Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision Hydraulic Modeling topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission discusses requiring hydraulic modeling for new subdivisions; no hearing date set

Monroe City Planning Commission · April 21, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners proposed amending the Subdivision Ordinance to require updated hydraulic modeling with new subdivision and lot-split applications after a prior study found east-bench mains barely meet the 40 PSI state minimum; commissioners raised cost concerns for small landowners and agreed to schedule a work session before a public hearing, with the subdivision item to be considered separately from the May 19 liquor hearing.

Commissioners Candice Barney and Talon Gadd proposed an amendment to the Monroe City Subdivision Ordinance on April 21 that would require new subdivision applications and lot splits to include updated hydraulic modeling reports so the city can assess impacts to culinary water pressure and capacity before approving new lots.

Barney cited a prior hydrological study (Jones & DeMille, Parker Vercimak) that found water pressure on the east bench of Monroe barely meets Utah's 40 PSI minimum at the distribution main, with higher-pressure areas (for example, White Fence Farms) registering approximately 150 PSI. Commissioners noted the costs associated with hydraulic and other impact studies, with Commissioner Riley Lindsay warning these requirements could burden smaller or agricultural landowners; Lindsay suggested prioritizing the most critical items, particularly areas in red and yellow zones for water pressure, rather than a broad list of requirements.

The commission decided not to hold the subdivision public hearing on May 19 to avoid competing public interest with the liquor-store hearing and agreed to pursue scheduling a June hearing after a work session to sequence and prioritize proposed refinements. No formal motion was adopted at the April 21 meeting.