Hyde Park City Planning Commission Meeting 1.21.2026

She's from where? Hi, Ram. Oh, yeah.

She's She's bad on this is on the other side of the valley. Right? She does Cache Valley buzz. Oh, yeah.

Do you guys watch Cache Valley buzz? That's actually a really good Strictly. List everything that's going on in the Valley. Behind

the scores table, 16 rows up. I never knew something. So straight up? Load burn activities.

Straight up. Like, it's

the knowledge to know. West Basket? Yeah.

Yeah. Who who not go? Cash value.

Wait. Sorry. Last night was the fifteenth and not go to. You know, all again.

A lot of these in going to some of the different cities and people from these cities, but, you know, we're at church once. You need two games? Some of them business. Oh,

really?

Well, Okay.

Yeah.

So so we're supposed to start this meeting in this house today. Melinda just goes. She's in charge of it. Good. Good. Thanks, guys. Where's the?

Where's the devil? In terms you can't do that, though. Yeah. If you should Let's not do that. Alright. Welcome to planning Hyde Park City planning commission meeting. Tonight is Wednesday, 01/21/2026. We're starting at 07:01PM. Two 4AM. Mhmm. We have Heather Taylor's here. I'm Melinda Lee. We have Mike Mohs and Ned Hanson. We'll see if Charlene Williams comes. She may be late. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance and a prayer, and I'll offer that this time. We'll do the prayer first and then the pledge of allegiance. Our father in heaven, we come before thee at the beginning of this city meeting, and we thank thee for thy watchful care. We thank thee for each person in the room and their participation and dedication, and we pray that thou would watch over us. Help us to have clear minds and to be kind and thoughtful in the things that we say and do. Help us to work together to make things better for the city and to listen to one another. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Please stand and join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands. Thank you. Alright. We're gonna start with the minutes from last meeting, January 7, and look for approval on those. Heather, did you have anything any corrections on those? No.

The only thing I would request is if it could come sooner K. Just to review. Sometimes by the time they get out with my job, my day job, it's hard for me to review them in time.

K. I didn't have anything. Mike?

The only thing that I had was that comment about celebrating on Saint Patrick's Day was sort of ingest and didn't really need to be put in the minutes, but it's okay. I said it's there. Recording, sir. It's all there. I said warn.

Alright. Ned?

There was something I had. Where is it? It was on page three paragraph two where I said something. It looked like their sentence got messed up. So it's on where it's my quote, I guess. See it? It says, so why wouldn't we want to have this be a develop? Seems like a perfect development agreement. I think that maybe should have been why would we want this to be a development agreement period? New sentence. This seems like a development agreement. K. That's the only thing I found.

K. I look for a motion

to approve the minutes. I create motion to approve the minutes.

As amended with correction. With the with the Oh, with the amended corrections.

K. We have a motion to approve the minutes as amended with corrections.

I'll second that motion. Mike Moses. That emotion?

What's that? I'll second that motion. Mike Moses seconded the motion. Any more any further discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. Those passed unanimously. K. Planning staff report. Mikel.

I have three things to tell you about. One of them is, it's time for an update to the moderate income housing report. It's time to report that is what I meant to say. We do that every six months. Last one was in July. I don't have a lot of changes from the last report except to say that there have been between July 2025 and January 2026, we have two additional MXD applications come through. So there hasn't been a lot of rezone rezones come in through the city, and that is our method of creating moderate income housing that we declared to the state. And so that's what we've been doing is satisfying these criteria through reasons. So I did reach out to the state and ask how we go about changing our strategy so that we could maybe come up with a couple of different ones. And I'll share the that reply with you from mister Todd Anderson. He said that he would recommend until waiting after the twenty twenty six legislative session ends to work on any strategy changes or amendments because there are proposed changes happening from that level. And that if we did in fact move forward with changes, we would need to amend the moderate income housing element in our general plan to include those new strategies, and we would have to do that before August 1. So we kinda have to wait to see if we should, and then we'll have to hurry up and do it. So I'll keep you posted

on that. That makes sense, though. Like because I can see you choosing new options, and then in after the session, those aren't actually options anymore. Yeah. Yeah. So that'll be an interesting development for spring and summer.

The other thing is an announcement that next Wednesday, in conjunction with the city council meeting, there's going to be a general work session that starts at six. Topics will include OPMA training, powers duties, and reviewing the general plan. So for an hour before the city council meeting, We're gonna do that. We'll notice it so that we can all be present, but it won't be an actual meeting. It'll just be a work session.

K. And that's for all the city council and all the planning commission? Correct. Has this been announced before, or is this the first time any of us are hearing it? Okay.

It's something that the city council said they wanted to start doing in December. And just at their last meeting, we put a finer point on it. So now we're gonna start doing it. And it's gonna be a recurring thing. Every fourth Wednesday at 6PM, we're gonna have a work session, and it's gonna be a little bit of training on state code and things that we need to be aware of as an organization, but the bulk of the work session will be to talk about different parts and pieces of the general plan. Because the city council wants to really dig back into it this year and make sure that we can have that at the front of our minds as we're planning for budgets and long term strategic visions for the city.

Great. K. An email will go out about that so Charlene hears it? Yes. We can do that. K. I'm gonna put a note right now. Seventeen.

And then the last thing I have is, there have been a couple of questions about the difference between public meetings and public hearings. And, the ombudsman's office says that the the key distinction between the two comes down to this. All public hearings are public meetings, but not all public meetings include hearings. Think of it like this. A meeting is the whole event, and a hearing is a dedicated a dedicated session during that event for formal input. In either case this is not the ombudsman. This is me adding my two bits. In either case, input should be factual, accurate, and provable, and not thoughts and feelings. So that is gonna be something that's included in that training next week is how we can encourage good public comment that's not a distraction to the public hearing that's actually helpful. So we're gonna we're gonna work on that. And then that's all I have for staff report.

Great. Thank you. Alright. Our first action item is to consider the preliminary plat application for Sunrise Square, and that's in our box. We have a bunch of items on that. We'll hear from Mikael first. Okay.

So included in box is the staff report for this item. We're gonna pull up the so we can show you where this is. It's along Wolfpack Way right across from the new middle school. And the thing that's interesting about this parcel is it is on the master transportation plan for a connecting road to come off of that roundabout and hit the highway. So this property has some extra special details to it. But as you'll read in my staff report, my office received a technically complete application for this proposed subdivision. It was brought before DRC twice and determined to be unreviewable due to a large amount of missing information within the application and items that did not meet code. The DRC does not have the authority to deny an application, and so it's being presented to you today in order to craft a recommendation to the city council next week. I included a quote from the applicant, and also a quote from the city attorney, that talks about the completeness of applications. And this may be one of our most, maybe one of our most important forthcoming ordinance revisions is to clarify details within the application process so that applicants can get a better idea of exactly what's expected, and, we'll know the criteria for which, we can consider an application complete. Because the city attorney said to allow someone to submit a complete application at the beginning of the process and then make substantial changes to that application indicates that the original application wasn't really complete. What we shouldn't be doing is allowing people to obtain vested rights under our zoning ordinance merely by filling preliminary and incomplete papers. It defeats the purpose of zoning regulations. So we need to craft our ordinances and our processes so that we are enabling our applicants to give us quality applications so that we don't have to spend a lot of time in DRC review, and they don't have to spend a lot of time amending. So, unfortunately, this application really does need a lot of reworking, and staff's recommendation is for planning commission to to send an unfavorable recommendation for approval to city council for that reason. I believe the applicant is here if the chair wants to recognize him. I I did add inbox some information from the applicant this afternoon.

Oh. Is it the applicant present is it the applicant presentation? It is.

K.

Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Is that you, Tom?

Yes. Thank you. I'm Tom Hill with White Pine Engineering. I've met a few of you before, and I'm representing the developer Jake Thompson. That's right. So couple things to talk about. The the completeness of that the application, Mikaela already talked about, was we had a few months going back and forth discussing this and trying to understand. There's definitely and you guys probably have felt this. There's definitely been kind of a change in the process of Pipedrive. I did a mixed use subdivision with you guys last year, and so we're trying to understand this process as well. And so, really, we wanted to come today and and, first of all, say, you know, we're not asking for special privileges. We're not trying to ramrod this through without meeting ordinances or anything like that. The process used to be and I and I understand the LODMAP process and stuff, but the process used to really be we would march these plans along. As we went through the process, there'd be input from the city as we went. And it seems more and more, not just in this city, but other cities that we as the applicant really have to take a big jump at the beginning of risk of not even knowing if things will get approved. You know, the the developers spend tens of thousands, even even hundreds of thousands of dollars, which I don't think they're opposed to doing, but at risk. And so the goal with our application wasn't to try to do an incomplete application or to avoid ordinances. It's to try to get feedback from the city and to try to be cooperative and collaborative. So just wanted to address that point. But we did feel like we technically met a complete application per the ordinance as far as what documents were included. So I just wanted to say that. I included a few things here. I don't want you to feel like we're giving you a thirty minute song and dance, because I'm an engineer, not a salesman.

But I did think,

it would be appropriate to show you a couple ideas we came up with. As far as I know, this is the first application with the new MXD ordinance. And so I thought you may be interested to see kind of what that turned into because the new MXD ordinance is very much moving away from 100% townhomes to more kind of what you would maybe expect in a mixed use subdivision, more condos, more commercial on the base unit. And so that's what we have here. So if you and and by the way, I have hard copies if you guys prefer.

I would love them out. Yeah.

I got your I can order. Electronics. I have the order. Thank you. Yeah.

So if you cycle through yeah. First, let me show you the site plan. So you'll notice the the ordinance allows for 50% townhomes. This actually doesn't have any townhomes. And from plan view, these look like they're all the same buildings. I'll show you there is some difference when you go to the renderings. But, basically, these consist of three story, 24, and 36 plex buildings. The ones along Wolfpack Way, would have commercial units on the base level, 12 foot ceilings, glass entry, and things like that. And then that whole West Side is commercial pads, you kinda to be determined what would come here, but those are probably fairly valuable commercial pads that, businesses could occupy. And then, we've got amenity space spread throughout, which I know is one of the comments from the city. We've that that includes, like, pool and clubhouse, you know, park areas, sports port area. And that in our resubmission is gonna have a lot more detail. That was one of the comments was they wanted some detail on the amenity areas, and that's that's fine. So we plan to do that. But as you go through the next pages, it'll show some of the different renderings. So so this shows you just kind of an ISO view of ground floor commercial and then residential on the top two floors as you keep going forward. And we can go through these kind of fast unless you guys have questions. And I'm not an architect, so I can't answer those super well. But as you go through these, you'll see different color and material options. And then the 36 versus the 20 Fourplex building gives it a little variety. Let's see. I don't see how the pages forward. In the, like, five or six pages forward, it'll show a concept of what we're kinda thinking on the commercial side. And commercial's really hard on these mixed use subdivisions because it's kind of an if you build it, they will come, so you don't always know, you know, exact yeah. That's that's the page right there. But one of the ideas we had as we were laying out the concept is this is kinda similar to some examples I can think of is, like, where firehouses, like, on the South Of Logan where the buildings are right against the highway sidewalk, and then the parking's in the back. So if you know kinda where that complex is. So I think those type of businesses could come, but, again, that's kind of to be determined. But, yeah, any before I move on to a few other things, any other any questions on the site layout or architectural questions that you guys have that we could help answer?

Not yet. Yeah. I just don't think we we have enough yet. Like, I you know, we prefer to see things after they've gone through staff and DRC, and then we have separate responsibilities.

Sure. So

okay. I guess I do have one question. Yeah. Go ahead. I I know the DRC probably giving you the list of concerns, questions. Is there any of those that you, like, have heartburn with? I mean, heartburn I guess that's a bad term, but maybe just disagree with.

I don't I don't even think disagree. We I actually really agree with most of them. I did actually put two in this presentation that I wanted to talk about because I think it's there's I don't know if discrepancy is the right word in the code, but we have it's we're a little fuzzy on it. Okay. So for instance, if you slide forward and so it's the city code Okay. Comment and code discussion. So there's a height ordinance, and I think this has been in the annexee ordinance from the beginning, if I remember right. But it's a height, and it's a step back ordinance. And one of the comments so I referenced the comments here. Building height adjacent to the right way are over 35 feet. And the definition in the code for the height is actually the average roof. So it's not the ridge. It's between the eave and the ridge. And so I've got, you know, highlighted here forty two six, but it's probably closer to 40 or 39. But either way, it's over 35. And but then the way the ordinance reads is it says, the land use authority may permit a building greater than 35 feet if the buildings are designed to include a step back, which is greater than or equal to the required setback. And then the required setback against the right of way is zero. So the way I interpret that is it would be zero, but the I think the keyword there is may. And so that is one thing I wanted to bring forward because we have the option to limit these buildings. But what that would mean is we go from instead of nine foot ceilings in these apartments to eight, and instead of a pitched roof, probably a flat roof with, like, parapets. And so it really changes the look, and I don't know if that's something the city wants. But, you know, I talked to Mikael about this today, and I know you can't just approve one piece separate. But I it's one thing I wanna kind of seed that idea because that that's probably what we would seek with the application is, you know, we want to get this exception to get a little bit high not even an exception, but an allowance that says may permit this higher thing. And I think it's just because of the look. So so that's one thing. The other one and this one is the one that I would say is more of a discrepancy is regarding the open space. And so we got a comment that the open space is not contiguous, and the definition that is pulling from is at the bottom where it talks about that the open space shall be single, contiguous, publicly accessible, and 70,000 square feet minimum. This code definition is from chapter 13, whereas MXD is 12.27. And MXD seems to contradict that where it says larger usable common space amenities may be centrally located, but smaller amenities such as gathering areas, pet parks, playgrounds, etcetera shall be dispersed. And so that was probably the one we've had the most heartburn with, just trying to understand how to hit both requirements. And the 70,000 square feet seemed kinda arbitrary where in MXD, we do have a percentage allocated, which is 12 for the whole space. So

those those are the two. And I I don't know how much in-depth you wanna go in this in this meeting or how Yeah. I don't to talk about it. Yeah. This isn't the time or place for that because it doesn't sound like this is going anywhere. But we I appreciate pointing out the codes and things that we can look at and clarify for, yeah, this one in the future or others that come before us that Yeah. Yeah, we can be more clear because I I understand both of those. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. K. Any other questions from commissioners for Tom Hill?

No.

K. Alright. Thanks, Tom. Appreciate it. Alright. Is there a motion you wanna make? And then we can if there's a second, we can discuss it.

I'll make a motion that because of because of the things that aren't we we don't have any resolution from DRC. So because of that, I make a a motion to recommend disapproval to the city council.

K. We have a motion. I'll second that. And we have a second. So Mike Moe's made the motion, and Heather Taylor seconded the motion. Alright. Discussion. What thoughts do you have?

Like, I under I mean, I agree. I mean, it's you gotta finish your homework before you turn it in. So it's kind of the way I look at it.

Yeah. This staff report is I feel like lined it out for us that it's just not there yet. It's not Is the application

not

correct? Does it need more information? Is that why? Well, it's technically correct, they said. Like, everything's submitted, but it doesn't act you know, when you compare it, like, it doesn't meet, you know, like, those things that you can point out. Like, we say one thing and his shows something different. Okay. And so there's lots of things that you tend to work through. But even for DRC, to meet with them twice and say, we couldn't get through all of it. Okay. Means there's bigger gap. To me, it means there's bigger gaps somewhere that need to I have a little bit of commentary if that's acceptable. Go ahead, mister Marcus.

So the state kinda threw this whole process on its head. Tom's not wrong. The process used to be a developer submits to the city. The city kind of works with them, figure something out, does a couple iterations, and then we kind of formally start the approval process. When the state turned this whole thing on its head a couple years ago, they changed it so that what Tom's describing is supposed to be the new norm. Hyde Park City didn't really catch up with that until we hired a real planner who said, no. This is you're supposed to be doing it this way. And so, yeah, only recently have we worked with the city attorney and gotten our ducks in a row and figured out by state code, this is how things are supposed to be going. It's been a little rough with the development community because it's been a drastic change. But as staff, we're not trying to be contrary. We're not trying to be unreasonable. This is just the direction that the state wants the development process to go. And so when they submit an application, there's a list of things that we need. We don't necessarily check to make sure all those things are correct when that's submitted. We just are checking to see if we have them. So what happens now is they submit the list. We say, great. You have everything. The application is complete. Box checked. But then when it goes to DRC, the DRC looks at it and says, oh, these buildings are maybe in the wrong spot or this water line needs to be moved or you need more stormwater capacity, and things get shuffled. The other hiccup to this process is if there's a significant change that's gonna really mess with the layout of the subdivision, the utilities, and everything else, then that is it it really invalidates the application, and that's kind of the situation we have here. It's not that this is a bad project. It's not that it's, excuse me, something the city doesn't want. It's that after two rounds of review, the DRC said, there's so many things that need to be changed that it's going to significantly alter the application. And so, really, what should happen according to the new codes is it should be denied, and then they should just resubmit once they fix the the things that we've talked about. So that's some context for you. Yeah. I I understand

that as the lawyer as the the legal for the city mentioned that we don't wanna provide a placeholder where a developer who doesn't have anything done throws in an application and says, okay. Here's my here's my plan, but I'm gonna change it. But then you still have to abide I still get to abide by the rules that that were enforced when I first put the application in that may or may not still be in effect. So I I get that, and I understand that. And so yeah. If if this is gonna change to a degree where it's it's really a new application, then that's what it should be, a new application. That's my thought Thank you. To the to the commission.

K. I just wanna maybe just clarify. Hyde Park's just growing, and it's growing quickly. And so I think hiring a city planner and getting that probably for developers is a little bit of a tug of war going. This is what we used to do. So but, you know, we're it is growing. It is becoming a bigger city, and I think it is important that we get our ducks in a row and do it correctly. However, I do love this development. It is beautiful on paper, and I know Hyde Park really needs this. So thank you.

And I to to dovetail onto that, I do appreciate the space between buildings instead of just packing as many buildings and housing units as you can in there. We've I appreciate the space that's that's been provided for the residents here. Yeah. That's a beautiful Although it is it does seem to be all parking lots. So yeah. Parking is important. That would be our ordinance. I was hoping for a little more green instead of asphalt, but

yeah. Alright. Any other comments from commissioners? Any other discussion? K. We have the motion to recommend denial to the city council, not because we don't like it, not because we don't want it, but just the condition it's in at this point. K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Agree. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. That passed unanimously to recommend denial to city council, but we hope to see you back. Thank you. Alright. Next item is a public hearing about a rezone from commercial to industrial of a parcel. So it's in the commercial zone, and the applicant has asked to have it rezoned to industrial.

Account. Here we have the vicinity map that shows you the highway running north and south and then commercial area, The blank parcel in the middle of that is the parcel that's up for rezone, and then the blue is the industrial area. So this sits in that pink area because it is zoned commercial at this time. The property owner owns the blue industrial parcels to the west of it. And from our conversation, their intention is to combine that parcel with the rest of the industrial and give themselves a parcel that they can develop. They have a a developer in mind who's ready to go as soon as it has the correct zoning and an approved site plan. So this is the first step in their process. From the staff report, you will see that we addressed all of the rezone criteria, one through four, and that staff's recommendation is to support this zoning map amendment based on the findings from two, three, and four. I think the applicant is, okay, is represented. So if the chair wanted to recognize them to speak, he can. This parcel was part of a subdivision that was abandoned. Access and improvements and all of that are going to be brought in from the existing industrial parcels to this rezoned parcel. They do have a small section of land that meets up with the highway, and that's why I had them put their public notice up next to the highway where it would be visible. How that's gonna play out with Udot in the site plan process, I can't predict. All we're here today to talk about is the reason taking this from a commercial parcel to industrial. Do you guys have any questions for me?

Is this a public hearing or just a No. Yes? Yeah. Sorry. This one is. Sorry. It will be. Yep. Yeah. It will be. When we open it. Yeah. Do you wanna hear from the applicant first? At commission? Yeah. Sure. Skyler, is that you?

Come on up, applicant. Oh, no. It's Skyler.

State your name for the record.

Skyler Jenks. It's good to see you all again. It's been a little while since I've been up here. Anyways, yeah, we have a a business that is wanting to move into Hyde Park and manufacture. And so we're looking at building them, building, and putting them on the lots that we have right there that they'll access from the 800 West or 200 West. I'm not sure. It's still the addressing in Hyde Park's still a little bit of an issue. But anyway, so so that's where they'd like to go. I think we've been working with the mayor and Marcus and and Mikael a little bit to figure out what's gonna work best for the applicant and the city. And I think I think this is gonna be a great addition to the city and and bring in some additional jobs and and opportunity for some of the residents as well.

What do you mean by opportunities for residents? Just more As jobs. More jobs. Yep. Okay. Okay. K. Thank you, Skylar. We'll go to the public hearing next. And then if we have questions, we may call you back up again. Alright. Alright. And, yeah, just a reminder about public hearings. They're not necessarily opinion or your feelings. It's not really a question and answer period. It's meant to be for us to receive testimony or new factual information. It should be true and relevant to the item being considered in, quote, code to us that we need to pay attention to. And when you come up, just, yeah, state your name and, you know, whether you're a resident or business owner, what stakeholder you stake you have in it, and then limit your comments to three minutes. So we will open the public hearing now. That was a long spiel for no one to say anything. I'm okay with it. Alright. Seeing no comment, we will close the public hearing on this item. Alright. Commissioners, what are your thoughts?

I have a question. It's for I don't know who can answer it, but Hyde Park has such a limited small amount of commercial acreage. We're giving up some now for this. Is is this development gonna bring in anything to to counter to to offset what we might lose from a commercial site compared to the industrial? Because we don't make much tax revenue off industrial. Right?

So I'll chime in, and then Marcus will probably correct me. You're right. We have a certain amount of land that's zoned commercial. And so we have to be very picky and very conscientious conscientious of code as we move forward with rezones, whether it's rezoning something to commercial or rezoning something out of commercial. It needs to make sense. You need to weigh the pros and cons. Right? If if this parcel is rezoned industrial, it can be combined with that land next to it and give the property owner an opportunity to develop in a way that otherwise, his parts industrial parts wouldn't be big enough to do. Leaving it commercial as a side effect of that abandoned subdivision right now as it sits, it's landlocked. It's got that little nine foot strip, according to their survey that meets up with the highway, across the the north end of it, but that's not enough for access. Right? They wouldn't be able to do much with it. So it's it that's why staff's supportive of it because this is kind of a correction or could be considered a way to make this property usable in a way that right now it's not. So that's something for the commission to weigh for sure.

So we're not gonna get our target is what you're saying because there's not enough land. Come on, Skyler. Why didn't you bring in a target?

Still waiting for the Aldi. Okay.

Small.

I know. K. You mentioned it, so now it's the expectation is there. Yeah. My my concern is probably more unrelated to the rezoning other than the access to the property. The nine foot right of way doesn't I think I think it was noted in the in the notes in the staff report that there would need to be some sort of road created to to get to it. And, certainly, the nine foot right away doesn't provide enough for a road according to our current road standards.

Right. And the applicant has made improvements to his parcels in that blue area so that there is a private road right now that goes north and provides that access. But, again, the parcels would have to be combined so that they all have the same So ingress and egress. Yeah. Oh, share.

So

is just for clarification, is this all one owner?

It's not. Right next to the highway is an owner. I believe someone sells corral panels there at this time. And then to the south,

that's a separate parcel. K. You Separate parcel or separate owner?

Separate parcel and separate owner. Okay.

Is that the old Stevens Wood product place? Gotcha.

Everything around that, that's pink is still staying commercial. Correct. Correct?

Those all about the highway. This parcel, like I said, it it it it tries to, but it really kind of it kind of does and kind of doesn't. It it needs to be corrected.

Yeah.

Heather?

I'm in favor to get Hyde Park functioning properly. So if that needs to be happening to obtain the property and to allow the land to be useful, I'm in favor to say to let it happen. So and we did just approve a was it residential? No. We did just approve a commercial, and I think city council from last meeting. So we did get more commercial. Right? Mhmm. The property went from agriculture. We're just swapping it, I guess, is how I'm looking at it.

You gotta do a target if you do this. It is it is not in a in a No. I want a Trader Joe's. If we're gonna be throwing stuff out there for sure. It's good. It's not advantageous for a commercial location anyway because it's not on the highway. It has no Yeah. Unless it has some other way of advertising and being right there on the side of the road, which it isn't.

So Yeah. That's a good point. Okay. I'll make a motion that we approve the rezone from commercial to industrial for this

Okay. I'll second that. K. We have a motion by Ned Hanson for approval of the reason or to recommend approval to city council of the rezone and a second by Mike Mose. Any other discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That's unanimous. Thank you. K. We're have a discussion item. Code updates to title twelve and thirteen.

It's just a discussion item.

So So that means we're not voting on anything, commissioners.

We're not looking for motions or just chatting. Gonna make sure that I'm headed in the right direction with these ordinance changes. I've already kind of started it off with the things that I think are important application wise. We're gonna make sure that we clarify what kind of survey we're asking our applicants to provide. We've kind of talked about an Alta survey that is a lot more detailed and a little more, well, more involved and more expensive or a boundary survey that also shows easements and encumbrances. And so we're gonna make our decision about that and add that clarification piece to our application process. What I've started to do with Marcus's help is when I first started, we may Marcus and I sat down and made a list of problems that needed to be solved through an ordinance change for 2025. And so we hit some of those. We got some of those taken care of, not all. So some of those have rolled over to our new list called problems that need to be addressed for 2026. And so clarifying application pieces are a couple of those, but we also are clarifying the minor subdivision process. Right now, it just says it goes through this final plat process and doesn't have to go through preliminary plat. But as you've seen, some of these minor subdivisions take a lot of improvements and need a lot more preliminary plat style attention. So we're changing the criteria of what a minor subdivision is to be maximum of three lots where no improvements are needed. Right? That it's on an existing street already. It has enough frontage. Water and sewer is available, and they don't have to be brought in from off-site, things of that nature. So it it will, really clarify the minor subdivision process as some as the simple thing that it's supposed to be, instead of just saying a minor subdivision is only three lots and it goes straight to final plat. So I think it'll make it, easier for applicants to move forward with minor subdivision because the criteria there, they know that they that it would be a regular subdivision if it's not already on a public street, if it already doesn't have all these utilities available and stuff. So I spent some time working on that. That one's probably coming soon. And then we talked about short term rental in the past about creating that overlay zone, so that's on the radar. That will probably need a workshop of some kind. And these will all probably need a little bit of workshopping for sure. I wanna address some of the things that still ask for a CUP in our code that that could instead be just permitted by right, and we beef up the development standards that go with it. And then we don't have to I was gonna ask. We don't have to have all of those requirements for applicants to do the things that

should be Heather doesn't know the CUP acronym.

So CUP stands for conditional use permit. It's a thing in Utah state code where, like, the city wants to say we will allow something, but we wanna have be nitpicky about the conditions that we put on it. The hard part is when you put CUP in front of something, that doesn't mean you can say no. That means that we say yes, but we can put conditions on it. But the condition has to be based on city code. So, like, an example is if somebody wanted to come in and, you know, your next door neighbor says, I wanna convert my house into a, oh, what's the one that we had recently, short term rental? That well, short term rental is not c u. Yeah. We could do short term rental. Be a c CUP. Yeah. So if somebody wanted to build an ADU in their backyard, like a a mother-in-law apartment, you do a conditional use permit. But the city can't come in and say, well, you know, we don't want any dogs allowed in there. There's nothing in our ordinance to prohibit dogs from being in there, so we can't have that be a condition. And the reason they get owners is because every year, we have to do inspections on them and re up the license, and they just are a pain and generally not a great tool to regulate land use. So what Mikael's proposing is instead we go through the list of code items that say you can do it with a conditional use permit. We just go back to the base zoning and say, what are we really having issue with here? And you fix that in the base zoning, and then you can just say it's allowed.

Thank you. Yep. Being new, I'm trying to gather it all. It's gonna be really it's gonna be really fun. The workshops would be really fun and interesting. Yeah.

So stop us anywhere on those because that it is hard to be new and have them throwing out acronyms that you're you have no idea what they are. You jumped in. Maybe I'll make you a cheat sheet. Yeah. That would be great.

I can do that. I have one. Some of the other things that we need to focus on, we need to update our transportation section.

Is that in the general plan? Yeah. There's some general plan updates that we need to work on. I'll chime in on this part because this is more stuff that I'm concerned with because one of my roles is making sure the city's compliant with state and federal regulations. There's a couple of required changes we're gonna need to make to the general plan and a couple of recommended changes. The first one, there was this I can't rattle off the numbers anymore. The legislature started. There's a bunch of new bill numbers out, so I don't know what it used to be. But there was a bill that got passed last session that all the cities have to create a new transportation section for the general plan. And so we're working with the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is an organization that helps do planning for transportation across the entire county. They're applying for grant funds to help us with that. So we're kind of waiting to see if they get some grant funds, and then they can help us write that. Otherwise, we'll probably have to find some money and hire a consultant because it involves a lot of looking at our transportation plan, making new maps, doing more studies, and it's kind of onerous. And so that's something the planning commission is going to have to look at because, technically, it's the planning commission's job to write the general plan. But don't worry. We'll we'll get it prepped for you. So that's a state requirement. There's an what I'm calling an optional state requirement. It's a requirement that every city has a element of the general plan for water, water conservation. It's only required if you're over a certain population size. It's 10,000 or more. We're we're about 6,000 people. We don't have to do it, but we think it's a very good thing to do, and the city's already done a lot of work in that space. And so this year, we're gonna look at trying to make some time to actually write it and incorporate it into the general plan. And then the other one is we already brushed on the beginning of this meeting is definitely looking back at moderate income housing. The state made a lot of changes to that last year in the legislative session. We've heard there's more changes coming, although I haven't heard what those are. But we were advised by the DWS to just wait. Don't change anything yet until all the bills have come out because they might be changing some of those regulations. So, yeah, on the general plan side, which isn't code, but it's still pretty important, we're gonna be looking at transportation update, water update, and moderate income housing update this year, which will all have to really involve this group.

Alright. Is that everything on those codes on title twelve and thirteen?

Most of most of what's gonna happen in title 13 is helping to clarify and define the subdivision process itself. Right? Like we talked about with that first application, we need we need checklists. We need a a specific process for these folks to follow in order to have an application complete so that it's a successful application. And so we'll be researching and figuring out the best way to tweak our process, and then it will have to be codified. Yeah. We can't just make it up and institute it. We have to make sure that it's

that it's approved by everybody and that it's codified and able we're able to use it. Yeah. And I appreciate the developers that come in and say, hey. Your code doesn't make sense here. It seems to contradict itself or, like, which do you want? You know? Which so, yeah, I know that's frustrating for people along the way, but it helps us. We find things for the better eventually. So thank you. K. That's it for twelve and thirteen. And then also,

definitions, working on those,

making sure we use definitions in twelve and thirteen. They both have a definition section, so we're gonna look up on that.

That would be helpful. And same same verbiage for whatever word. Yeah. Development agreement versus yeah. Well, that was one Not development agreement, but I think Well, yes. Development agreement versus development

plan versus subdivision agreement versus Site plan. Plan versus zoning clear there's a lot of ambiguity, and some of our subdivision applications call for one thing and some call for another when it's probably should be the same thing. And sometimes that happens. Right? As things get adopted, verbiage changes, professional definitions change, and we just need to make sure everything's cohesive. And each code should be presented in a way that anybody can read it and understand it. It shouldn't be in really flowery language. It shouldn't be overly done, and ours

can be in some places. We we're gonna try and align as much as possible with the state definitions.

Yep. Absolutely. Always. Wouldn't it be more efficient just to have one definition section so you only have to you don't have to make sure they match in two sections or three sections? Just have one and reference that to the master section? It definitely would be. The reason we have two is because when we did the big update that the state required a couple years ago, we just wanted to update chapter 13. And so we beefed up that definition section to include all the new terms that the state was throwing at us, like administrative language authority and

all those new ones that we've Just said pull them out at twelve, pull them out at thirteen, put them in wherever. It would make a giant definition section Okay. Which went well We know how to we know how to look up that. We know how to look up alphabetically.

True. But when staff is trying to Okay. Review a subdivision application and then we have to go through and look through all of those Sometimes it's easier if we're in the subdivision. If we're just working out of the land use in the subdivision, we just have to deal with those two. But you're right. Technically, wouldn't it be better just to have one dictionary

than a small dictionary in each section? Well, you can hyperlink them so that you could just go right to right to it.

Whatever. Piece of cake. Yeah. Piece of cake.

Thank you. Alright.

I think that's it on our discussion items. Future items, let's go to that. I know we talked about dark skies ordinance. We don't actually mean dark skies.

That's how it was brought up, and so that's kinda how I left it on the agenda. I think in the future, we'll probably refer to it as outdoor lighting plan or outdoor lighting ordinance, which we do have an outdoor lighting ordinance. It's just very thin. What we wanted was not dark skies designation, like Right. Where I came from, but instead talk about light trespass, especially in these higher density neighborhoods where if we're not shielding our lights that that shine out from the 3rd Floor, then the residential neighborhood next door is gonna have some light trespass or the residential in the MX is gonna have light trespass from the commercial. And so we just have to we just have to codify the fact that we want these lights shielded and and give give people away who are having an issue with with light trespass and ordinance to refer to when they wanna complain about it.

And she's not here that mentioned the dark skies. She kinda just used that. She wasn't saying make it dark skies. We're not trying to get a designation. I just wanted to vent. To Yeah. She's not here. She wasn't saying let's make Hyde Park dark sky. She just brought that Right. To our attention. So and I said this last meeting, I know subdivisions where neighbors have knocked out the lights that Hyde Park has put in because it shines into their home. So we do need to address this

and get that fixed. And and the higher up on the bench we build and the more things we build, the more opportunity there is for that light trespass. And we just we just need to be aware. It's gonna affect our sign ordinance and a lot of different things. So we just we just have to be thoughtful as we go and, you know, who are we helping and who are we hurting, and is it necessary, and what's the purpose? So I'll there will be some workshopping.

K. Marcus, do you have anything else? Or, Mikael first, do you have any other items on for future items other than I think I have plenty to do.

I know.

Marcus, anything else on future items?

Not specifically, but I have been talking to the mayor about potentially doing outside of our new regular work sessions that we're doing, a different work session to do some priority setting for the city. I don't know if we're gonna actually do that, but it's something that we've chatted about. And so don't be surprised if you get a notification that we're gonna have some kind of series of work meetings or something to set some priorities. There's just there's been some concern that we're kind of all over the place. We've been spending our time on a lot of different stuff. Yeah. And so we just wanna make sure that the things that we are working on is moving Hyde Park in a positive direction. And so we're discussing that. I know he's talking about it with the city council. And if it's decided that we're gonna do workshop, we'll definitely let you know.

Thank you. Mayor, do you have anything to add to future items?

Perfect. So a lot of what they've they've addressed, but I I would say during the end of last year, we started thinking of, you know, goals for the city for coming here more at the city council level. And if you go into the city council box for our December meeting, I think I there's a document in there. We were just talking about higher level goals. What is it we're trying to accomplish, not digging into specific departments. But, for example, we bought a lot of water meters. Okay. How many are out there? We've it's a big investment. How many are out there? What's installed? Are we doing this and how soon, you know, snowplow? We save money for snowplow. What's the status? We have a corrective action from the state for a street sweeper versus the little golf cart that we have that has two guys with a broom out in the front. So, you know, what's the status? We're we're looking at those bigger things that way. But as I got speaking with Marcus and Cal, we got thinking, this spring, we're gonna have developers coming in again as we always do and inundated us with new plans. And through the course of this last year, we always say, oh, here's a code. And we need to correct this. We need to we have unintended consequences sometimes with some of the codes that we implement. Didn't think about some. So in your box, I got some of the comments. They said CUP and they're talking twelve and thirteen in definitions. That's inclusive in this list that Michaela, Marcus, and myself put together. I spoke with some of the council. Is it a comprehensive? No. Because we never spoke about dimmer skies or barking dogs. Yeah. Those need to be addressed, but there's some higher priority things that we need to get lined up before we start having more and more of this development hit us when they're wanting to kick the dirt and move it. So in that box, there's a a document that I loaded up today. It's twenty twenty six problems to solve or or try to resolve. There's there's a lot of things that I tried to put some higher priority ones up at the top. Some are just code changes, lining up definitions, things like that. And then down at the bottom of it, you'll see the things that aren't necessarily code, but they are things that fall on planning commission that these are things that should be addressed as well. So speaking with the council and and in our city policy, it says that, you know, mayor's supposed to set the planning commission agenda. I don't want to do that. I want there's so many things that come up, but I want to convey what the city council is looking at and the challenges that we we see as well. And and you probably see the same things. And if you, like me, knocked the dust off it, you know, oh, yeah. We do have problems here. Trying to get that list of things that we need to come up with and change and correct or clarify when we're talking about preliminary plans, final plans. We need to be concise of what we're speaking about. So I I wanted to load that up for you, and it's not, like I said, comprehensive and probably a growing list. So I think as we lead into this coming year, we're gonna be working to potentially start a start doing a new general plan again. It's been that fine and or maybe not new, but at least for new guys. This is what we got out of the last one. What we need is change. So be thinking in that as we go into the codes and start looking at some of these things and and there's and if you have anything else, please add them to here so that we can have a checklist and keep it a growing living document that, hey. At least we made progress. We'd knock one off of that list. Let's keep moving this forward so that we address the things that Sydney needs. That's about it. Maybe maybe make a box that's separate from the date. Yeah. It's just, like,

things to future things or something like that or They're all files

Exactly. It's not under planning commission or city council. Yeah. Let's move it over there. Let me put it in the work session. I was gonna say we used to have a workshop file. Yeah. We'd still do. Okay. So that way if we decide to have a workshop, we already know where it is.

Yep.

Alright. Thanks, mayor. Alright. Anything else? Commissioners? K. With no objection, I move that we adjourn.

A second. Oh, okay. Sorry.

Well, I just I think I sorry. I declare the meeting adjourned. Okay. I can do that without vote. I can just declare it adjourned. Oh, nobody.