[{"_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",6488648,"mediaKeyId","5732828-c926f967cd716d1a155c82f377679d25","parentId",5732828,"title","Commission discusses manufactured homes, ADUs and fourplexes; septic rules a key constraint","audioSeconds",1545,"startMs",3000000,"endMs",4545000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5732828-c926f967cd716d1a155c82f377679d25&start=3000&end=4545","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6488648/Utah/Commission-discusses-manufactured-homes-ADUs-and-fourplexes-septic-rules-a-key-constraint","mediaUrl","author","Mendon Mendon City Council","date","2025-08-21T19:10:00Z","article","Members of the Mendon Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a range of housing options to increase supply and affordability, focusing on manufactured homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), tiny homes, RV usage rules and the possibility of allowing more fourplexes.

Staff said the existing code distinguishes between manufactured homes, motor homes and RVs and requires residential manufactured homes to be installed on foundations; short-term temporary use (for family reunions or while a house is under construction) was noted as an allowable exception in place. The commission discussed tightening and clarifying language on whether manufactured homes may be used as primary residences, long-term rentals and whether short-term occupancy in RVs is permitted during active construction.

Commissioners also discussed detached ADUs and tiny-home options as a strategy to increase smaller, lower-cost units without concentrating multi-unit developments. Staff said ADUs are already allowed but the code does not clearly allow detached ADUs; commissioners suggested clarifying detached ADU policy and adding time-limited exemptions for temporary RV occupancy tied to active building permits.

A central constraint the commission repeatedly raised was the regional sewer and septic authority (referred to in the meeting as Bear River). Bear River policy, staff said, limits the potential for fourplex construction because shared drain fields are restricted; the district requires plan-specific septic sizing based on bedroom count and often mandates larger lot sizes for multi-unit buildings. Staff and commissioners discussed exploring minimum-lot and unit-size standards (for example, two-bedroom maximums for certain multi-units) so the city could create by-right standards that Bear River could evaluate more efficiently.

The commission also discussed financing and foundation standards for manufactured housing: staff noted that to qualify as a residential permanent dwelling, a manufactured home typically must be on a foundation and meet minimum size and construction standards; those specifics will be clarified in the draft code language.

No formal policy was adopted. Commissioners asked staff to: (1) tighten the manufactured-home and RV/short-term occupancy language to clarify allowed uses and temporary exemptions during construction, (2) draft detached ADU language and tiny-home options that meet building-code requirements, and (3) research Bear River septic constraints and propose a workable minimum-lot/unit-size approach for multi-family options such as fourplexes.

The commission said it will return with model code language and examples from other jurisdictions to present to the city council and to Bear River for technical feedback.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Planning and Zoning Minutes - P&Z 8-21-25","oneSentenceSummary","Mendon planners examined options to expand housing choices\u0000manufactured homes, ADUs, tiny homes and fourplexes\u0000and identified Bear River septic/drain-field requirements as a major constraint to multi-unit development.","taxTitle","Mendon, Cache County, Utah","taxId",80036,"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},6488653,"Mendon planners propose clearer residential-commercial (C1/RC) rules to limit public meeting vetoes",447,3730000,4177000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5732828-c926f967cd716d1a155c82f377679d25&start=3730&end=4177","/articles/6488653/Utah/Mendon-planners-propose-clearer-residential-commercial-C1RC-rules-to-limit-public-meeting-vetoes","Mendon Planning and Zoning commissioners reviewed draft language that would tighten how land-use decisions are applied in a proposed residential-commercial (RC/C1) zone and reduce the ability of public opposition alone to block uses that meet code.

The draft language states land-use decisions in the C1 zone should be applied according to established zoning rules and adopted planning principles, and \"shall not be based upon the preferences of individual groups or the relative volume of public opposition or support, but upon the consistent and equitable application of law and policy for the long-term benefit of the community.\" Commissioners agreed that language reflects the intent of state changes that created a clearer land-use authority and reduces ad-hoc decisions influenced by public pressure.

Staff and commissioners said that, before forwarding the language to city council, they must define what uses would be allowed in the RC/C1 zone and identify specific geographic areas where RC would apply (staff suggested along the highway corridors where traffic patterns and parcel size make light commercial compatible). Commissioners emphasized that clearly enumerated permitted, conditional and prohibited uses are essential so that a use that complies with the adopted zone standards would not be subject to denial based on popularity.

The commission discussed examples of desired businesses that would be appropriate in an RC zone, such as small medical or professional offices, light retail and convenience services that serve nearby residential areas. Staff noted that if a use is explicitly permitted by the zoning code it does not require a public hearing; conditional or unspecified uses would still trigger public hearings and additional review.

Commissioners directed staff to: (1) define RC and C1 permitted and prohibited uses, (2) propose candidate parcels along the highway for RC designation, and (3) return with model definitions and map recommendations to present to council. No final zone change was adopted at the meeting; staff will gather sample definitions and examples from other towns for follow-up.","Commissioners reviewed draft language to ensure land-use decisions in a proposed residential-commercial zone are decided by code and established principles rather than by volume of public opposition, and asked staff to define permitted and prohibited uses before taking the change to city council.",{"_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},6488656,"Mendon planning commission reviews subdivision frontage, private-lane rules amid annexation questions",246,146000,392000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5732828-c926f967cd716d1a155c82f377679d25&start=146&end=392","/articles/6488656/Utah/Mendon-planning-commission-reviews-subdivision-frontage-private-lane-rules-amid-annexation-questions","Mendon \u0000Planning and Zoning commissioners on Tuesday reviewed the city's subdivision ordinance language that requires new lots to have road frontage and discussed how a separate private-lane clause applies only to preexisting lots.

Commissioners and staff said the current rule that every new lot must have frontage on a road (the commission noted a 110-foot frontage standard in the subdivision code) prevents creating new lots that are served only by private lanes or shared access. That requirement, they said, has resulted in repeated permit denials when property owners try to split lots and use private lanes for access.

The matter matters because citizens and some council members have asked the commission to consider changes for larger existing lots where shared access or private lanes might improve housing affordability. Staff told the commission those requests should first be sounded out with city council; if council is disinterested, planning staff said there is little point in drafting ordinance amendments. Staff also said recent changes to the state annexation law have added urgency to clarifying how new lots, forced annexation and utility access interact.

During the discussion staff summarized three key constraints: the subdivision code's frontage requirement, an existing private-lane clause that permits private lanes to provide access only to preexisting lots (not to create new lots), and a general-plan reference that planning staff recalled as discouraging interblock development. Staff noted inconsistent wording across the subdivision code, zoning code and general plan has created confusion for applicants and staff.

Commissioners flagged specific points for revision: clarify whether \u00153frontage\u00154 is measured from the property line or the street edge (the commission favored \u00153property line\u00154 to reduce ambiguity); state explicitly that private lanes may serve only preexisting lots; define the maximum number of lots a private way may serve (the draft language referenced \u0015no more than two lots\u0016 in one place); and align the ordinance with applicable fire-code requirements for lane width, surface and turnaround.

The commission recommended sending the draft language and a short summary of the issues to the city attorney, city engineer and to two staff reviewers (Eric and Kirk in the meeting) for technical review. Commissioners said they will not spend substantial staff time drafting an ordinance if the city council will not support changes. Several commissioners urged staff to first gauge council interest before committing to a lengthy drafting process.

Staff noted that applicants who wish to pursue a split that depends on private-lane access may ultimately need to seek judicial relief if denied under current code; staff said that outcome has occurred on multiple past applications. Commissioners asked staff to propose clarified wording for the subdivision ordinance that preserves the city's intent to avoid small, inner-block lots while allowing clear exceptions for existing preexisting lots.

The commission also briefly discussed related technical items to be revised in the subdivision chapter: removing a provision that could be misread to permit elimination of curb and gutter; clarifying what constitutes a \u00153completed\u00154 swale (vegetated, gravel or other surface) and assigning developer installation and maintenance responsibilities; and restoring a previously lost provision regarding edge-of-property requirements that disappeared during earlier doc revisions.

No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting; staff was directed to send the draft sections to the engineer and city attorney for review and to report back. The commission approved the previous meeting's minutes by voice vote earlier in the session (the transcript records unanimous approval but does not list a roll-call tally).","The Mendon Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed how the subdivision ordinance\u0000frontage requirement and private-lane rules affect new lot creation, and recommended clarifying wording before forwarding changes to the city council and city attorney.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission discusses manufactured homes, ADUs and fourplexes; septic rules a key constraint

Mendon planners propose clearer residential-commercial (C1/RC) rules to limit public meeting vetoes

Mendon planning commission reviews subdivision frontage, private-lane rules amid annexation questions