Hyde Park City's Zoom Meeting

Retaining property? No. I was And we have rules to keep the water there. And if you don't build those walls, the water needs to stay there, and you're in fatigue. You're in violation of code.

Yeah. So I need to know where the cap yeah. I need to know where the cap is. Okay.

We are live.

Alright. Welcome to the Hyde Park City Planning Commission. Today is 03/04/2026, and it's 07:02PM. We have everyone here today. We have Heather Taylor. I'm Melinda Lee. We have Mike Mose, Charlene Williams, and Ned Hanson. I've asked Charlene Williams to nope. Is that right? Yeah. Opening remarks. Yes. I've asked Charlene Williams to open with the thought or prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay. Let's start with prayer.

Our Father in heaven, we are grateful to be gathered here today as public servants for our city and ask a blessing upon this meeting and upon us that we will be guided and be given wisdom to be able to do what's best for our residents. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please

stand for this. I have I have to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice alone.

Thank you, commissioner Williams. We'll go to the minutes now. Does anybody have corrections on the minutes? Heather, did you get

No. I haven't really read them, to be honest. I'm just was scanning over them. I usually get notified when there's stuff in the box, and so I didn't think they were uploaded. Oh, okay. But I skimmed them, and they looked fine. K. Mike? I didn't see any issues. Charlene? I didn't see any issues.

I did not see any. And I don't have anything either this time. So I'll look for a motion.

Motion that we approve the minutes. Thank you. Motion from Ned Hanson.

Second. Second from commissioner Williams. Any further discussion? Hey. All in favor in approving the minutes as presented,

say aye. Aye.

Any opposed, say nay. That passes unanimously. K. Planning staff report?

I don't have anything new to tell you except that city council did approve all of the items that you heard at your last meeting, the ordinance updates, the zoning clearance letter, and all of that. So we're moving forward with that. Zoning clearance letter is now in effect, and, yeah.

Great. You'll have to let us yeah. You'll have to give us feedback on that. And I imagine at first, it might be a a rough go for people to go, woah, because they're ready to build and then, like, I have to have all that first. But I think eventually, it's gonna be really great. Smooth out and that'll Yeah. Speed up the process Yeah. Quite a bit. Cool. That's happy. Alright. We don't have any action items. We are just discussing. Tonight is a workshop. So let's start with our rezone criteria. We have rezones come before us, and we need to decide what things we should be considering or thinking about when reviewing every rezone. And mostly like, lots of times, we know they they tell us kind of the project and what they plan to do with the land, but that is not necessary, and it's sort of unrelated to what we're supposed to be considering. We're not actually considering projects when we consider rezones. We should be considering that that developer could actually sell that land, and the new buyer can do anything they want within that approved zone. So it is fun, interesting to hear about what the current one, whoever owns it, current owner, intends to do with it. And most of the time, that happens more or less. But when considering a rezone, you really we really need to consider, are we okay with anything that the new zone allows on that property? Hopefully, you read through some of the general plan.

I could put

the land use portion of the general plan. I added it to box.

Under rezone? Today, under rezone. Oh, okay. When I looked at rezone, it was empty. Okay. I'm with you. I can't do last minute reading. And then I also added,

the suggested rezone criteria document that I had in there previously or that we talked about at a previous meeting. I included that as well. And then I also included my staff report from the rezone that we heard last week, and I did pull wording from the general plan in there. Let me see if I can. So from the general land use part of the general plan, the intent there says the land use element's designed to promote sound land use decisions throughout Hyde Park. The pattern of land uses, their location mix and density are critical components of any of planning any area. The land use element is organized too. So this is an idea of what the criteria are from the land use element of the general plan. They don't say these are rezone criteria, but these are the things that are included there. And so they could be considered criteria. So those are things to consider when we're talking about what's the list of criteria that we think we should have when it comes to rezone because it really shouldn't be, does this sound like a good idea to me at the time? Right? We should have specific criteria guiding our decision so that it's not about thoughts and feelings as much as it is adhering to code.

Thank you. Anything else on I didn't I forgot to ask for a staff report on the discussion item.

In let's see. Let me go back to the suggested rezone criteria. So here's some possible rezone criteria. You should always be asking if the rezone is consistent with your general plan, and you should be able to identify how it is or how it is not. Sometimes municipalities use would this rezone be compatible with the neighborhood? I don't know that that's always a yes or no question. I think it needs a qualifier. Yes in this way or no in this way.

I feel like that. Yeah. That's one of those that is almost vague and legally could be argued. But maybe because it's vague, it couldn't be legally argued

because anybody could say You have to always be able to defend your position on approving or disapproving it. We should approve this rezone because Right. Of the findings of fact in the staff report, the testimony presented by everyone at the public hearing, and the recommendation from the planning commission or the recommendation from the DRC. So there should always be reasons why you're making the motion you're making. Right. I yeah. I just need a really good list of reasons. Yeah. Phrases like compatibility

with neighborhood, and I think either side could argue complete opposites and use that as their argument.

And as long as you can defend your position, then then that's what it's about. Yeah. I have examples of rezone criteria from other municipalities I've served in. One of the questions in the places I worked was was the existing zone for the property adopted in error? Is this a zone that has existed for fifty years and and probably wasn't adopted correctly or doesn't serve the property anymore or doesn't make sense anymore? Those are questions that you could ask as well. Has there been a change of character in the area? That's something you may need to take into consideration. Everybody knows what our current rezone criteria are now. Right? Let's see if I can I'm gonna pull up section twelve ten fifty. This is from our land use code that talks about zoning map changes, which is what a rezone is. Talks about the noticing that goes into it. And then here are your approval standards. It's called a decision to amend the text of this title or the city's official zoning map shall be consistent with the current general plan, including the future land use map. So there's your first criteria. General plan in the map. And in making the amendment, the land use authority shall also consider. It's these four things. Whether the proposed amendment would be harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject property or in cases of text amendment in areas governed by the text. Two is whether the proposed amendment would be consistent with the standards of an any applicable overlay zone. And right now, that's that's always a NA on all of my reports. There's not any overlay zones

that we're talking about with any of these reasons. So I feel like number two isn't really a helpful criteria at all. Are overlay zones like you think we might someday, or is it kinda like conditional uses where that's something that was used for a time and we don't really anymore?

An overlay zone is something we'll still use. That's our intent with short term rentals is to have an overlay zone for that. As our airport grows and we end up with a, you know, drone delivery stations or whatever it is, we're gonna have to have overlay zones about what kind of traffic can go. There's gonna be overlay zones sooner or later, but right now Yep. You know, we we're using just these four criteria to approve reasons, and one of them is not even very useful. So I just feel like we don't have the criteria in place to help us make super good decisions. Number three is the extent to which the proposed amendment may adversely affect adjacent property.

I think that's a good criteria to keep.

Who's the expert that can speak to that, though?

It would have to be more probably property information opinions or the actual adjacent property owner.

It's kinda like it reminds me of a conditional use. It's not that it's not going to bring adverse consequences. It's just how well do they mitigate that. I feel like that one admits that you're right. You probably don't want this, but is it really going to be that bad? But I'm I'm with you. I don't know how you defend it or measure it. But I do like that it admits, like, of course, you don't want you know, to the neighbors, of course, you don't want this. But, like, no one wanted us here either. Right.

And, again, if you're gonna say that, yes, this there's gonna be an adverse effect, you need to be able to qualify that with some kind of information. It can't be an opinion. It needs to be a fact. Right. And then the adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including roadways, parks, recreation facilities, police, fire, schools, stormwater drainage system, water supplies, wastewater, and refuge collection. And, technically, the city that's why people annex into the city when they want to develop because we can provide all of these things. So this criteria is almost it's kind of default because if you're a part of the city, then you do get access to roads and parks and police and fire and schools and stormwater drain. You automatically get that when you're annexed into the city. So I think maybe in the case of, we're bringing Hearst Villages, that furthest property that we rezoned to MX, they actually did not have water or sewer lines near their property. So they that would've should have been something that was taken into consideration, and that would have been a reason for them not to be able to rezone because the infrastructure didn't exist that far out at that time.

Well, it wouldn't, like, be an issue too. Like, if you tried to put higher density up higher on the hill, that that impacts more of your sewer water capability because it's further up the hill. Mhmm. So that, you know Okay. That would be a a no go kind of thing until you updated your infrastructure.

And those are things we need to take into consideration, but I don't know if just one through four is enough. And that's what I'm asking you to consider is if there's more things that we need to evaluate when it's time to decide on a reason. K. Or is this enough?

Who wants to start?

I'll start. Alright. I mean, I kinda maybe it's just my engineering brain, but I kinda like to have more quantitative approach to things. And so, like, given given these criteria scores, for example, some of these can be are subjective, but some of them could be, you know, quantitative in the sense that, you know, you could say, maybe each one of the criteria, for example, if there's four, if there's six or whatever, they there were so many points, you know, and you have to get a total score of such and such to be able to justify the rezone. K. And maybe maybe it's just like a plus you can give them a zero plus one plus two or minus one minus two for a negative thing, but but you have to add up to a certain number to make to make a pass. K. I don't know.

It's a great idea. Other thoughts?

Other commissioners?

Well, I like I like some of these, but as Ned was saying, sometimes they're not quantitative. You know, there's no way you can really say yes or no. You know, compatibility with neighborhood, that's the one thing that if there's a big difference between the zoning and the and the property next door, how it's zoned, that's kinda obvious. But having experienced the public backlash directed toward a developer or a person, not even a well, he was developing his own property. Yeah. They just didn't want it, and their their compatibility was it wasn't incompatible. It was just incompatible with them. So, you know, I get it. People don't want other people building next to them. My response is, well, then you should have bought the land. But, unfortunately, they they took that they ran that person through the ringer. It was not a pretty it was not a fun evening. Well, and is that how we wanna proceed

in our municipality, or do we wanna do something different so that citizens don't have to have that kind of experience when they argue for their rezone application?

Well, the issue would be how they're able to present their feelings, and that's just it. Apparently, we don't allow feelings, and I get I get that. We want facts. How is it going to adversely affect the neighborhood other than well, I feel it's going to really change the the dynamics of the neighborhood. Well, I feel like I wanna shake right now, but I'm not gonna get one because I'm in a meeting. Right. So You have to present your evidence. Yeah. What's the evidence? Just like That you're not gonna stop people from saying children are gonna die. Right. You know, using using something that's totally irrational and and turning it. And those people, the ones that live in those kinds of houses. So

Hopefully you've heard those arguments, and I to a little of a little bit of that by making it really obvious to our citizens that we are making quality decisions by using criteria instead of just getting up here and going, well, today I feel like or because everybody didn't like it, we're not going to. And that's not how you should be making your decision. So do you think that any of these suggested criteria would be usable? Is there anything that jumps out to you as sounds like we need to add?

Well, I act I used AI a little bit today, and I liked some of the stuff it came up with. It used for infrastructure. It said infrastructure realities, and I thought that's a good way to put it, you know, because, like, you're right. Inside our city, if they're annexed in, then we provide for them. But, yeah, is it a reality? And that maybe that's like, that would have stopped Bringhurst. Right. You know? Because that wasn't reasonable at the time. I mean, it wasn't I also liked yeah. Would it be defensible if legally challenged? You know? We for sure need to make sure that we're doing it that way. I liked does it diversify housing types? I like a mix and a variety throughout. I don't think neighborhoods need to be strictly single family or strictly townhome or Yeah.

Our general plan speak to that?

The one I thought the one part did.

You can go ahead, Mike. I was just saying that yeah. I think a lot of the people here want diversity in housing until it's next to your house, you know, the NIMBY thing. Yeah. And then all of a sudden, they come out of the woodwork and here they are. And I, you know, I I don't wanna speak ill of them. They they were concerned. But at the same time, they just did a number on on their neighbor, and I just did not appreciate that.

Yeah. I mean, I have neighbors that, yeah, we've lived by forever, and we love them. And we love knowing those people that have been around, and now they're starting to pass away. And it's it's sad. I'm like, oh, who's gonna move in? You know? And yet on the other side of me, I do have a duplex, and it's fun to see young couples move in. And have we had some less than desirable people move in? Yeah. And so they kinda come and go, and I don't know. I guess I've been fine having the duplex next to us. And you're right. It's not a 24 plex that someone might get next to them. It's a two plex, which is very different, but I it does. That first paragraph under land use intent says the land use element is designed to promote sound land use decisions throughout Hyde Park. The pattern of land uses, their location, mix, and density are critical components of any planning area. Where did I I guess I like that, the mix and density. Just trying to figure out how to highlight in there. And it may have just been on the mixed I don't know when it went through all of the different types of housing. I thought it hinted toward, yeah, like, mix and variety. And that's where I felt like had we wanted had we truly wanted to not not recommend approval last time, it could it could have been because, like, we have enough of that type of housing. You know? Mhmm. Although you can't really consider the project going in. You you know, like I stated earlier, you have to consider Just the zone itself. Right. And so if townhomes are allowed, you have to consider they might do exactly what you might not necessarily want. Yeah. It it's hard when the room is full of residents. And because generally, people only come out if they're unhappy with what you're doing, and so it's hard to ignore that public clamor. I am particularly upset about it now that I'm the chair. But I just keep thinking, like, anyone who's ever lived here the last at least fifty to a hundred years, they've always been upset by more people moving in and by the by the lots getting smaller. They probably started with 50 acres, and they were upset when it came down to 20 acres. And then people were cutting it down to 10 acre lots or five acre lots or one acre lots. What is this city coming to? But none of us would be here if these reductions weren't made. And now that we're a city, not a town, not the county, it takes money to provide what we provide. I think of my friend who lives on the border. She lives in the county, but she's on the border of Hyde Park. So she gets all the benefits of the city, but the church is right there and the schools right here and the parks and the sidewalks and the curb and gutter. And they don't have to pay into any of it, and they're not restricted by any of the city laws. So they get to live by the you know, live by county rules, which are more laxed in some ways, but they get all the benefits of being in a city. And there are there's just more things that a city provides, and so more has to be expected. And I'm not trying to kick out anyone who has lived here a long time, and they live on a large lot. And maybe they still have animals in farming, but not many people are moving here to start having animals and big farmland. They're going to the county. They're buying acres and acres. And that's at this point, that's what Hyde Park City has become. It's become a city. It's not the county, and it can't afford to be like the county. That didn't answer the criteria question. I apologize.

It's a good point, though, because we did bring up that conversation that we had with the developer who said that the one acre lots and even the half acre lots just don't pencil anymore. Right. And that there needs to be more opportunity for smaller lots so that people can build houses that are not super expensive.

But but I do think most of the new stuff has been smaller lots that I've seen.

Yeah. But they'll just buy more than one lot. If they want a bigger lot, they just buy more.

But yeah. The you know? But, you know, I mean I mean, I'll defend myself. I have a one acre lot. Well, actually, it was one and a half, and I didn't buy it for animals. I bought it for space just to you know, I lived in a in a core less than a quarter acre lot before I moved here. Then I just wanted more elbow room, and it's fine. I mean, I I I don't have I don't begrudge anybody for having a one acre or two acre lot or anything like that. I can see the reason for it. And I do agree with Melinda that if you want really big thing and a lot of animals, you should be in the county. That's probably more like more like it. But, also, you know, you get to the point where you're down to even quarter acre lots, you really have a house and just a tiny little bit of grass. It's kind of you're almost to, like, not having your own space hardly. Kids can't even kick the ball hardly, which I think is a shame. So

Yeah. And so developers have brought in, you know, side by side drawings, and the one is your quarter acre lots or third acre or half acre or whatever happens to be the latest. And then they bring in another one of the same shape of land. And so this one is taken up, you know, houses cover the whole thing and everybody has their own land. And the other one that looks just like it has them clustered. So everybody does have just a little strip of grass, and then they have the huge not huge, but Open space. Yeah. Open space grass. So it's more of a shared park that, yeah, none of those houses have to take care of, and, hopefully, they all have pretty quick access to getting to it, to throw a Frisbee, to kick a soccer ball. And so does that need to be everywhere? No. But could that be somewhere? Yeah. And I I guess I think, like you, you live on that big lot, but it shouldn't matter if the person next to you or around the block chooses to live on a quarter acre. Yeah. I don't care. Yeah. Like, it's not for any of us to say how the next person should live. You can choose what you want, but just because that next slot is going to take your view or you know, those kind of excuses, I think, are like Mike says, buy the lot. Yeah. If you want that view, you buy the lot. You've had it for a long time. Great. You got that for free. That was an added benefit, but not what you purchased.

And so remember, we're not just talking about residential. We're talking about rezoning to commercial. Right. We're talking about rezoning to industrial. All kinds of different reasons can be served by these criteria.

So So are we trying to create a bigger list? I just wanna make sure I'm understanding. That's my suggestion. That or that's my question to you is that So right now, do we just have those four? Criteria

in our code enough to help you make a a good decision, do you feel like, or do you need a few more criteria?

I think there needs to be more, personally. What would you like to add? Well, I like some of the suggestions that you More than the suggestions or more than Oh, no. I like the suggestions. Okay. I think the suggestions are great.

So are those what we're agreeing to? So that I get I mean, like to follow. Yeah. Maybe pick your top two, everybody. Like, what if that's if you don't have any of your new ones and you're looking at her suggested ones, either way, your own or hers, what are your top two or three? Or what do you think is essential, and what is maybe you don't see a need for or you can't necessarily justify or quantify?

I think traffic is always a big deal to look at. That would probably be one of my first ones.

So instead of just the the general plan, it needs to be consistent with the

master the The master plan. Mhmm. Yeah. Transportation plan. Yeah. I agree. That that for me is the number one, and I think that's where I kind of spouted off at the workshop. It's because for, you know, quarter century, been coming up here with all family. And every time we're like, oh, the freeway's under construction. Again, we're like, well, we they grew. They need to adapt. And it feels like with the freeway that goes through the state, the fact that one freeway is getting expanded after it grows, and then it's and while they're expanding it, it's growing more. Then they expand it again, and it's like this catch up. I'd like to learn from that twenty five years of freeway construction since the Olympics and not and reverse engineer that here in Hyde Park. So for me, transportation would be the number one, and that comes down to the three rules, you know, location mix and density. For me, location, location, location. It's real estate. The fact that we don't have a straight through highway through the valley, and it takes eighteen to twenty two minutes to go 2.3 miles. When you look at the map, oh, it's only a couple miles away, twenty minutes. I'm like and all the slow residential, you know, miles per hour. I think we need to look ahead and go, yes. We wanna grow. Yes. We want if we want smaller lots, and then we also also look at if we want density, you want them to travel the shortest in distance possible to get to the main artery. What is the main artery? Do we have a main artery that doesn't stop, that can keep going through? And I think that should be the horse before the cart transportation and then add the people onto it. Because if you do it afterwards, you probably developed into areas you needed for highway or that kind of stuff.

I mean, I I'd agree with you. And I also I I guess I put the the infrastructure equally with the transportation. They're kind of to me, they're all the same. If we don't have enough sewer, we don't for the same reason, we can't And that would be my second one. Yeah. Yeah. So I think they're those kind of are those are kind of almost mandatory things. You gotta have the ability to support whatever the zone is with all these transportation, water, sewer. You know, they they are all equal in my mind, and they all have, you know, mandatory requirements. Same with, you know, following the general plan. Those seem like mandatory ones. But stuff like maybe the environmental and site constraints, that seems like something we should embed in ordinances that you have to you know, you can't build on a slope of such and such. And then that would filter down into you know, you're not gonna be able to put very many houses on that slope because there's just you can't. You know, you're gonna have to have the the retention or whatever you gotta do to be able to do that. So those would be k. Maybe not rezone criteria. It might be more, like, embedded in the building or,

requirements. K. I agree. So talk so talk to me about what you mean by the transportation because cities don't generally build roads. The mayor did get that grant and extended Wolfpack Way, but that's pretty rare. We don't get roads until a developer comes in and builds a subdivision, and then he has to build the roads that are part of the master plan, the master road plan through his part. But he has doesn't have to go any further.

Right. But here's here's my my thought on the that. Let's just be out on the limb here. Let's say somebody wants to put a thousand units at the mouth of the canyon. K. There's no way for those cars to get through our town right now. Right. There is not a way. And so if anybody wanted to build up there, it would be a disaster. Right. You know? And so that's what you know? And they're not gonna wanna pay for a road from the canyon down to the highway. And and the highway is where is is is our only artery right now. Yeah. That's and that's the best one we have. And that's where we should be pushing all our traffic is down there, not in the North Logan or in the Smithfield to make it their problem, but down to the highway. Shortest distance traveled for the most cars when you have density? And so we have an issue. Like, the further we go up the the hill here, we're it's longer to get through town, and it's just impossible now. We didn't leave enough place for roads, and nobody wants to get their house dozed for a bigger road.

That was a complaint I heard at church on Sunday was it took me this long to go from here to here, and I'm like, my my ears perked up.

I guess I don't really Yeah. I I think I mean, move outside of Hyde Park. Go be a commuter. You know? Our time frame isn't terrible. Right. That makes sense. My we lived in Atlanta, Georgia, and my dad was twenty minutes from work, and it took an hour and a half. So I think the city's done a good job. I think we've done pretty good with how we are growing, but I just think what Ned was saying Yeah. Just be mindful. Like, when we are rezoning, what traffic is that gonna bring? Right. Are we gonna be able to adapt?

What will that cause? And I think that's just a criteria we need to be aware of. Well, I mean, to go back to the mountain water. Yeah. That's a great example. I don't even think it's safe in a way because I don't think we can get enough emergency. If there was No. Two emergencies up there, I don't think you could get through to it. For example, with the roads we have now. But to the slope, what if a developer comes in and changes it? I mean Slope? Yeah. Because you can't bend a slope. We shouldn't be building on it. But, I mean, look how high they've gone up on the mountain. I know they they can they can terrace it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. They gotta retain it because they do that. And that if they do retain it Okay. I just want to clarify that. Mean that they gotta have more space to retain it, and then that's gonna those requirements will drive. Okay. They really can't put quarter acre lots. They can really just because of the slope, they can really only do half. Yeah. I just want to clarify that. Because I'm like a developer can come in and Yeah. Change the slope. They can put as much money as they want. Right. Okay. Right. But the economics and everything is gonna drive them to not Okay. Do go so far. I'm saying those nest don't necessarily need to be Yeah. Criteria for rezones. Those need to be buried hard and fast in our ordinances Yeah. In our building codes. Yeah. Okay.

For for the traffic, I think what we do have to work with, I think if we speed up and increase our speed limits, that makes a difference. I think it's helpful. When we're approving developments, I think making sure they're not facing roads that have you know, you may think, oh, this is just a residential road. It be cut you can tell which ones are becoming main arteries. I mean, like, I talked about I mean, 3,100 for North and I guess it's a North Logan where that one it's just silly to have anyone facing a road that is real obvious when you look at the map. That's or if you just drive it. These people are everyone's using this road. Everyone's using 1600. Everyone's using 3100. So by default, they become arteries even if they weren't intended to. So I think if we use those in our planning and our decisions and we go, this is looking like a main artery. Let's make sure that if we approve development, we make a rule that you have an extra set. They put an extra pull off area before they turn into the neighborhood so people don't have to stop. Because there's lots of places where if you've got a 45 mile per hour between two residential neighborhoods, in a lot of areas, you'll have a pullover. It's almost like a off ramp from the neighborhood, and it's the slower lane you get into to turn into the neighborhood so you don't stop the traffic. You know what I mean? To get in and out. So if we add those requirements on developments to keep the flow of traffic moving, I think that makes a huge difference. And I agree that infrastructure for me would be right up there with transportation. Having lived through the Thomas fire in Ventura with over 700 structures that went to the ground and twice six friends lost their homes. When you watch houses burning, you watch fire, can't get up the hill, and people are racing out of their houses. The traffic, people running because they could not get that many cars down the hill. I can tell you that's a huge priority. And I talked to our fire department when we did the youth council thing out there. That was one of my biggest questions. Like, what happens if you lose all electricity and you can't pump up the hill? Because that's when we lost hundreds of homes. And luckily, I found out we've got your two water tanks. Yeah. Water tanks that are gravity fed. So what we need to do, I would say, check with the fire department, check the capacity of those gravity fed. How much can they really cover with that? Because disasters happen and having lived through earthquake, mudslide, fires, riots, all that with my husband and the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department, he was hands on on a lot of it. And he was the you know, running the emergency stations for a lot of it and evacuations. So having lived through it, I'd rather plan for it and have it be executed a lot better. Granted, you can't control how emergencies happen. But we can control if, hey. We only have water that we can only reach this far if we had no electricity, then let's not get that density if we can't pump up the hill, if we lose electricity. So that would come under the utility capacity and emergency services.

Well, I think if I think if we build further up the hill, then we have to start thinking about maybe a satellite fire department up there. So

And is there room for another water tank?

Well, you can always pull more, but who's gonna pay for it? And Yeah. The builder doesn't want to because they're expend I don't know what we paid for that last water tank. It was a lot.

Well, it was a scrap too.

Long bit.

Yeah. So but we're still at the changing the zone. Right. Those are after six months. Yeah. We've sort of creeped a little bit.

I've got some a lot of good feedback, though. I think I think there's a lot of good suggestions here that we can craft some

specific criteria around. I do like Ned's scoring. Like, the plus one plus one. However, I think that is. Because you can't use fillings. Some stuff is so vague, and you could argue both sides. So then we sit as a standstill. If both sides are arguing, then who's right? So maybe if there is a grid, maybe that would I don't know. And that could be part of the staff report is here's how it's stored on the Yeah. Rubric for Because two people can feel very justified and even have their list of no feelings and facts. And then where did we meet in the middle. So that's my biggest concern is how do we

have that draw? Who who gets it? So when they're done with their presentation, everybody's gonna have their number written on their paper, and then we're all gonna hold it up. I gave it a seven.

We're gonna turn into the voice. Probably we'll probably we'll come up with a rubric. You gotta watch out you gotta watch out for that Russian judge. You're never gonna get a good score from the Russian judge.

Hey. Do you wanna talk about this some more, or do you wanna move on?

Well, do you feel like you have enough? I mean, I I honestly like the last two. I mean, that community benefit and demand. You know, does the project address housing shortages and, you know, does it provide like, right now, Utah needs housing and certain kinds of housing.

Does it fit in with our modern income housing plan?

Yeah. And that may come and go, and those those requirements come and go. Well,

the reporting may, but the the plan will probably not go. Yeah. I think they're taking a hiatus for a year is what I've heard. To revamp it.

Mhmm. For the reporting.

Only the reporting. And that last one, you know, precedent need. Does the community need the uses that are allowed in the requested zone? Right? Like I don't know if that one's

really for us to say. Because if it's zoned a certain way and someone wants to put it in and pay for it, can we just say, sorry. We don't want it. Wouldn't that be almost to, like, a variance instead of

a rezone?

Give me an example.

Or or a development agreement kind of a thing? I think it's the word need

that kinda

maybe that's what it is. It's kinda like your to decide.

To get something Yeah. Special for the community. It's almost like a development agreement kinda thing.

Anyway, if you feel like you have enough, it sounds like we've Yep. Yep. I think I can craft some things here. I agree. I think the word need makes it just sound You keep beating it. It's open for discussion. Like, do we need this? Well, I don't know. Do we need it? Like, I think need How do we know? Aid. Like, that makes it that makes me not like that one, I think, because I feel like it's feelings. Mhmm. Because then we're asking, what do we need? Like Yeah. Kinda takes away the facts.

Alright. Any other discussion on that one? Any other last comments? K. Let's switch. Sorry.

One more thing. I wasn't sure you grab a cookie. I

was close. Everything. I offered you one earlier. Just the

maybe we need the answer to the question why.

K.

Why do we need it? Who does this help? Who does this hurt?

Why does it help? Who does that Why does it hurt them? I think I asked that for every reason. That's what we should ask. So

we just maybe maybe if we're making this scorecard, that could be the two thing couple of things on the top. Why why would what's the pros and the cons of this? Let's and then have the score.

So I don't know. One of the things I try to think about, I don't always remember, but, you know, we have a room full of people who are angry. Generally, if they're here, they're angry. But I think what about the people who aren't here who would like to live in our city, but they can't yet, you know, and we're never gonna hear those voices. And so somehow to think about those who might would like to speak or have a business here, whatever it may be. It's not all residential. It could be business too. Does someone want, yeah, more commercial or industrial or whatever? I think we have to keep that balance of what the city like we say, you know, that letter that Mark Gaines wrote last time about we should be saving this golden egg that we have and you know? And I caught him, and I said, hey. I read your letter. I appreciate it. Thank you. But we've had this zone planned professional for thirty years, and no one's had anything to bring. And so it doesn't make sense to keep saving this for some golden egg. Like, things have changed and evolved, and it looks a little diff it looks a lot different than maybe it did in 1991 when certain things were put in place.

I think one more thing to consider is property rights in general. Yeah. People have the right to do certain things with their property, and we need to make sure that if that we're not standing in the way of people exercising their right. Agreed. And that if we are, it's for a very specific reason and and a good reason. And so I think that's really a good thing to keep in mind is, do the people have the right to rezone this property to do this thing? And if so, what would be the reasons that we wouldn't be okay with that? Because people should be able to use their property in the way that they choose to.

Yeah. I I agree with that. I think property rights have to be first and foremost because it's not ours. So where who are we to I mean, we only within the structure of keeping people safe and making a good mix on a community, but what does the owner want to do?

Okay. The reason that the slopes ordinance is being considered is because of the increasing number of retaining wall and retaining wall permits and retaining wall situations that we're getting into with building permits. A lot of times in especially in these subdivisions toward the bench, folks will pull their building permit for the house. And the house is built and the house is great, and it's the yard that they want to shore up. And so they're coming in after the fact to get retaining wall permits and don't realize that there's easements and there's setbacks that need to be met. And

Time out. Setbacks and fences or walls. We need to we need to fix that because we need some common sense here. I agree. K. Because we're not gonna we can't force somebody to put a retaining wall 30 feet back from the front of their property. Anything manmade shouldn't be there. Well, then what about the driveway? That was manmade. What about the curbs, sidewalk? We put those in, but it's in the setback. So someone can put a fence up and it's in the setback, but we don't say anything about it. But now all of a sudden retaining walls, it's a deal. And at the same time, we have ordinances that say, you have to keep the water on your property on your property. So we've what we've done is we've developed a catch 22. You can't do one without breaking the other, and you can't do the other without breaking the first, or not do the one without breaking the second. So I'm not sure if it needs to be in code or if it just needs to be explained to ensure that we all understand that walls and fences are not necessarily structures the same way that a house is a structure or a an outbuilding is a structure, or even a gazebo or a pergola is a structure. I get that some have to be engineered, but if they've done that, okay. But you can't you can't force them to put the the retaining wall, or we shouldn't be forcing them to put the retaining wall within the setbacks. Because, first of all, how are they gonna care about care for the property outside the the retaining wall? If it's up or down, they have to get someone. They have to maintain it, or else we'll find them again because they're not maintaining their property. So we've developed this, and all it takes is someone to tell the inspector or whoever that walls and fences can be built within the setback. Period. If we need to change the the code to say that, that's fine. As long as it doesn't do anything to affect the property next to them again, property rights type thing. If someone went to the property rights ombudsman and said, I need you to solve this, I know what they're gonna do. They're gonna side with the property owner because it's their right to protect the property.

I think where we're having the trouble is in that specific realm of how it affects the property next door. It seems to be a domino effect of one person puts up their retaining wall, and now it has redirected water or restructured how the dirt is staying on the lot. And now the neighbors next door have to build a higher wall. And the neighbors next to them have to build a bigger wall, and it it kind of has a cascading effect. And what we talked about was shouldn't all of these lots be shored up at the time of development instead of at the time of building permit? That folks should be buying a structurally sound and fully shored up lot

to build on instead of Here's the issue with that. This group, many iterations before us, and the city council, many iterations before the current one, approved developments on properties that have slopes that require some sort of shoring, some sort of retaining. And now all of a sudden, that's fine for future developments. But what are we saying about the current ones, the ones that are out there now?

Well and I don't know that there's much we can do about the ones now. Well It's the ones in the future that we wanna make sure. We wanna get ahead of any future problems. Can we change the definition of structure right now for any that we aren't requiring that we cannot go to the developer because it's too late? Like,

at the very east, there's a whole bunch going in. There's a lot of digging and stuff going around. I wanna understand. I mean, particularly to this letter, why is it being denied? I I just wanna understand because there are rock walls. There are retaining walls. I have a huge retaining wall with not 30 feet pushed back in my backyard. Across the street, I have homes with retaining walls upon retaining walls, which probably does block water, but they all have it. So I don't under I wanna understand to just understand to even make a decision. Why is this particular one is it attaching to the home? Because that's what it's sounding like.

Mhmm. Where we're having the trouble is that some walls require engineering and building permits,

and some walls don't. So which walls require that? What's this pipe like? Four feet. But they wanna go higher than four feet. Yes.

So is it over four feet? If it's four feet or more, they need to get it have it engineered. Like, remodeled by that. Two two foots.

An engineer has to come and make sure that what you're

structured. This letter that we received? Did you receive it as well? Didn't she say that it's engineered? Didn't she say that she's had an engineer come in and it's still been it's still been denied? Is it more than 58 above code? So we're not really talking about specific I know. Retained I'm just trying to understand. The

I think the thing we're trying to discern and the documents that I added to Box, North Logan recently adopted their slopes ordinance Yeah. I can put those. In November. And so I've included their code, and I tried to include their staff report about why they did that. And it's to get ahead of this I have to build my walls this way, and then my neighbor has to play defense and build their walls this way, etcetera, etcetera. It kind of sets up those subdivisions

to be shored up all the time. Need a retaining wall or they just want a retaining wall? Because I feel like that's a question as well. I mean, just because a neighbor wants it. I mean

Anything under four feet is considered a landscape element. If they truly are retaining something, then they do need to be structurally sound. And

Is it embarrassing? Are they just trying to push back to use their property to the full effect? Or

you know, I I guess it there's just a lot of criteria, I feel like. There are, and I think that's why North Logan wanted to get ahead of it and adopt an ordinance for their subdivisions Yeah.

You know, saying that they have to be I guess I'm just confused to develop. Why so many homes have retaining walls now to this date, and now we're running into this problem.

Well, I mean, a lot of times you're using the retaining wall so you can a flatter piece of ground. Yeah. It's gonna play Yeah. On flat instead of But I just see a lot of retaining walls

going in, but then I just I guess I don't understand. I know we're not talking about this one, but I I don't understand why this one is a problem when I see it everywhere else. Well, I mean, it's just it's it's kinda how you wanna use your land, I think, is how you know, if you don't really care and you keep your slope to the to the slope that

whatever our criteria is on the slope, if you keep it less than that slope, then you don't have to have a retaining wall. But once you start to

get steeper than that because you want some kind of a flat, then you gotta retain it. Mhmm. There's tons of people that have done that in their front yard so that they can have Yeah. So it's not a steep But that's not is that really retaining, or is it terracing?

Well, but that's that's what that's what retainer walls do is Yeah. Into a terrace. And Okay. Once they get to four feet, then they gotta be engineered. I've seen some three foot ones that I'm like, those are gonna fall over. You know, they they look pretty pretty ratty, and then they probably don't last very long. Like, you know, they're not gonna be here twenty years from now because they'll have a wet gear and it'll tip over.

I would be for saying that within structure, whatever our definition is to say, if the structure is not, like, say, the house or the garage or a I don't know what you use the other A fence. Outbuilding. Yeah. If it's not those structures, it it would be a structure if it was an engineer. I'd rather have someone put an engineer wall than a bunch of boulders personally just because one tiny shaker and those boulders are, like Yeah. Downhill at your neighbor. Yeah. But and we You're at the mercy of whoever stacked them and some people Right. Some aren't. And if they try to get it steep, then they're they're gonna have issues. Right. I'd rather see it engineered, which means, yeah, they'd have to get a permit. But if it's gonna be within the setback, maybe we say it shouldn't be more than four feet above ground. I mean, it's gonna have to be further down. If you retain it, you're gonna have to go deep and put your footings because we had to do a ton of retention, which we didn't expect, and then we got I don't think that counts for your four feet. I think it's from ground level. Ground up is four feet. Yeah. That's as long as it's that, then within the setback, I don't know that it would hurt. So many people already did it. So do we need to change the setback rule and define structure?

Think I think the ordinance needs to be cleaned up. Isn't that what we're really talking here is to clean this up so that I think we're we have two separate issues. Right? We have the current one that all of us are concerned about. And then going forward, I don't think anybody's arguing. Going forward, it should be the responsibility of the developer to make each lot buildable as is so that there aren't neighbor to neighbor disputations. Mhmm. As far as current, the reason that you can't have a retaining wall in this setback, is that our city code? Is that a state code? Is that a building code?

So there's a combination of codes. Right? There's there's public works standards. There's also building code. And the first one we start with is building code. Walls that are over four feet tall have to be engineered and have to have a building permit to be built. And so that's where we drew the line. If it requires a building permit, then it has to obey setbacks, and it has to stay out of the ether. That's what our city said. That's the problem right there. That's what our city said. Because you're calling it a structure

just like a house is a structure. Now I can understand not putting a house. If I put a if I want to make the land and I did this. If I wanna make the land next to my garage flat so that the water doesn't run into the man door of my garage, I have to put a retaining wall or or because it's not four feet, it's just a landscape wall, to keep the dirt from flowing from my neighbor's yard into my yard and into my garage. K. If I've gotta obey the setback, then I've gotta put it next to my garage door, my man door. And I can't even use my man door because then the then I've gotta climb up over the the wall because of the setback.

Well and, really, on side setbacks, when there's accessory structures, they can be within a foot of the side setback. So it's not really the sides where we're having the trouble. It's it's front. It's the front wanting to build six foot walls in their front yard. Mhmm. And emergency services doesn't allow that. Fire code doesn't allow you to have anything over I think it's either three Yeah. But is it feet in the front.

It's six foot from the sidewalk up, but then they fill it with dirt. So it's not six feet tall over the

am I correct? It's just the wall we're talking about. Just From froggy. Right. I get it. From the from the dirt to the top. What's showing above ground or including all the way down to the footing? Where the wall starts at the ground.

So if you walk out if you walk out the door of that house, you don't even see a wall, but it's over six feet tall. That's not the spirit of the that rule. Emergency services, the spirit of the rule is so that you can see into the house and you're not ambushed. Right. That's not the case. That's not what that's doing. So

we need to fix that somehow. There's multiple thing my point is there's multiple things we have to take into consideration. There's building code, fire code, public works code. There's lots of different why do we have a 30 foot setback? What's the purpose of the 30 foot setback from the road? So the house isn't built on the street.

Why?

Why? Why? Why? Because the feet might not take That's the way that that the city wanted the city to look. Right. House is set back from the street. So it's preference. There's no Right. It's not a preference. Is it a functional

reason, or is it an aesthetic?

Well, it's functional in that it allows you to put a car on the driveway and not be in the Yeah. In the street or on the sidewalk.

So I think part of the problem is the the giant setbacks that we have is part of the problem.

Yeah. But But the change to setback, the change where the actual house goes, is there what That's What are we in We don't wanna change that setback. Right. What are we in conflict with if we say retaining walls are not included in the definition of structure if it's being used to utilize a lot to the highest and best use for the property owner, and the amount of the retaining wall that is from the dirt up, it's not higher than four feet. Because when we drive around, you see a ton of people who've done that, and I would have too because they've got it they they did boulders. I would have rather they did retaining wall engineering, and so they have a flat front yard. And so when you're walking on the sidewalk, you know, you've got a little bit of a raise right there or it goes a slight slope and then higher so that they can have a flat sidewalk in front of their house. Otherwise, they couldn't have a sidewalk in front of their house. They'd have to do a whole bunch of stairs, which really bites in the winter. It's much better to have a flat sidewalk

brought to your driveway. Land use code is specifically to enforce health and safety. That's really what we're concerned about is health and safety.

So With that definition, is there any health and safety issues that would happen if we said that what most people have already done with their property, make it so that it's it is to cone because they got away others got away with it. How many houses do we have that are currently pre development that are gonna have potential issues with this structure definition, like, up above and

Yeah. Further to go up. I mean, there's there's no problem anywhere, probably down here in the in the bottom of town. It's all up on the hill. And I've seen there's some I mean, my my lot doesn't look like it has much slope, but I tried to level it out in the back, and there was 12 foot across my lot. So I had to I made a big six foot berm on one side and cut down six foot on the other side just so that I could have kind of a level lot. And so but then I sloped it, so I didn't have a I didn't retain it. But that just you know, the more you slope it, the less useful land you really have. Right. And at at the same time, we have a code that requires

us to keep the water that falls on our land, drain water on our property.

Or to let it drain the way that the subdivision was designed. There's a lot of them who have or a lot of subdivisions that have flow To retention.

Built into their subdivision. They have it's is our code right now, it's 30 feet, right, from property line? Because we tried to build a deck, and it was denied because it has to be 30 feet from the property. And we wanted to push out, and we didn't match. But years later, probably seven years ago, the builder came to me and said code was changed and that we could build a deck. You're talking about front or back? This is back. So is it different from back and different from in the back. Okay. Inside. I just wanted to understand that. Okay. So that's important to be aware of too. Zone to zone, and it varies

if your subdivision was built with specific setbacks recorded on the plat. If you're in It was just building. Things of that nature. I think we changed the backyard code a few years ago. What from a land use perspective, what we don't wanna do is is policing people's landscaping. That's that we don't wanna be doing that. Mhmm. All we're really concerned with is health and safety. We don't want anybody's lot to be sliding off into their neighbor's yard. We don't want anybody to create a flooding situation for their neighbor. We wanna prevent all of those things, but we don't wanna have to put a whole bunch of rules in place so that it's almost a a monumental task just to approve a site plan for somebody's building lot.

Do we need to redefine structure? I'm just trying to get us back on and do know

because it's not it's not just about retaining walls.

I mean, you have to consider anything that could be allowed to be built in the front setback or over the Yeah. Right now, we're saying anything that requires a building permit cannot be in the front setback. Cannot be in the setback.

And it shouldn't be in the East Can the setback. But do we want They're used to. Doesn't require a building permit,

it's none of our business. And if that's fair for our feet just that setback. I wanna make sure

Well I I I are the inspectors

are the inspectors understanding that the side setback is or the back setback, they can do within a foot?

I mean Mhmm. Yeah. They got back because they're approving sheds like that all the time. Sheds, but

are they retaining walls? Are they doing the same with retaining walls? I don't know. And the only other the only thing that I would worry about with a high wall or retaining wall, whether it's rock or block, is if it gets over four feet, do we require some sort of railing? Like a deck, if it's over so high, you have to have railing on it. The the only thing that I would worry about is we allow a a larger structure in front, and then some kid playing soccer in the front yard because it's flat now misses the ball and falls off the falls off the wall. That's the one thing that I would be worried about, But I'd be worried that about that as a parent. So I would I would say that's more of a property owner liability. But we we work we require railings on

decks that are over a certain amount because of And that's building code. Yeah. Land use code doesn't speak to that. Land use code is just about, is the land stable? Is, the property usable? And is it causing or not causing an issue for neighbors when it comes to runoff stormwater, etcetera?

So a lot of the houses I've driven around since it became an issue in what I I see a lot of them with boulders, and it does not look super stable. Are we saying they could put four feet of boulders, but they can't put four feet of engineered retaining wall?

They Because of the building permit? They can put four feet. Yeah. It's more than four feet is where you have to have things. But but if it's an engineered four feet, they need a building permit. No. No. Over four. Over four. Once they hit four, then they have to engineer it. That's Four feet, one inch. Yeah. Either either boulders

or blocks or So if it's a typical fall, but two feet is buried No. Don't don't count the buried. We don't we don't

we don't do that kind of math. It's just from where the wall starts to where it needs to be engineered Then it'll have a footing that's well below Yeah. To hold it. But that's pretty neat.

That doesn't count the value. So as long so right now, you could do an engineered retaining wall as long as four feet of it is sticking out no more.

You don't have to engineer. But what if they want to? Then you have to engineer. If it's once you if it's

Right. Three foot eleven inches, you can do whatever you want right now. So what if they're engineer minded and they want to overdo it? I can't do it. Do this. But then they don't have to get the building have to get a building permit. And that's where we draw the line right now is if it if it requires a building permit to be built, then it's a structure.

But that doesn't make sense if it's a four foot within the setback, engineered wall versus a four foot. So if it as long as it's not more than four feet, even if it's if they wanna overboard an engineer, they need a permit. Nope. No. No. They don't need they don't need a permit unless it goes Engineering has nothing to do with the permit. They don't you can do whatever you can use toothpicks. If they build a five foot wall, they have to do it. For two different things. I'm trying to I did not go around and measure all the houses. I was looking at so I don't know if they went over That's kind of the line that we've that we've drawn because it made the most sense.

If it requires a building permit, it's a structure.

Should we say if it's more than four feet high, well, as far as walls go? Just because I think that's our biggest issue is we're we've approved all these developments on really sloped lots, and pretty much everyone, especially when you go to small lots. You go third acre or less.

You're really limited where you stick your house. And we're really not having we're not seeing this as a problem inside or rear yards. It's mostly just when it a few of them in the front.

I can I can foresee it being an issue on a lot of them that are up top? Having driven around, I started looking and thinking slopes. I was like, this isn't gonna be our last one. We should probably be forward thinking and go, how do we want people to be able to retain a front yard using make it flat?

And then yeah. Because I don't think it's a flat. They can do where front just is takes a little more consideration because that's the public facing. Right? It's next to the sidewalk. It's next to the street, and it can affect affect health and safety that way. So when we looked at North Logan's code, it was all about making sure that the lots were already shored up and that this wasn't a conversation after the fact. For a few point. And I think that's where it becomes a problem is people have already built their house. They're just kind of batting cleanup, and and now they're having to come back and get permits for these walls.

But I think if you're if you're a developer, you're not gonna do the the retaining in the front yards before you before you sell it because you that's where you gotta work. Right? You're gonna wanna retain the rear and the sides easily. I think we probably just need

to read through this geological hazard type ordinance and decide maybe there's places where we're not gonna let people build. Yeah. That that'd be fine or bigger setbacks so that they can

multiple terraces or something in those. So that that'd be fine. But, yeah, I think to make them retain those upfront

Like, it's just limits how they can build. I mean, they're gonna drive in. The developer wouldn't do that, but I don't I think Well, we're we're trying to make the developer retain things before he sells the walls. Sure. The the developments I've seen that retain, they flatten that lot. They retain on the side. They retain on the side. They retain on the back. Like, our last property, we had six foot cinder block all the way around from Ardor to we look over behind us, it was a two story house, but I only saw the top of there. It was that far down to the neck. Because it was like Hyde Park. It's it's really high on the street. The next street is 25 feet lower, 25 feet lower. Right. But that's what ends up happening is you've got a flat on

or very light slope because it's retained already here and here and then the back's Well, I guess I what I was saying is the retained I mean, it's in the front on the street side. Sometimes Yeah. We're seeing You you maybe make them do that as part of before you can

Or flat enough that it's not an issue. Or you have enough that it's Yeah. A way that we don't have those. Okay. So But it's it's not something we have to get to the bottom of tonight, and that's why you made it a discussion issue. It's something that's probably coming,

and it's something we should start thinking about and start doing our research on. And Is there two answers you need, like, people right now or just future? No. Just future.

Okay. But what are the people who like, right now, we've probably got I don't know. Do we have fifty, sixty at least lots that have already been approved, if not more, that we didn't require this of? And Mhmm. All of them could potentially have the same it'd be nice to resolve it so that everybody in these upcoming developments

Well and I would hazard a guess that it's been litigated somewhere in Utah already, and we just have to do our research. And That what has been litigated? Retaining walls and where they can go and how much a municipality can regulate that. I would hazard a guess that that's been

done. We should check saying You mentioned you mentioned

North Logan and their slope ordinance. They also have a fence and retaining wall ordinance. I wonder if that would be something to look at and see. Sure.

So Do we not have a fence and retaining wall ordinance? Don't require permits

for Fencing. For landscaping walls or for fences. Some municipalities I worked in, we did require a fence permit. It was free. It was just so we could make sure people were putting their fence on their property line. Yeah. It was just a double check

thing, but currently, we don't Hyde Park doesn't require that. We used to require permits for fences. We don't know.

Oh, really? Hyde Park used to? Yeah.

Probably ten years ago.

And your neighbor had to agree to the height of it or something. No. I don't remember that one. It was a funny ordinance. But, again, this isn't something that we have to decide on tonight. We haven't even started writing a slopes ordinance or anything of that nature. We're just What's the typical looking into it. As municipalities build up into their benches get a feeling. We just need to be ready for it when it happens.

Agree. We need to make big changes for the future. My biggest story is the existing people. What can we do to accommodate our residents so that they can have the highest and best use of the property so that we're not saying, no. Don't have a good, decent engineer retaining wall within the setback. Because if it's within the setback again, I would rather see something that's been engineered and well thought out that doesn't stick out more than four feet.

And most of the folks that come in that have had some trouble, they have options. They're just very committed to their first choice.

Being more than four feet. And being where it is. Within the setback.

Mhmm. So they have options modified. They just don't want to. So if they over engineer

to the point they need a permit, that's not sticking out more than four four feet. I'm just thinking of all the ones that have gone around and just tried to look at. Again, I didn't measure.

I don't wanna be that person. I've done it before for my own stuff. I've gone around about You could get a laser measure. You don't have to go up there. A tape. Yeah. You could be sly. So, yeah, as we move forward, maybe read this code a little bit, read the staff report, and see exactly what it was that our friends in North Logan were trying to correct or trying to prevent and see if it's something worth spending our staff time on or and maybe it's not.

Well, I do think we do need to Come up with something.

I think so. I agree. I do I do think we should redefine that because if it's anything manmade, like you say, that's a driveway. That's a

Yeah. The house plans are usually on the house plans, and those are approved separately. So Mhmm. I I say that, but only because, yeah, there's so many manmade things that we put in that area already.

There's things that belong there and things that don't, and having to define that is difficult for sure. I think I think the purpose of the setback, like we were talking,

is really for the house structures as what most people think of a structure as a house, a garage, an outbuilding, a giant shop that's got everything, you know, tied in. I don't think when we're doing setbacks, I don't think the purpose was for other things other than big things out of the ground,

like the main house, the Yeah. Well, you have to remember also that when this law or code was written, they weren't thinking about anything beyond 800 East.

Then we really should readdress. So I think we should absolutely address that.

Or you just readdress here. You just readjust the retaining walls because I just think going 30 feet in, that's a big that's a big jump into a lot. Like, your example of your storm door, like but I know it's every situation is different.

If we made it so structure is what most people think of as structure, a house, outbuilding, garage, and not in not to be interpreted as anything as that's being used again for using the highest and best use of their front yard or side yard or whatever. I think that solves it for the ones that we have a bit for the ones that are approved in the developments that we cannot go back to the developer and say, sure it up. Then we solve that problem for those lots. And then from here on out, we say, sorry, developer. Instead of each person spending 30 to $50 retaining and fighting with their neighbor, spend an extra 25 per lot or 20 per lot because the developer spent it all at once coming in, and someone got a huge contract for a bunch of people. Developers usually grade it appropriately anyways to be passed? No. Not not anymore. Not here at least.

That's not Not unless it's required by Kov. Okay. So is that in our code? No. No. Okay.

That's what that's what's actually on our agenda. Thing. There's the This is the item actually on our agenda is do we want do we need that in our code, and what should that look like? Yeah. I do think we drew Okay. I think that was our What we're what we spend all of our time on is not was not meant to be the discussion item.

Except for a proposal last week. Is in.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It is. Is there anyone who, yeah, doesn't feel like we need to have that be on the developer? No. I totally agree. I I think it should Or future. I'm sorry if I didn't That would have been a faster discussion.

Sorry. Last week when I asked for the definition structure to be on the agenda, I didn't see it tonight. So that's why I brought it up.

I'm curious what developers think of that.

Money. It's the money. You got one in the room. The chat That's why I'm like The chair can call upon this one.

Alright. Alright.

Kelly, come on up. I'm kind of curious to know. Give us feedback.

So I I go back to Elko. I built a low income tax credit on the side of a mountain. We bought brought in some big caterpillars, and we moved a lot of dirt. So we it was a three story structure with 60 apartment units, and we've retained thank you. We retained probably about 20 feet in the back of of the mountain. And then on the front, we retained probably another 25 feet to to hold the parking lots. So what that did is that made that property feasible for a tax credit property. K? Without that, their property costs were way up. You know, we're building on the flat. So and then and then myself and Jay, if you're familiar with Jay Jinx's home up here. So we put in it was it was almost $300,000 worth of concrete retrain retaining walls to make that work for what he wanted.

Well, that whole that whole area is so steep over there that all of those houses have Well, I I have the next

a lot of I I have the next lot, and I've got 40 feet of fall when I bought the I have two lots. Yeah. 40 feet of fall from the one corner to the other. Yeah. So I put in Those gabons or whatever. Gabion gabion retaining walls, and I've got about four and a half million pounds of rock in those gabions. But it made for the lot that I wanted. I got a good view. I got a nice level lot. Right. But there's there's a whole bunch of stuff that I'd be happy to share with you as far as, like, engineering. So the reason I did Gavian's, I have one wall that is It looks cool, by the way. Thank you. I have one wall that's 21 feet high. Yeah. But it goes into Yeah. You gotta put nine feet. Mhmm. And but I did that because it retains and these are all engineered Mhmm. Because it retains the surcharge but allows the the the liquid to go through the wall. Mhmm. So but, anyway, there I'm happy to share with you what I know, and it it makes a big difference. Right. So but this is the other side of it, and this gentleman has moved. But the home right above me so the state does have grading limits of, like, 3032% slopes. So but the gentleman above me wanted a bigger yard, and he was up a lot higher. So he brought in lots of dump trucks. I had a of dump trucks. I had a 65 there's a 65% slope on his. So what that required me to do is to take my wall from what was a 12 to 15 foot wall to a 21 foot wall to to you know what I'm saying? So but but a lot of those people up there bought those lots with the ropes in the back knowing what they had because they have no backyard, at least the people on the East Side. You know? And for them to increase their yard, it's I mean, literally, to do what I did would probably cost 350, $400,000. Right. So it's not something most people are gonna do. Right. So but, anyway, but I do also understand because, like, so so Jay and Skyler own property just going out of out of sardine up on the hill. Beautiful beautiful property, but it's steep slopes. So Wellsville has a a slope ordinance that will not allow them to develop that. Even though or or once again so we're we got a 160 lots at Harriman Springs down in Harriman. It's it's on steep slopes, and so a lot of the driveways, you have to traverse the the the lot. Hey. You know? But these are not these are not They're not cheap houses either. Right? Yeah. Yeah. These are gonna be million, 2,000,000, $3,000,000 homes. So so in some some situations, you can work around the slopes, but it it needs to be designed and engineered right. So Right. But a lot of times, though, it it gave me I mean, talk about views. I built there because it's a it's pretty much an unobstructed view. You know? If it wasn't for Jay, you'd have a better view too. Well, I can look down on Jay now. Anyway but Well, that There's there's a place for it, and there's a place where it's not gonna happen. But what do you think about a developer grading it properly if you buy a development? And that's what I wanna know. Okay. So so I'm just gonna address the development that I'm in because there's a lot of steep slopes in the back of those on the east side of the road. Those meet the the state's requirements for grades. They just have little tiny backyards because of that. And if the person bought the lot knowing I'm gonna put a house on it, I'm gonna have 15 feet of backyard, but, hey, the setback's up at the top of the hill. That was the issue that I had with that is the the the people that did the grading put the property lines at the top of the hill. They should've they should've graded it differently so the property line was halfway. You know what I mean? Mhmm. So the people down below didn't end up at the yard, but the people up above have a big yard. So that that that is something that, you know, if if I was with city staff, I'd be looking at and going, okay. Let's move the grades here so that there's a compromise. That's a good one. Thank you for asking. I'm happy to share with you anything, but I've been doing this for twenty five, thirty years and done a lot of stuff like that. So Okay. Yeah. So what do you think about I mean, as far as the city saying from, you know, going forward To to to do a flat out, you cannot build on a certain grade? Well, the developer needs to make every lot

such

that, yeah, the owner do that already. Be shored up and it's graded, and that there won't there shouldn't be any reason for anybody to put in walls and do anything. But the other side of this is, a lot of times, these man made structures actually beneficial

to the to the drainage of the property. So, yeah, I mean, this this one when I told you that's 60 almost 65% behind me, I mean, it's been a few years, so there's some ground cover on it. I'm not worried about erosion. But sometimes those walls will actually help prevent erosion. You know? But the idea of retaining all of all the precipitation that comes down onto your land on your property, I think they're so so I Not under I built homes in Southern California, k, where you had huge swells in between your your so that the water would drain in a certain direction. I I guess the point that I'm making is is sometimes there's a storm so up here in our subdivision, we have three stormwater detention ponds. One of them, I don't even know why it got approved because there's not much flowing into it. You know what I mean? But

It's before us. Wonder why that developer submitted that one. Traverse

across the property to get to those retention areas. Otherwise, they're mute.

So, anyway Yeah.

So or, like, some of the subdivisions that are already approved, there's not they're not, like, the big huge drop off. I think if people have that drop off and people are developed behind, that's a little different. But fresh new developments that have a, you know, a slope on the hill like this, so between neighbors, if the developer were required to say, k. Put this wall in here, you know, a a six foot wall and then another six foot wall and then so that it goes down. Would the cost to the homeowner be less if the developer did that across the board with one big project and divided it versus each neighbor having to bring

engineers in themselves? It it really comes down to the cost of the finished lot and what that's gonna cost. You know? I mean, it's really easy. We just developed 34 lots out in Nibali on flat ground. It that's as cheap as it gets. You know what I mean? But your lot your cost of your lots go up as that that kind of infrastructure has to get built. And so people people want views. That's why they live in up there. That's why I built up there.

But there's a cost that is associated with that. You're not you know?

So Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for that input. Thanks, Kelly. I think he brought a good point of maybe changing where you're measuring the property setback. Maybe that would correct a lot of things. So the people higher have a bigger lot. So different lot design standards on the slopes? Yeah. Maybe that would correct that and kind of clear that up

on the East Bench. Sure. Does anyone know, and I haven't looked it up, what the civil liability is for water drainage from lot to lot, and who's who's responsible? Is it the upslope? Is it the lower? Is it

the civilly between neighbors? I'm sure it's been litigated, and I'm sure it just depends. Yeah. I feel like you are stuck in it together, and you better work it out. That would go to where we would want that line to be

based on who's responsible.

For the record, this is Kelly Harmon.

One more comment. This is where it gets tricky is when somebody's building in a subdivision, a neighbor builds a house up here, you know, 10 feet from the property line. The other neighbor over here wants to have a bit so they cut into the hill, and they don't retain it. So up here at Mahogany Ridge, we we had that exact thing. So this neighbor had oh, it was 10 footer drop, and they did not retain it. That homeowner should have been responsible for retaining that cut that he would agree with that. And that and that and that and at that point there, the the there's litigation and everything, and then one then the one homeowner down below, he just sold his house and left.

I I look at the gravel pit just as you're going from Bountiful into Salt Lake, and they keep digging into that mountain. And I keep seeing those houses up there. I'm going, pretty soon, those are gonna be down there. And I'll go, well Just thought about that.

But Yeah. Point them out and watching them whining at the bottom and there's houses at the top. I'm like

Yep.

Yeah. Well and I I guess I wonder, like, let's say we make a requirement and they have to get it down to a certain grade, and they do that, and yet still, even though it's a reasonable grade, the homeowner comes in and they still don't want even that slight slope like Ned. They really want it all the way flat, and so they are still gonna put in their own retaining wall, but I guess then it would be less than the four feet four feet or less.

Well and maybe maybe part of that subdivision ordinance is that you can't modify your yard. Once the developer has made all these flat lots and put in the retaining walls, that that's it. You don't you don't modify your yard after that. I don't know. I don't know what things.

Well, I think

In a subdivision, you kinda you kinda get to set your parameters. I'm I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know that we need to get ahead of it instead of try to fix it later. We know what the problem is. Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is your research project. I Yeah. I can

my when my parents bought their house, it was on a the earthworks had already been done. And for for the entire development Mhmm. It was terraced, and the terraces had to be, you know, a certain slope. It could be more than that or else it would fail. They had the slope going up, and at the top of that slope was the property line on the side. And then on the next side, the neighbor had it to the top of their property. So they just my parents had the flat and then the uphill. In the back, they had slope. In the front, they had slope. If they and that's fine. If we designate whatever the state requirement is, you can't have more than this much slope, and we use that as our standard. And then if someone wants to cut into the slope, as long as it doesn't go over the four feet, they don't need to have an engineer. But I really worry about that. I mean, two feet on the sides is probably probably as much as I would trust

a block wall

unless it was engineered to go in further and then go up. Terrace, two feet two feet? Well, no. One, two foot Oh. Like, to make your the the path on the side of your house wider so you can actually get a lawnmower in or something, whatever. But if you wanted to widen that, then you'd have to at a certain point, you need to have it engineered. Because you do have to worry about

And build the engineer standards, not just built good enough Right. Or

similar. So And have it engineered and build it the way it was engineered.

And then the That's what building inspectors do. And then the bottom It had to be engineered. The building section was supposed to ensure that it met the the drawings.

So, yeah, it has to be to the drawings. And then the the person below would have the responsibility if they wanted to cut into the the the slope to retain that slope. And if it reaches a certain height, it has to be engineered. So there's a a footing, a foundation, and blocks or or like mister Jenks did, cement retaining walls like you'd use in a foundation of a home or a basement wall. So that's what I would suggest for future developments. But then we still have the issue what to do now.

Alright. We have homework. On it. Mhmm. We have homework. I think the city's answer to the problems that are out there now is that most of these people have options. They just don't want that other option. They want what they want, and so they want the city to change. It's not that they aren't able to use their property. Well, it's that they can't use it exactly how they first want to, it sounds like. And we can we can get clarification. We can do our homework. We can talk to people. We can go out and measure or whatever. But let's I think we're informed now until we know a little more. And so now it's our job to, yeah, do our homework, look at it, check out other cities, drive around, whatever it takes before we meet again.

Yep. K. I found it helpful to drive and stop and look and stare.

K. Yep. Take your dog on a walk,

whatever it may be. In front of the house and stare to look. It's confusing driving around, though, because you do see

people having higher walls than this, and you don't know if they are engineered or not, or did they just not get permission? Because across the street from me, there's some high walls too.

It's part of the driveway.

And I don't know if they were engineered.

I mean, I have no idea. So that's hard when you do drive around because you don't Yeah. You don't know. And I think a lot of the ones that I saw again, I didn't get out the measuring tape early. I don't have a laser one, but they looked like they would have required trying to be out They would have been in violation of code. So so my point that I mentioned last time in the workshop was if that many people are having to do something and it's violating the code, if that many people are doing it to use their property the best they can, then maybe we need to adapt the code so that people can have the highest and best use of their property. And do it safely. And safely. Right. Obviously, safely. That's and that's our homework. Yep. Or Okay. Yeah. Sounds good. What what needs to get? The city or, yeah, some of the residents? And it may be some both ways.

Maybe you get the view or the yard, not the view and the yard.

Yeah. Okay. Next meeting is March 18. Looking ahead, the meeting after that would be the April, which is spring break. I will not be here. Ned says he may not.

I should not be. Or Ned won't be here either. Have plans. Ned supposed to be here this week. But We're glad to have you. Thanks to the cartels in Puerto Bay our time.

Oh, that's Are there others that know they would not be here the April 1? I am here. Heather's in town. Mike, April 1.

I'm here. Here. Charlene? April 1, no. We will be gone.

Nope. K. So April fools, I won't be here. Cool. No.

So we may call that a cancel.

Able

to meet the April. That's a good heads up, and then I won't schedule anybody to be heard at that meeting. I won't be here. We'll be disappointed.

First week in May.

I know that. Okay. I might be going that way too. We have left him since maybe I've turned 23. And I won't be here that long. Yeah. We've got First week in May.

First week in May, we're gone. First week in May. We've left the state since twenty out May in May. May.

Sorry. But we I can do March 25, though. And as long as we get one of all the I can. March 25, you're in front of us? May. Oh, May. Alright. Alright. You can zoom in from the beach. Alright. I'm not going. Make sure it goes two and a half hours. That's what it's about. K.

Without objection, I adjourning the meeting, it's 08:39.

I second that. Objection.

Thank you.

I am now the May too. Graduation.

Are we gonna do it? There's gonna be a lot of graduations. I didn't realize that. When they all started saying it, I'm like, oh. Because it's the first Wednesday. Right? So we have the sixth.

Yeah. I'm gonna So I have I'll be in Saint George. Congratulations. Alright. Well, I'm having to get excited. We're showing up about a meeting, then I have two dogs and then a couple condos for when it

I hear.