MINUTES
MONROE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 19th, 2026
1. Meeting called to order- Prayer- Roll call.
The regular meeting of the Monroe City Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Talon Gadd on May 19th, 2026, at 7:00 P.M. Opening prayer was offered by Commissioner Riddle
Present:
Commissioners:
Talon Gadd
David Riddle-excused
Riley Lindsay
Lance Roberts
Amy Moore
Citizens:
Candice Barney
Michael Mathie
Cindy Kent
Kraig Nilsson
Perry Payne
Prescott McCarthy
Wendy Parsons
Scott Parsons
Steve Eyre
Lori Eyre
Jason Webb
Ralph Eyre
Rex Morrisson
Joy Lundgreen
Stephanie Elliott
Tyrell Bagley
2. Approval of previous meeting minutes April 21st, 2026.
The minutes from the April 21st, 2026, meeting were presented for approval. No corrections or concerns were raised by any commissioner.
Motion to approve the minutes from the April 21st, 2026, meeting was made by Commissioner Lindsay and seconded by Commissioner Roberts. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Citizens’ comments.
No citizens who were present had comments.
4. Welcome newest member of the Monroe City Planning Commission- Amy Moore.
The Commission welcomed its newest member, Amy Moore. Commissioner Moore introduced herself, noting that she grew up in the valley, currently teaches at South Sevier Middle School, and previously served as the Elsinore Town Treasurer for approximately 15 years, during which time she also recorded minutes for the Elsinore Planning and Zoning Commission. The Chair expressed appreciation for her joining the board.
5. Prescott McCarthy- Future Subdivision Discussion.
Prescott McCarthy presented a conceptual plan for a future subdivision on an approximately 8-acre portion of the Hot Spring property, located near Red Hill on the east side of Monroe. The proposal, identified as Phase 1, contemplates 19 lots at approximately 0.3 acres each. The layout is designed to extend a road north-to-south to allow potential future phases connecting to adjacent parcels to the south, with a long-range vision of developing a broader neighborhood east and southeast of the Peterson property and the cemetery.
McCarthy indicated he was seeking early feedback from the Commission to determine whether any significant obstacles existed before pursuing acquisition of the land.
The Commission’s discussion touched on several key considerations:
Water Pressure: Commissioner Moore raised a concern about water pressure, given the property’s uphill location relative to the rest of the city. McCarthy indicated his understanding was that the city’s water pressure reaches that area and noted that a proposed new water tank would add pressure to the system. It was acknowledged that this should be verified, and staff indicated the information may be available on the city website through an existing study. It was noted that anything above 300 East has historically had lower water pressure.
Geological Hazard Disclosure: Staff confirmed that any property above 300 East is required to sign a geological hazard disclosure. It was noted that Monroe City now requires this document to be notarized, signed, and recorded with the title so that it appears in future title searches for subsequent owners.
Drainage Ditch: McCarthy identified a drainage ditch crossing through the property and asked whether it could be paved over or would require a bridge. Staff recommended consulting with John Draper, noting that a waterway pass-through or bridge could be viable options.
Road Surface: McCarthy raised the possibility of using crushed granite or an alternative to asphalt, consistent with a more natural, foothills aesthetic he envisions for the development. The Commission acknowledged this desire but noted that current ordinances require asphalt. Commissioner Moore and staff noted that a variance would be difficult to justify on those grounds, but that the ordinance could potentially be amended, or the matter discussed with the City Council and Public Works. It was also noted that if the road is to be dedicated to the city, it must be maintainable by the city long-term, which is the primary rationale for the asphalt requirement.
Infrastructure: It was noted that water infrastructure and existing pavement appear to end near the subdivision at 540 East, meaning McCarthy would need to extend both to the development site. Sidewalk requirements were discussed, with the understanding that curb, gutter, and sidewalk would be required within the platted parcels.
The Commission offered no objections in principle to the project moving forward, provided it complies with the subdivision application requirements. McCarthy was encouraged to review the subdivision guidelines and proceed accordingly.
6. Public Hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments regarding proposed amendments to the Monroe City Land Use Zoning Ordinance Proposed amendments to Title 13.6.4- Zoning District uses to include additional uses such as liquor store, etc.
The regular Monroe City Planning Commission meeting was closed at 7:15 and the public hearing was opened.
The Chair opened the public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed amendments to the Monroe City Land Use Zoning Ordinance, Title 13.6.4, to include a liquor store as a permitted use.
The owners of the Monroe City gas station presented their proposal to utilize the east side apartment portion of the gas station as a retail package liquor agency. They clarified emphatically that the proposed business would be a retail liquor sales establishment — not a bar — with its own separate entrance on the east side of the building. Plans were described to potentially expand the square footage to approximately 2,200 square feet by squaring off the building. The owners expressed that this addition is intended to help sustain the viability of the gas station business.
Several public comments and questions were raised:
A nearby resident noted concerns about increased traffic on what is already a busy residential street, referencing the traffic increase that accompanied the development of the hot pots. The owners acknowledged some traffic increase would be expected but pointed out that customers currently purchasing alcohol are already traveling to Salina to do so, meaning much of the traffic would be redirected rather than newly generated.
A question was raised regarding the viability of the venture given the closure of similar stores in the region. The owners clarified that those stores were not closed voluntarily — they were shut down — and that all were reportedly under the same ownership. The owners indicated they have gauged community interest through social media and received a strong, positive response of hundreds of comments.
It was noted that a package agency is already under construction in Richfield, and that the next closest liquor store to the south is in Panguitch. The owners noted they serve tourists from multiple surrounding communities including Elsinore, Marysvale, Joseph, and others.
Staff clarified that Monroe City currently has no ordinance whatsoever addressing liquor sales — beer is addressed separately — and that this public hearing is specifically to consider whether liquor sales should be added to the land use code. It was further clarified that this action would not grant the applicants permission to open; they would still be required to meet all state licensing requirements administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC), including distance requirements from schools and population-based licensing thresholds.
A question was raised as to whether the Commercial Residential zone — where the gas station is located — is the most appropriate zone for such a use, or whether another zone might be more suitable. Staff noted there is no zone in Monroe City designated as purely commercial; the Commercial Residential zone is the city’s primary retail zone. It was also noted that any business seeking to open a liquor store in the future would still need to come before the Commission for approval.
No other comments were made.
The public hearing was closed at 7:29 PM and the regular Monroe City Planning Commission Meeting was opened at 7:29 PM.
7. Consider proposed amendments to Title 13.6.4- Zoning District uses to include additional uses to as liquor store, etc.
The Commission deliberated on whether to recommend adding a liquor store as a use within the Monroe City Land Use Ordinance.
Commissioner Lindsay noted that because there is no purely commercial zone in Monroe City, the Commercial Residential zone is effectively the only viable location for such a use, and that it would be appropriate for any liquor retail to fit within the same commercial framework as other retail establishments already operating in town.
Commissioner Roberts acknowledged the difficulty in balancing business, growth, and moral perspectives but noted that prior research — including a conversation with the Sheriff — found no data suggesting that a package agency would increase DUIs or public safety incidents. He noted that the Commission’s role is to weigh what is best for the community as a whole.
Staff clarified that the action before the Commission was not to grant approval for a specific location or business, but simply to determine whether to add liquor store retail as a use category within the city’s land use ordinance, and if so, under what classification. A member of the public with planning knowledge recommended designating it as a conditional use rather than a permitted use, so that the city retains the ability to impose conditions or deny individual applications based on project-specific merits.
The Commission agreed that conditional use designation within the Commercial Residential zone was the appropriate path forward, and that the detailed ordinance language could be developed subsequently with reference to examples from comparable cities such as Centerfield and Monticello. The recommendation would then proceed to the City Council for final action.
Motion to recommend that liquor store retail be added to the Monroe City Land Use Ordinance as a conditional use within the Commercial Residential zone to the Monroe City Council was made by Commissioner Lindsay and seconded by Commissioner Moore. The motion carried unanimously.
8. Consider recommendation of WUI map.
Tyler Timmons of Sevier County Regional Council presented background on the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) matter. He explained that House Bill 48, passed by the Utah Legislature in 2025, created new requirements for municipalities, and that a separate annual cooperative wildfire suppression agreement between Monroe City and the Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands requires the city to adopt a WUI map and corresponding building code.
Timmons explained that two maps were presented: (1) a state-generated map identifying areas the state has designated as high wildfire risk within Monroe City’s boundaries, and (2) a broader risk-scored map based on data from wildfirerisktool.gov, from which a threshold of risk score 5 and above was suggested as a reasonable minimum standard by the state’s forestry contact.
Key points discussed included:
The adoption of a WUI map designates where new construction must comply with either the 2006 or 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. This applies only to new construction; existing homes are grandfathered and unaffected. General contractors consulted indicated that most new construction already substantially complies with the code’s requirements. The code focuses on items such as defensible space, wood pile placement, and open cable protection, and does not include requirements such as rooftop sprinkler systems.
Timmons clarified that a state-assessed fee is being levied on property owners within the state-designated high-risk zone regardless of any action Monroe City takes — that fee is entirely outside the city’s control. The city’s WUI ordinance designation only affects which areas will be subject to the additional building code requirements, enforced through the county building inspection process via Jason Mackelprang.
The primary benefit of signing the cooperative agreement is protection from wildfire suppression cost liability. Timmons cited the example of Marysvale, which was spared over $200,000 in suppression costs from the Silver King Fire due to their participation in such an agreement.
The Commission agreed that adopting the minimum designation — the state-identified high-risk map — was the prudent starting point, noting that the ordinance could be expanded in the future if circumstances or legislation warrant. It was noted that the cooperative agreement itself should be signed by June 1st, with the formal map adoption and public hearing process to follow. The Commission recommended proceeding with the state-designated map as the city’s WUI zone.
Motion to recommend adopting the state-designated map as Monroe City’s WUI area to the Monroe City Council was made by Commissioner Roberts and seconded by Commissioner Lindsay. The motion carried unanimously.
9. Discuss and set public hearing to Amend Monroe City Subdivision Ordinance.
The Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the Monroe City Subdivision Ordinance. Staff noted that the amendments — particularly those on pages 39–42 of the draft document — more clearly spell out requirements that the city may already impose under existing ordinance language, but which are not currently enumerated in detail. Notable additions include requirements for hydraulic modeling reports to assess impacts on the culinary water system from new subdivisions.
Commissioner Roberts highlighted the importance of the hydraulic modeling provision given ongoing concerns about water supply and pressure, particularly relevant to proposals like the McCarthy subdivision which would not have irrigation water and would place a higher demand on the culinary system.
Commissioner Moore raised the concern that without the updated ordinance in place, requirements such as a hydrological study could potentially be overlooked in the checklist process. Staff and Tyler Timmons both clarified that the city can already request such studies under existing “may require” language; the amendments simply make these requirements explicit and systematic.
The Commission determined it would benefit from a work session prior to the public hearing to review the proposed changes in depth. After discussion regarding scheduling in light of potential City Council meeting cancellations in June, the Commission agreed to hold a work session at 6:00 PM on June 16th, immediately preceding the regularly scheduled planning commission meeting, and to hold the public hearing that same evening.
Motion to hold a work session at 6:00 PM on June 16th, 2026, and to hold a public hearing on the proposed Monroe City Subdivision Ordinance amendments that same evening was made by Commissioner Roberts and seconded by Commissioner Lindsay. The motion carried unanimously.
10. Other Business.
A member of the public provided an additional comment relating to Item 6, noting that state law permits one package agency per every 18,000 persons of the state population, and that the DABC administers this threshold. Staff confirmed this is set by the DABC. It was noted that existing agencies in Salina, Centerfield, and Ephraim are in the vicinity, with a proposed agency in Richfield also under consideration. The Commission acknowledged this as a relevant factor for the DABC licensing process.
No other business was discussed.
11. Adjournment.
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Lindsay and seconded by Commissioner Roberts. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM.