Hyde Park City's Planning Commission Meeting 2.18.2026

Ready.

Alright. Welcome to the Hyde Park City Planning Commission meeting. Today is Wednesday, 02/18/2026 at 7PM. And we have all commissioners here. We have Charlene Williams, Ned Hanson, Mike Mohs, Melinda Lee, and Heather Taylor. We'll start with, Ned Hanson will give an opening prayer or thought and lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

Our dear father in heaven, we're grateful under thee for our many blessings. We're grateful for the moisture we've received today. We're grateful for this community which we live in and all the great people and all those that serve each other. We're thankful we could meet in this meeting tonight. Please bless that we will have everybody will remain calm and we'll be able to accomplish good things for the city, and we'll try to make our city a better place to live. We pray that that will bless any of those in our community that are maybe struggling, help them in in their needs, and we say these things humbly in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag and The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, commissioner Hansen. Alright. First up is approval of the minutes. I got through some of the pages, not all of them, and I have quite a few corrections. I don't always like the way AI does quote me. They probably quote me exactly, and I don't like that. I want it to sound like a complete sentence. It had Charlene absent. Were you absent? She was. I thought yeah. You were. January 21. Yes. That was my son's birthday. Okay. Okay. I had thought you were here. And then did anyone catch Kevin's last name? Whoever was probably signed up on the role, but it didn't know she didn't have a last name for it. Didn't She couldn't read it. Or illegible. That's another reason it might have question mark. I really like when people

especially I mean, sometimes they don't speak. They just sign in, but that's why it's important to state your name when you speak so that we can verify what you wrote.

Yeah. And I couldn't think of Kevin that was here for any particular thing. Anyway You can go back. Okay. I'll start with someone on page three of the minutes. I think I was talking about the staff report. It might be on the right wrong thing. It said, like, staff report is, I feel oh, yeah. Third line up from the bottom on page three. Okay. Maybe just take out is. It's still not great, but I sound less stupid. Or is, I feel like, lined it out. Or add commas or something. It needs punctuation. Yeah. Maybe add some commas. Commas are great. Yeah. But you can tell I'm just thinking out loud. I haven't prepared my thoughts. Still have exact The staff report, I feel like, lined it out for us that it's just not there yet. Yeah. Punctuation would help me on that one, not sound quite so stupid. Got it. And on page four, it's for Mike Moe's that I think Uh-oh. It said Disappear. It's kind of that first big like, there's a gap. Sorry. It says enforced, and I think it should say enforce. So if you go down to, like, I don't know, eight lines where it starts Mike Mose, Michael Mose, and then the bottom of that paragraph where it says enforced in the middle Oh, yes. I think it should be enforce. The rules that were enforce at the time.

Enforced when I first put the

yeah. K. We can listen to it again. Yeah. But then you still have to abide by the rules that were enforced when I first put the application. Anyway, I don't know. What'd you say?

That's it.

Not that you remember it. Just I sort of think They're really sound the same when you're when you're just listening to an audio. I'm sure they sound the same. I might be able to get some context. But to me, it sounds makes more sense to say enforce. And then on page five, Ned said something. Oh, at the very top. Okay. During commissioner discussion, Ned Hanson, Hyde Park has such a limited small amount of commercial acreage. I don't think we need to say limited and small. Pick a word, Ned. Which one do you want? And drop the other.

Limited.

That's what I thought. Drop small. You sound smart. And then a couple lines down, it says nine feet strip. Can we have that be nine foot strip? Yep. I know they're petty, but we don't wanna sound like we actually talk. Let's sound a little better than we actually speak. Okay. That's actually as far as I got in a minute. So if you guys are comfort confident and comfortable with the minutes, let's certainly you are We have one. Start over here, Heather. So I

it's on page four. We're underneath Michael Moe's. It said Heather Taylor. It says I do love development. It was the development. Like, I do love development, but I'm like, I do love development. I sound like a robot.

I'm not sure you're gonna start singing technology.

I yeah. I love tech I've been reading that going I read it, like, four times. Like, am I missing a word? I don't think I said that.

Martha's got it. I know that.

If the minutes are if you feel like they need more work, you don't necessarily have to approve them tonight. We always post the preliminary draft like we're supposed to for state compliance. If we need more time to pick them apart and vote them on vote on them in the next meeting, that's perfectly fine.

Mike, what do you have?

I didn't read them as closely as you did, and I was satisfied with what was in them. I agree with the changes, but I don't

I know. And so content, I I'm sure the content is fine. Gotcha. Yep. Yeah.

I'm a ditto for Mike.

I think that's Yeah. Charlene?

Yeah. I I I'm fine with it. And I think it's a with a few correction. We can approve with few correction. Yeah. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes with the corrections that have been annotated by Melinda. Other.

And Hannah.

I said I second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Alright. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. That passes unanimously. Back to the agenda. K. Planning staff report. Mikkel.

I don't really have anything new to report at this time, so I would love it if we just moved right on to action items. We have quite a few. Commissioner Hansson loves that too today.

K. Action items. We have a lot of public hearings. We will start the first public hearing is to consider twenty twenty six three r z an ordinance to amend the zoning map for that parcel listed from commercial to mixed use. I'm you wanna speak to that specific issue,

Mikkel? K.

Thank you. I'm

gonna throw the rest out into the crowd. Mhmm. Okay. In box, we were provided a very nice proximity map. So is everybody familiar with the parcel we're speaking of, or do you need some direction?

Anyone need direction? K. Good? Yep. So

staff report is in box as well. If you didn't get a chance to read that and you need some clarification, I'm happy to run through that. The purpose of the rezone I took this from the application. The purpose of the rezone is to start working towards a mixed use development. The initial concepts of the development include a mix of three story condo buildings, two story townhomes, and minimum of 40% commercial on the west side of the development, which is the highway side, following the requirements of the latest version of the mixed use ordinance. The parcel has existed for some time as vacant. Hyde Park holds a 50 foot facilities easement along the western edge, which is roughly point five four acres. The easement didn't speak to exactly what facilities were, but that easement is in place. And then I put in the general plan and future land use map section, some quotes from the general plan about the purpose of the land use element, the general plan update that we did to focus on land use issues, and then a quote about the Wolfpackway Corridor and how it was an important part of Hyde Park's future residential and economic development. There's a a section in the general plan that spoke to the things that are supposed to go on in the Wolf Pathway Wolf Pathway Corridor. This proposal does fill some of the goals identified in the general plan, specifically goals nine, encourage new or expanded local business to serve more of resident shopping needs, and 10, to allow mixed uses in the community core area through ordinance flexibility. So I believe it's in conformance with the general plan and with Hyde Park City land use code. Right now, we just have I think it is four criteria for rezone in our code, whether the proposed amendment would be harmonious with the overall character of the existing development in the vicinity. Two is whether the proposed amendment would be consistent with the standards of any applicable overlay zone, which we don't have, so that one is always NA. Three, the extent to which the proposed amendment may adversely affect adjacent property. And four, adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks, recreation facilities, police, fire, schools, stormwater, wastewater, and we know that's all available along with pathways. So those were the criteria that we graded this on, and those are the criteria for you to consider as well. When this went through DRC review, much of the discussion was about how much commercial area is in Hyde Park, how much MX is in Hyde Park, how much should be, and are we preserving enough commercial for the future and for the things that we need? So DRC was not in favor of the rezone for that reason. They the main point of the discussion was how much more MX do we need, And that's a really good question. And how do we decide that? That's that's why you're here. So staff is neutral on the zoning map amendment based on the findings, the criteria. They meet the criteria. Again, it conforms to general plan and land use code. And that's where my staff report ends with a possible motion. You guys have any questions for me specifically

or for my kids? Was DRC unanimous in opposing it, or was it mixed?

Well, remember, DRC group is real small.

And We don't call for votes on stuff. It's Right. A discussion. Feel. There were a lot of things thrown around, a lot of pros and cons, essentially. I would say it was unanimous, but for different reasons. One on the big one of the big concerns on the planning side was a lot of the MXD reasons have been granted to prove moderate income housing compliance. With the city looking to change our moderate income housing plan this year, we may not need to grant MXD rezones anymore for compliance. And so that was always a big check mark for us when presenting these rezones is this helps with compliance. If we're not gonna do that anymore, that checkbox goes away. So that was one issue brought up. Another question brought up was, like we said, do we need this, which that's not really, the DRC's main function is to theorize and talk about the general plan and everything that's more of the the legislative role. But then a lot of it went went back to, like, capacity for the water system and the sewer system and utilities, and we have models. We know how things are going, but we don't 100% know the impacts once this is all built, how it's gonna go. And so there's just some general concern expressed that, hey. If we keep adding in a 100 more units per parcel or 50 to a 100 per parcel, how's that really gonna make the system go? So nothing concrete, nothing that we could point to and say, yeah, this shouldn't go through. Just a lot of general, concern and a lot of things that the staff wants to make sure the planning commission and city council are aware of as you make this decision. And like this the recommendation said, honestly, probably could go either way.

K. We probably better do the public hearing before we have too much discussion, or we'll get carried away. Everyone okay with opening the public hearing next? K. For the public hearing for all these public hearings tonight, please state your name for the record. Speak into the microphone so your comments can be recorded. Please limit your statements to three minutes. And this is for factual input, not necessarily your feelings, things that maybe haven't been considered or that you know, not necessarily what you want. K. We'll open the public hearing for this rezone potential rezone from commercial to mixed use. K. No comment. We're gonna close that public hearing. Alright. Now, commissioners.

We do have the applicant here. If Oh, yeah. I would like to recognize them and ask them to speak. I don't know. Yeah.

You really want to point. Applicant. Applicant. We'd love to hear from you. Jake Thompson. Right? Is that He'll say his he'll say his name in a minute. No. He's minutes.

My name is Jake Thompson. And, yeah, we're, applying to have this rezoned. We do have it is the same owner as the other Sunrise Square just above. And I think it's worth noting that we are talking to a grocery store, and one of the questions they are asking us is the amount of rooftops within a radius as they do their market analysis. So that is one component to think about. As well as just below, we have an intox as well. We know that commercial is a big deal for the city, And it seems like every time I've been to a lot of meetings, guys. I'm sure you've seen my face a lot here. And it seems like a lot of the discussion has been multifamily and housing, and I think that's been overemphasized when you have applicants in here. So I think what we're trying to do more so is we've been in talks with how do we generate that commercial with the city that the city wants and and that's what our a lot of our focus has been as we've been talking to the mayor with with McKellen with Marcus and we feel that adding some additional housing, yes, will benefit the city in a way that will generate revenue through these commercial components. And with this smaller piece, it was it was a difficult one to put together as we started thinking what would go here. And just below there is Tyler. What what is it that he does again there? It's the senior living Mhmm. Senior living. And so we've been asking him what would be a a good component adjacent to that. And he brought up a few places for for guys, I'm I pushed snow all day. I'm sorry. I'm having a mind fart. It's a crazy day for everybody. Pharmacy was one of the ideas that he had, but there's there's a lot of different where you work out. Gosh, guys, I'm so sorry. Fitness. Well, physical therapy, Michael. Oh, okay. Things like that, he thought would be good adjacent to this particular location. So those are just thoughts and things to think about as you as you, excuse me, consider this. I don't know if you have any questions for me or if that was a So then Will got one question. This isn't the one we talked about last week. I was gonna ask No. This is a different the noise. Just It's the same owner. That's what's confusing. Same owner. It's just a different yeah. It's just, like, you've two lots down. No. Not the stuff we saw last week. No. Nope. Didn't think so. I just wanted to get make sure I understood. Surrey Square is the other one is where?

Just just so you see Theme Properties on the very edge of this map, it's the next parcel lot. Just north of that. Okay. Just north.

And

the Rugged Mountain is the diesel place. Right? No. That is advanced auto or express auto. Express auto. Okay. That's right.

And then you've got

that gap right there. I I do need some The chew excess.

That is Chew property. Baked property right now. Just That's where the dumpsters are on that big dirt pile right now. Okay.

And then down to the south of that is where the senior residence is going in. Yep.

That's in red, though. Right?

No. It's the ones? The senior one is is they're gonna have two facilities, one up here and one down here. This is that one. It's kinda that l shaped mixed use single building. Okay.

Okay.

We may be seeing something different there, but that's TBD.

You're good. We'll call you back up in a minute, I'm sure. Go Or right now. Sorry. Stay here. Hang out. Yeah. So

you mentioned that you have some ideas of, like, physical therapy Yes. Or pharmacy or those are things you'd like like, you know Yes. That the people next to you would like to have.

But We all I've used this company before that generates a lot of these commercial. I've done a project in Ogden, and they've done a Nelson Creamery. They've done a Culver's for me before. So they generate a lot of these. They're a bigger company, and they've helped me with a grocery store on this particular the piece that's on the other the bigger footprint that you see just above. I believe a light will be there, Mikkel. Is that what we were talking about? Is it in In progress right now. So it's in progress. So they're excited, that they're as we're generating that interest, there's more and more questions as they're asking us that. But they're excited. We're excited. In fact, we're thrilled. I think the mayor's even more thrilled about it than we are. But it's been it's been exciting to see that take place and and transform into that. But, yes, like I said, we we are dealing with this group that also generates these commercial, components. And and, yes, pharmacy would be one of those. I think it would fit nicely in this particular area, within that,

senior living. So you would want to put

mixed use? Why wouldn't you wanna just keep this as a commercial spot, then you could use that for the pharmacy? And the The the the size of it is not just for one pharmacy. It'd be kind of a professional space, basically. And so that would fit there, but the footprint of the professional space to fit that entire lot would be rather large, for what we would wanna do there, I guess, is what I'm saying. And and, again, along Wolfpack Way, it just makes more sense to do more residential there. Every time I talk to commercial people that wanna do commercial, it always push the other side or the main street where that where the visibility is. Which is why we have their

code the way we have our code. Right. So

k. Alright. Right. But, Mikael, you might have some thoughts. I know that you're on the other side of the fence on the I don't know if I talk out of the place here. I'm sorry. But should read up. But, yeah, when I do talk with commercial, that's their main focus. They do like to be on that side where they get the most visibility.

So But not every parcel on the highway has access. Right. Even though they can't access it from that side, it still helps to just be

Yeah. And there and there will be it's good to note too. There'll be a cross access through that retirement community that will be we're putting that for a commercial space that would be

accessible through that cross access. So you're you're talking about North South access Yes. Theirs to yours? Correct.

That VoIP access, or would they also go pass through the mix the residential? They could go through the residential, but it may it'd make more sense either way. I think our focus would be it'd be some type of shared access in between the Hyde Park Partners and Sunrise is what you'd see there.

I know when you go to the pharmacy in North Logan, you know, with the Well, that's a disaster. The road is the same as enters that 55 and older. Same. And so they're like, no entrance, you know, like dead end or closed or no public access. I'm like, hey. Well, what if my grandma lives there? Yeah. But they really don't want the pharmacy people or the doctor visit people to enter their neighborhood.

And that's why this piece is so unique, I guess, is because we're trying to find that access would correlate with those properties around it. Yeah. Is is the fundamental problem just that most of these parcels are long and skinny? It is harder. I'm gonna be honest. It is harder for that. Yeah. Okay. It's not the total reason, but it is a big reason what you say, Tom.

So we're we've approved a few of these others as mixed use, and they are all great. They know what the ordinance says, and then they come back and they say, actually, we can't get the commercial in when we said we would get it in. It there just isn't there aren't enough rooftops. Nobody will come, so we'd like to be excused from this requirement. I I believe,

and mark let me know if I'm wrong. Isn't there part of the building process that you have to include Mhmm. That comp commercial component? Mhmm. So so I don't think there's a way around. I know.

I guess I'm just saying, are you that much are you that much better? Like, are they not figuring it out and you haven't figured out? You know, I guess we were just thinking like, hey. The market's not ready for it. Trying to be proactive.

Like, yes. And I'm trying to be pro and I'm trying to make honestly, I my expertise is in the residential. These this other company is the commercial, and their expertise is far beyond mine. But working with them, they're able to generate the two together, if that makes sense. I've done a few mixed use projects in Ogden, like I said. And they do they do come together quite nice. If you get those two people together, they know what they're doing. So so to answer your question, yes. I it doesn't intimidate me to be to do commercial. However, I know you've heard this a million times. It does require rooftops. It does require people just like that grocery store. They wanna know that they have a certain amount of people and density around them that are in a shop there. And I know this is a swear word for Bringhurst, for example. They're almost closer to leaves than they would be to sprouts. Right. And so I hate to say that density isn't is a waste, but and for me and what I'm trying to add there, it almost is. But this is almost a walkable I mean, to go get a a a gallon of milk, these people could just go to to that grocery store. So in a sense, it does help me overall in the whole big picture. So

And I to put some some kudos to the developer here, I will say that, Jake is one of the few who is proactively working on it. A lot of the developers that have come through in the past weren't as proactive. And so we saw a lot of asking to be excused from that, but, yeah, we'll we'll give credit where credit's due. We feel like this this team of applicants you have before you are actually working on it and lining up some good commercial opportunities for the city.

So just just a reminder that I think I got this right. We are only we're not we're not voting on a development. We're just voting on a rezone. Correct. So is the rezone appropriate for the space

that they want to do? Yes. Anything that could happen with the new zone. Are you okay with anything that the new zone would allow? Correct.

Right. That's what we have to consider. Yeah. I guess one more question for you. Do you realize that there's been a significant change to the mixed use ordinance since the last one of this one? Okay. Just

To the Sunrise? Yeah. Okay. Yep. So It's it's changed a lot, Ned. Yeah. All the time I've been here. Yeah. It's On purpose. Yeah.

Because of what happened with all of the

people coming in and Yeah. And that's why I said we're trying to put the focus where it's more of what the city wants, and we're trying to be more of that vision with you guys. So K. You can't tell us what grocery store, can you? Nope. Jerry said that it's browse. Yeah. I I don't know if I It's Jake. We're on the record, so I don't know if I dare. Jake's not from store. They've asked me not to. Hey. But That's fine. I can outside if you'd love.

Let's strike it.

Can you do that? I mean, mean, I can if you guys want me, Tyru. Well but we are we are recording and live stream, mate. Everything. So it it will be on audio thread and talk to you outside.

K.

Can you just show me where where's the other subdivision

sunrise from this? North of the Just just above the thing.

Well, it's barely out of the picture. The Fran Park? Yeah. It was the very next I was confused from the beginning, so I just need to get

my

So here's the parcel that we're looking at rezoning, and here's the other one Okay. Owned by Sunrise Square. Okay. And didn't we

didn't we rezone along Wolfpack Way part of what the city owned to commercial?

That was one at the very top. That was at the very top. Very top. Okay.

Well,

very top of here. So the parcel that's owned by the city that's rezoned was way up here. Okay. So we did just make that commercial. Mhmm.

Okay.

Can we ask about water rights, or that's not applicable at this step? It's

the criteria for rezone.

K. It's something that we have been chatting about with the developer. We are concerned about the city staff, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker for the rezone. K.

Alright.

Motion? Discussion? What is it right now, zone desk? I think we might all let Jake sit down there. Marshall. Thank you. It's it's I'll make a motion I'll make a motion to pass

the rezone. Recommend approval to city council.

Yeah. To recommend to approve it to city council.

So at the bottom of the staff report, I try to add a motion there. There is one there if you wanna use it. Thank you. Otherwise, you can use it. Yeah. One second. You wanna say what? Okay.

I move to approve the rezone of Parcel 04 Dash 037 Dash 0013 from commercial to mixed use based on the findings of fact in the staff report in confirmation with the Hyde Park City land use code, the general plan, and the future land use map. You got that?

You have to repeat it. Don't have to anymore. I don't have to type it up. I'll second that long one. They

all second by net. He's at the bottom. I'm sorry. No. Yeah.

Yeah. K. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. Passes unanimously.

Yeah. I just for the record, I just I can't really find a reason not to do it. So

we'll grant you your wishes, I guess. And now there's a motion within a full sentence. It's gonna sound so intelligent now, right, unless AI botches it. I don't know.

K.

We just wanna make sure we get all the words in there that we're supposed to have in there for the order.

Alright. Another public hearing. And I've already given the instructions. They're the same for all the public hearings. Staff report first for do you wanna do you have a staff report to do for this I can just bill twelve and thirteen? I'll run through them briefly.

This is a document in here that was additions and corrections of twelve and thirteen. I'll just preface this by saying this update is largely trying to just clear up some of the confusion. We're not looking to change a ton of stuff content wise. Just trying to clear it up. So first change is everywhere where the word survey appears, we're adding the word boundary survey because in state code, there's specific requirements for a boundary survey, and that's what we're gonna change to. In 12 dot 10, we're adding the phrase, with all property lines, easements, encumbrances, and existing structures and elements shown and labeled in all sections of the word survey because, again, that's the state code clarifications that's added with the boundary survey. There's this the state of Utah changed where they keep their land use code, so we gotta go through all of chapters twelve and thirteen and change everything from ten dash nine eight to ten dash twenty.

And so this is just every It happened on the November 6, and I happened to be wanting to look up specific code. And I went in there, and it was not there. And I began

The fun part is the third number has also changed for a lot of those things too. So it's not just a simple copy paste 9A to 20. We have to actually go in and find where the new code it it's gonna take a long time. But, anyway,

that's We have a lot of references to state code and our code. So

yeah. The next one is the one that's already been discussed. We're just removing any mentions of conditional use permits in relations to accessory dwelling units because we'd already decided that we're not gonna require those for ADUs anymore. We just found a couple of rogue

CUP references as well where it goes out. That's state state law now, isn't it? Anyway

It's state law for internal. And if a couple legislators have their way, it will be state law for external pretty soon too. We have an official city addressing policy that we're gonna add to title 12, which is exhibit a. There's been a lot of confusion with addressing with the developers and with Melinda smiling because she dealt with us a lot back when she worked with the city. So we're creating an official template and guide for our addressing. So everybody's playing off the same set of rules. And then the last sections are additions in the subdivision and land use codes, and it's just adding more language to what we wanna look for in subdivisions. Like, this one is talking about how we should name subdivisions and how we want them to reflect the city and the goals of the city and the feel of the city and that the planning the city planning can

We've already got way too many wolfpack this and wolfpack that. And Juniper this Juniper

Ridge and Juniper Bluff and Juniper Grove and

Ideally, you would not wanna duplicate a name found anywhere else in the county If we can just not duplicate names from our own municipality, that would be great. So we're just gonna start there. Yep.

And then we we're adding the specification to talk about when is an application considered fully closed because there's been some key confusion with when do we actually close an application and say this is complete and when does it keep going and we're adding more things to it. So that's clarification of when is an application actually done. And then the last one is a clarification of timing of how how long developments are good for. We've got some developments that get finished, and then everything gets done. And then the Mylar doesn't get signed and finished for, like, a year. And then the developer shows up and is like, nah. I don't know if I'm still gonna build this. And, really, in land use code, that's a good time for us to say, you really need to start over because things have changed. And so this is adding We have some developments that are probably coming close to that year mark, aren't we, don't we? Yes. The other tricky part is as long as they're showing progress, we can't just say no. And a lot of these ones along Wolfpackway are starting to actually show progress. So

It's the ones that just

Yeah. Get approved and then sit, and nothing happens. Or try to sell it And then by the high school isn't that one of the ones Oh, those.

Yeah. We we can talk about that one another time. But, yes, this is just adding some we already have in specific zones how long applications are good for, so we're just adding this language to the subdivision ordinance so it applies to all the applications and, zones that we have. So that was the short version. Those those are all the things like we said, this is largely clarification and updating language to to reflect all the things we've discussed for the past six months or so.

I'd like to make a motion that we Wait a minute. It's a public Are you done? There's a public Oh, okay.

Go ahead. Sorry. That was the staff report? Tell me that. Yep. That was just the staff report. K. Once you were the public. Okay.

I will open the public hearing to consider the revisions to the land use code entitled twelve and thirteen, the additions and corrections just discussed. Alright. With no one here to speak to that, I will close the public hearing. Alright. Planning commissioners.

I would like to make a motion to accept the changes, proposed additions and or corrections to titles twelve and thirteen, and recommend approval to the city council.

We have a motion.

Second.

We have a second. Any further discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. It passes unanimously. Thank you. K. You already talked about road naming and address standards, but you wanna speak to that some more or again,

Mikkel well? And here they are. This is exhibit a. This basically starts with county standards, and then I also brought in USPS standards and historical data. So we define what kind of what kind of roads get grid system name and which kind of roads that's kind of it makes it more confusing for, right, diagonal roads and that kind of thing. So we've defined what kind of names roads could get, and that road name should be approved by the planning department, and developers should be changing these names at the city's request. Here in Cache County, I haven't seen where there's been anything crazy. But in Grand County, some of the names for roads and businesses and subdivisions sometimes were

Less than desirable? Less than desirable,

questionable. And so we just thought we needed just a little bit of clarification about we wanna keep it all friendly. And then we also speak to we wanna take currently, our code says that the final plat, the addresses need to be on each lot. And what we found is that we go and record those, and then the post office calls us and goes, this is this isn't okay, or we need to change this. And as you know, changing things on a final plat means a rerecord. And I am requesting that we let the address be assigned that time of building permit instead of final plat. That way we know exactly where the driveway is gonna go on any given lot, and we can use that grid system we have in place to assign the appropriate address instead of just giving a lot an address. And later on down the road, if they add a ADU or they split that lot, then maybe the address is no longer gonna work where the driveway is. So we just need to the proper way to do it is to address a parcel at the time of building permit. And so they'll submit a desirable address, or the city will assign it? They will submit a building permit, and we will calculate their address and assign it to them Okay. Based on these criteria. There's lots of there's actually a commercial business right now that's struggling with their business license because the address that they wanna use is they're never gonna get a delivery. It's just not gonna work out for them, and they want to change. And we also have one that has a county address, and they don't want to change. And so we just need some standards in place, but

it's not going on. I live on Bluff, which is 750 East. And when I moved here, it is still a problem. People cannot find my home. So it is a problem.

And especially where emergency services are coming into consideration, we that shouldn't be a problem. And we could be proactive about making sure that everybody gets found when they need to be found. So we address which sides of the street should have even, which side should have odd, and then what to do with these nonconforming roads and addresses. This is just kind of a a cleanup. I'm sure maybe we can get more, detailed in the future if we need to about, you know, drawing hard lines. When you're annexed, you must have a city address or something of that nature. But right now, we just wanna work on moving forward, making sure our final plats can be recorded without having to check all these addresses and and actually having to change because they're not right, etcetera, etcetera.

Is there a way to put a signature block somewhere on on either the building permit or the MILR that says that it's been approved by emergency services and the USPS?

So, normally, in my experience at county government, those folks are part of your DRC. When the plat comes in, they look at it and say, you know, according to our addressing system, this looks like, you know, these road names will work. The north south direction. You know, they they check some of these things. We do have fire department who comes to our DRC, but I don't I have looked and I have not found an addressing committee for the county or the city. There's not a group of folks. Normally, you would run that by dispatch. Right? They would be one of the people that signed off on Oh, here. I mean addressing system.

In that you say addressing those in c, addressing those subdivision lots and homes shall be completed by the Hyde Park City Planning Department with the approval of local emergency services and USPS. So where do we have it show that we have got the approval of emergency services

in USPS? My intention is to meet with PostMaster. Right now, his concern is, especially in these townhouse developments, where townhouses are back to back but on different streets, they're gonna have the same number, and we're trying to they don't want that. It's gonna happen, though, because of the location. And so we're trying to work out that. So that'll be some of the things that we work out, and then we'll adopt their policy. I was just thinking that that might be a way of

making sure that we don't have to pay a a fee to resubmit that into the county recorder if there's a mistake made. And you say, well, wait a minute. You approved it right there, and here's your signature or here's your x or, you you know, that did it on the computer or something. So you approved this before. If you wanna change, that's fine. We'll change it, but you're paying for it. And our intention is instead of putting those on the plat is to do it at the time of building permit so they can be assessed one at a time

and be addressed off of the driveway, center line of the driveway instead of just general But it still has to be approved by the emergency services USPS. Was we wanna get their addressing policies and

bring them into ours. I think what commissioner Moe's is saying is, can we add, like, a sign off, like, a checkbox on the permit saying

emergency services has seen this. They approve. I don't know that we wanna do that. I think that would delay building permits, having to go chase that down. But I think if we get the process approved from them ahead of time, we can use their process.

Right. As long as they approve our process Yes. And make sure it aligns with theirs Yeah. And we have the signature theirs so that once we give an an address and they come back and say, oh, we can't use that address. We'll say, we used your policy. You signed it. Absolutely. Then you pay for the change. I just don't want the city to be liable for for having to do that. I don't know how don't know. But I would imagine that, like, these some of these mixed use things with a 150 houses in it and you have to change every single one, the county is not gonna be favorable, and it's gonna cost a couple thousand dollars to do that if you had to pay for it full price. Yeah.

Our intention is to not have to get to that point. We wanna defend the bud and make sure we're doing things right from the get so that we don't And the county's fine to wait to not get an address for each of those lots?

K.

I think maybe Mike might go a little better if you change that with process approval of those instead of just saying it sounds like approval of each one is the least version. At a time one at a time? Okay.

So maybe if including your motion with

Object to

the wording change? Yes. Change to the verbiage.

So it's saying right there. Process view. Yes. Okay. Let's see. Let's do this.

Michelle, sorry. I just looked at the

Public hearing. Yeah. The staff report

done? Yes.

Okay. Time to open the public hearing for the con to consider the adoption of road naming and addressing standards. Public hearing is opened. No comment. Public hearing is closed. K. Commissioners.

So I need to say I'll make a motion that we accept the that we recommend approval to the city council to adopt exhibit a with the change of adding process in the in the wording.

I second

that. Good job. We have a motion and a second. Great. K. Any further discussion on this item? Nope. K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. That passes unanimously. Next item, another public hearing will first have a staff report to consider the repeal and replacement of title 13 dot 40 concerning the minor subdivision process, which we've discussed before. We've been educated on this already, so this should be a review.

Got it.

So as a refresher for the planning commission, the purpose of a minor subdivision as we understand it in looking at what other cities do looking at state code is not necessarily based on the number of plots only, but also based on utilities and availability of infrastructure. And so the big change that we're proposing for minor subdivisions is instead of just being number of lots, there's a new list of criteria for approval. And one of those criteria is we want it to be lots that are already developed, lots that maybe existed for a long time that are vacant, and now developers coming in, maybe splitting it and wanting to create two additional lots, but they already have all the infrastructure they need. All they really need to do is put a new service in, and they could get their building permit. And that's really all the changes in a nutshell are to accomplish that goal. There's a lot of, language in here about referencing the process. We just refer back to the land use table. We're not changing the process in code necessarily. We're just amending it so that it all revolves around this new way of looking at minor subdivisions where it should be something that's ready plug and play and doesn't need a ton of additional construction or improvements. Infrastructure based, not number of lots based. Yes. I think there's still a restriction on number of lots because we don't want somebody to come in and be like, I'm putting in 30 homes. But the big thing to remember is that this is all going to be looking at the level of intro infrastructure already installed and ready to go.

So it's ready to go, Ness readiness.

Right. You think of the the few that came in and we looked at in the core zone where they just wanted to split the lot in half. We had this whole discussion about how much curb and gutter should they do, and then the city council said, well, the core zone's unique. We don't need them to do curb and gutter and all that stuff. This is for that exact purpose and got a lot somewhere in town ready to go, easy to split. We want them to have a quick process where they can come in and get approved, faster than a normal subdivision.

K. Alright. We will open the public hearing to consider the repeal and replacement of title thirteen forty concerning the minor subdivision process. With no one speaking to that, we will close that public hearing. Commissioners.

I do wanna note before there's a vote taken that we have identified a couple of formatting issues with this and a couple of things we want the city attorney to just double check for us. But overall, the content, we're really confident in that it's it's good.

K.

Are these the ones highlighted in pink? Yeah. So the pink is the comments of things that we want to format, or you'll notice I have a couple comments that say double check with city attorney on this. So it's things that we we think are good. We wanna, you know, double check with the attorney to make sure that we understood the state code correctly. And then the other formatting things are, like, we wanna take some of these bigger paragraphs and turn them into bullet point lists. And Love that idea. That kind of thing. Anytime you can do that, that's much better. Are are we recommending approval or are we approving? Recommended. This is another ordinance change, so we'll have to go to the city council for funding. So by the time the

city council gets it, the formatting changes would be

Yeah. We're gonna get completed. We were reviewing this today one more time and found these, so we'll get right on.

So mostly I mean, content, not necessarily exact wording in sentences. So if we make a recommendation and a few things get changed and city council votes,

like, don't be sad that it doesn't come back to us. If it's substantial changes, it'll come back to us. If it's not Really quick. The things we need the city attorney to check on, number one, some notes we want to have added to these plots to identify that it's a minor subdivision, so we're just double checking on the verbiage of those notes. And then number two, there's a timeline for approval, and we just wanna make sure that that timeline is okay. This is it's down to ninety days. And the reason for that short lifespan is because these are supposed to be quick approvals, quick turnarounds. And so in theory, when a project comes to the city, they should be ready to go. So we don't want somebody coming in doing a minor subdivision than having it sit for two years while they think about it. So that's those are two things we're checking with the city attorney, the notes for the plat, and making sure that ninety days is acceptable by state code.

Alright. We've had the public hearing. We've heard from the staff. It's our turn, commissioners.

I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of this minor subdivision subject to the potential edits that they've highlighted in pink.

I'll second that. Great. We have a motion and a second. I probably need to be saying who the motions and seconds are by. Commissioner Hansen made a motion, and commissioner Williams seconded that motion. Any further discussion?

Just realize that we're approving the format changes, not the substance changes. Right? Gotcha. Yep.

K. Unless the attorney says something other of what. Right? And then it then then does it well, it doesn't need to come back to us. I mean, city council can approve that if they want. I guess that would be the question. Does the planning commission feel strongly enough about this if the city attorney were to say, no. You need to tweak it. Do you need it to come back? Or It's a great day. Be okay to have it keep going. Probably, but I won't if it's baby change, I

I don't think I need to see it. What the

what you've looks like you're asking about is how many days the approval is good for if they fail to

record it. Right. That's one thing. If it gets recorded, then that's a whole different set of rules. This is the timeline between approval and getting it recorded. Right.

And the other thing was?

The notes for the The notes. Which we pulled those from our code from different part of the code. We just wanna double check to make sure that those would be applicable for the minor subdivisions like we think they are.

Sounds like baby changing. Yeah. Those yeah. Just I don't have a problem.

K. Any other discussion? K. All in favor of recommending approval of this to city council, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passes unanimously. One more public hearing. Alright. This item is considering the adoption of a zoning clearance process as an update to title twelve ten twelve dot ten dot sixty. Staff.

Okay. So we had this as a discussion item back in the fall, and I presented it to you as or with the background that the struggle that our building department has right now is is delays in getting land use approval, public works approval, for building permits. As you know, the state has a really tight timeline from the time that we accept a building permit until it must be issued. And, oftentimes or most of the time, it's not the building department that struggles with getting their reviews and whatnot done. It's land use and public works. So this is my attempt to get ahead of that problem by allowing folks to get their land use and public works side of it done before they even apply for their building permit so that they go into their building permit with a zoning clearance letter saying this site plan has already been looked at and given the blessing of land use and public works, and they can they don't have to wait so long to get the building permit in their hands. Building department can do their thing without having to wait on us. Zoning clearance is something that's used a lot. North Logan uses it, but a lot of municipalities outside the Cache Valley use it. It's also handy for home occupation business licenses. Right now, all our commercial uses require a full site plan review, which as you know, an in home business doesn't have the same requirements as a full commercial business. So a zoning clearance letter would allow us to use that as their site plan approval for a home occupation. Same thing with, a short term rental in your ADU or your basement. We could instead of doing a full site plan evaluation, we could use the zoning clearance letter in place of that. So it's basically, in code. We relate it. We're it's in the same section as site plan approval. It's just a variation on-site plan.

K. We'll have our last public hearing of the night. I will open this public hearing to consider the adoption of a zoning clearance process. And with no comment, I will close this public hearing and open it up to commissioner's discussion or or a motion and then discussion.

Bennett.

I wanted to add one little editorial piece here. So we had a real life example this past week of why we feel like this is really important. There's this exhibit called real site plan submitted for permit. If you click on it Come on. This was somebody's real site plan they submitted for their house Yeah. Saying, here's our here we go. This is it. To the average person, you may see that and go, it's a house. But as far as building code requirements, city ordinance requirement, this isn't even this isn't even close to bare minimum. This is so bare bones that we had to just kick it out. Now the problem is with the state code we talked about, as soon as building permits accepted into the queue, a shot clock starts. And we have a timer, and we have to get it approved by a certain amount of time. The only thing we can do is we there's a pause button we can hit. If it's we accept it in and it's so incomplete that we have to wait for corrections, we can pause the shot clock. But when we hit pause on these permits, typically, they're paused for weeks at a time because we're trying to work with the applicant, trying to work with everybody to say, let's get this figured out. And so zoning clearance letter, we could get that done before they submit their site plan. And when they submit the site plan, honestly, the review would probably take three days, and we could get it done for single family homes. Because the billing department works really fast, And if they have the letter, everyone else can go in and say, yep. We've already looked at this. Check the box. We're done. But this permit, I I think it still hasn't been issued.

No. Because I have to reach out to the applicant and try to get more information. Can you give me a street name? Can you give me North? Are these measurements setbacks? I need to verify all of that information. There's nothing on there that public works needs. They they need a lot more information than I do. There's no curb cut utility lines, etcetera. The building plans for this were were great, and building was able to look at those building plans and and be fine with their side of it. But public works and land use focus solely on the site plan. And, yeah, it's like pulling teeth sometimes to get information from these applicants, and that's what's hold that's what's holding up the building permit from being approved, and that clock is running anyway. And so if we can get ahead of this type of thing, The building department's in favor. I did talk to the building inspectors before I even went anywhere with this discussion, and they're they're very much in favor of this.

There was a concern brought up in the fall about how this seemed to be a way to maybe subvert the state code with the shot clock. We feel like this is gonna help. Right now, what happens is when the time expires, we just have to issue bill the building permit either way. And I don't know the residence. This is off the top of my head, and it wouldn't be appropriate to cite them in a public meeting, but there are homes being built in Hyde Park that didn't have adequate review by everybody because we just had to say Time's up. Time's up. Now it's all safe. We're good. But it's happening. And so creating the zoning clearance letter may cause a little bit more time on the back end. But once you actually get from the application to the building permit, it's gonna be so much faster. And technically correct. And, yes, much more sure for the for the person building a home knowing that, yeah, everybody has seen it, and they're all good with it.

I think this might clear up. I mean, I've been hearing a lot of chatter just that building permits and everything is taking longer, but maybe it's because of the site plan and not having all enough data. So

Yeah. I'll I'll admit our building department, since we do inspections for several other cities, they are well oiled machine. I mean, those guys get these plan reviews done really quickly. But a lot of it comes back to, you know, we contract out the fire services. So we're contacting the Smithfield fire department and saying, hey. Did you get your review done? Our public works days like today, none of them spent even a minute down at their office. They were out all of them were out on the roads all day long, and so they didn't get to review anything today. It just happens. And so a lot of the times, yeah, the delays aren't with building departments and the building inspectors. It's with everyone else who's gotta lay eyes on this and say, are the setbacks right? Are we have we adequate spacing for everything? You know, is it safe for the fire department requirements? So you're right. That's for Hyde Park, yeah, that's the case that we're seeing with these folks. This should help.

I mean, it's one step. Well, and we have the opportunity

now that DRC is meeting weekly. I can bring my zoning verification to DRC and get public works and fire to sign off on them weekly. And so we can definitely get ahead of the curve quickly if we set ourselves up for success in that way. Okay.

I think residents and future residents would appreciate that. But I wanna make sure it's all everything's dotted correctly and done right. So this is good.

Yeah. I remember a lot of incidents as as city staff feeling like you were just babysitting and making phone calls and waiting for them to get back. And you'd give them a list of five things, and they'd come back with three of them. Like, now can I get it? Like, no. You still have these other two. And then they give you one more. Like, okay. Well, I still need this other one. Like, it's just so time consuming on on city staff. I'm sure it is on them too, but it's hard on city staff too.

A great time to address these parcels. Right? We can check with fire. We can check with everybody and make sure that this you know, we can do that at this point. And then when they're ready to apply for a building permit, they've already got an address, and they're ready to go. Yeah.

Well, it seems to me that we're not sacrificing anything. We're just changing the timelines a little bit, you know, moving things around. So in in in an f and we're also have the potential of making things better by not having to let the time run out on things and just pass them through. So it seems like a win.

And I think in some ways, there's a lot of things like I'm you know, I would be a novice builder, and I wouldn't even like, oh, I don't know where my driveway would go. I I don't know where the mailbox goes. And so to force them to think about those things ahead of time in the end is gonna be helpful for them too, I think.

And the other thing we've added to this since we discussed is we made a nice checklist for the zoning clearance letter. We're not leaving people in the dark. We're still finishing this up, getting some final data points from public works, but we're gonna make this part of the process. We're gonna hand people this checklist and say, here's what you need for your zoning clearance letter. And, essentially, like, we're gonna try to make it as easy to understand as possible. Right. So we set them up to get this done as quick as possible and be as thorough as possible. We're trying to make it easy. That's the whole point of Zorbit.

Has has any other cities or towns tried to do this to get or I don't wanna say to get around or to circumvent, but to be more efficient. Well, because of the state code that says you've got that timeline, has anything been challenged on that, or is it working out okay?

So I know of several cities who implemented it as a way to get around the state code, which was not cool. And

We don't wanna get around it, but we wanna have a complete

Yeah. And I even have advised a couple of those cities as a city administrator that that's gonna give us all a black eye, and you should probably not do it that way. But in watching how it's developed for some cities over time, like, in a north like, Mikhail said, North Logan adopted a process with a zoning clearance letter, and it took them a while to get it figured out, but now it's running very smoothly. And so we took a lot of kind of the thoughts and the lessons learned that they have and adopted into this process. Yeah. Again, the purpose for us never was trying to subvert the state code. We're confident we can meet all the state code minimums either way. This was just trying to make it easier for the applicants and from our point of view.

To make it easier for them and to make it easier for us in the long run because we don't we we're sure now that packets are complete and that everything is there and that they meet

all of the That they're just a little bit ahead of the game when they're ready to apply for their building permit. Yeah. Actually gonna apply. Yeah.

And I get I think part of the problem is people just don't understand what it actually takes to

to apply. Right. That's why we're doing the checklist in tandem with this because, yeah, some the example we showed earlier, the builder knew better. It's somebody who knows better, and they were just trying to check the box to get it through. But, yeah, Melinda's right. A first time builder or contractor may not know, and so that was part of creating the checklist with this is trying to make it as easy as possible for everybody.

It feels like education to me, which is what we need to do as much as possible. For the ones that know, they know. But for the novices that we get a lot, like, k. Well, if you're serious, this is what it takes. And some of them were like, okay. And others like, oh,

yeah. I'll be back. Like So I can't submit my plans on the back of an envelope?

You still can. If they're drawn like the elf. If they're drawn like this, they can be on whatever sheet of paper you want.

Say, no. This isn't Wyoming. Can't do that.

Alright. If you're still

you're still messing around with it, did you say? Like, we're just So we're just approving that we're going to make a process. We're not approving this specific document. Or No. So there is specific code language. The checklist was something that we added just to demonstrate that there's more to this administratively that we're developing as city staff. But, legislatively, we have to adopt this code change right here just adding in this language about how we're gonna require the zoning clearance letter or allow it to be used in place of site plans for residential uses.

Specifically, I'm gonna try to read it from Then add a specifically for single family home, short term rental, home occupations. Yeah. But

that's that's the actual code update you would be voting on. The checklist and the other things we showed you was just admin on the administrative side, what people are gonna see when they go to start working on the zoning clearance letter. K. On your very first line, will you put an s on set?

This section sets forth.

I would love to do that. Thanks.

That was You'd never guess I was more of a math major than English. But

That was any one of our end. It's cool that I know. I'm sorry.

K. So as far as those documents that you uploaded, the first and last are the same thing.

Which one?

No. Zoning clearance letter The checklist Yes. And the letter. Process. Yes. Okay.

Did we have a And then I put an example in there. Did we have the public hearing for this? I did the public hearing. Yeah. We did. Yeah. I know they Yeah. They're so fast. It's just that he had more to say afterward. Yes. We were trying to Yeah. I added my editorial comments to explain there's more to this than just the ordinance change. Motion, but we did have a Make a motion

that we approve this process. I rec that we recommend approval of this process or to the site pan site plan No. Review Zoning. Edits.

Oh. Yes.

Right? Zoning Zoning clearance process. Zoning clearance process.

With the update to code twelve dot ten dot zero six zero? That one. Twelve dot ten dot zero six zero site plan review process.

Great.

Subject to any small edits that we just talked about. I'll second that,

Beatrice. Yes. Great.

Alright. We have commissioner Hansen made a motion to recommend approval. Commissioner Mohs seconded that motion. Any further discussion? Alright. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. That one passed unanimously. Thank you, commissioners. And we just have one discussion item left. View. I haven't dismissed myself. Hey. It's Aggie. Commissioner Hansen is leaving a little early.

Go, Aggies. We're going to the game. Yes.

I'll I'll kick off the discussion. So this is very early stages. We've presented a few rezones, and we as city staff feel like the criteria that we're grading these on is pretty weak. And so we are going back through those four criteria for rezones. Mikkel already has several things she wants to add to them, which I think there's a

suggest

There's There's a document in box if you'd like to pull it up. It's suggested reason. Reason criteria. And so we are just looking for input from the planning commission. Again, this is just a discussion item. We're just looking for input from all of you where you get to look at this from the legislative lens. What do you think the city should be considering with these rezones?

So some of the possible rezone criteria of course, you wanna make sure there's general plan consistency. So we wanna make sure that we call that out. But other things you could consider is compatibility with the neighborhood. Again, we would have to define compatibility and Yeah. That's about the criteria we're gonna use. But this is just kind of an idea of the things that we could put into place so that weighing weighing the pros and cons of the rezone isn't necessary. You can just use your criteria to decide if if the rezone is called for or not. Infrastructure and utility capability should always be considered. Can the current infrastructure support whatever use this zone proposes? Community benefit and demand might be something you consider. Is this zoning appropriate for the things we need? And then there's some specific examples of rezone criteria such as, was the existing zone for the property adopted in error? Like, did something happen way back in the day that

what's the they're they're RE five like, our five acre parcels right now? Yeah. So

the an example, Mikhail wasn't working here at the time, but back when I first started, there was the zone called, like, RE residential estates, and it was, like, five acre parcels. And there was no mention of it in the city's general plan. There was no history of why it was there. There was just, like, two massive parcels that were zoned five acre lots, and we were like, we never want somebody to have five acres of grass and be pouring drinking water on it. This is a really bad idea for the city. And so this would be something that would we would look at in that case. It's like, was this just a really old zone that has never been used that maybe got thrown on this parcel and nobody knows why?

Yeah. So here's some just some different examples of criteria. Has there been a change of character in the area? As you know, our neighborhoods are changing rapidly, and maybe that's one of the criteria that's part of the reason. Is this gonna be helpful for sending this neighborhood in, you know, into better growth, or is it gonna inhibit that? What's another one? Is should the property in question be annexed to the city? Sometimes we're getting proposals for rezones for properties that are coming in, and maybe the zone that they want is not appropriate, and maybe they shouldn't be joining the city at that time. So that would be a time to consider whether they should be annexed into the city. Is the proposed density and intensity of use something that's permitted in the zoning district they're already in? Do they really need to rezone might be a criteria that we consider. I'm definitely open to suggestion if you guys have other specific criteria that you want to propose. These are some of these examples are from municipalities I've worked in, and then some of them are just good planning practice. Kaye, specifically, does the proposed change constitute spot zoning? Sometimes that's a consideration. In this municipality, do we are we concerned with spot zoning, or is that not something we really worry about because it's all gonna blend together sooner or later? Right? That's maybe something we wanna consider. So right now, we just have those four criteria, and one of them talks about an overlay that we don't have. You haven't made yet? Yeah. So I I just feel like if we had a few more well thought out criteria to use, then it wouldn't be such a thought and feeling based rezone discussion. It would just be factual. Here's some of the criteria that we've used, and now we're gonna use our critical thinking skills and make a informed decision.

Would f be something that we would even think about? If it's not annexed to the city already,

we wouldn't have anything to do with the zoning. That would be the county zone that would make Well, they have to choose a zone to come in at. Yeah. When you annex, you have to take it again. When they're annexing. Yeah. That one would be a very specific instance, not applicable to all rezones, but just if we have an annexation that's also requesting well, we require that all annexations request a zone. And so that's something we do as a separate public hearing to look at the zoning at the time of annexation.

And properties wanna be annexed because they wanna hook up to utilities and do something with that land. Right? So we need to consider if they're coming in as industrial, should we be bringing them in at all? And then should we be bringing them in as industrials? So it's just one more item to consider. I'm certainly not suggesting that we use all of these. Not at all. I just wanted to give you a real broad example of, criteria to think about and then examples of them in action.

I think that compatibility, and I I get it. I like it. If it's my neighborhood, I want that. But if it's, you know I don't know. I think of, like, these markets or a restaurant in a neighborhood, which I would love to have a restaurant in Mike's neighborhood. Well, Mike lives next door. He doesn't want him parking in front you know, all over his house

to go to that restaurant. Students are still at play. Right? Just because a zone allows a thing doesn't mean it it can exist however it wants to. There's still development standards in place. But if we just had some criteria that would give us a general idea of when a rezone is beneficial and when it's not, maybe it wouldn't be as difficult of a decision. And it would also give applicants a way to craft their application based on criteria Yeah. So that they're making the right argument or that they're presenting the right information so that they get their point across and can present their case in that way. At the very bottom of this list, I've just put land needs assessment because that's maybe that's something that we need to consider. Do we need to take inventory of what we have and see how we're using it? We had a really interesting discussion today with a developer. We were talking about the R 2 zone, and he said that, technically, that big of lot is very difficult to develop at this developers are looking for is that big of lots. They want something smaller, which means things need to be rezoned so that they can be smaller in most cases. And, coincidentally, R 2 is the biggest we that's the most acreage we have. I'm not wording that right. It's the largest lots. It's the most acreage in the city.

It's the biggest zone. Yeah. So most. McKill reached out to the county, the GIS department, and asked Yeah. Can we look at how much acreage is in the city and then look at our zoning map and say how many acres are in each of the zones? And they went through all the major zones. Oh. And they found that of the 3,000 plus acres in the city right now, it was something like almost 900 acres There's there's a page. Were zoned It looks for R 2. Did add that. Which was by by far the most widespread zoning in the entire city. And so, yeah, it was just today, this discussion with this developer, he just said, I can develop R 2, but the lots alone are gonna be close to $200,000, and you still gotta build a house on it just and that's just to basically cover his cost. Now this was obviously anecdotal to one developer. But, I mean, if that's reflected in the development community as a whole, that's something the city should consider. If we wanna keep seeing growth and opportunities for development and housing for kids and grandkids, it's probably not gonna be in an r two. And if we're gonna be doing a lot of rezones, that's why we're looking at this, is how can we make it a less thoughts and feelings and more boxes to check and and clear avenue forward for developers.

So when you say the term spot zoning, are you saying that with a neck as a negative connotation? Like, we it looks like a pet like, teacher's pet, like, some pet project that we just did as a favor for someone? When you talk about spot zoning, that would be like putting

putting a commercial restaurant in the middle of a residential neighborhood up there. Right? You've just Usually, it becomes a favorite.

Like, the favor we did to the city? Or the city

Hamlet. Sorry. That's right there next to the rest of the commercial zone.

Again, why we niche criteria. But I want restaurant by Mike's house.

So

Who are you?

A lot of times, communities are afraid of spot zoning. Right? You don't for property value and that kind of thing, they don't want a block of commercial up in their residential neighborhood, or they don't want a block of really small lots in their one acre area. And when you have a different zone that's surrounded by, you know, an r five that's surrounded by r two, that would be considered special zoning in just one spot. Now our land use map future land use map lays out where things are supposed to go. Has it actually turned out that way? There's some deviations from that, and maybe the future land use map is what actually needs to update. That's a little more work, but that's that's all something to consider in the land

needs assessment idea. I guess I'm still, like, a gas station. Okay. I'll I'll drop the restaurant by mic, but a gas station on the East Side. And so I believe that those people within that block are gonna say no way. But for the city as a whole, it would be great to have a gas station on the East Side when we get these corridors going north and south so they don't have to come down to the highway to gas up. A little neighborhood commercial Market, gas station. Yeah. But how do you how do you even do that on a future land use map? How do you say, I think it should be on this corner, or I think it should be on this corner. It feels like you're favoring who it's ever doing that.

And that's why you have lots of workshops, and you gather lots of opinions, and you poll the neighborhoods. There's a lot involved with updating future land use maps and general plans. You'd have to really it's what the people want. Right? It's it'd be cool if it was voting. Like, you could just get on your phone and Won't everybody just say,

yeah. We want that, but not in my backyard.

And you might be surprised. People people enjoy a convenience. And sometimes you might be surprised about what people would really want closer to their home if it's located nicely and development standards are in place that provide the buffer and Mhmm. You never know.

K.

Without knowing what we need and what we want, it's it's kinda hard to go into a rezone understanding what the right answer is.

So I We're not approving this. Right? These are just suggestions.

Yeah. No. This would be re we would have to do a code change for that, which means we'd have to do another public hearing. There's a noticing requirement. What we are looking for is Mikael has spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I'll be honest. I don't really want her spending more time on it without some direction from the planning commission because this this has the potential to go a million different ways, and so we wanna get feedback from you. How do you want the rezone process to go before I just turn her loose to write three more pages of code? You need do we need more criteria, or are we fine with the criteria we've got?

Are the criteria we've got good and we don't need to tweak them in any way? Do we need to add a couple of more criteria, or do we need to wipe those old criteria out and get a list of new criteria? So it's a lot to think about. But if you just were considering like, the reason we heard today, if you were just considering it based on those four criteria,

it It could've gone either way. And that's why the staff recommendation was neutral because some of those of those four, there was one that was like, yes. It meets this. There was one that said, this doesn't apply. There was one that said, kinda yes and kinda no. You know, there are a lot of based on

maybes and ifs. And we should be able to run it through the filter and and have have an answer show itself.

I We just need a good filter. I like it, personally. Maybe not everything that has been stated, but I look at it as more education. Right? More knowledge, more guidelines. I think that will help people answer their questions. So I would say yes. I think there should be more added. Do I know exactly what?

No. But I do like some of your examples. I think it would be a good workshop topic, showing the existing side by side with the proposed and let some of the community Yeah. That would be good too. Get some community feedback, some developer feedback Yeah. Property owner feedback. Because they'd say things we couldn't think of. Sure. I like

the the sort of the checklist that you've come up with, and I think that'd be beneficial for us as and to hand it out to someone who wants to rezone something, and they can say, oh, this is what they're looking at. And then at the public hearing, if they wanted to, they could address these particular topics, and we could then do our own little matrix as to whether or not yep. Good to go or meh. It

it Let's see if they can It would just give you an idea of the whys and the wherefores instead of thoughts and feelings. We wanna get away from that. We wanna make sure that we're making good decisions based on reasons, not whims and

Into just So Yeah.

K. So, yeah, if you guys have some time, give us some feedback about that. And

Yeah. I think it's a good one to consider on our own. Sometimes when you get into brainstorming, you know, with the whole group because I get the workshop thing, but I think it needs to be done one on one first. I think everybody ought to give it thought on their own and then come together instead of come together as a workshop to start thinking about it. Yeah. Pick your top five or something and yeah. Pick your top five or make up your own top five or tweak whatever. I think it's gonna be more helpful to come into a workshop where everybody's done some homework on it first instead of that be the first

Yeah. Path to that. Imagery. And what you can start with is you can start with the staff report for the rezone tonight. Look at the staff report that Mikael made up for the reason we heard tonight. Read through that because that's the criteria that we're judging right now to look at a rezone. Take that. Say, is this adequate? Do we need more? Do we need less? And then you can go back to this list of suggested criteria and say, which of these things would have helped us make the decision. So that's a good place to start.

Yeah. No. I I love this discussion. Any other thoughts, commissioners, tonight?

On that specific item? On any that or any other. I do wanna add something in the interest of time. Can we add it to our next meeting? I've had some feedback from residents that asked me to go around and look at the houses that have been built in the last few years in regards to the definition of structure within the setback of building requirements, and it's very vague. Mhmm. So it can be interpreted a lot of different ways as it stands right now. And so as I drove around, probably two thirds of the new homes built in the last three years have something within that setback retaining their soil. They brought in soil. We're looking at smaller lots, not acres, And so and we're very hilly. So most people have to bring dirt in or retain dirt or they start digging. I mean, we we dealt with that. We ended up spending could've bought another residence for all the retaining we had to do, which you didn't know till you get going if what you hit in the soil. It's like, can't go past here. So if the majority of people who've or more than half of the people who've built in the last few years would technically be in violation of this if we went back and enforce it, then I think we need to change the code. And one of my proposals is to have it be I was kinda typing what my thoughts were to have the definition of structure for the purpose of setback, specifically intend to mean the dwelling or the home, including garages or sheds, anything permanently fixed to the ground or permanently fixed and attached to the home permanently. And it should not be interpreted to include anything that's being utilized to make the highest and best use of the property. For example, someone builds their house, they're very limited. They have to have to put it here, and they've got this drop down at the sidewalk. If they were to retain that and have it flat, and a ton of people have done that. A ton of people have done it. You walk on the sidewalks, and there's this wall right there of boulders. And it's so that they can walk out and have a front yard, not just drop down and go, you know, down. So I would like to propose that we look at the current definition. I wouldn't mind proposing some definitions and emails ahead of time. And if anyone else wants to look at the current definition, driving around really helps because I took that definition and drove around. I'm like, technically, they've got a structure in this setback. They've got structure by definition right now includes A retaining wall? A retaining wall boulders. The current definition pulls in most of what people are doing to make themselves out of a front yard. So when it comes to approving building permits,

And retaining walls are, like, four feet. If it's four feet or more Or they require building permit. A permit. You have to have it engineered. Less than that, then they don't require building permits. Even if you break it up into two two foot ones, that require that adds up to four, and so that does require a permit.

Landscaping things, pile of boulders, things of that nature don't require a building permit. None of your landscaping items require a building permit unless they're Retaining. Seven feet tall for a regular fence thing. Right? And four feet for a retaining wall. So anything that requires a building permit

Well, it's gonna be in the building code. We don't necessarily have it in our city code. But International building code, the IBC or what's IR?

C. Residential. Residential. Residential. So are you saying, like, people who live, like, up by her on Bluff Road, the the ones on the East Side, they have these steep driveways to get up to their house. So it is a re it's a retaining wall to build their driveway up to their house, whether it's straight or curved or zigzag.

And I don't think most of those are over four feet. I don't think a lot of those require a building permit. I don't have that for a fact. Think one house across the street from me has a higher wall of four foot. That wouldn't surprise me. A lot of them are not, and this is where my zoning clearance letter comes into play. I have was thinking of. An application today where they gave me their site plan. And just because of the location, I said, is this a flat lot, or are you on a slope? Over on a slope. Are you gonna be using any kind of retaining walls? Yeah. May you should put those on your site plan. We need to consider your whole site. Well, if we could okay all of that ahead of time, then that's not gonna hold up your building permit while we consider, is this a four foot wall? Is this a three foot wall? Do you need a building permit for this or not? If you do, it can't be in the setback. If you don't, put it in this you know, in your front yard all you want. So I think you're right that we need policy in writing maybe for that. But I think what we do have is a lot of builders who are not putting any of their retention structures on their building permit. Right. Building permits are not being evaluated for stormwater, and these retaining walls are gonna affect that. Of course, with this winter, we haven't had a lot of stormwater, but I would hazard a guess that maybe this spring, we'll really get to see Mhmm. How all of these retention items come into play because these subdivisions are set up with stormwater standards that all of the lots are supposed to be following. But when the builders get there, that doesn't always Get followed. Get followed, especially when it's landscaping items and retention walls under three feet. You can put those anywhere. And did you just put those in what's supposed to be retention area? Did you put those in what's supposed to be a free flow area? The only way to really consider that is to make sure that that kind of stuff is on your site plan. And I think those days are coming.

They're not here yet. But I think they're pretty close. Back to my comment earlier about the chatter, it's it's in regards to retaining walls, and I'm hearing it from a lot of neighbors up above. There's a lot of problems. Little bit neighborhood

stormwater trespass in the fall. It was kinda, like, later summer maybe

when I first got here. We've been dealing it for with it for a few years now.

I I think the further up the hill you go, the more interesting it's gonna get, especially with people who are a lot of people will put their structures in the East End. Right? Everybody's got that five foot or 10 foot foot bed sitting on it. And, really, that should be clear for ingress, egress, utilities, and stormwater space. And people don't have to get permits for a lot of things, and then they don't keep them clear of the easements. So, yeah, I think it'll be interesting, and I think sometimes it takes a little bit of drama to spur code changes, and

Individual builders within the sub the developers don't want that responsibility, and so they pass it off. Yeah. Because that's what that that's what I've seen. Let's say Mike and I are neighbors. He really doesn't wanna be neighbors with me. You don't need any not after tonight. We live on this land What's what it was. That goes uphill. He builds first, and he builds straight across. And then when I build, I say, well, I want mine flat too. And so now there's, like, this straight wall here. He already built. He's got a nice fence and everything there, and I just dug the dirt down right I mean, that's what we had someone call about. They were already there. They had a nice fence. And then when this lot built, they went flat too. And so now their fence has, like, hardly anything underneath it to hold it up. And shouldn't that be in the design of the subdivision? That should be the development of the fabric. Should be and and what happened Something has to have I don't know where that comes in. Something has to happen somewhere, and it probably shouldn't happen to so that, yeah, Mike and I don't like each other as neighbors. Have to go to court because Yeah. That. Right. Well, if you look at

I always use St. George because I grew up there. If you look at down there, a lot of the new subdivisions, they require the developers to put in the retaining wall. We do have retaining walls. And let me just looking at them. There was there's this one development. I can't remember what it's called, but I was down there visiting a couple years ago. Brio? No. It's over on, like, in the Green Springs area, but you That's over by that's It's not Brio. It's a different Acadia? I think it's Acadia. But you drive up, and it has this big metal thing, and it's, like, subdivision name. Here we are. And as you enter the road, the the big first road you come in to enter the subdivision lining the road are these lots that have massive retaining walls all the way up the slope. And I just looked at that, and I was like, that is And they haven't built yet? And there was and there was no there was a couple of like, the spec homes had been built. They were sell starting to sell a few. I went with my my dad. He's a civil engineer who helped do some of the design, and so he was showing it to me and talking about the site. And he's like, yeah. The developers have to put in all these retaining walls before they can sell the lots to make it buildable. And it's just something they have to do. And so, yeah, go driving down through Saint George. They have a special hill development ordinance that if you're over a certain slope, then the developer has to do a certain amount of mitigation for that slope retaining or whatever to make sure that the lots are buildable.

Instead of last come, we have to figure it out. Yeah. I Yeah. 100% agree with that. And if we're really gonna move forward with you know, we don't want half acre acres, then we need to rethink because no individual home builder people usually build one home. Right? No individual home builder, these custom ones aren't used to having to do that. That's not their

They almost think it's landscaping.

They do. Yeah. Mhmm. But the issue is it's kind of the cart it's the cart before the horse. Because if you're selling the lot, but you have no plans for retention, you're leaving it up to individuals and the consequences to neighbors. I would propose that we adapt it based on what's already in the works right now and give them flexibility because we can't go back and force the developers to do that. But any proposed developments in the future, I would like to see I've where where I'm used to seeing is subdivisions that come in, they do have to flatten the laws. They do have to bring in the dirt. They have to it has to be buildable if they want. Absolutely. But if you're just building you just take these zone, you know, parcel layer over and say, this is your lot, and you've got a 25 foot drop here and a 15 foot drop there. You can add six digits to your build Yeah. You do. That you didn't expect or you have to shift your house because they hit up on the bench, you're hitting boulders that you don't have a choice. You have to adapt around the boulders. So future discussion items, here we need to talk about definitions of structure,

look at what requires a building permit, and potentially look at some sort of sensitive lands. In our code, we call steep slope sensitive lands. Some sort of sensitive lands ordinance, something. Yeah. So we can figure out who's in charge of stabilizing the property before we turn it over to the home builders. Yeah. K. Because that shouldn't be on individual homeowners. That should be a developer thing, I think. It's definitely an issue up there. People are slowly finding them on planning and zoning, and I'm getting

comments and phone calls. And I Yeah. Ditto. I'm like, because they're like, it's your land, and no one gave them that restriction when they needed it. So how do you enforce it? I know of lawyers being retained, and I know contractors, builders who have

who have built by each other arguing. I am a I'm I'm very much aware of this happening up there.

Yeah. And I guess fix that. Apologize in advance because a lot of these people call the city and say, what's the city gonna do about it? And we go, we don't we don't have code. We don't have rules. Really, we turn it over and we say, this is a civil issue. We're really sorry. And so I know a lot of that gets turned back to the planning commission saying, hey. You guys help make the rules. Change the rules for me. It's our job to look at. Which is which is fine. You you should get those. But That's how it's going. But, yeah, a lot of those are people who've already tried with us, and we just go We're the boot campgrounds. We drive around them.

But I really think we're really lacking in that code. I think if they've already we can't force the developer at this point. If it's already so far in the works, we can't add that requirement.

But there's still more room to go up.

So So anything that they're not so far in their development that we can't that that we can't require the developer to do it. You know what I mean? Isn't there a point where we can't go back and say, you have to do it? Yes. Once they're vested, you can't change the goals of the game. Mhmm. So

Yeah. I mean, pretty much it's safe to say anything that's existing now, we couldn't necessarily force to comply with those rules. Could or could not? Could not. K.

Which sucks. Because I drive around and look at the slopes, I'm going I see potential on stuff that where there's no structures yet. They haven't even dug in, but you look at the parcel view or you drive past it. Because I started thinking, though, through those terms of driving up along the bench and the new things going for a cell, and I thought, we're just gonna keep hitting this issue over and over and over again. Mhmm. Absolutely.

Mhmm. It's another one of those buyer beware that you just don't have a clue.

And we definitely need to put some responsibility on these developers. I would agree on that. Provide buildable lots instead of,

Yeah. The the problem is if you put it on the developer, they're just gonna pass that cost onto the. Right. That was my next comment right now. But not saving the person anything. The orders from the state is affordability, affordability, affordability.

And we have to look at it, you know, safety, longevity, which doesn't always equate to affordability. So there's an

Structurally.

And, yeah, maybe need a little more to live up on the And for good neighbor relations,

it's just not fair to

Senses that papers.

Yeah.

But Yeah. But senses like yeah. Yeah. Fences that meet, not these kind of that slough off. Yeah. Well, even even though Poor Mike. Lives, if you think about cost, we learned with bringing in a bunch of concrete, we needed to do it all at once. It's way cheaper than if we have them come pour this and then come back and pour this. So for each individual homeowner to do that, it's actually more cost effective for the developer to get a he's gonna get the best deal. Right? Because he's gonna be saying, hey. Take these 20 lots. Do this to him. He's gonna get the best deal. If you divide that between those 20 lots, it's gonna be a fraction

of what they would have paid individually to level their lot. Right. They just they just don't know Realize. Right. That that they had to pay that at all. They would rather just get their lot, they think.

And that's education for the public too. We can say we are requiring this now, but guess what? If you had to come level it, you're gonna spend four or five times as much, and you're gonna be fighting with your neighbors. You know? I I think of how my parents

bought their house in a development in California, and all of the lots were

flat Mhmm.

And in Thousand Oaks. Yep. You know, everything with tariffs already for the house. Structure That was the the buildable. Yeah. But they don't do it here anymore because they they just don't do developments the same way. They they sell a lot and say, okay. It's yours. Do what you want with it. They just all they do is map out where the lots are gonna be and and then they sell it. And that's how they get the most money, not by doing any of this

or or Yeah. And that's like our eternal struggle with the state legislature. Right? Because the state legislature likes to think that if they can make the process faster or, you know, cut the red tape, move things through, then it's gonna be better. But what it's led to is what's happening now. You know, we cut the red tape, bring down the regulations, get these lots moved through as fast as possible, and then you're left with, a lot of times, a lot owner not doing their homework, not seeing the notes on the plat that say, hey. This is a problem. You got a giant PUE through here. You can't put a house on here. I don't know how many calls we get per month saying, there's this massive lot up here, and I'd really like to split it. And we're like, well, half the lot's a retention pond. Did you notice that? And, oh, okay. So it's the eternal struggle.

I was just at my daughter's in Colorado, and she granted, she lives at 8,000 feet. She's way up in the mountains, but a home that was built above her has kind of a gully that goes through whatever their parcel looks like, and none of those are very big anyway. And so their main house is on the side of the mountain, and then there's this gully. And so they and then they built another part of the house across that. So they had to build, like, a walkway, this lifted walkway to the other part of their house. Like, it's wild. Like yeah. Do you need that a little bit more house? I nation. It's gorgeous, but when something starts to go, I think that's it. Yeah.

Anyway, so I looks like we got those noted down. We'll add them to future discussion items. I do wanna point out, just a reminder, at the last city council meeting of the month, we're still doing our work sessions. Planning commission's invited. This time, we'll be doing another quick training about things you need to know as a public official, and then we'll be diving into the general plan. I believe we're gonna be moving into the land use chapter, and we're gonna spend a couple work sessions working on that one. So I highly recommend all of you attend that one because that's very much what you're concerned about in all these meetings. So This is at six. Correct? Work session at six.

Alright. Anything else? Anyone? Mhmm. K? Oh, I don't need the motion. I know. Without objection, we'll adjourn this meeting. Oh, go ahead.

Help. Thank you.