Hyde Park City Planning Commission Meeting 4.15.2026

Ready.

Alright. Welcome to the Hyde Park Planning Commission meeting. Today is Wednesday, 04/15/2026. We have all planning commissioners present present, Mike Mose, Heather Taylor, Melinda Lee, Charlene Williams, and Ned Hanson. Welcome, everyone. Couple, students here on assignment from school. How lucky you are to be here. We'll sign your agenda and you can leave early.

Yeah.

Alright. We'll start. Commissioner Moe's is gonna give us a prayer or thought and lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

So traditionally, we do a prayer to the thought. But I just before I do that, I just wanted to thank all of those who are here. Even though you're it's compulsory in some form or fashion, we appreciate the time that you spend here and the concern you have for your community and trying to make at least your little part, if not the whole city better. So we thank you. Our father in heaven, we're grateful to stay for our many blessings. We're grateful for our city, for our community, for the people in it. We pray that we might be able to know or be prompted to make those decisions that will improve and make our city better, and more of a community for people to be feel welcome in. We're grateful for all that we've been blessed with. We continue to pray for more rain as we start the the dry season. We pray that our our citizens will be frugal with those things that they have, so that we can all benefit equally from them. We we are grateful again for all those who who serve. We pray for our leaders, and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please join me in the same pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Mose. K. First step is approving the minutes. I just had one little addition on there, the the time the meeting started, and Colette took care of that.

Commissioner Hansen? I didn't see anything that I disagreed with or remember.

Commissioner Williams? Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor? Nothing for me. Commissioner Mose? Four thumbs up. Alright. I'll look for a motion. I make a motion we approve the minutes

as they are.

We have a motion by commissioner Hansen. I second. And a second by commissioner Mohs. Any further discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passed unanimously. Thank you. K. Planning staff report by our city planner, Mikkel Layton. Hi.

I attended the American Planning Association Utah chapter conference last week. I had probably four really good classes that I wanted to report on. One of them was planning commission meeting management. They encouraged us to take a deep dive into our bylaws, and know what they are and see if any updating needed to happen. They also encouraged us to add into the agenda, a portion of the meeting at the very beginning for ex parte communications and disclosures. In case there's any conflict of interest or anything like that, it gives everybody a reminder that they should be disclosing that kind of thing and gives you the opportunity to do so. So I'll make sure to add that to the agenda. And they also encouraged us to divide our agenda into administrative, items and legislative items and to categorize them that way for the public and for everybody else. So I'll be making that change as well. Another class I sat through was about code enforcement, and they let us know that code enforcement is everyone's side job. Every department should be see something, say something is basically what it came down to that we're all members of the community, and it's everybody's job to keep code in mind at all times. I sat through a class about water and what water conservation efforts are gonna be required possibly from the state. They encouraged us to create a conservation committee, of different folks so that we could it wouldn't just be coming from members of staff or elected officials when it's time to talk about conservation efforts that it would be a community effort. And so that starts with a a committee based on the community. And then they encouraged us to add a section to our staff reports that talked about the water and how whatever application we were considering, how it might impact water. So I'll be doing that as well. And then I took of course, they had a land use law and new legislation session, and they reminded us that senate bill two eighty four requires, local government officials to complete an ethics course entitled ethics for local government. So I'll be getting you more information. If you haven't already done that, we'll facilitate that happening for you. And that's all I have for a staff report.

Great. Thank you. I love the idea of that water conservation committee and it coming from the community at large instead of city staff. I was shocked years ago when we were really tight on water. And that one weekend, we were like, if everybody kept watering as they did, you know, we really were in trouble. And so then we get the word out, and people even though we'd seen it in the news, it had been on all the weather reports that felt like it was like a well known fact. We had people saying, what? Why didn't why didn't you tell us sooner? You know, like so I don't know that they translate hearing about a drought and not much snowpack into maybe I shouldn't use culinary on my lawn this summer. And and we're gonna switch the order. We're gonna bring d, the last item for the Mountain Gate, up to the first item, and then we'll go in order from that. So this one is not a public hearing. We're just looking at a plat amendment for Mountain Gate Subdivision. So maybe you can give us a staff report on that. One of you? Mikael?

Yes. Okay. Cool. Stop.

Sorry. Yeah. Okay.

I do have the applicant here. So we'll hear, a couple words from the applicant if the chair, agrees to that at at the end of my presentation. But, if you've read your staff report, you will see that this these two parcels are in the same subdivision, but in two different phases, which kinda adds to the problematic situation that they're in. I'll have I actually would like to encourage chair to have the applicant come up and explain how currently, there's an illegal little parcel existing between the two properties because they went and did a deed recordation to try to exchange property between them without realizing that they needed to do a platinum memo in their subdivision. So it just it caused some complications. Yep. We heard about that from the county recorder, and so we looked into that. And what's proposed tonight is an amendment to both phases of this subdivision to finish that land exchange for the purpose of one property owner getting a little more property from the neighbor next door.

K. Yeah. I'd I'd be happy to hear from the applicant.

Hi. I'm Blaine with Heritage Land Development. And like Mikkel said, we had the builder one of the builders I didn't I'm the developer. I wasn't with the home building, but, apparently, they had one of the houses too close. Both neighbors are in agreement with making, like Mikel said, the property exchange. The builder home builder didn't realize the steps that they needed to do, so something was recorded. What they thought they were doing was correct, but we've since gone through and amended the plat to adjust that lot line. So the setbacks are met per code, and both homes are are within those regulations. And we think we've covered everything to to have it without either cutting off the home or, you know, redoing the home. So this was the next best solution,

we feel. So k. Keep that microphone close to your mouth in case we have questions. Okay. But even if this were in the same phase, it would have to come to us. Wouldn't it have to be a subdivision amendment either way? Yes. Yeah. No matter what, it's a subdivision amendment.

I guess it's the title of the plat that's technically a little more complicated because even though it is in the all one subdivision, these were two separate phases. I think this this subdivision has many phases Yes. It does. Unfortunately. And this is this is kind of an an just a new section of a a phase. Yeah. Yeah. This is our definitely Hyde Park's biggest subdivision. Yes. Planning commission is the is the land use authority for approving.

Okay. I'll look for a motion, and then we can discuss it if there's a second.

I'll make a motion that if everyone is in agreement with neighbors, then let's do it.

I'll give you a second on that one. Is that the technical terms? Let's do it. Yeah. I think in the staff report, there is a motion if you choose to move it. Let me look at it real quick. Okay.

How does something like this happen? Oh, there we go. Is it just h two. Something fell through the crack? Like, I'm just I wanna understand why this happened. Some Right. Because they have an engineer

they have an engineer go out and stake out the property, the Yeah. Corners of the lot and everything. So

I don't know.

Was this a code enforcement type mistake when they did a building inspection for

when they poured the foundation? Believe it got to the code enforcement place. The first homeowner to build

They have to have inspected those.

Did not follow the plat as they should have when they applied for their building permit. There's some things that fell through the cracks during that permitting process, which was a couple years ago. This house has been there for a minute. And so when the neighbor came in and it was time for them to build, that's kinda when they saw that that first house was too close to the property line or encroaching a little bit. And so

At least it encroaching the the setbacks.

Yes. Side setbacks.

I think when our building I think I asked Darren about this once because it's not the first time it's happened. And I think when they go out, they trust those stakes. They're not out there with a measuring every time. They're trusting the stakes that were already there and going off of that. Yeah. Our building inspectors aren't licensed surveyors.

Yeah. Though when the builder puts on there that they got it placed by licensed surveyors, they're like, okay. I guess it's where it's supposed to be. They'll do rough measurements, but they don't do it for every single lot. So we just require that it be put in by a surveyor. A lot of times, the builder just says, yep. We did. And they say, okay.

I just like to understand before I

just I mean, if the owners are in agreeance, that's great. So Yeah. A few months ago, we've somebody put in a foundation, like, 10 feet too close to the sidewalk, and they had to just tear it out and redo it. So when we catch it, we fix it. But So is that an instructor's job? I mean, I know they don't do surveying, but should they be looking at the stakes and They do. And that's what happened is they came up So that's what they kind of felt so inspection and said, this is way too close. And so K. Yeah. I just wanna understand. We catch it when we can, but it's not necessarily something that we are required to do by state law, and so we don't do it every single time. I would imagine catching it close to would be easier because you've got a definitive line. But if it's all dirt Yeah. And it's just lines in the dirt,

it's a little more complicated. Yeah. We're just lucky that we have a next door neighbor that's very Yes. Convenient. Anyway, I move to forward a positive recommendation to the city council for approval of the application for amendment of the Mountain Gate Subdivision Lots 112 And 104 based on the fact listed in the staff report.

I would like to second that eloquently worded motion. Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Moe's and a second by commissioner Williams. Any further discussion? Alright. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. That passed unanimously. Thank you.

Before you open up the next one, can I go ahead and announce it? And I'd like to say something.

Okay. Yeah. Alright. Get ready. I'm trying. Like, before the public hearing? Yeah. Okay. Our next item will be a public hearing to amend the business license ordinance, like home occupations. Do staff report first, or you wanna be before that? No. I'd like to do it before that. Okay. Commissioner Mose has something to say, and then we'll do a staff report. I I guess I don't really have

I have lots of questions. First of all, why are we, as a planning commission, looking at this? This should be a city council thing, and these public the public discussion should be in front of them. And I understand that we do a lot of stuff, and we do a lot of stuff that for them, but they are the elected officials. They should be the uncomfortable ones because they're getting paid to be that uncomfortable. Correct. Nice. So I'm not sure if if it's because of our code that we are looking at this, but I think I really think this next time should go to the city council.

Are you saying public hearings in general or home occupation

public? This one in particular because I'm not sure how much it really has to do with land use.

So this is all on Tell me. Yes. This is all on me because this was presented as just a public hearing at city council. And I said, well, hang on. There's elements of this that, affect my land use procedures. Because one of the sign off lines for a business license is land use. And so this is the place where some of these public hearings start is in front of planning commission. And you're right. This one probably could've skipped right over you and gone to city council, but I valued your

opinions and your way in. And so They have great opinions, but I also believe that they should be uncomfortable sometimes. And I think they get off a lot easier than they should.

They have a lot of other stuff to deal with too.

That's okay. That's what they get paid for.

So it was in it was initially proposed to just go for city council. So that's all on me that we're hearing it tonight.

Tired of hating the uncomfortable.

I will vote for you for city council, my most. You can put a sign in my yard. Don't don't hold your breath.

So if you guys will remember, we did have a discussion about this exact thing. And one of your big questions was, can the municipality make rules about this? And can we require for require business licenses for these things? And Donya printed out for me state code to read to you that says, a municipality may not charge any fee for a resident of the municipality to operate a home based business unless the combined off-site impact of the home based business and the primary residential use materially exceed the off-site impact of the primary residential use alone. So we can give a home based business license if there's no impacts if but we can't charge the fee. Another part of that code says, notwithstanding subsection eight a that I just read to you, a municipality may charge an administrative fee for a license to do a home based business, to a owner who is otherwise exempt but who requests a license from the municipality. So there are when we talked about impacts and things that were additional impact, I think, is the words we were using, we can still ask them to get a business license, but we just can't charge them a fee.

But if they ask for one and if they don't need one and they ask for one and we send we do a home inspection on that? Mhmm. So we can still charge that administrative fee.

The home inspection? Mhmm.

Okay.

Which we charge pretty much just the hourly cost for the inspection. We're not trying to make money off those. Right.

So I'm gonna let Marcus

Well, I'm just gonna turn it over for questions. I hope every everyone had a chance to read it.

Over there on this question question. For the public hearing? I guess there is a public hearing.

So that's pretty much the gist of the ordinance is it's it's just establishing that fact of state code and the city code saying that we're identifying home occupation with impact, without impact, and and then when would we charge a fee, when would we not charge a fee, and just adding a few more specific cases for some of these, you know, like swim lessons or other businesses that may happen. And most of this is copied directly from state code. I see there are a couple comments from Melinda, and we can definitely incorporate those for the final version that goes to city council.

Okay. We're gonna open the public hearing for this. So if you have something to say let me read our public hearing disclaimer. Welcome to our meeting. We encourage all participants to follow the rules of decorum by behaving with polite, respectable, and dignified conduct. Please state your name for the record. Speak clearly into the microphone. You'll probably have to pull it down a little bit, and use no no more than three minutes. And we have a timer. Don't make us use it. Please phrase your comments as statements, not questions. A public hearing is an opportunity to share facts and information about the topic and not an exchange of dialogue. Please make sure your comments are factual, accurate, and original, and that they are addressed to the commission. K. I'm opening the public the public hearing for, this ordinance to amend business license ordinate the business license ordinance. If you wanna speak, you just walk up to the microphone. Could be fun, girls. Alright. With no one to speak to that, I'm closing the public hearing for this for this item. Alright. I would look for a motion, and then we can discuss if we have a motion in a second. That's a better time. At least we have some direction if we have a motion first. Or if you have a lot of questions, you can ask your question. I got I got a question

or maybe a suggestion or something. I mean, in the fur in the definitions thing, it talks about material impact, and I'm going, what is material impact?

Maybe we need to define that. Where where do you not I feel like it says that. It says if people come to the property.

Mhmm.

Which one are you reading? Which Definitions

four point Oh, okay. Four point It says creates a material impact to the residential neighborhood by having patrons visit the premises.

Well, and our ability and authority to even enact this is contingent. It hinges on the definition of material because it has to materially exceed the off-site impact of just the residents alone to to the people around it, to the off-site in the state code. So in other words, if you've got a family that's got a lot of teenagers coming and going and they've got family and then they and the community that come and go a lot, that's a regular residential use. One more visitor doesn't materially Yeah. I mean, so we're already hinging on materially.

I'm assuming it's living data somewhere. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, it's just a little bit if I'm if I'm the guy that's trying to say I don't have any impact with my business.

Like I think they do they define it later on? Kind of saying No. No. It's not defined. Yeah. But, like It's just in the definitions.

I mean, I operated a home business for twenty something years this was going And I have maybe four clients come to my house in for twenty years. So I I I would say I had no material impact.

But And a reasonable person would also agree with that. Right. But I mean

But by definition, he did have a material impact. Right. So that's that's the part I'm like, no. No. Maybe we need to

draw the line whatever the line is. But Or or what about that

business that home business that has delivery trucks coming? All multiple times a day, which

is Yeah. Well, we talked about this last meeting. Like, one car at a time is not really an impact And I agree with that. In a neighborhood. You know, if you're having 20 cars,

that could be an impact. Right. And that is discussed. And Well, I mean, yeah, I I agree. But I think what you're saying, someone could pay an impact. Mean, that it's what what what point are we making? Yeah. Is it too much? Is there always a car parked out there in front of the house? Is somebody there? I don't. Well and remember that we're not here to debate the definition. The definition is pulled straight from state code. This is Does it define what material is, or does it just leave it that way? Just It says by having

patrons come to the home. Yeah. That doesn't

That's that's the definition. We're not asking you to agree with state phone definition. We're just asking you to adopt it.

And may yeah. Maybe I've I've probably interpreted that wrong, you know, because I you're right. The way I first read it, I was saying if anyone visits the premises, that's a material impact. But I think they're just saying the material impact comes may come when patrons visit the premises. It's not necessarily what you're doing on your own, but when people come, does that have a material impact? It could be interpreted that way, which is different. K. The one that I might have concern over is, like, the deliveries. Yeah. I don't get one or you know, I understand one or two or three packages, but when they come and they unload a huge truck that takes

an hour or a half a day to unload And we may rely on code enforcement, right, to to help us enforce this code also. Yeah.

I almost think it's impossible to put a number on it just because that's how do you enforce it? But material, we'd almost rely on some complaining.

Well, I mean, I just think you you've got a ordinance that no one's ever gonna enforce because there's not really a definition. I mean, I I'm okay. Just saying it's It's like that definition sauce. It's all I'm saying.

It's like that definition for nuisance. You'll know what when you see use. You'll know it when you see it. A pornography? No. That's a different opinion. But we're not talking about that. Well bigger that's the biggest thing. Nuisance. We're gonna talk about that. We say something we'll regret on the public record.

There are other things in place in our ordinance that we can do to address these things. Like right now, we get we've had a couple of code enforcement cases with people unloading semi trucks worth of things in residential neighborhoods, and we can go back to the land use table and say, hey, this is really a commercial operation you're running or an industrial operation in a residential neighborhood. You can't do that. So I think on the extreme cases, we already have tools in the code that we can use to shut them down. In my perspective, I'm not an attorney, but this feels like something that the state adopted to try to make home based businesses easier. I think they left the definitions vague on purpose, and I know that we're not gonna be sending the code enforcement guy to go shut down the person who operates a hair salon in their basement and has one client come at a time. And they're not bugging the neighbors. They're not causing a bunch of extra traffic. That's not really what we're gonna be looking for for enforcement.

So I do like that you changed it. You got rid of, like, conditional use Yeah. Permits and things like that. And so I'm going to recommend make a motion to recommend that we City council We recommend to the city council Approval.

Approval. And after we second, we can discuss a little bit more. And I will second that

Alright. Recommendation. K. We have a motion by commissioner Mose and a second by commissioner Taylor. Further discussion?

The only one that I saw, was number seven. And I just think of all of the, realtors, loan brokers who use wrap on their cars to advertise, and they might be caught in a net unintentionally on number seven. The vehicles cannot be used for the primary purpose of advertising.

Right. If the vehicle At their location. Purpose is to transport the people back and forth to their home, then their primary purpose is not advertising. If they're parking that you guys have seen the big pink dumpsters all around the valley. If they're parking that vehicle in the right of way somewhere and leaving it there for days at a time,

maybe it has a different purpose. But I think if it's the vehicle that's that's just coming back and forth to your home and has a wrap on it, its primary purpose is transportation, not advertising. But we're looking at the site of the home occupation, and I I I just know a lot of people that buy a car specifically for the advertising and drive it around town, and then they park it at their house. And if they're working out of their house, could that be a net we didn't intend to catch them in because that's their house. It's also I don't think that's something that we would be

we would be going after. We wanna make home occupations as

doable as possible for our citizens, and we're not looking for reasons to say no. We're looking for reasons to say yes. I totally agree. I just wanna make sure that seven couldn't be an unintended net that someone complains about. Like a like a neighbor that doesn't want them. But even that, I don't feel like it would go that way. I think that neighbor might complain, and we would say

they're using that car when they do go back and forth, so we are not going to pursue that complaint. Well, and even then, we probably wouldn't pursue it unless it was causing some other type of nuisance that we could chase after them in the code that way.

Well, I have a home occupational business as we discussed prior, and I feel totally confident with all of this because I know I'm not abusing it. So if an issue arises, I would feel very strongly that I don't fall into this. So I think, you know, we can get nitty gritty and but I think, hopefully, the integrity of home based businesses, the truth will prevail, and we don't need to but it is scary. I agree.

But I think it's well written. Well, really, this is this is what this code was designed to protect is the low impact home business, you know, things like day care, child care that's governed by a separate set of state codes. If somebody's business is escalating to the point where they need constant advertisement, it's probably time for them to move out of their home and find a different spot for their headquarters. And so that's what this ordinance is designed to do. It's designed to protect and maintain the true small at home businesses that don't have an impact on the neighborhood. You would never even know somebody's running a business out of there. But these are in my opinion, they're written in a way that if somebody's pushing these limits, it's probably time for them to go somewhere else anyway.

So can I clarify? So me personally, I mean, I'm fine to use me as an example. I don't need a business license.

Right.

That just blows my mind. I find that fascinating.

I don't know why you wouldn't want a business like that. For you, I I mean, it's really up to you at that point because the city, like we talked about in the last meeting, we could force everyone to come get one, but then we're not we're not allowed to take any fees from that. So then we're just subsidizing with everybody else's taxpayer monitor taxpayer dollars to track your business. And so, really, it's back to the owner. If you want a business for the type of operation you want in that run, and that's gonna give you something for insurance or purchasing or whatever, then, yeah, you can come to the city and do it. But then we have the authority to say, okay. This is gonna cost us some time. Can we charge you for the inspection and for the paperwork that we have to do on our end? And that's why it's done this way. So do you have to have one? That's probably a you decision, but the city is not going to make you come get one

if all you're doing is When you keep renewing it, it just stays the same. Mhmm.

We just had our trees trimmed, and it's from a guy that's local here. And I think he's parked as a he has big equipment, and he's parked it here. And he's feeling pushed out by the city. And so, yep, they're moving to Idaho. So for good or bad, you know, it's a bummer to him, but it's probably better for his neighbors that don't want all that equipment there. So it's doing what you just said. Like, it might be time to find another place. He's definitely doing that. Yeah. For good or bad. I mean, that that is what happens. That would be a natural consequence of this kind of thing. Yeah. Alright. We have a motion on the table and a second. Any other discussion? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. That one also passes unanimously. Alright. Next item. Are we sure we want this one next and not the next? I feel like land use table? Yeah. I feel like this could go on forever. Alright. I hate the land use table. And that is on the public record. I think it's 18 pages. I've played with it a lot. Not recently, but in the past, I have. Tell you is I would be fine

Land use table. Land use table. I would be fine with opening I don't ever wanna see it. It. The public hearing and leaving it open until the next meeting if you guys wanted a month to consider and for the city to collect comments on this. You don't have to vote on this tonight if you don't want to. You can leave that public hearing open. I have added into box Red lines. A document called red lines. It's so confusing.

Is it on here? That's the red line. I'm looking at red lines going

So just the four K. Please don't get overwhelmed by red lines. What I attempted to do using technology was to compare the old I also did it analog style. I have the old land use table, and next to it, I have the proposed land use table. If you'll notice, what I did is the very first thing I did is change the words discussion item. How does how did that end up on our land use table? I don't know. It's a typo. But I changed it to uses by zoning district. So I started with cleaning up our code, this land use table, by just fixing maybe words that should that were in the wrong place that shouldn't have been. And so that's where I started with the titles. And then I moved some uses out of the wrong category and into the right category. So the old land use table under residential uses had a fruit and vegetable stand and a stable, which

those are not residential uses. You're not from Hyde Park.

I'm I'm I'm I'm not either, but I'm telling you I hope you're in Hyde Park. Living in a fruit or vegetable stand. I am Well, there's one on 8 East in in North London. London that I think is totally fine. I use it. That would be an accessory use

to the residential use. Nobody's living in the fruit and vegetable stand. Okay. Okay. No. I put the uses where they belonged. So

This this won't work in our live work units with a food stand?

I think they could it could be an accessory use. Okay. Yeah. If it does, like, hook up window. If it says If it says that off. That's not affecting the ability of people to do that. Come up. No. This is this is a clean and tidy is what this is. I've I've moved the uses into the actual use category. I'm gonna give you an example. In the old land use table, if you find agricultural and food production business, it was permitted in the industrial zone, but not permitted in commercial. But where is it listed? In commercial. So why would we list a use that's not permitted in a commercial zone as a commercial use. So I have moved agriculture and food production in the new table down to industrial use where it is allowed and it does belong. So this was a lot of housekeeping. One of the other things I've done is, on our land use table, there was a whole column for planned unit development. When planned unit development is not a zone, it's an overlay, and its rules fall back on the underlying zoning, which is usually r two. But it had x's and p's and c's in places that were different from r two. It kind of was trying to create its own uses, and that's not appropriate in a planned unit development. And so I have I have removed the planned unit development column and then replaced it with use specific standards. And we'll clean up the columns so that use specific standards is at the end. But what that is for is so that when you see in residential uses accessory dwelling unit detached, the code that that speaks to that will be listed there. So you know where to go in the code to find the standards for the thing you wanna do. So now you see that it's allowed in your zone, and now I'm gonna go to the code and find out what the development standards are for it. That's not a column with x, p, and c. That's rep it'll be a reference column. It'll be a reference column at the end. It'll be 12

70 dot whatever. 123190.

But for aesthetics and ease of explanation, I I am showing you that I am removing planned unit development and instead creating, a column for use specific standards so people can go to the ADU code and see, yes, it's allowed, and these are the conditions under which it is allowed. So that will take me a little bit of time to connect code for every use that we've got listed on these many pages. There are several instances in here where we have removed the c for conditional use and either changed it to something to x for not allowed or permitted. And our intention is to revise the development standards for that permitted use so that we're not hearing conditional uses for things that don't require conditional use, such as, off the top of my head, daycare. That doesn't require conditional use. That's something that be can be permitted because the state already has many standards in place for daycare. They have to meet many state standards, and then they have to meet city standards. So it's an it shouldn't be a conditional use. It should be permitted, and then you follow the standards for developing that. And so I've tried to remove as many conditional use permits as we had standards for. As you can see, some are left there. Group homes still requires a conditional use permit, and there's a few others for things to exist in commercial and industrial that require a conditional use permit. But most of the con of the commercial uses are now listed where they've been permitted in the commercial zones. So that's mostly what this is. There have been a couple of changes to what's allowed in the public and institutional zones. There were a lot of commercial uses there for some reason that didn't match up with our development standards. So if there were things in our code that didn't agree with the development standards for how they were listed in the use table, those were the ones that were changed. So nothing I don't even think there's anything noteworthy there. Now there were some additions, and I can tell you what those additions were. We added I don't wanna quote myself wrong. Gravel pits, alright, in industrial uses. Industrial uses, I did add data center. And as you can see, those are not allowed. There was

Because of water? Because of water. Because of water.

Resource extraction was added to the industrial uses to include gravel, oil, gas, and water. So this is how we don't allow gravel pits in residential areas is by making them an industrial use, for the industrial zone. I've also added detention centers, jails, and prison facilities to a use that's not allowed in the institutional and public zone. And then wind, solar, and power plant, that is in the institutional and public uses and currently not allowed. So as you go through these uses one, two, three those were the four that were added. If you go through these uses and something doesn't make sense to you or doesn't meet up with our development standards, please bring that to my attention. But I did spend a lot of time in the development standard section of our code and then going back and forth with allowed uses and not allowed uses, and I've tried to make the best sense I can out of both of those things. Should I have added those use specific standard references as I went? Probably. I did not do that, but there will be an amendment when I have all of those worked out. Some of them have more than one reference. Our our code can get a little jumpy in places. But one of the ones you may wanna consider is in the residential section. Old Cold has boarding house and lodging house, and we allowed those with a conditional use permit in residential zones. And in the new code, I left that off. The space is still there if we want to allow boarding houses, with conditional use permits, but I removed it. And if that was a mistake, please let me know.

So it's a massive table, and I feel like we're a pretty small city. I get that, like, all these uses. Like, is this a normal thing? Like, every city you go to just has a massive table like this?

No. I think maybe this list has been crafted over time It has. With uses that were proposed. A lot of cities and in standard planning practice, what you have is types of uses, and then you have a way to categorize them. You have things that are not this use and things that that this could maybe be an accessory to. And that way, a zoning administrator can pull up that table and make that interpretation as you go. So instead of trying to think of every use that could possibly come, instead, you give your municipality, a way to categorize them as they're present. Yeah. Because I And you get the big one you keep the big ones on the list. Right? So people the the standard stuff every place has, but I don't think it's necessary to list a circus

or The Right? There's got I think I got rid of that last time.

That that are one and done that maybe just needs planning commission or zoning administrator interpretation of code, and and we call it a day. So, no, some municipalities do have every list that has ever been presented to their city and they made a determination, and the list continues to grow. It just depends on how big a list you wanna

Yeah. And I and I think it's hard. I mean, you have things like a circus that maybe don't apply anymore, and then you have, like, that data center, which I would not have thought of the data center. But for sure, you would want to specify something like that. New uses coming up all the time at this

at one of my APA planning sessions. They talked about uses near an airport that soon in the future will be the autonomous ride that you go get in the thing and it A drone taxi. A drone taxi that takes you somewhere or drone delivery. Right? There'll be an Amazon warehouse by the airport, and the drones will fly in and out of there. And we need to save land around our airport to build the drone facilities because maybe the college will wanna have a drone class, and we need to have a zone for that. Anyway, it it's mind boggling the number of uses that that could be on the list. I think it's best to categorize the best you can and then perhaps set criteria for this is how you determine if this is a residential, a commercial, or industrial, or other,

and and then let the chips fall. Yeah. I would much rather I would much prefer to have generalizations and then leave it up to someone to interpret instead of trying to, like, oh, that's a new use data centers. Like, we didn't get that on there in time. Someone applied for it before we thought of putting it on the list. Like For sure. I would love to switch to something simpler.

It wasn't a super big priority to do that right now. I know. And so what I mostly did was add the things we wanted to add, reduce the number of CUPs that are required, and clean up where things are listed so that they're easier to find for the the general public should be able to go to your land use table and find, you know, the fruit and vegetable stand where they would expect it to be in the commercial section

and not the residential section. Yeah. Is is the default if it's not listed, it's not permitted unless you come at? Correct. Okay.

Is that list is that Stated at the end? Is that stated in the code? I don't I think it needs to be.

It it does because land use state land use code says something to don't says something to the effect of if it's not if you haven't said it's not allowed, then it is allowed. And so we do need this

disclaimer that says if it's not a use listed on this list, it's automatically not allowed or Right. To that effect. Yeah. Well, I do appreciate all your work because I've played with this. And and you print it out on as big a paper as you can, and it's still not big enough.

And so Yeah. Yeah. It's a fun it's a fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun fun on the data center because the data center could just be, like, two racks of computers in some people's definition. Maybe just in parentheses, anything that exceeds the normal utility requirement or something like that. You know? Like an ERU. Yeah. Exceeding one ERU. Yeah. Yeah. Something like that.

K. We still have to have a public hearing on this, by the way. No believe.

Because that was was the staff You do. That was the staff report, and I'm all done. So if you would like Alright. We're gonna information we can have. Ready. Line up. We're gonna open the public hearing for the land use table. Same rules apply, but no more than three minutes, new information, facts, no feelings. We don't care how you feel. Alright. We're gonna close that public hearing without comment and move for I don't know. I would look for a motion unless you guys are think we need to leave this open like she said. For some reason, we I could have not closed that public hearing. But anyone think we should have left the public hearing open for until another meeting, which for us is a month?

I mean, I don't think it should have been left open, but

I kinda think now that I know more about it, I can review it better. So I don't know that I'm ready to Okay. Give a yay or nay. Okay. For me reading it, I'm trying to switch between colors, and I go back to the page one to see what's at the top of that column. So that I need to do. Yeah. So for me to really comment on it, I would need to see it either the column the title at the top of the column continue to each page,

or I'd have to print them all in Bloom and the column. Right. One of the two. I guess my my my recommendation or thought would be we give it till our next meeting for anybody to review it so that comments to you. And so that we could try to vote on it next time. Is there anyone here for this public comment on this

subject?

They didn't get up. Nobody stepped forward. That came

that came okay. Alright. Berwyn, do we have to I have a question as we as we study this. Just even the boarding house and the lodging house, I'm thinking of, like, Providence has homes being purchased for rehab within subdivisions. Is that what you're meaning on both? That's more of a group home. A boarding house

is somebody who owns a home and then rents out the bedrooms. So all around campus Okay. Or in on the Facebook Cache Valley rental, you'll see all the time. I I need to sell my lease Okay. Or my equipment.

Have something for a group home? Do we have that? Yeah. We have a whole code for that, and that is one of the categories in here.

There's just so many categories they have. There's just not a reference to the use standards there yet. I've got it kinda underlined for you. That's right there. Group home. And so in general, you have all your U uses down the left side, and across the top is each of our zones. And so we have to say for each use what whether that's allowed or not allowed in each individual zone. So you wanna add five more zones, you're gonna add five more columns to this table unless we can generically say residential, but I don't think we can. We have to state every Yeah. To keep all of the columns.

I think what and, again, I think this is a good use in this area, has to be backed up by the ordinance. Right? Our development standards in the commercial zone, our development standards in the residential zone. These have to be uses that can meet standards. And so, whether they should or shouldn't be in the zone has to come down to how our ordinances are written. So as you as you read about these uses, make sure you go into code and

and read what goes on in the commercial zone. And Is there any way we can get the titles to would that be a lot of work to copy and paste over? Because I am going back and forth.

So the the titles on the Excel sprint if it's Excel, is there a way to force it when it prints that at the top of each one, the column title keeps showing up? You can do it. You can set it so that we can pull. And can you also add, like, lines every three or five?

Like, give us a dotted line or something just so that we're we're tracking something all the way right and left. We know what line we're on the right line.

That'd be helpful. Thank you. Because I do wanna look I'm looking at it, but I'm doing what Heather's done. I'm going back and forth, and I'm like, am I on the same spot? You can freeze the heading, and you can freeze the first column so that everything

moves relative. They just don't Within that. That would make it easier to look at, for sure. The format that this is housed in in our zone is not an Excel spreadsheet. Okay. So Okay.

It's yeah. Okay. This was a lot of work that we we can definitely

do some copy paste and Good work. Work that out. Work.

Oh my goodness.

Well, the original one was Excel, and we copied and pasted it into code. We've changed it a few times, but I can probably dig up the old Excel file. No. I'm not. I'm just saying. Mess with it. That'd be hard to format things someplace. And when you spend time formatting things and do and moving the stuff and finding the code, that's why it's

finding the code, that's why it takes six months to get code written and passed. Right? Because in the meantime yeah. There's a there's a lot that goes into every little thing we do for sure. But, yes. Okay. Can be done, will be done. Yes. So if we don't vote on this tonight, we need to tape formally table it? Yes.

Continue it tonight. I make a motion. We table it. I second that.

And there you go. Alright. We have commissioner Hansen has made a motion to table this or continue it to the next meeting, and commissioner Williams has seconded that. Any further discussion? K. All in favor of tabling this to the next meeting? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. We will table that to the next meeting. Great. We we don't have to have a public hearing again, though, do we? Right. No. This is the public hearing. Okay. Yeah. Good. Good. K. Last public hearing for the night. We are on to the land disturbance ordinance, and this is our hot topic that we're talking about, like retaining walls, moving dirt, and whether that should be the developer versus individual homeowners.

So let's have a staff report on that, and then we'll have that public hearing. Well, as you can see from the small three pages that this ordinance is, it isn't as groundbreaking. I didn't mean to do that. It's not as groundbreaking as you would think it should be. We've started really small with just this land disturbance ordinance. What this does, it allows us to make legitimate our grading permit and our infrastructure permit that we currently require for folks who are gonna do large disturbances of dirt or put their infrastructure in for their subdivision. Previously, there was no permit required for that. You could just start digging ditches and and putting pipes in the ground, and you didn't have to say anything to anybody. So we've instituted this permit, and now this makes that legitimate that you have to have your stormwater in place and that you do need, you know, inspections and checks from the city to do that. This ordinance will grow probably at the next meeting as we introduce ordinances that have to do with building on slopes and retaining walls and how we're all gonna address that. Marcus and I are still doing research and trying to figure out the best way to not prohibit people from doing the things they wanna do, but still keep health and safety in mind and encroaching on your neighbor in mind. So some of the things that have been added here is that definition that we wanted for a structure. There'll be more definitions to come for sure and then procedures for moving forward with land use applications or grading an infrastructure. So, again, we didn't start we didn't start too big on this. We started kinda small, but we wanted to lay out the ground rules for moving moving dirt before you build something.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Alright. So, yeah, we've got on that first page under definition structure, any physical addition to land that requires a building, land use, public works, or fire department permit to construct or modify?

To come up with that definition, I did go into my planner's dictionary. They have several really good definitions, for and they cite the municipality that they took it from. I tried to get it down to just the most basic, not a paragraph definition that I could come up with that just lays it out. If you need a building permit for it, then it's a structure.

Does this involve slopes? Is this will slopes fall into this? There's not.

If there is a mention of slopes in here, it is not Landscaping? No? It's not. No. K. Right now, we don't require a permit for landscaping, and we wanna keep it that way. We don't want people having to come down to the city and get a piece of paper so that they can plant flowers. Like, that is not our intention at all. And so I think that's But landscaping with retaining walls probably require In the setback. If the retaining walls require a building permit. If they're just decorative boulder walls that are just a couple feet high, that's between you and your homeowner's insurance.

Alright. We have this last public hearing tonight. I'm looking for, yeah, volunteers. K. We're gonna open the public hearing for this land disturbance ordinance. Same rules apply as I read the first time. Come on up. Alright. With no comment, I'm gonna close that public hearing and open it up for a motion or discussion. Commissioners.

Just a motion to discuss?

No. I mean, you can make a motion, and then we can still discuss it.

There's so much in this. It's huge. Well, that yes. We definitely wanted to start small. And like I said, at our next planning commission meeting, we'll probably have some some big additions.

Yeah. Again, the main objective of this is to create a framework to start building a program. Right? Right now, we don't have any way that we're monitoring and tracking this, and it's we've had some situations in our developments where people go and start moving dirt, and it creates all sorts of problems. So promotioning this, it's not it has to go to city council. It's just a recommend It's just a recommendation.

But how do we if city council passes it, how do we add on to that? You just have to start at Next at next

planning meeting, we'll have an amendment to modify K. The land disturbance. Make a motion.

I think we have to start somewhere. Okay. Yep. So I make a motion to recommend the Hyde Park City ordinance twenty twenty six dash o six, an ordinance creating twelve thirty dash 300 land disturbance. Is that what I'm supposed to say?

I'd recommend city council approval. Recommend that to city council for approval. There you go. K. We have a motion.

We have a second.

K. That you? Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Taylor and a second by commissioner Mose to recommend approval by the city council of this ordinance. And I had just petty little corrections in there as far yeah. Further discussion right now. Yeah. I was just saying Thanks too, but, you know Put a dash in that city approved and It says done.

K. Discussion? Any other Sorry. Further discussion. I just know that this has to be followed by other things Yeah. Other changes and and modifications

to fill in the gaps. Yeah. Absolutely. That's why I made the motion. We have to start somewhere.

One of my concerns with everything that's been going on, I've been really driving around and looking at the existing developments that are already approved, that people already have lots for sale. And I can see there's a lot of retaining. So I think we have to be careful because I'm watching people who've already moved dirt. And if I buy a lot, you look at the lot, you look at what's around it. And if my neighbor builds before me and that changes what I have to do to my lot because of the dirt that they moved. However, we haven't required the developers to flatten these lots. These homeowners are when I see them moving dirt, they have to because I look at that and go, that's a crap piece of land. They've gotta bring that dirt up here or else you're gonna have to build a cattywampus haunted house. I mean, it would look ridiculous to accommodate the slopes that people buy their lots on. And most of them are not buildable as is. And as I drive around, there's very few that are buildable without moving dirt. So are we are we accommodating quickly enough all of these developments that are currently in process that people are looking at their lots? I think this is kind of really urgent that we accommodate the existing people because they bought the lots relying on going, okay. I'm gonna do this to it. And if we put this in and they go like, well, I wouldn't have bought the lot if I couldn't move that dirt, and this is what I'm planning on. How fast can we And I don't accommodate that? Our

our amendments are not anticipated to to tell people they can't do something. What they will be is, here's the way you do it. You have to get a geographic study. What is that called when you do for Geological study. There you go. And you have to have engineering for these are all the things we're trying to figure out. For your house plan to fit on the lot. Well, yes. And is your house too big Yes. For your Do we not require that right now? Do we not? Not in the R 2 zone. In the R 2 zone, there's not a max lot coverage. So you can build a giant house on a lot in r two and then be mad that you don't have any yard because it's all on a slope instead of building a smaller house and saving some of that for yard. And that's kinda what we're dealing with right now. Yes. We want people to be able property rights are number one. We want people to be able to do what they need to do, but we want them to be wise about making the choice to buy a house on a slope instead of

And not make making the choice to buy a house on a flat lot. And not make their problems their neighbor's problems because that's also property rights for the neighbors. Yeah. And most of our lots are have slopes. I mean, if you actually want to go up. Yeah. Yeah. Most of the newer where people East Of 4th on build. Yeah. Yeah. Where people are custom building, there's I haven't found a really good flat lot. Yeah. So in building code, though, there are requirements

for geotech, lot stabilization, all sorts of things, and we do impose those as part of building permits. What we have not done is had it be incorporated into the development process. Like, places down in Saint George, you'll probably notice there's a lot of subdivisions built to have massive retaining walls around every single lot. And that's because the city of Saint George years ago saw this problem and said, we probably should address that. And so now it's incumbent upon the developer to make a lot that's ready to build on immediately. I think we should And so that's the ultimate end goal of this process. But to start, we wanted to start with this framework to start creating a permitting process and start outlining guidelines for how we want this to be approached.

Yeah. I got a question. At the very beginning, you talked about the purpose and authority, and you give eight different reasons why you'd have to have a permit.

Like

Looking at the third and and and the purpose of this, I'm I'm assuming, is so that a citizen can look at this list and say, I fit in this category. I need to get a permit,

or I don't and I don't need to. I don't none of these things apply to me. Right. So I shouldn't need one. Number three

is too vague. Okay. In that, what it says is land disturbing activity of less than one acre of land if in the discretion of the city engineer, such activity poses a unique threat to water quality or quality public health or safety. And the reason I say it's too vague is because someone's gonna start digging and moving dirt, and then the city engineer is gonna go, hey. Wait a minute. You can't do that. Or someone's gonna go to the city engineer and go, hey. You need to look at that. In other words, there's no way for the person to look at it this going, I'm moving dirt. I don't think it's gonna have any threat on this. I'm good to go. And then all of a sudden the city engineer says, stop work. I I I just think that there needs to be a little bit more More specific. More More specific. In that.

And that's something that we could definitely propose in the amendment is do we want if if you are north of Or east of east of this is you. I mean, we can get as specific as we wanna get. Well, I mean, I don't

I just really dislike in the discretion of, I really dislike that phrase because there's what's the standard? It's the it's the city engineer going, my breakfast was really crappy this morning. You have to stop work. Hopefully But you're okay because I had a good dinner last night. Yeah. Mhmm. So, I mean, what's

what's the standard? Specific. Yeah. Feed your public employees.

I yeah. Right? Make sure they're happy. I understand what you're saying, Mike. There are specific things that can be tied to this. Like, for example, with all of our water sources, there's protection zones around it within a certain amount of feet. So maybe you could tie it back to that with air quality. There's standards that are put out by the county. Perhaps we can pull those in here. Violating Just, yeah, just another thing to look at and say, well, I need to really put the standards on this. Or the but the what do they call I mean, there's the floodplain, and then there's, like, the extra part,

the borders of the I mean, I can't the open The flood. Yeah. The county has, like, a 100 foot

buffer Yeah. That they enforce.

So there there are little things like that that the general person isn't going to know. Like, I'm part of that But I certainly didn't wanna list all of the ways that you could violate

water quality standards, air quality standards, public health and safety standards. So I put it on the engineer, not the zoning administrator.

Well and I understand, but the I mean, the standards aren't set set up so that anyone could say, okay. Yeah. Or even the engineer.

Uh-huh.

He doesn't he doesn't know what what standards is he using. He has no idea. What would be the harm of eliminating number three? Because I in the discretion of an individual human analyzing whether it's a unique threat to water quality, air quality, public health, or safety. That's Yeah. I would that's highly in that one.

I would rather have us keep it, and you put the mandate back on us to add more specificity.

Maybe you could just put in parentheses there

until more details developed. You could ask the city engineer before we start. Or we could run this by the city attorney to give us alternative language, but I think we need to keep it because

There are exceptions.

There's a couple of instances, particularly in my mind, that I'm not gonna say for the public record and to waste everybody's time. But this slow. Definitely happens, and we definitely want something in the code where we have some teeth to go back and say, you can't do this until we know what you're doing. Oh, I was gonna say because I think using the word unique, if we could recommend What are you saying? For

I'm putting our or whoever counsels for the city to look at that. Because unique threat, I I think it would need to be a detrimental it would need to be detrimental to public health. I mean, we need to show it's a negative impact in some way, not just unique. I mean, unique is just original. And for me, that word is not a justification for not letting someone move dirt on their property, their personal property rights. There's a lot of weird lots and a lot of things we could say. That's unique.

I guess what I'm saying is it forces someone who may not need to to at least come here and say, hey. I don't know if I need to apply for a permit. I need the city engineer to come out and take a look at it, which then pulls the city engineer away at a cost to the city and the and the constituents here

whether or not Better safe than sorry?

Yeah. But at the same time, I you know, I don't

again, the standard's there. I don't know what the standard is. Usually, definitely make it more specific. Yeah. I mean, usually, that city engineer, we know about we know where that floodplain is in Hyde Park. We know where the wells are. We know about those boundaries and those buffers for things like that. And so oftentimes, it shouldn't be that, oh, yeah. Let me come look and jump in their car right then or say, oh, I have an opening in two weeks. You know, that's detrimental to the builder. I think in general on those, even though, you know, it says, like, unique threat, we as a city staff, they generally know about, okay. In this area, we do have this. And it's not the entire Mountain Gate subdivision, but it is that one part that covers two different phases.

Or, like, here's where our 36 inch sewer line goes to the treatment plant in Logan. We we probably ought to go see what those people are digging up because if they hit that, we're gonna have major problems. Well and is that on the plat? Like like, we used to put because some of those water

what? The retention ponds are on are marked on plats with the hash marks, and so they know they can't put a shed in that area. They can't level it out or whatever. They shouldn't put a shed in that area.

But a lot of times, it takes people not knowing and coming in and asking for us to pull up the plat and go, yep. That's supposed to be a retention pond. You actually shouldn't be reading right there. So I think it's better to have people come and ask than Yeah. Than not. And,

I mean, I made the motion we have to start somewhere, but there's not a lot of one acre lots. Like, there's a lot that fall right under the Not anymore. Two of these address less than one acre, though. Yeah. This one is Misses every less than one.

Well and the one acre Oh, what A big reason for that is because there's state standards. If you're disturbing more than one acre of ground, you have to file certain things with the state to make sure that we're protecting

environmental concerns and whatnot. Started with state code, and I will I read the build on So is it how much you're disturbing, or is it where you're disturbing how big that parcel is?

Generally, we're most concerned when it's more than one acre of land. However, like we said, sometimes people are disturbing less than that, but it could be around sensitive infrastructure or in a source protection zone. And so, yeah, that probably in those cases, this will be more of an enforcement tool for us to come back and say, hey. You didn't come get a permit, and we need to know how deep you're digging and how far you're going because you may run into this.

K. The specificity that you just said regarding it, for example, like, put that in there specifically. For example, like, to give some guidance for the engineer to say, for example, if it were affected and you specifically list sensitive infrastructure

Yeah. I I guess Those kind of things more specific. Yeah. They are we're willing to let the engineer go out at no cost, which, I mean, that's part of his job, but he's getting paid to do other things too to check these things out, to say, yes. You need a permit. And then then he'd get paid because or the city would get paid and could pay him. And typically, the reason

there's a lot of parts in our code that defer back to the city engineer. City engineer really is a contracted firm. The reason why it goes back to the Citi engineer is because that's generally a person who has adequate licensure and knowledge about things to make that kind of Yeah. No. I I get that.

But, again, it's like reviewing plans and not paying the application fee, and then and then someone withdraws the plan, and we've wasted all this time, man hours.

I'm I'm guessing that 90 something percent of the time when you bring it in, he'll just know that that area is not an issue or it is an issue. Need a second opinion. And then he'll evaluate it. So it's not like he'll have to go out on everyone. Correct.

And, again, remember, this is gonna change. This is starting point, and we are gonna amend as we go. K.

Mayor Cox, did you wanna say something?

State your name.

State your name. But we don't need we don't need your address.

Why not during the approval process of a development, identify those specific lots, that's what I was thinking too, that are on sensitive slopes, that meet certain requirements.

That way, somebody that's buying a lot, they know it. They can. They should Good. Well, I think we do that already, don't we? We do that. It's on the plat. Those were not it's Not every parcel that we develop is in a subdivision. Just remember that.

On the GIS. But what's found on Cache County GIS, isn't necessarily found on that development the the neighborhood plat or development. So if they identify the ones that have the slopes, all of the things generalize that, hey. This one, if you're buying this lot, it's got the steep slopes. It's got Mhmm. You know, a sewer line sewer line that's already gonna be identified. But things that would you know, there's challenges with ravines, with storm drain. They shouldn't all of those things, if you identify it during that preliminary plat or DRC, when the engineer is looking at it because we don't want homeowners or lot guy people calling our engineer to go up there and run enough a bill on us. Right. We don't want that. So just the thought. I thought we had those. I thought we had sensitive lands drawn on there just like we do the retention ponds. Yeah. A lot of the times, if we have subdivisions, for example, the Lone Cedar Subdivision that's up there kind of on 1200

1000 East, 200 South, we had them mark off on their plat where the sensitive lands were with so they didn't have their building envelopes going over there.

Yeah.

Uh-huh. Generally, during the subdivision approval process, we'll do that. The problem is a lot of the times, it's after the fact when the developer's coming in and trying to create those building lots that they create those disasters. And so, yeah, we anytime we can get ahead of this and have it be put on a plat or noted in some kind of agreement or something, absolutely, we wanna do that. But a lot of this is probably gonna be implemented as after the fact things. I mean, we don't have people out policing the entire city looking for people doing illegal excavation, and we're probably never gonna have that. But what it does is it allows us if we find something and and it's a problem, we can call the city engineer and say, hey. I think they've hit something important. And if we can't figure it out on our own, this gives us the ability to go back and have somebody or if we have to have a report for the courts or something, we have a process and a procedure to get professional input for that. So are we gonna be doing this for every permit? Probably not. We just don't have the manpower, but this establishes the process that we should follow, especially if we have something where we're getting legal concerns. Thank you.

Quick question. Number eight feels overly broad because if it's a in list form, we have to be able to read them individually too. Land disturbing activity involving grading. That's every single lot. Land disturbing activity involving placing fill. That's pretty much every lot. So we're basically telling everyone that is buying lots right now, you now have to get a land disturbance. You need a land disturbance permit if you're gonna do if you're gonna do more than just basic landscaping. Yes. That so this will So dig By virtue of number eight, it affects every single lot that we currently have for sale. And I Potentially.

Most often, your grading is permitted with your building permit. This is for stuff that doesn't have a building permit associated with it. So is there somewhere that this specifically states that

land serving activity involving grading does not need an additional land disturbing permit that it's included in?

When when you have a building permit, your grading permit is included with that. You get to grade your property for

your residence. So I guess I'm it looks like it's a giant net. So permits for land disturbances shall be issued for land disturbing activity involving grading with the exception if they already have a building permit, then they can do the grading. Do we have Yes. Somewhere that that this doesn't have that? But just so that by to yeah. Yeah. If they with the so under the eight this is for is for land that doesn't already have any kind of permit associated with it. I can see that's where it's intended. My just worry is technically that language would apply to everybody that's building right now. They'd have to come back and also get a land disturbance permit based on what I would think that, which would be great. What we often get, especially in commercial zones, is

commercial zones, is folks will come in and go, hey. We're gonna build this thing, and we're gonna come in and get permits. But what we wanna do right now is move some dirt. And we go, okay. We'll apply for your permit. And they're like, well, we're not ready to do that yet. We don't have our building plans, but we really wanna move this dirt. We've got a place to take it or we the weather's gonna be nice or what have you, and we really just wanna move this dirt. And this gives us a way to give them a permit to just move dirt with no other permit in place. Yep. We actually get that a lot.

I think it's wise to have that in there. I just think number eight needs the exception of this does not apply if you've already got a building permit because your grading's included. K. Otherwise That's a good decision. Is when I look at that, I interpret it as, oh, you have to go back and get

a land disturbance permit and your building permit. That's how I would read it. Yeah. I added a note here over on the side that will specify it's for cases that don't already have a building or other permit.

I agree. I think that's it. Shrinks the net. Great. I like that.

Alright. We've had the public hearings. I don't think we have Yes. We have a motion? Mhmm. Okay. Oh, yeah. We do have a motion and a second. This was the discussion. Can we make it specific to add the

Yeah. We want the motion amended to include the motion Yeah. Else. Justin. Can

I make a motion to amend the motion as You can make an amended an amended motion? Okay. Can I amend the motion? An amended motion to recommend this to city council conditional upon the addition of what Marcus mentioned adding the under bullet number eight to exclude any property that already has a building permit from requiring them to get a land disturbance permit.

K. There's been a new muffin made for an amendment. Show off. Is this a third now? Is this the Congress second? This is the second. Know. And commissioner Taylor just seconded it. So 2.1? A new motion from commissioner Williams, and commissioner Taylor just gave us a second for that one. Any further discussion on this? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. That passes unanimously. Okay. Discussion items. Modifications to the mixed use zone using the temporary zoning ordinance provision. Not sure. So

in the workshop, Marcus talked about the temporary land use provision. It's often referred to as a moratorium. And when this discussion came about from the last rezone we had, if you guys remember, the ask was to rezone commercial to MX, and the question was from DRC was, are we are we losing too much commercial to MX? And that's how this discussion came about. Because currently, what we don't have is a multifamily residential zone that just allows townhomes or just allows small apartments. So is that something we need, and do we need to do it in a hurry so that some of these MX developments could pivot if they wanted to? This discussion is directly related to the discussion that you all had for that last rezone on MX. Does staff need to take steps or steps are not needed, for MX to be part of this temporary land use Step. Provision. Step. Did I say step? No. I didn't. Oh, good job. It's a good question. Well, think That's why I put it on you. It's not it's not the best to decide. I was thinking

based on our workshop discussion, just seems like that'll be part of that. But I don't think you can do anything else now. Does that make sense? K. Yeah. And I guess that's

the question is, are we are we spinning our wheels if we include that, or do you think that's a worthwhile endeavor to try to tackle that with the other residential

updates we've discussed? I think we're kinda spinning our wheels. We've already kinda passed it. Correct? Haven't they already been rezoned to mix? And but that's what's scary, I feel like, when we do approve and we pass or we recommend because you're really relying on the developer. Right? We ask all these questions, and they say they're gonna have it be mixed use.

Can they go back? Well, what we've noticed is a lot of these mixed use are struggling with that commercial aspect of it, especially if it's small. Because they're doing so many townhomes that it makes sense of Because they don't know what direction to go with that commercial. They don't know if they should be building one one good sized commercial building or if they should be Multiple small ones. They're not sure. And so it's leaving them it's leaving kind of a I think a portion of their development in question, and it makes it hard for them to commit to the rooftops, which is what we want.

Because I kinda think that falls on them if they're

wanting to develop. I Well, we don't like a personal problem. Yeah. Kind of tied their hands with with that, I guess.

But didn't they want a mixed use? Like, we've changed stuff. They didn't wanna build town. It was the only way they could build townhomes. Somebody's about to work for me. Commercial, though. We need I think we do. Give up too much if we let them get off the hook. I I think they I think we leave it as is.

That's my that's my But, actually, I still think it could be a discussion. Our So if we're doing something,

you would still want to have a commercial element. You wouldn't necessarily want us to remove the commercial element from MX. The city needs commercial. And if we were to create some kind of code that allowed just townhomes or just apartments, you would want that to be completely separate from MX?

We have the transition zone. You still have that? Are we changing that? We're we're gonna work on changing that one. Sit all. Oh, maybe we we could think that as rethink that. We've talked about rethinking that. Yeah. And that's part of our list Doug. Is to redo that based on the conversation we already had. Think about putting multifamily

homes or residences in the transition zone because of where it is. If we change it to anything, I would advocate to change it to more like a PUD that is directed toward first home

buyers. Right. Which is the discussion we've already had, and I think that's the direction we are planning on taking the transition zone.

But maybe not along Wolfpack Way because that's Well, if we do it that way, then it, you know, you, like It's where it already Yeah. Should be So that should be okay. Well, one of the things Ford Wolfpack Way

So you have an entrance to the development in it. Right.

One of the things that was talked about at that last session was maybe it's not called transition zone anymore. And we call it something else because the transition isn't gonna happen the way that we pictured it. And instead, we create residential tiny lot single family or whatever we're gonna call it. Right. And then besides that, would you be supportive of creating additional code specifically to address townhomes and apartments, or are we not ready for that yet?

We I think I could be part of the general plan land use discussion we're gonna do pretty soon.

K. But not necessarily make code and development standards for it?

Right now, we have one development already that has actually two developments that are approved to put an apartment in. Uh-huh. One of the bottom of the street here and then one Over Kitty Corner from the high school. Those are the two that I'm aware of that have approved

So the one Kitty Corner from the high school has expired. They never did they never did They never did update. Finish line, and that's been more than a year ago. So it happens when that happens. What does that mean? You have to reapply?

Yes.

Whoever comes next, there's a big for sale sign out there. Saw a for sale sign. If whether it's the same people or new people, they would have to come and start the approval process over from zero. Yeah. And then on the for sale sign, it says that it's been approved for this. It was at one time, for sure. Yeah. And we I know. Struggled

with that commercial aspect. And I think if we would have had an apartment friendly zone,

we would already have apartments there. There's there's no commercial unless it wasn't on the bottom floor. On the bottom floor. That was the part they struggled with because that particular group was ready to build the apartments tomorrow. But to get their financing to work out, they had to get a commercial partner on board before they started construction, and they could never find

Different requirements than just strictly residential. It's complicated. Right. They can never find a partner.

I'll just beside that, we have one apartment that's going in. We don't know how it's gonna work out. We don't have any idea how the community is gonna react once it's built. It was done through an agreement with the city.

It's had plenty of public hearings that nobody showed up. Lots of public hearings.

We get it. Yeah. They said okay. But proof of the pudding is once it's done and how people then react to it and how the people there react to the city, I guess, is a nice way to put it. So I don't know if I wanna do any apartment only zones at this time.

How about that one lot that feels like it's in North Logan, but it's in Hyde Park boundaries down by the high school? 1%. Which one is that across the street? It's because it's south of our 600 South.

I you know, we had someone come talk to us about that. Yep. And they talked about putting pads up and making, like, food truck pads so that the kids could leave school and get food there, and that's about as far as that went. We've also had

someone with attainable housing with financial backing come and ask us. They their their financial backing from the government doesn't allow them to do commercial Mhmm. Just residential, and they could build nice apartments there today. But our commercial requirement for the MXL prevents them from doing that. My vote would be to keep it

as on on the table as an option, and then I can be talked into it or talked out of it, but I would like it to remain an option. K.

I I go back to I know I'm a broken record on it, but I go back to if we're talking about anything that's a higher density than single family, I think we need it to be owned and owner with an owner occupancy requirement, not rentals.

And that would come with the deed restriction, and that's doable, but it would be very difficult

to do as a mixed use. Right. I'm saying if we were going from mixed use to if we were gonna remove that commercial, my my concern would be if we remove commercial requirement, it comes with the requirement of these have to be owner occupied. And I know that a 100% on our occupancy will be litigated and lost. It's I think the one that's held it is 10% is generally it's across the board. You can say 10% on our occupancy if you have x number of units or more that you're gonna develop and sell. And that way, we make sure we get we don't have investors outbidding our first time homeowners. We have people have a stake in the community because they have ownership. They're not transient. It's not transient people coming and going that don't care what's happening in Hyde Park. So I I'd be open to removing that if it helps to get developed if we put if we maintain owner occupancy requirements Right. Via deed restrictions.

What what we need is the rooftops to get the other commercial developed. And so that's where that discussion came from is is if we wanna continue to to rezone things to MX or if we maybe wanna do create a zone where you can have your townhouses without the commercial. And so we're still we would get the rooftops faster that way so that the rest of the commercial could develop faster.

Because, I mean, we want commercial now, but it's not there. The market is not there now. But once it is there, like, commercial is gonna want to come in. It's We have the I mean, someday, we're not gonna be saying, please, someone come here. It's gonna naturally come once we have the rooftops and That's right. The peep the pop. With a way that

expedite the rooftops and make it easier for those that wanna build the rooftops to build the rooftops.

But I'm but I'm like, that's our only good commercial land if we've given up what we have. I would've said we don't have anything left for one nation. Location location. We do what about the partial

rezones? Like, can they ask for just the Wolfpack Way half of those long skinny strips to be mixed use? And maybe those are all sold anyway. But where we do have those long ones and the other, you know, the one long end is on the highway and the other long end is on Wolfpack Way. Didn't you say we can partially rezone a parcel?

You can, but due to the amount of especially along the highway, the amount of there's a a portion of these properties that all have to be set aside for stormwater. You guys see the ponds that are Oh, yeah. Naturally occurring all along there. And so the space that's buildable, if they have to set aside just the buildable space, if they have to set part of that aside as commercial, then they're losing house tops,

and it's it's not working for them. Other hiccup is we don't have access from the highway. And we're not gonna get any time in the future. Right. Like, it's just gonna get busier and busier. We're not going to get more driveways. So they can only yeah. Yeah. We have to talk about all this because they can only access from Wolfpack Way.

So I think the question is possibly, are we still wanting to rezone a lot of our commercial parcels to MX in order to get those rooftops, or do we wanna facilitate a zone that allows us to get rooftops

without the commercial element involved? And we can be really picky about what rezones we approve.

Well, you I think it's okay to do some. Put them on the future land use map as this is where they are supposed to go, then that decision

gets paid. Isn't there grants for cities? I mean, we do need to have that. Don't I mean, wouldn't that be good for our city to have

It would be very good for our moderate income housing Yes. Situation.

I I agree with Ned a little bit, though. I don't wanna give away all of our commercial prime I I kinda wanna see how things We build it all, and then commercial wants to come, and we're like, sorry. I kinda want to see too location for you. Pack Way is gonna look like Townhome Way here or Townhouse Way soon. I'm gonna rename it. Right now, we've got little pods of of where we've approved the I was gonna say we've Right? We've approved two townhomes with mixed with MX. Right? It's more than that. A there's a thousand something townhomes that are approved. I mean, companies with, like, big plans. Right? And they're moving forward. Like,

six or eight of them that are approved. Yeah. But they're located kind of in little pods. Right.

So Let's see how they play out. That's my Yeah. That's my role. Because I But I'm also We're gonna run out. We don't have any commercial land. Commissioner Lee, like, let's I can maybe be persuaded if I don't wanna off the table. Sure. Like, we shouldn't say no way how like Yeah. I guess yeah. The bottom line is do we wanna include

MX in some of the rewrites that we're doing, or we don't wanna include MX?

I say we do because we have too many people coming in and saying, okay. Well, I have mixed use. I mean, it's a mixed use project, but I can't fit exactly into your code, so I wanna do a development agreement. And those are very time consuming and complicated. And we're like, we take their word for it, and we're like, but they said they would. And then they submit, and we're like, oh, I guess we're getting that. So I am on the side limiting development agreements. And so if we can make the code match more of what they're trying to do anyway and avoid the development agreement, that's my vote.

Cool.

This was just a discussion item. So

your vote's not not necessarily required. But Alright. Well, I look forward to April 29

in that discussion. Can you join for me at all? I will try to do that. Probably even let you Zoom if you need to And, again let us know. The twenty ninth isn't gonna be anything to vote on. We're just hoping to have a proposal framework That's alright. Or what we're gonna what Can I You Wow? Yeah. Discussion about what the city council and planning commission would like the city staff to work on if we were to enact some kind of moratorium.

So that's the topic for the twenty ninth. So for now, in general, keep having these fourth week keep planning on these fourth week workshops. Okay. And if there's ever a fifth Wednesday,

keep that open too. Is that what you're telling us? Yep. Keep Actually Fifth Wednesdays open. The city council, since we're doing the regular workshops, they wanna keep the fifth Wednesdays open and possibly not have anything. But in this case, with all the code updates that everybody wants us to work on, we need to have a work session to figure out what are most important, and are we gonna do a moratorium or not? So that's why we're doing a special one for the twenty ninth.

Okay.

Any other discussion questions tonight, commissioners?

Do do it. Do it. Make a motion. We adjourn. Hang on. Wait. Hold on. I got it. We

have a motion and a second and then discussions. So I can So I guys.

Yeah.

Too many have gone on May 6. Yeah. On that. I'm gone too. Sorry. I did mean to bring that up. We're it won't be May 6. It'll be May 20, our next meeting. Thank you. Good point. And tomorrow is the great Utah shakeout. So practice your earthquake, update your go bags,

be prepared, and teach your kids how to find the triangle of life. You don't get under a table. Yep. They just got the schools they just did that at the school. They didn't teach them triangle of life. No. They got right at the table. If you will move because I heard that was a math. I heard the triangle was a math. Big circle. No. Because if you've got That is the first thing you've got.

This here. This one is the So

one. One. So May 20 is our next one. Gonna be in again. Something that could Yes. May 20. We I may not be here for that either. I just wanna I have another graduation. Sorry. Oh, yeah. It is not season. Mhmm. So I have a graduation on the sixth and the twentieth. So we are not meeting because I thought we had it on the thirteenth.

Nope. That's not That's not the city council. Council? Okay.

Would we have a quorum on the sixth?

I am not here. I mean, I'm the only one. I won't be here for the twenty ninth. I won't even be able to do it on Zoom. K. So we won't even have a quorum. Alright. K.

I think I'm the only one on that's here on the sixth. K. Well, if you wanna come hang out, we can hang out. You know how much I love that. K. On the twentieth, raise your hand if you can come on May 20. Because I know. Okay. Okay. Okay. We'll come on May 20 for the next. K.

Thank you. Mayor. I just wanna let the commission be aware. I just found out with North Logan that somewhere in either Circle Bar or the one that's above that in that area, they are pushing the one that circle bar is currently county. The one that's yellow above that is

The bottom left is the roundabout at 10th East And 200 South.

Where are you looking?

I think the bottom left corner is the new roundabout at 10th East And 200 South. Is that right? Is that where we are? We've oriented so the one that's, like, the wavy line with yellow and blue, that's the Cedar Bluff? Yeah. Or not Cedar Bluff. Lone Cedar. Yep. Stop using similar names. Yeah. Lone Cedar.

The second south that goes up to that ground above. So just to the right of the blue

is Circle Bar Right. S.

And then there's blue sky above that. Yep. Yeah. Mhmm. K. And what about those? North Logan has informed me that the property owners are yeah. I'm not sure which log it is. We're pursuing trying to get a gravel pit. So Oh, and it's county property? It it I'm not sure if it's county or if it's ours. Oh, you can put that line on. It should be. We haven't got any applications.

No. But you can put on the border of our city.

Yeah. Well, the borders Well, it's the colors. It's the color. The things that are in color are in city limits. If it doesn't have a color, then it's in the county. Sorry. Gravel. Okay.

Gravel on the So blue sky would be high is Hyde Park City. Correct. Circle Bar is county. It's to be Circle Bar. Or they could Yeah. Well, they can apply for it in the county, couldn't they?

Uh-huh. They could do a gravel pit through the county. Is there any permit? Permit. Can they do that to do an impact study regarding all the traffic through the residential? Deemed by the state as Essential.

Gravel is a precious mineral. Yeah. I talked to

okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. So

that's what they're pursuing, and I think specifically,

what can we do Work the West Side. To go out 200 pounds of gas. Yeah. Challenge that.

I think we gotta take some action in the city whether we limit the tonnage of trucks coming down the road for now and this is on Things like that. Yeah. Like in our transportation plan, add some restrictions for

how about in a for our transportation plan, we had restrictions on size of vehicles that can go on those residential roads? I think there's something well, then I prohibit cement trucks from going up there to develop too. But that but that's temporary. That's not a commercial use that's continuous. Commercial use. I I'm just bringing it up because I think we need to be proactive

and see if we can catch up to this and try and get ahead of it.

So transportation plan adding weight restrictions for commercial use that's continuous and ongoing is something that would be an urgent matter.

So But but this is limited 10 miles an hour on 2nd South.

Mike would love that. Mike would like that. The way over

Mike, I talked to the ombudsman's office about this because we had rumors of one that they were trying to put in our city up on the mount on the hill.

Yes. And

as it was not a permitted activity for our city, we did not have to grant them a permit. It just because the the the the law or ordinance that you're referring to, the code that you're referring to is for already existing gravel pits that you cannot shut them down if they don't wanna be shut down. K. So it had nothing to do with New. New ones

That's good. In

in areas where that is not permitted. You you didn't have to give them a permit. This, however, as it's county land, if the county permits it, then I don't know what we can do other than go down to the county when they have a a county council meeting and issue our strong objection to that as it affects both us and North Logan. North Logan.

Right. Whether they want to come down 2nd South or go south on 16 and go down 31. Right. And let's send them into North Logan.

That's our biggest thing is I mean, if if we need to get a lawyer involved is because they can't exit that property without coming onto our property.

Which means we have to pay for the wear and tear, and we have the safety and all that. So

Just wanted And and and I don't know what the county has that zoned as if they have it zoned at all. It says right there, it's oh, that's that's the one above it. What does it say in Which one's circle b

or circle bar? You click on that. You'll

Well Well, I'm say you turn on county. Bay based on that and thinking on Ag of other things?

Ag? It's agricultural.

Ten ten ten for a home. Yeah. That's our zoning. I don't know what the No. No. No. No. That's a county. Zone. County also? That's a county zone. I switched it. So now the ones with colors is the county, and the ones without colors are city.

So does does that mean is that a permitted use there, or is it You have to conditional use permit for them? Or You have to look in that zone.

So you know that Regardless, I could force it's foreseeable, but not just a gravel pit, but other commercial operations that if there are county lands that getting to and from them for commercial purposes would impact our streets that we're responsible to maintain and our safety of our residents that for public safety and for public costs, shouldn't we revise our transportation plan to limit size and weight of vehicles or commercial uses? I mean, temporary development is different. Yeah. Just put it That's a temporary that's a temporary situation if it's doing a development for residential. But if you've got a commercial

And then how are they gonna get out of there with that mini traffic circle?

Yeah. This is why he's bringing it to our attention.

Let's make it smaller.

We'll never get around to it. The kids are almost getting hit anyway on that. They think they're safe on that. I watch kids every day. And it's a reasonable expectation that if you get onto that island, you're safe. Those those youth do not know that that's a drive over. It was made for potential drive over. And I watched the and the trucks can't stop quick enough.

It's So about this design to be mounted. To But it doesn't mean that's the rule. That's the exception. It's somebody pulling their fifth wheel or something like that.

But not for commercial going over over

bridge over 200 south. Only eight foot tall or whatever. You know what? They don't even McDonald's?

I like that.

Well, that's good to be aware. Okay. I think our transportation is a priority.

Well, I think my sanity and not having trucks go down that road constantly with their air brakes on even though it's illegal in Hyde Park. Mhmm. Yeah. I'll I guess I might as well start planning on moving. That's hotter south. My wife won't stay here with all that traffic. Yeah. Speed bumps every 100 feet. Can we add that can we add the transportation adding that to our I've been meaning for speed bumps for eight years.

So You should just do mine on your own.

What we don't wanna do is But mostly ask ordinances based on one specific thing or as a reaction Right. To one thing. But

I know that shocks me.

It would be see how fast they can go. Yeah. I would be surprised if anything moved forward on that parcel without it having to be annexed to

a municipality that could actually serve it. Is that under our annex plan, or is that North Logan's? Okay. Ours. Sorry.

Well, I would think not necessarily in reaction to the specific issue, but the fact that I had never conceived that that might be something we need to address. And now that we think about it, anything else in those areas that could be developed for any It's already in our land use

ordinance or our table.

It's not permitted in any residential area. But you tabled that. In our land. So It's in that's in Main Park. So Our table what?

Said you tabled the Tell our next meeting We tabled the table. Well, it's already in the current one that you can't have a gravel pit. Right. But that's in She's saying it's not. She's saying it's not in our current one. It's not in our current one? I'm pretty sure it is because that's what I looked at to talk to the ombudsman about. Temporary land use ordinance

about gravel pits in our code.

Now there's something in code about mineral extraction. I can't remember what it says.

But whether they're mining for gold, gravel, or whatever, I think we should probably look at the fact that we don't have the budget to maintain our streets for that kind of commercial traffic. We maybe need to address that just for future for any future uses any anyone might be considering.

That would be, like, targeting physical versus small money. There's a useful impact. Right?

Yeah. Gravel pit's not on the

Okay. That's called the toll road. Toll road. Yeah. Mhmm. It's a conditionally. Discuss. I'm waiting I'm a toll road fan. Yeah. By the way. I mean, really English.

Yeah. I don't know what Oh, I see the

good fit of it. It really didn't. You're waiting for it? No. I can see it's in. It's in. I'm loving it. Oh, okay. Been there twenty years ago. What was it? A four way stop? 400 East in 450 North.

Alright. Without objection, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.

No objection. Yes.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you, staff.