General Information

Government Type

Municipality

Entity

Mendon

Public Body

Mendon City Planning and Zoning

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

Planning and Zoning Agenda/Public Hearing

Notice Tags

Hansen Lot Split

Notice Type(s)

Notice, Meeting, Hearing

Event Start Date & Time

September 17, 2026 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

We could call this meeting to order. We're going to have our Pledge of Allegiance by Dana Meyers and then our invocation by Megan Brown. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Any questions? There is one item, the discuss all residential and agricultural commercial, I think. Depending on how long this is, we'll probably cut that out. But I'll have a couple comments on it. So let's go. All right, so let's review our previous meeting. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And Nellie, can I just say, amazing job at keeping notes. That's nice, I'm nicely done. Like, are we here all night? Can you state for the record who is here? Yes, please. Let's start on your end, Kelly. Kelly Barrow. Kealani Ludlow. Melissa Porter. Dana Meyers. All right, we are going to go into our discussion agenda. And we'll start with our public hearing, the Hanson-Lott split. Just come and give us a quick overview. Announce your name when you get to the microphone, and then give us a quick overview. David Hanson. Okay, we acquired the property just next to our own property to be able to have a couple of siblings move into the city next to us. And to do so, we, the lot is currently approved for one house. At a two acre. But to be able to get two houses on it, we have to do a lot split. So that's what we have submitted for. The complication with this area have been that in the city master plan, there's a sidewalk planned in, which we have been discussing somewhat extensively, trying to understand as there's not really sidewalks elsewhere in Mendon, but there is one required here. Together with expansion of the right of way. So that means about $50,000 worth of land that would have to be gifted to the city. As well as about estimated about $20,000 of sidewalk that would have to build and gift to the city as well. And ending up being $70,000 plus in fees for adding one single family dwelling home to Mendon City. This is, of course, a very heavy burden. And not very proportionate to the, to the impact of one home. So what we have proposed is a development agreement to, at minimum, receive a credit for the water impact fees. As the state code allows us to get impact fee credits for any investments that we do for the community improvement, which this right of way that we're gifting as well as the sidewalk that we're gifting would be. So with that, we have submitted a proposal for a, for a development agreement together with all the other documents required for a lot split or also known as a minor subdivision. When we met before, there were some issues with dividing the two. It looks like there, did you just move the line? Change the, I don't remember what the, how it looked last time. Yes. Yes. That's correct. During our previous discussions here, we had the, the issue of not being able to do straight lot division on it. We were able to find a solution there by turning the septic field to go from south to north instead of from west to east. So we have been in contact with Bear River to get approval for the septic field locations as well as the surveying company who have approved that and submitted it into, into the drawings. Yeah. I've seen it, but I couldn't remember what it changed. Yes. Another, another change from then was that when we initially counted or measured for the right of way, we measured from the opposite side of the street. So where the pickable courts are. Instead of center. Instead of the center of the street. And it became apparent that on the north side of the road there was not adequate amount of right of way given. So the right of way, if it is given, goes into the parking lot a few feet. So by measuring from the center of the road, the right of way we would give was a little bit less, a couple feet less, which then just allowed for that straight lot division in combination with the septic location. So that's, that was one good thing that came out of it with, with that adjustment. That we were able to do a, a straight lot line adjustment or, sorry, not a lot line adjustment, lot split rather than doing two Utah shaped, nothing against the Utah shape, but it's a little more complicated than, than a straight line. So, and then we have also been in, in discussions here with Mike Morgan to get the sidewalk approved. So we are in the process of that. And he has agreed to place the sidewalk as close as possible to the road. Allowing for, for the swell, of course, but as close as possible to the road so that as much as possible the right of way can be used for a backyard, even if it can't be fenced. Mike, do you have any comments? Probably the only, only comment or clarification would be that the only thing under consideration here is the actual subdivision itself. The, the proposal for the credits is beyond the scope of planning and zoning. That would be a city council consideration. So we don't even vote to recommend or not recommend, okay. That's, that's completely beyond the scope of what we're allowed to do here. So that would go to the city council. So all we're, all we're concerned about here is the technicality of the lot split itself. Now, just out of curiosity, I thought I saw in your paperwork somewhere that you said you had, was it something about the land next door to you? We, we discussed. I don't think it matters in relation to this. I just read it somewhere. Yeah. You and I discussed previously the land just east of us to discuss the zoning and seeing what the options were there. We were in discussions with the landowner, but were not able to come to a agreement on. Okay. Purchase there. So that's. Probably just what I remembered from before then. Yes. All right. We looked at that as an option. Does anyone have questions, thoughts, comments? Just out of curiosity, will the homes then be accessed from your driver? Front, or will the front of the homes be? Yeah. One will be facing, will have an entrance from, from the east. Sorry, from, from 100 east is what I meant. And then one will have an entrance from 125 north. Okay. So, yeah. Our, our concern with the sidewalk is that it will lead to, lead to nowhere. So it's a dead end sidewalk right by the school encouraging kids to walk down that sidewalk, ending to a place without a crosswalk, encouraging crossing in a less than desirable place. We therefore propose to put the money in lieu of, be in lieu instead, but that has been denied. But I still want to mention that our preference would definitely be to not build the sidewalk until it has somewhere to go. I understand that in the city master plan, it's to be there for future development further, further east from where we are developing currently. And we are a little bit concerned about putting in a sidewalk leading to nowhere. Well, the sidewalk will go along 125. It will go along 125 to the end of our lot. Which is precisely where the elementary school starts dumping out and everything. Correct. It'll be on, it'll be on the other side of the street. Yeah. Right. Yeah. There's already a sidewalk on the north side of the street. Right. Okay. So if authorized crosswalk is able to be added to the end, that would, of course, solve that issue. I don't know if that is an option. Jurisdiction is that. Mike, I'm going to ask quickly, don't we require for every subdivision now that sidewalks be added? So if any property is subdivided, is that part of our subdivision plan? No. Okay. I thought that was part of it. But the reason that the sidewalk is required there is because any new development has to match the development around it. And that one was, that street was developed with the sidewalk. So, and the plan with that street is always to have sidewalks on both sides just because of the traffic. And the future plan is for residential beyond that. Yes. It is. And Kirk and I have discussed the possibility of putting, of installing a sidewalk later. His preference is that it goes in now, we would simply put up signs, which of course nobody will read, but we would put up signs that say there is no access to cross the street at the end of this particular sidewalk. Cross up here at the corner. Why can't you get a crosswalk in there? We could potentially put a crosswalk in there as well, but then you'd have to have a crossing guard. Crappy spot for a. It is a bad location. That is not a good location for a crosswalk. I'm not in favor of installing amenities that aren't used and that we would find to not use. So, past experience has shown that if you don't install it at the time of development, it causes more problems later. It does. Thirty plus years of trying to figure this out and lots of mistakes under our belt. Everybody that discussed it felt it was best to do it now. I can see the problem being a further east. Those people annex in as residential, then they have to put a sidewalk in and now their sidewalk doesn't go anywhere. And then you have this sidewalk and there's a piece in the middle. It makes sense that you do it as you go versus. We do have the right of way to add sidewalk in the future, right? We would require that. Yes, the right of way. The right of way. Why is it so difficult to add sidewalk after the fact if we have the right of way to do so? And the funds set aside. And the funds set aside, correct. Because the funds never match what's needed at the time. Okay, but. In the future. That makes sense. And just logistically keeping track of everything, figuring everything. We've done it both ways over the last 35 years that I've been involved with this. And we've talked with plenty of other cities that have done it both ways. And everybody's consensus is do it at the time of development. It can be a fight after. We had to fight for our sidewalk. And we had to have one in too. There are other issues that come with it too as far as how it's maintained. There's always issues. Yeah. Weeds growing. Cracks in sidewalks that aren't being used. To me it seems like it would be a better use of funds even if it costs more in the future to gather funds now, to use them for strategic placement of paths or sidewalks or whatever the case may be, but not to put in sidewalks that don't have a purpose. I imagine it would be used outside of school time. And really the trouble when it's being used outside of school time, it isn't an issue so much anymore because the traffic isn't such a problem there except for during those certain times when the school is. Nine o'clock and 3.30. Yeah. We'll push back a little bit on that too because the things that that sidewalk would be accessing are pickleball courts and maybe the park at the school. And if you're going to go to the school amenities anyway, you would access it on the north side of the street. So the sidewalk up on 500 north goes all the way down to the edge of the house on the end and ends. It doesn't continue on there, but it had to go across the whole front of it. So there's precedence for. Well I get that. I get, and again that probably isn't used either. And my point is is that we shouldn't be building things that aren't going to be used. That's my only comment. Yeah. And I understand the concept. And like I said, I've gone both ways over the last 35 years. And I've seen the consequences and the struggles of both sides. And everybody that we have talked to and the recommendations that we've talked to over the years with other cities has always been don't put it off, just do it. I come from UDOT too, right. And we require developers to add width to roadways, put in curb and gutter and sidewalk. And you have those areas that you have a gap. And then development, and then a gap, and then development. And if UDOT ever comes in to widen a roadway, we end up redoing all of that anyway. And a lot of that depends on timing, right. Right. But UDOT's not going to widen this roadway. Correct. But the point is, is that a lot of times when amenities are built and not used. I know. When they become useful, they have to be redone anyway. I understand what you're saying. And I don't discount it. My experience in the past has been different. My thought is that I see why generally it is a very good rule of thumb to move forward and put in the infrastructure used or not used. I think that this law is in a particularly notable area for the safety reasons. And I think it really does put the city in, whether the city would be liable or not. I don't know. My kids walk that path every day to school. And my kid for sure is not going to read a sign. And probably will not listen to what I tell them to do. But it will for sure put them in a lot of danger. If he follows that pathway. And so I, from that perspective, I would really hope that we can put it off. Until there's some, because even if there was a sidewalk that went to the other side of the school, like you're saying, if it develops even just one or two more lots down. Then that feels more contiguous. And they wouldn't be kind of forced off of the sidewalk at that point. Do you know what I mean? Whereas this like ending so abruptly right where the school is pulling out of two parking lots feels like, like it's kind of inevitable that at some point some accident may happen there. I almost feel like any kids coming from south of town are going to take that. First sidewalk, no matter how far it goes and then walk across in front of the school. Yeah. You can certainly make that recommendation. Ultimately, the choice is made by Public Works. They're the ones that decide that. So yeah, you can certainly make the recommendation. I really wish we had Eric and Kirk here tonight because I would like their input. I think that can all be decided after the fact, right? I don't know that they need to be here for this discussion. Well, we need to make a recommendation either that the lot split is not approved, that it's approved with sidewalk, or that it's approved with money. And ours isn't an approval. It's a forward to City Council, and then City Council votes on it. Unless something's irrelevant for us. Forward to the Land Use Administration Committee, which is myself and Eric and Kirk. So then it goes to Mike, Eric, and Kirk. One other thought. If we decide to proceed with the sidewalk at this point in time, if we can just, I don't know how, what signage maybe has been discussed, but hot red letters, big gate. You know what I mean? Just like whatever we can do. I do. I know. We've gone through all the different scenarios, too. Yeah. I'll make one more comment. I'm all for being fair, and I don't think it's fair for developers that are developing next to contiguous, however you phrase that, sidewalk on one side of the road would require it on this lot. But if a lot in town is developed or split, then they don't have to do that. And so I'm in favor of figuring out a square foot price, or whatever it is, and having that part of an impact fee to make it fair for all people that want to develop. That is certainly something that can be done in the future. Right now, we simply have code to follow. Right. So we follow code. I don't think it could be an impact fee. It would be something else, but I don't think it would be an impact fee. Yeah. And we're simply following the development code. And the development code says all new development matches the surrounding development. And that particular lot on 125 South is sidewalks. Technically, it could also be curb and gutter. That would be a disaster. So we're not requiring curb and gutter. We're simply requiring the sidewalk. Yeah. Lucky you, right? That, you know, does happen with a variety of lots in town. Just depending what you pick and where it is, what comes up on that particular lot. We've had fencing canals. We've had issues with the neighbor's septic being too close. I mean, any remaining lot in town has something. I do like that thought, though. If we can somehow, like, average it out over time. Maybe this is a mic question. Oh, Taylor Hanson. Has it been discussed with the city attorney who would be liable if a child were to be hit if the city does require a sidewalk and has signs, but they're signs that are perceived as, we've already all stated very verbally that we know children are going to ignore the signs. No one will read the signs. I'm not, I'm just saying, has that at least been put forth and asked, like, would that potentially fall on the city as liability for putting in a sidewalk that ended in a very unsafe location if a child were to be struck by a vehicle at the school? Or is there any chance of liability come back to us who built it and put it in? I don't think liability would go to you if the city required it, right? Yeah, you're right, though. Who knows? If you're saying that's the case, we appreciate it. We would like it, you know, that would be great to confirm. The other question, and this is playing devil's advocate. Mike, is it more expensive later because the city has to use bonded contractors and the private individual does not? No, it's just the costs never match up just because of the situation and various other things. The city doesn't, like, use some sort of market fund that gains at a better rate than? All of the funds that come into the city have rules about where and how they're stored. And if they're allocated for specific purposes, they go into specific buckets. And Daphne can probably tell you a whole lot more about them than me. But they are very, very carefully tracked and allocated. And I know within the funds, there are some investment elements, but I've never yet seen any situation. There's usually also an element of how long we have to use that money. Usually it's required to be used within a certain amount of time. That's true. So the sidewalk could very easily end up there either way because I forgot about that. The city has limited time on a variety of funds that they hold. Sorry, would that, would those funds need to be allocated to a specific area or that sidewalk? Couldn't be used in other areas. No, that would not be fair. Unless we require it of all developers, right? I know why. Yeah. But it's not. Right. And we don't have. Well, yeah, we've had the discussion about the current. Right, and we don't have a mechanism to do that. Right. Any funds set aside would be for that particular section of the sidewalk. Well, Kelly, we do appreciate your note there on fairness. We've definitely felt it. Yeah, we have property, too, and it's in the county, and we would be hit a lot harder than you're being hit. The reason for my comments. Yeah. Well, it wouldn't be fair to have the money for the sidewalks instead of being put in front of your house, go, say, on the square. We can understand that as well. Yeah, I agree. But if we required that from all developers, right, then it would be fair because that makes it fair for everyone. And again, we have our current ordinances and I get that. So a discussion for another day. Right. Yeah, the only thing I'm allowed to do is what the code says. Any other questions for me? No. What decision do we actually make? I can think of three. There could be more that I haven't thought of. So the three that I think it's either no to everything, it's yes to the split, but put the money in a kitty, or yes to the split, but do the sidewalk now. There could be something I haven't thought of. Aren't we just motioning to put the split? Actually, initially, right now, you need to close planning and zoning, open a public hearing and ask for public comment. After that, then your choice is do you approve the lot split? Sorry, it says public hearing Hanson lot split. So I thought we were having the public hearing right now. But you haven't officially opened it. This was simply the precursor to the public hearing. So we're going to close this discussion unless anyone else has anything to say on this motion to close this. Thank you. Second. All in favor. I also need a motion to open the motion to open the public hearing. All second. All in favor. Aye. All right. Do we have any public comments, thoughts, discussion? We have to close it to go back to our discussion. All right. Sorry, it's cumbersome, but we have to do it that way. Motion to close the public comments. Second. All in favor. Aye. Next time I'll ask Millie to put it differently. Not that she would have known because I didn't know either. Thoughts, comments, questions, proposals? Do we have to include the discussion about the sidewalk as far as the lot split goes? Because you mentioned that that was a. It counts. I mean, as far as the lot split goes, you either approve it or you deny it. But if you deny it, it has to be based on specific code that would not qualify it. So if we approve it and don't discuss the sidewalk, then it goes back to the, to your committee. You can, at that point, if you approve the lot split, then that portion of it is completed. And at that point, you can, you can add a recommendation as to how the sidewalk would be constructed. Excellent. I'll make a motion that we approve the lot split. I'll second. I second that. Okay. All approved. Aye. Aye. I will make a motion that if the money is going to be gone and having had to fight and take our seller of our lot to court to get our sidewalk put in because they had money to pay for it, I would say get the sidewalks in. Because if you have, lose money, the money goes away, then they're going to be liable for that. And they're going to be paying for the sidewalk that has to go in. So for the landowner, I would say you need to put the sidewalks in. Any money set aside is very, very closely tracked. Right. So it would not. If it has a timeframe and the other ones don't sell quickly and the lot sidewalk doesn't go in, you could potentially lose the money. And then you, then the, the owner of the property has to pay for it. And we would have to check with Daphne. Do we have to make a motion of that? Or can we just give a recommendation? That one, you probably could just give a recommendation. So we could just say, all in favor of putting it in now, all not. And that is our recommendation. And you, you get to go with that. Kirk and Eric, who I wish would have been here. That part of the decision is, is Eric the one that prices it out? So if the money was put aside for the city, then Eric would price it out and get bids. And it would be that amount of money. Typically, generally, that's what we would do. So the landowners don't install that themselves? We're going to set the money aside. That would come through the city engineer. But if it was done, it was done now, but then they just do it, provided the designs approved by the city. I would like to say, if you think the money should be put aside, please raise your hand since we're not voting on this. So we can keep an idea if you think it should be put aside for later. For future installment, please raise your hand. And you probably need to list who, who. Because our other choice is going to be to put it in now. We're really clear. And if you think the sidewalk should be put in now, please raise your hand. It looks like I've got Melissa and me. I've got Dan and Megan. Did you get that? I think there should have been. But we had to pay money. Okay. So we have a general idea where we're at. I'm just going to speed along the process by saying, if you're in favor of recommending to the city that we accept money that is determined by Eric, please vote. Well, please raise your hand because ayes are not going to give it. And this is the final decision, or final what we do. Final promote it or not promote it. Recommend it or not recommend it. This is the, you're saying if we put money, if they put money aside. If they put money aside instead of doing the sidewalk now, with, I just want to be clear that Eric would be in charge of getting bids and determining the price. Ariel, if the price was a lot more than what had been deposited now, that would be. Well, the amount the city engineer gets bids for would be how much would have to be. But the price will go up if it takes too long. But if it takes too long, the price will likely go up. And then the money, there won't be enough money to do the full project because they'll have to stay within. And the city has to make up the bids. And the city would. Yes. That could happen super fast. In this market, yes. Yeah. David Hanson here again. We have four bids currently, so we're ready to do it. It's just that question of safety concern that we talked about. So, but definitely don't want to have to pay more just because city charges more to do it than the bids that we've already received. So they don't necessarily charge more. They may get bids from different contractors. They don't add anything on it. Eric is pretty reasonable. He would probably look at your bids as well because he's not going to do work he doesn't have to do. And the loss of time. I'd say if they're reputable contractors, we should accept the bids that they develop themselves anyway. But that's really up to Eric. Yeah. We did vote on that already. Then I said, now we're going to, we really got to decide. Everybody I know is going back and forth and back and forth. Someone's going to have to make a motion. I'll make a motion that we wait to put the sidewalk in. Till it's more contiguous. Let me put it that way. All in favor. Aye. Second. Sorry. Now all in favor and please raise your hand so we're sure. When we all say aye at the same time. All right. Did not pass. Well was not recommended. We're not passing anything. I will still take that feedback and concern and discuss it with Kirk and Eric and we'll see what they feel is. It's such a great area because we have to go with this. But I understand the safety concerns but we're supposed to go with what the rules are not doing a sidewalk is not an option because of what's in place. It has to happen. Yes. And and long term plan and really looking 50 years down the road there's going to be houses all along that road on both sides. Right. Why couldn't the city just carry it all the way down. Money because we don't have the money. That's the answer to everything. We have another motion. I guess I did motion sometimes. No we don't. So I guess that's good. You've got. Now we don't have a recommendation. But I will still take that feedback to Kirk. All right. So you're approved for the law split. We don't know yet what's going to happen with the sidewalk. You will be working with the. Land Use Authority. There's a in front of it to authoritative administrative administrative land use authority on that one. All right. Good gosh that was a. Okay. Okay Lonnie. Yes. When you send me the recommendation just to indicate that there was some discussion of that motion was was suggested but did not pass. Part of the official record. And include basically everything we discussed safety signs. Kids aren't going to look at them that sort of thing or just our basic votes. You could reference the minutes at that point. Okay. And as we've seen Millie takes great notes. Okay. We have. Left. We're not going to end up going over residential and agricultural commercial designations tonight. But I would like to. Has anybody done anything on the word doc. Moments thoughts. Okay. Maybe. Was it a word doc or Google doc. Whichever one Millie sent around. Will you email it again. Just. Would that be a problem. If you send us. Oh okay. The residential commercial and agricultural commercial that we're trying to work on. Great. And it has never not. Okay. I would like to bring this up as long as this is why. Amy. Some of us are city email despite Tad having come multiple times still does not work or it intermittently works like today. I could not log on to my city email again. And we need a new system a new something so that we can all because like as Millie was trying to email this stuff out not everybody could get it and then they said please send it to my personal email because my city email won't open but then we're not allowed to send a personal email so we just can't get the information out there in a consistent basis and we need something. I don't know if it has anything to do with the authenticator app because when he set mine up on my phone like I had an authenticator app on there already. So he's like oh perfect. Then yours is just going to work seamlessly. When I went to pull it up on my iPad I had to link to my authenticator app on my phone so I just brought it up. It gave me a code. I put the code in worked great. Yeah. And see I did that with my home computer because of course I don't want to look at documents on this phone. Right. That's why. And it worked up until today and today every time I'd put in the authenticator number it would say signing you out and close the whole thing down. And I was like oh yeah I did mine just before. Who now Melissa were you able to get yours as we had somebody to say that said they couldn't get it and I think Megan can get hers. If maybe we can find anything different pretty please. I'm afraid they probably won't. I'm sorry. If we include the personal and city email so we can actually get information out there is that allowed. That would be delightful. Thank you. OK. And then would you mind sending out those two documents again. OK. So. Yes. It's in the general plan that we're trying to identify a residential commercial zone. Change the in town commercial to residential commercial because there's a lot of things in commercial people won't want next to the houses and then identify a future residential commercial zone and then either agricultural commercial zone or agricultural commercial. I just ask because I got it. But it doesn't. This is not this would be the actual part of the general plan. Yeah it would be different. It's what would actually go into our zoning code. What do you want us to do just read through it and make I want you to read through them and make comments and then I want ideas. We need to figure out say we turn our current commercial into residential commercial and honestly a lot of it won't work as commercial anyway because there's with with parking requirements and septic and drain fills you can't park on those and so they wouldn't a lot of them would not qualify as commercial anyway. But we need to determine what residential commercial is recommend a city council that they change whatever commercial in town that is surrounded by houses to residential commercial. So we really want to be clear on what that is and what it isn't and then determine OK are we going to have a residential commercial overlay. So anybody property would qualify for it or just the properties on main streets or what properties could qualify for that overlay. Same thing with agricultural commercial what properties or how would we determine agricultural commercial overlay and on agricultural. We have the same thing that it's you know a farm stand it's not a tractor supply. So go through those and think of businesses that are good examples of what we shouldn't have or what we should have. On the document yeah it's a just put it in for what is it suggestions yeah change it to suggestions so that your suggestions show up and you don't change the actual actual document. It is not it's going to be part of zoning when we eventually get it figured out. Yeah and then ultimately we want to figure out somewhere in there is an idea for future annexations versus just saying hey these properties are for sure going to be residential or commercial a possibility for this is how we could decide it without having a commercial next to residential so it'd be very good to have comments on that. Also there's a lot of I didn't realize this but a ton of the area around the square is commercial. Yes yeah so by redefining this does that. All know what we would do is we would take it to city council and ask if it could be changed to residential commercial instead of commercial and that's how it can be changed from one. city council city council decides that one way or the other we're just coming up with plans for them and then that's why we need to have a very careful list of these kind of businesses qualify these do not. Because there are things in commercial we do not want most people would not want next to their house. The ideal would be to have far less if any come straight commercial yes mostly in town surrounded by houses yeah. So we still want to be able to have businesses, but a little bigger than level two resident or level two home business, but not full commercial. And as far as ag if I remember the last time we looked at the map there aren't very many pure that is just for our expansion area basically we're deciding as we annex what options are there. When we annexed we annexed. Default zoning annexation unless specified otherwise is agricultural. And that was the quote. That's that's the default annexation zone unless in the annexation process they request a different zone and a couple I've seen they've either. Recommended residential or it was like an agricultural big enough to build a house on so. On that case they would bring their their ag property to city council and ask would it be reassigned to residential. Or commercial or whatever fits within the general plan that technically the annexation and the rezone or two separate processes. But they can piggyback because they both require a lot of the same. So so frequently they piggyback on the same processes but they're separate so likewise I'm just. Code and stuff I know at one point we're talking about that property they have. If that house. Wasn't. That's what makes it most. It is also zone. Yes and so it could be. A residential commercial depending on what overlay we do that's that's why we have to decide what the requirements would be and then where in the city they would be because right now. It doesn't give any option for switching it to commercial we have a residential commercial zoning but we have no definition for it and and then we don't have anything do we that specifies I've just always been told we don't do spot zone changes and so that's we've never done well yeah never as long as I've been around we've been told that we're not allowed to do spot zoning so I mean it hasn't happened in the past. As part of this it would be good to consider that how are zoning changes made and why and what are the rules. Are different requirements for a home on ag zone property versus a residential zone property. Have a home yes. Oh yeah. Yes there is a slight difference it seemed like the size is a lot bigger on the ag I thought just a lot size. Yeah we looked at it earlier and you had to have a wider frontage and you had to put your house further back and we thought that was a little odd that you absolutely had to have a wider frontage on I think it was like 330 feet on ag and 40 feet back something like that I don't remember that code I don't look at it yeah we only do because we just were recently looking at it. So you can't have a house it just has slightly different requirements because we had discussed. So we did do a broader like overlay as you say. That would ultimately end up with kind of spot businesses if we do the whole city it would it would be. Oh and that's the advantage of doing the residential commercial as an overlay not a not a. Allows different parameters but it's still within the residential zone so you're not rezoning the property you're simply applying. I need to find like in my mind an overlay is just it's an additional requirement so there's there's multiple overlays so for example if you have a property that has a steep slope to it and that that puts it into a different category and creates an overlay with different requirements. You have a property the backs to a canal you have different requirements. So so an overlay is not a full zone but it's but it's different requirements that fit within. That so that's where it would come in that. And that's also probably something we would want to run by Seth but in my mind that works well that way. We stated that it would possibly be a conditional use permit so if you're going to have a business on your property that is surrounded by residences you have to meet. Certain rules to be compatible with being around residences and yeah we would want to run that by Seth but. That so whereas like commercial would have a list of standard requirements and as long as it's however far we decide from residential. Residential commercial we know they're going in next to houses so they have to get a conditional use permit that says hey you will fit all of these and if you stop doing these or if your traffic triples you lose that. With thoughts questions. This at the next meeting like yes I would love to have comments on the document and even like down below if you have other thoughts that didn't fit into the document add those in so we can. Your ideas of where the overlay should or shouldn't be of how we make this fit so we can start having some commercial ish in our city but without having the previous impact the previous business had. The third Thursday is for the general plan discussion that's all we're asked for the public hearing in October Oh October yes and I won't be here then so somebody else could kindly. Yes third Thursday. Next week we're meeting right yeah sorry general plan next week. Okay. Yeah comments yeah just get in and make comments that would be great. And I don't know if this is the appropriate. That before the. Are they know where it's posted. Laura is supposed to be posting that I think there were a few things they were waiting on before they posted it, but it should be they waiting for the maps yeah no. Eric's got those out those today so people will be able to come they should be able to see it before next week but yeah it's like 100 pages long so yeah I'm not the one to post it so that are supposed to be posted okay. And we're meeting next week just to vote just know we don't we have a public hearing so that the public can comment on the general plan and then kind of like this we either motion to send it to city council or not but it's not a vote it's just recommend or don't recommend okay. So if I'm just on the phone and then if you're on zoom and say my yeah. And it's going from seven to eight so if we get tons of time limit hey Lonnie we're meeting at six to seven sorry thank you six to seven good and so if we have a ton of people we're going to give time limits we might give time limits anyway because some people may talk a lot longer than others and remind me what is what is the purpose. So the people in the city can look at the general plan and comment on if they do or don't like what is in the general plan I think we had to do that in order to pass it on to city council it was like a technicality right that had to happen. influence anything they could if somebody comes up with something that we're like good one we haven't thought of that and then we could add that to our recommendation to city council. And heaven knows it's complicated enough and there's probably stuff we haven't thought of. Do we have a motion to adjourn all motion to adjourn. All in favor.

Notice of Special Accommodations (ADA)

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify the Mendon City clerk at 435-753-3449.

Notice of Electronic or Telephone Participation

NA

Meeting Information

Meeting Location

15 N Main St.
Mendon , UT 84325
Show in Apple Maps Show in Google Maps

Contact Name

Teena Young

Contact Email

mendoncityclerk@yahoo.com

Contact Phone

4357533449

Notice Posting Details

Notice Posted On

September 29, 2026 06:15 PM

Notice Last Edited On

September 29, 2026 06:15 PM

Subscribe by Email

Subscription options will send you alerts regarding future notices posted by this Body.