Planning commission delays three‑lot subdivision after neighbors challenge one‑acre calculation

Herriman City Planning Commission members voted to continue a contested three‑lot subdivision proposal after neighbors said a post‑dedication calculation would create lots smaller than the A‑1 one‑acre minimum.

Planner Michael Malloy told the commission the application traces to a 2020 proposal that was later denied for rezoning; the current plan would create three new lots on a five‑acre parcel by dedicating a 30‑foot swath of frontage to the city and counting that dedication toward required lot area under a code provision staff cited as 10‑6‑9. Malloy said engineering recommends approval but that the legal applicability of counting a new dedication toward minimum lot area is uncertain in this scenario.

During the public hearing, several adjacent residents pressed the commission to enforce the one‑acre minimum rather than apply the dedication allowance. “When this was presented to the neighborhood it was presented that these Lots were going to be one acre… but then when we dig further into it they’re actually below one acre,” said Katherine Thompson, a neighbor who identified herself as the property owner immediately west of the plat map. Jane Atkinson echoed the concern, saying the exception “seems like it was just sort of made to as an exception” and warning that approving the application could set a precedent for similar requests on other streets.

Applicant Travis Cunningham, who said he lives in the existing on‑site house, defended the layout and said he had worked to honor neighbors’ preference for a rural road cross‑section rather than curb and gutter. He said the portions of lots in the mapped FEMA buffer would not be used for structures and that he could pursue FEMA elevation or containment approvals for limited uses in the rear tails of lots. Engineer Jeremy Draper (Reen Associates) said similar flag‑lot configurations exist nearby and that crossings or bridges could be pursued if future owners needed direct access.

Commissioners spent extended time weighing options and precedent. Several members said the city code directly allows an acreage reduction via dedication in some circumstances but noted it has been used rarely and that this case raised questions because the dedication would accompany (not follow) the platting. Commissioner Brody and others said the lot geometry could probably be reconfigured, but several colleagues cautioned that a denial might not withstand appeal because the language appears in the code.

Given that legal uncertainty, Commissioner Daryl moved — and the commission unanimously approved — a continuance directing staff and the city attorney to review section 10‑6‑9 and issue a clear interpretation about whether a concurrent dedication can be applied to meet the one‑acre minimum. The hearing record, including written comments the city had already received, will remain part of the file. That item will return to the commission after staff receives legal guidance.

The commission emphasized it had heard neighbors’ safety concerns about a proposed 10‑foot pedestrian/animal access strip and potential emergency access limits, and it directed staff to include those concerns in the record and any legal analysis.