been suggested by a commissioner identified as Jack and included in the draft prior to the vote. The commission opened a public hearing on the ordinances, discussed the recommended language and then voted to adopt the 8-6 private stormwater facility provision.

The ordinance was presented as a general rule requiring on-site retention and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure constructed by developers. The commission did not provide detailed engineering standards at the meeting beyond the referenced 100‑year storm recommendation; staff indicated external engineering review and inspections will be part of implementation on individual projects.

The meeting transcript does not provide a full roll-call vote tally for the ordinance; minutes record that a motion and second were made and the ordinance was accepted. The commission closed the related public hearing later in the meeting.

Planning staff advised that future development proposals will need to show stormwater collection and maintenance plans consistent with the new code language and that city inspectors/engineers will review site-specific installations.","The Mona Planning and Zoning Commission voted to add a private stormwater facility requirement (Ordinance 8-6) to the Mona City Code, requiring developers to manage on-site runoff; the amendment includes a 100‑year storm recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Mona planners begin 30‑day review of Mona Draw flood model, discuss irrigation-pond reviews and regional water project

Mona amends accessory building rules; greenhouse application cleared to proceed to city council

Mona planning commission adopts private stormwater facility rule