Hyde Park City's Zoom Meeting

Oh, the best ones ever. I love those. I love them. I'll have it somewhere. Anyway, we'll just keep passing by my lawyer. Thank you.

Just make it. Okay. I guess we could take them out then just

We just we just bring it with us on that plane. So What's that like? We just bring it with us on the plane. Goes to the No.

Overnight. Vicky losses is canceled. Oh, I like it.

I'm sorry. Yeah.

All of the hate. This is all the. It's the season.

Okay. Are you waiting on me? No, ma'am. I'm opening

K. Box.

Who's John?

He's fine now. Yeah. Something wrong. He collapsed yesterday. What? And then, like yeah. It was after a hot shower, and then he's trying to stand and shave. And I just think all this movement, like, his hands over his head and

yeah. Is it in pain?

Has it pain or no? Low blood pressure? No. I just think he's on medication.

Something's out of the shower and then Okay. We're reporting and the agenda's

up. Yeah.

Okay. Everything's go. Sorry. Yes, sir. Welcome to the Hyde Park planning commission meeting. Today is 05/20/2026, and we're starting, about five after seven tonight, a few minutes late. We have, commissioner Mike Mose, myself, Melinda Lee, Charlene Williams, and Ned Hanson. We don't have Heather Taylor. She is traveling back from Salt Lake and didn't make it in time. I will provide the opening prayer and pledge of allegiance. Our father in heaven, we come before thee at the beginning of this city meeting, and we pray for thy presence here. We pray that that would direct us and help us to have clear minds to make good decisions and to understand the things before us and to discuss and vote in to the best of the citizens as a whole and not just individual properties. Help us to be mindful of those we are here in behalf of and bless those who are in need of thy extra blessings and help this day. We pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please stand. 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. Alright. You may be seated. Thank you. Our first item is to approve the minutes from April 15. I didn't have anything on those. Ned, Charlene, Mike,

Kaye. We make a motion to approve the minutes as they were written.

We have a motion by commissioner Mose to approve them and a second by commissioner Hansen. Any other discussion? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. Those passed unanimously. We would look for a planning staff report by Mikkel.

In Citi News, we have an intern from USU working for the city now. He trained and helped with me today. So if you see a random student around, he is authorized to be here, and he is very helpful. And then on our agenda, item b in the legislative items, recommendation for Schreiber Foods development agreement, that has been pulled from the agenda by on request of the applicant. So we won't be hearing that item tonight. And that's all I have.

Great. K. We'll get to our first administrative item, a five a recommendation for Steve Regan's site plan amendment. Probably have a staff report for that one.

We do. I think probably if Cody Bartlett is in attendance. No? Okay. Then you will get a staff report. I was gonna suggest he come up and present to you. So inbox, you would have seen the minutes from the planning commission meeting where this item was approved with its conditions. And since that time, the structure has started to be built. It's partially built at this time. And through that inspection process, we found out they had built it in not quite the exact place the site plan called. So we asked for as built specs on the site plan and, any other changes that were gonna be made. And the changes that are requested are to not construct a portion of the original building that was in the site plan and building permit and to not complete site improvements required during original site plan approval. They are requesting that they don't have to complete the west side parking lot, which is a paved deliveryway and also stormwater direction. At the corner of the West parcel at the West corner of the parcel, there's a pond, a stormwater pond. And DRC comments at our meeting were that if that is left a gravel or dirt lot, the stormwater pond will just fill up. And so site plan improvements need to be completed for this structure's site to be functional. Traffic flow would also be, inhibited by not finishing that parking lot. It's required for the fire truck turnaround to come through the front and go around. If you guys want me to bring up that site plan on the big screen, I can do that. Okay. I'm on my own, so it's taken me some

Well, since you dropped an agenda item, you've got time. Okay.

Let's see. Here is the original site plan. You can see that big, retention pond in the back. The gray is all, paved traffic circulation and parking lot, and this was the original that was approved. If we go to this is the amendment. Let's see if I can make that better. Excuse me. Should be a little better. So what you kind of can see here in the gray, it says where this section was supposed to be warehouse, and it says warehouse to not be built at this time. All concrete, curbing, sidewalk, and pavement within the blue line to not be constructed at this time includes dump pad and ramp. So, basically, from this line and this line back, they're saying they're not gonna put in all these improvements. They are saying they will still build the pond, but that everything else would wait until a later time. I did include the final plat and plan remarks in the property history in the staff report. And then under site improvements, UDOT did require them to put improvements in along the highway. That was deferred until such a time as they subdivide. They had a subdivision plan idea in mind, so they were allowed to defer their improvements to the highway. They did complete their improvements to Center Street, and those were accepted by the city. It did come to our attention that instead of this building being used just for the Steve Regan business, their intention is to rather have several other businesses come in and share that space. You can go to the building department and request a tenant improvements permit that allows you to remodel the inside of your structure to support multiple tenants in there. So the parking would have to be recalculated based on having more businesses in the structure and less parking lot. They did not provide those calculations. They don't know exactly how many tenants they want or what those uses will be. I apologize about my staff report. I did a copy and paste. And so it says the planning commission considered this request at a public hearing. They absolutely did not. The DRC reviewed this on May 12 and did not support the applicants request to amend the site plan. By not completing the required improvements or increasing the use as the lot must meet SWIP requirements and fire code as well. The correct sitting of the building was accepted by DRC. It's doesn't it still meets setbacks. It was just a little close to the line. The possible correction that they could do is to amend their building permit to not include the warehouse section. But as far as not putting in the site improvements, we really don't have a way to excuse them from their improvements,

but that is what's being asked at this time of planning commission. I noticed that it says at this time. Do they have a date that they want to put it in would be my first question. They're not saying they don't want to do it. They're just saying not right now till later? Some other time. Yes. Okay. And then did they give a reason why they need to wait?

They did not. Ran out of money, probably.

But is that anyone from the applicant anyone from Steve Regan here?

No. It doesn't look like it.

So what what exactly is being asked of us to consider? Are we This is an amended asked to just consider the multiple tenants or just the

It's an amended site plan. You yes. You are

Are you okay with this amended site plan? Yes. With going with this from the purchase site plan. I'm not putting in the improvements And not are you okay with? Like, does it meet code? Does this amended site plan meet code? Not are we okay with it? Does the amended site plan meet code? Thank you. So you're saying, like, they're building the pond, but the pond is not everything that stormwater requires. Like, SWIP requires more than just building the pond, and they're only building the pond as far as stormwater is concerned.

That is what is proposed. There the natural drainage of the lot is graded toward runoff collecting in the pond. But as you know, the the water runoff through that area, especially if the warehouse isn't there and that's all gravel or dirt, that pond will fill up fairly quickly if there is storm a stormwater event. And that's what the DRC called out, that amending this site plan would cause this to no longer meet its SWIP requirements. Or the approved fire truck turnaround was to come in from the north, come down through the parking lot, and then be able to go around the building Southwest and out the other end. And, the fire truck requires compacted, technically hard surface for passability, and it wouldn't have that anymore, so it wouldn't meet fire code.

So it could not come and go at all

in the parking area? Couldn't turn around there was the determination where the building is closer to the property line than was originally proposed. That space for a large fire truck to turn around, there isn't it isn't physically possible.

Well, it sounds to me that the the fire truck deal is the deal breaker. I mean, they could potentially go back and redo all their stormwater calculations and prove that it might work because Some changes. Mhmm. That that might work, but they'd have to prove it, and they obviously haven't proved that yet. But I don't think they can get over the fire truck issue.

So I hope you'll I I Yeah. I don't like it for the fire department review this, or did we have anyone there look at it?

It went to DRC, and the fire department is part of DRC, and that's his collected comment. Said okay. Mhmm. Alright. Here.

Yeah. I mean, I feel like I'm not satisfied with it on the stormwater issue either. I think fire's a problem and stormwater's a problem.

Well, I mean, we just don't know on the stormwater. Yeah. It'll percolate down in gravel, whereas it Right. Blacktop, it's gonna run. That's why it needs a retention column. So it might be okay, but I'm just saying it's a deal breaker for me on the fire truck because gotta pass that one. Well, I I'm

wondering about what the actual problem is because the fire truck can drive on compacted road base. That's not a that shouldn't be an issue, which is what they put underneath the asphalt, which is what they say they're going to

pack that area with on the West Side. But you said that they It has said no.

Does it have to do with that or with the radius at that southeast

corner of the building that So both of those things are true, that the fire truck can't turn around there. It needs to be able to circle through and without an indication of exactly what kind of hard surface they propose other than paving, that fire can't, guarantee that it would meet code. As presented, DRC determined that it does not meet fire code and it does not meet its SWIP requirements. DRC doesn't have the authority to deny an application, so it must be come before planning commission.

I'm just curious. Is there did we did the city require sidewalk on that side, on Center Street? Yes. There's sidewalk installed over there? There's curb, gutter, and sidewalk.

And it was installed, and it was accepted by the city and dedicated over.

Yeah. I'm also I don't understand this future land division, this lot division. I mean, in general, I'm still stuck on this. When we make improvements on any part of a lot, we have to do the improvements on the entire lot. And so if they mean to sell off that other part, then it should be divide is it one piece right now, or is it two pieces? No. It's one piece right now, and that's why I included

the notes. For some reason, when it was heard the first time, it was called final plat and plan, but it was not, in fact, a subdivision. It was just a site plan. It spoke to the u dot requirements. That meeting spoke to the urgency of these folks being able to move on to the lot and use it temporarily. As you know, if you've driven by that whole front section that's shown as vacant here is still their temporary storage Right. Area. So it is being used. It's not proposed or construction or anything. In this rendering of the site plan, they don't show it as storage, but that's what it is right now. It's being used as a temporary storage for the things that need to be moved inside the building.

So even though I think it needs those improvements, it's that's a u dot call. That's not we did that

Along the highway? Yes. That's u dot's call. And however this went down, it it was deferred.

K.

I agree with Ned that I don't think the SWIFT is an issue just because, like you say, runoff, gravel

Yeah.

It may not be an issue, and we don't can't foresee that. I mean, the the water table down there is, like, two inches deep anyway, so nowhere for it to go. So but I make a motion that we make a rec that we give an unfavorable recommendation to this site plan amendment to the zoning administrator.

K. K. Is there a second? I'll second that motion. Any further discussion?

Yeah. I just I wanna make sure that the, I guess, the fire department or whoever their representative is at the DRC makes that determination based on exactly what's written on the on the plat. So is a simple correction to say compacted road base instead of just road base level, is that enough to get it or get it to pass fire code? So Or is there or is there something else that's required?

So the job of DRC isn't to consult the applicant to tell them I get it. Though we didn't have that discussion. Okay. The discussion was, does this proposed site plan amendment meet your code? And fire department's answer way it's written right now The way that it was presented

is not acceptable. Correct. But

And they Yes. Requested

this one page to consider. If that were to be changed, would it? And I know either you can't answer that question right now because you're not the fire department or their representative, and I get it. But that's something that is an easy fix.

Right. Well, it just seems like they can reapply. Right? But They can always reapply. Sure. So I I guess that as as they turned in their homework, it doesn't pass. I just want to bring that up so that if the city council

does see a corrected plat, they make a change between

now and next year. That this doesn't go to city council. Okay. To the zoning You the Yes. It comes from my office. Land use administrator.

So you're making a recommendation to the zoning administrator. Right. If if that were to change, then if that would meet

this the They'd have to come back with us. Right? If they change? They would have to go back to DRC, and DRC,

the fire department, engineering, all of those folks would decide if the changes they made met code. That wouldn't be up to me to decide or you. It would go to DRC first. And, again, we would say, here's some proposed changes. Does this meet your code? Yes or no?

They would give us the feedback, and then it would come back to you again. So if they were to listen to this meeting, they would be able to hear, but that's a potential idea. If you're not able to recommend it, you could just put it out there that maybe that's something to look at and talk Yes. And that's something that's included in their feedback letter after the meeting. So is that is that Marcus that is the

It's her now. No. It's me. It's you? Okay.

So if you got the information, would it still have to go back? If the if the fire department came to you and said, if they make this change, then it's good to go, would you still have to send it through the whole system again? Well, our process isn't to

consult with the fire department independently after a planning meeting. If they wanted to change this plan, it would have to go back to DRC to see if it met code, and then it would come back to planning commission for a recommendation.

But it also sounds like DRC was not satisfied with the SWIP requirement.

Correct. The engineering comment was that if the paved parking lot is not finished, it would not meet its SWIP requirements.

Right.

They would Remember that would have to go back and probably redo all the calculations for you. The original site plan was based on this entire lot. The stormwater in that bottom corner is for the whole lot where the things are being stored that's shown as vacant and bare here, not developed. The stormwater calculations were made including that section. This pond holds the stormwater for the entire parcel. So that has to be taken into consideration at the time of this revision saying they they don't wanna finish their improvement.

I didn't have anything else to ask. K. Any other discussion? We have a motion on the table to recommend an unfavorable recommendation for the zoning administrator on this amended site plan. And we have a second. So all in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. So that passed unanimously as an unfavorable recommendation. Correct. Alright. So now we have a legislative item, which means it's not necessarily comparing what's on code. This is where we can use our opinions and public input. So this is a public no. It's not a public hearing. We have that last time. So when we met previously,

we opened the public hearing. There weren't any comments, and we closed the public hearing. We discussed in-depth. If you read the minutes if you guys did read the meeting minutes. There was a little bit of overwhelm because of Right. The extent of our land use table. But the takeaway I'll pull it up here. The takeaway is that it's hard to tell, right, because this document is extensive from the red lines. The takeaway is that we are cleaning up this land use table to have let me see if I can zoom and make this clear up. Residential uses listed under residential uses. Right now, under residential uses are things like stable and public a public stable and a fruit and vegetable stand. Mhmm. Nobody lives in a stable, hopefully, or a fruit and vegetable stand.

And that's the It was long term ago in there. Too.

And so I moved those uses into the actual section in which they belong, which is commercial. And then we had some industrial uses listed in commercial and some commercial uses in industrial and vice versa. The one of the big things we changed is adding a use specific standards column. When people go to this use table and they look up the thing they wanna do, outdoor amusement, they need to be able to go over here and find a link to the section of code that speaks to outdoor amusement so that they can see what the development standards are and and determine you know, that's determined that determines what zone these things can exist in. So we can't just or we shouldn't just say this is allowed. This isn't allowed. We need to also add this column of where they can go in code to look up the standards for their uses so they understand how they need to be developed. So So eventually, that column will include things that say, like, twelve dot one sixty Dot10. Absolutely. Nope. It's gonna take a minute, but Okay. But I will get all of those links in there so that folks can look up that section of code. It's it's hard to tell somebody to go look just pull up land use code and scroll through and search, you know, outdoor recreation and see what you can find. We need to be able to they need to be able to to find those those codes easily. So this didn't change what x's or what columns. It just cleaned it up and put it in the right sections. Correct. Okay. The things that we did change that I noted in the staff report is we added wind, solar, and power plant. We added data center, and we added detention center facilities and determinations that those were not allowed in any zone until you guys make the determination about what zone

they need to be in. And what were the three again? Wind, solar Data Data centers,

detention center facilities, and wind solar power plants. That's something we didn't have in our use table before. And, the most recent planning conference I went to, we talked about those topics and, where they might work and not work in your communities and that they needed to be added as uses into your table. So we added them as not allowed anywhere until planning commission helps determine where they should go. And then we can always amend this table to include those permitted uses and, of course, the development standards that go with them. We did make some changes to the section on ADUs because we took the requirement for a CUP away, and so we did take the CUP requirement out of the use table as well.

And I think that's why he's putting there that they're not allowed until otherwise so that we don't bind our hands. Someone come in and say, hey. It's not zoned at all. It's not addressed. Well and staff wouldn't make that. That's not our call to make. That's,

yeah, that's the citizens and your call to make. So that's why we we add it to the use table as not allowed anywhere, and then you guys will give us direction about when and if to change that.

K.

So is this, like, a public hearing thing? It was a public hearing at our the first time we met about this. That. We don't have to open it. We don't redo it. It was opened. We waited for comments. We closed it.

Gotcha.

Now we just need We just talked about this now. Do we need to recommend it to be approved by city council? I believe because it's changing.

Yeah. The motion Changing changing codes. Is

there's a motion in the staff report, and you will send a recommendation to city council. They're actually the ones who approve the ordinance in order to codify these changes.

Just for readability, I would still like to see, like, lines across every three to five lines to keep myself Great. On the same you know, as I followed across, make sure I'm staying on the same line I think I'm on. Sure.

Because it is hard even zooming in. It's really hard to

I had trouble with it. I wanted, like, a big giant I have to yeah. I have to navigate that thing every day, so I feel you on that one.

I think it's much easier to read, and I like it a lot better than the other one. So but it does highlight a few things that I think are weird that maybe need to be discussed later.

You know?

Which is always welcome

if Right. If you wanna Right. I mean, not on the table. Just I mean, I'm, like, looking, for example, under Mount Wreck, I'm like, some of these things are just don't make any sense.

So That's it's that's why we do our updates. Right. Right. So I

I remember reading in the notes, the minutes from the last meeting, that one of the things that we had mentioned was if it's not explicitly in the land use table, then it is not permitted. That's something that we kind of wanted. Is that something and you and it was written that we had to put that explicitly in code We do have to add

that to

Can we add it to the table

as as one of the footnotes? You absolutely can. And you can include that in your motion. Okay. K. That we add text to clarify that uses not listed are not allowed.

Yeah. Okay. Though we change change the code.

Is the very last line a little is that correct?

Adopted and passed April 22? Because I know we haven't thought of everything. So

I think she just pulled that out of code, and so that's the last time that this was edited? Yes. That is the last time it was edited. That's Oh, just the document, but not passed by the city council. Right. Right. Okay. That's the last time someone did something with this

table. Right. So if we wanted to propose a motion but make sure we have that text, we would say that we move for favorable recommendation for approval of adoption of ordinance twenty twenty six zero five to city council with the condition that the text

That we add text Add text. The default

text. Yeah. Add text that, by default, any use not specifically listed in this table is prohibited.

Correct. Is that your motion? Sure. I'll make my motion. I'll I'll second that one. K. We have a motion by commissioner Williams and a second by commissioner Hansen. Further discussion? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passes unanimously with favorable recommendation to pass on to city council. Alright. Now we have a discussion item. This is not one that we're voting on. This is just a discussion item. Let me go back to the agenda. And we're talking about

Aspen Grove development agreement. Yes. And their representative is here. If you wish for their representative to speak at this time. The chair can recognize them and call them up.

Would you like him to go first or you to go first?

It doesn't. How about the applicant? Okay. He can give you the rundown.

Are you our applicant?

Great. Just And you can all just decline the invitation to

I think we can do this together. Yeah. So my name is Bryce Gooden. I do land acquisition and development for Visionary. So this is one that we've been working on for a while now. Are you gonna bring up all the submittals?

Let's see what's in my packet. How about a civil overview? So the one you want?

We can do it.

However Or the Let's do that. That gives us a lot of information on one page. Have you guys

seen the development agreement that's proposed?

The development agreement's in their packet. It's in our packet. Okay.

Because we can go through that and discuss some key points. Maybe an overview of the project first would be good. Yeah. If you wanna pull up the

the site plan.

Let's see if I have a better And then I will put it on the big screen. Sure. Can you see that? K.

Right. So the main parcel here is that South 1 on 600 South that we purchased from Loeta. And then the idea here was to gather up there's a number of parcels here, to gather up as many of those as we can and bring them into one cohesive project. Just I mean, that it creates a much better community than if we were to do one of the parcels in one zone, and then someone came in and picked up the next parcel and did an independent project in that zone, so on and so forth. So so we went and and gathered up as many as we could. The city owns two parcels on the very north. And so our idea is where southern parcel has one zone, the mixed zone, and then the rest have a the r t zone. We wanted to come up with a development agreement that allows us to create a project that's kind of a mesh of the two. The the north part that's long and skinny, that's a hard piece for design just because it's long and narrow. And especially in the RT zone, the requirements there, it's not very conducive to a good layout. So we're trying to clean all this up and create a a well designed project that works. So what we have here is a 196 units. It comes out to just under 11 units per acre per density. We've we've spoke with city staff along the way, and a couple council members to try to get an idea of what should this look like, where the city had a couple parcels there. We proposed to include those in our open space area. And as part of the whole development agreement negotiation, a park was proposed in the middle, and that would be a a city park, public park. And we engaged some students up at Utah State to rather than just do a standard park that you grass three acres and you put a playground in there or a pickleball court or what have you, try to come up with something different that's not necessarily seen around here much. There's a wetland area that goes through there that we'd like to enhance and and conserve. And so these students went there were six groups. They all came up with their own designs. They they really and I don't know if you've seen in the packet, there's a landscaping portion that'll show you some of these ideas, but it was really more nature related. Lots of trees, lots of flowers, trails, boardwalk across the wetlands, things that people can engage in a different way than your average park. So what what we did is is we took a few key components from those designs and wanted to integrate them in here, a few of them being fire pits, hammock areas, sledding hills. You know, we wanted to give it some dimension. So the idea is to create some mounds, integrate the detention ponds into that so there can be somewhat of a decent sledding hill for people. There's an amphitheater that's proposed in here. So you can look through the the landscape part. And just just to get a feel for the type of project, it's not we haven't really solidified anything exactly. We wanted to propose something and get some feedback and try to massage it from there. But that's something that us as the developer would build, and at the end, we would dedicate it to the city, and then the public can can use it. There's a piece of property just East of 200 West that's also included in this. Nothing's proposed on there. And so one thing that came up in discussions with the city is we have this property on Wolfpack. We don't necessarily know what we wanna do with it. We don't wanna sell it. A substation sub fire station was brought up that maybe Hyde Park will need one of those, where everything's coming from Smithfield. So, anyway, we're proposing that we dedicate that piece to the city so you guys still have something in this area for that or whatever you wanna do. And so I I went and looked at some various sizes of fire stations around the valley, and you can fit pretty much the largest on there if you wanted.

So Yeah. This on there? Okay.

Yep. So it's it's written into the development agreement as a trade for one of your parcels, and we would do that when phase one of the subdivision is recorded.

What is the proposal for the land that's at the corner at the Okay. Traffic circle? Yeah. So

so where that parcel is in the mixed zone, there's a commercial component there. And in the discussions that we've had so far, with the city is they really wanna keep that keep a commercial component here. So we tried to define it a little bit better than how it is in the mixed zone. So that's about an acre and a quarter. And there's also some commercial renderings in your packet.

I don't think we got these. There aren't commercial renderings in their packet. We didn't get any of them. We didn't get the the various

Landscape. Option lands landscaping options. It'd be cool to see. So remember that we're just considering the development agreement. We're not considering the subdivision plans themselves. And so that's what's in your packet is a copy of the development agreement and the staff report based on the feedback from DRC. So we as part of the development agreement, we're not approving the subdivision. Right? That would come at preliminary plat and final plat and site plan is when all of that would get evaluated. So what the development agreement covers is the land swap, the agreement that they get, bonus density in exchange for the park. What what really we need to see is the list of benefits to the developer and benefits to the city. Right? That's what the development agreement is supposed to suss out. So that's probably when this comes for public hearing, that will be one of the things that we will add to the packet. Request that from the applicant and add that to the packet so that you folks can see what the developer's getting and what the city's getting in this exchange.

So this is just a discussion preliminary discussion on the development agreement. You're still gonna development agreement itself. They're But you this other stuff is still coming before we do our final vote on the development agreement. If you guys wanna see what they have planned for the subdivision No. I'm just saying the pros the the developer pros

versus the city pros that That's that's what will be in your next packet when we vote on this. Okay. That's what I'm saying. Meet. This is just a preliminary discussion Okay. Leading up to the public hearings required because we're making land use concessions. Right. I told Bryce we would be on this agenda and then realize that we didn't have enough time to notice for public hearings. So it had to be just a discussion item. It's not anything we can vote on. So when we did when we consider this development agreement at the public hearing, it's the conditions in the development agreement that we're considering. We're not we're not judging the preliminary plat. We're not judging traffic circulation or anything like that. But what Bryce is showing you here is that the commercial element that they're required to do is he's showing that down here. It's not I guess it's not designated on this plan, but it is that whole square on the corner. And then, of course, you can see the park, and then you can see all the residential units. So do you wanna speak to maybe what the benefits are to the developer and what the benefits are to the city if you have those in your Yeah. We can. Find. And

Okay. Because sorry. Can I just interrupt for a minute? I think, commissioners, what we're considering is should this be a development agreement versus just them building in their respective zones and what each zone requires. Like so does, yeah, does what they're presenting justify a development agreement?

K.

Thank you for making that clearer than I did, for sure.

And I I mean, I do think these other submittals are important for some context for you guys Right. See, because I'm assuming I mean, if you just see this development agreement, it's hard to understand there's not enough specifics in this or, say, the park, like Right. Gonna be there, what's it gonna look like. Right. I would assume you want some context there. And same with the commercial site, I've got rendering so that you guys can understand the scale of it and what could potentially go there. There's, you know, one with, like, a a single drive through restaurant type. Like, how would that fit here? Is it viable or not? And there's another one with more of, like, a strip mall type with, you know, nine or 10 units. So you can understand what the site can provide in the future, and is that good enough or not? So

Bryce, does your development agreement say that Visionary is building the commercial

or not building the commercial? No. No. It says that Visionary is not building it. We're gonna make sure that the pad is ready. Utilities are stubbed. But we're not to build any of it. And, I mean, there are two reasons. One, Visionary isn't a commercial developer. Two, that site will come to market when the market demands it. And for us to arbitrarily go put a building up, it seems pretty shortsighted because we don't know what people are gonna want there. So what we were saying is we'll provide the site, and when a commercial builder comes along, we'll obviously put it up for sale. Then they're to come back to you guys with their proposal and their site plan for whatever use and and all those things. I'm just trying to give you an idea of what can be. Right. So

So it's not part of, like, the whole development. Like, the fact that it can be sold, like, you know, generally, we have an HOA over the whole property. Yeah. So it would essentially be But that would be just separate.

So we'll subdivide it Okay. With one of the phases so that it is a parcel that we can sell. And per the development agreement, it'll have commercial restrictions on it. So you'll see our utility improvements in the preliminary drawings. And then when we phase that portion, it'll be its own individual lot that gets created, and then we'll sell that parcel.

Which is different than what it would be if it were in the mixed use. Right? You wouldn't be able to sell it separately, or do does our mixed use do we sell those how does that work in the mixed use? What do you have townhomes and commercial area? Those commercial areas are sold off too? Use if you're just developing

per designs or development standards in the mixed use, you would build those structures. Remember, you have to have a certain amount of commercial built before you can add more. Right? You can build a certain number of residential, then you must build the commercial, and then you can build the rest. So Right. That's it. That's why I'm here.

Doesn't mean fill it with a tenant. Right?

Correct. It means build a building. Steve just like the Steve Regan site plan that you looked at, they wanna build a building, and then when they find tenants, they'll do some modifications in there. They're building the structure, and then they're gonna find tenants. This is a development agreement which lets us work outside of code. Right. And so their development agreement proposes that they leave it vacant and not build a structure.

So if I if I understand correctly what you mentioned is that all we are discussing now is whether or not this is this would require a development agreement. If there's land being swapped and then land being given to the city, I think that's a yes. Because and because it's sort of outside the normal mixed use code in that there is no commercial being built right away because that's usually the first thing that's required in the in the mixed use code if I'm not if I'm not mistaken.

Right. If you yeah. If you like what's being proposed, it needs to be a development agreement. What we decide is if what's being offered in that development agreement is worth more to us than having it developed

under their individual zones. But we're not we're not making that decision tonight because We're just talking about it so they'll make sure these packets I think has a chance of getting through. I think yeah. It No pressure tonight.

Needs to have a development agreement if it wants to continue in the direction it's headed at this point. Correct. And would the development agreement be the appropriate

item to use for owner occupancy ratio requirements for the higher density for the townhomes? So the development agreement is the whole package. When I talked about appropriate vehicle to to have that. This would be the instrument for

making any kind of land use concessions or that's why we ask for the chart of show us the benefits to the city, show us the benefits to the developer. And as you can see, as I'm scrolling through this development agreement, it's not like a three page document. It's a lengthy document. It's got lots of sections, and that's why I think it's helpful to have this. I think it works out great to have this as a discussion item. Yeah. So you guys can wrap your mind about around what you're actually recommending to city council. You're recommending that we go into this deal with this developer to do these things that are in this development agreement. And so you should take your time to read through and see what it is exactly we're getting into. And then at the public hearing, you can decide if you recommend that the city gets into this agreement or if you recommend that they don't. But being able to read through all of these, bits and pieces of this agreement is and understand them is important, because there's a lot. There are many, many pages, and I believe, the exhibits Yeah. It is seen at the back with the are there as well. So you're gonna see all of the exhibits that are included in this development agreement. They're telling you exactly how they intend to build these roads. They're showing you where the parking is. This exhibit will tell you the basics of the park. He talked about the amphitheater and the wetland. Right? All the exhibits are there in this one giant document, and you should definitely read through and make sure that you understand so so that you're prepared for a public hearing in a couple weeks.

Architectural submittals as part of this if you keep scrolling through.

Let's see. There's 42 pages. So let's find out. We created a yeah. And here's Here's all the park stuff.

Just That's where it ends right there.

And then Oh, wait. Looks like we're halfway through.

I think there's a lot. Guess it does. I should've skipped to the pictures.

Because I'm waiting. Yeah. So this right here, we pause here for Is that helpful? Okay. So so I created this because I wanted to show you guys exactly what's gonna be built here. Because when you look at the other site plan, you just see a bunch of squares, and you're like, well, what is this gonna look like? Yeah. And two different kind of townhomes

doesn't necessarily satisfy variety for me unless, yeah, you show me that they do feel different.

Yeah. So so this points out which building type is gonna go where. Another important thing that we wanted to show you is no two buildings next to each other will look alike. Oh, that's great. We have so, like, along Wolfpack Way, there's five buildings there. We're calling those the mansionette style where we have two units in the middle that are two story, and then on the end, they're single story units. So that kinda breaks up the roof line. It looks a little different than your typical

fourplex, fiveplex. At the top? At the top. Yep. Pretty.

Yep. And so how many units would that have in it? Four or six?

Six per

I think there's four. Well Yeah. Yeah. Six boxes. Yeah. There's two in the middle and and two on the end. There's four sidewalks,

but I don't know if you go in a door and then it splits into more than one. Nope. So there's four units per building there. Okay.

That and and we did that because your r t zone speaks to mansion at style if you're doing townhomes. And so we wanted to do something different. We did this down in Logan on the West Side.

You guys are more than welcome to I know. Tell give us an address so we can drive by. We like field trips. 1800

South and 1200 West.

To where Marcus used to live, isn't it? Yes. He lived in 1.

And and we we kind of tried to model this community after that one. That one turned out really nice. It's got a nice feel. It doesn't feel too dense. You've got so that building at the top still, it's a rear loaded building. So all the front doors, the front facade faces the road. So as you're driving down that road, you see and and it'll be the same when you drive down 1800 South. You don't see garage doors. You just see the nice front side of of the buildings. And so anything that faces Wolfpack or 600 South will be a rear loaded unit, so you get that feel from the road. And then

And that's good for traffic purposes too. It's nice to have people backing out of their property into a community road rather than the main road. Correct. Yep.

Yep. So, yeah, it functions well, and it looks nice. One thing I'll just note, and we'll get into it in a minute here. This south parcel that is currently in mixed zone, so that zone, I don't know that it has a cap on density.

I think it it was just, like, how many you could fit with the other commercial requirements and the height requirements.

So you could end up with 25 to 30 units an acre. I believe it allows for five story buildings, so you could get, you know, big apartment buildings or what have you. So I do think this project is less of an impact of from what could be built in the current zone when we talk about buffering the neighbors behind it. I think this is a much softer transition than what could be built there today. And, you know, being under 11 units an acre compared to 20 plus Right. Is a is a pretty big difference of traffic and all those things. So if you'll scroll down a little bit, then I'll just show you how you can kind of identify these. So you'll see so just pause right there. Maybe zoom out a little.

So when you say no two no two buildings next to each other are the same, they might both be town homes, but they'll have different roof lines. Yeah. So just like here Or paint. Believe this is the Medford one.

Yeah. It says Medford Alley loaded. Yep. So we got a craftsman style and a contemporary. So we would stagger those, and you can see they're all color coded on that first page. So you can come down here and say, okay. A Medford craftsman and contemporary, where are those gonna go? And you could see on that map. And so we wanna solidify that here so you guys know exactly what you're gonna expect rather than just approve a bunch of townhomes and you're not sure what it's gonna look like or how they're gonna be. Like But paint. Do you anticipate them being different paint? Yeah. So what you see here will be what they are. So if you'll scroll down a little bit more, we have we've got a key put together on each Color schemes? Yeah. So right here. So yep. So for example, on the left side, we've got a b c d, and then it identifies what each material is and and the colors. So Mhmm. We're proposing to build these identical units that you see here down to the fascia color, the post color, the rock color, everything. They're pretty

helpful to see. Thank you.

So so that should give you a really good feel for the color schemes exactly where each type of unit's gonna go, what the elevation's gonna be. So I think this is super helpful. Alright. And let's see. Keep

More fun than reading paragraphs too.

Let's see what else is in here.

Keep going? Yeah. Okay. Each of those is worth a thousand words. I thought that picture. Right? Yeah.

Here it is. Yeah.

I was just curious if the commercial renderings were in here and all, but it looks like maybe not.

I didn't see the commercial. Yeah. It's all the way at the bottom. Is it is the benefits table? The I think the benefits is the very last thing. Yeah. K. The account work is that in our folder? Which document? Box, and it's called I'm pulling this straight from box. It's called development agreement PDF. Scroll down far enough to see those. Yeah. You have to go through all 42 pages. You went to all the words

attorney. Good.

I started reading the words.

So we can if Oh, damn. If you want, we can go straight to this table. We could I've highlighted some key points throughout the agreement itself that I can bring up that you would be interested to to understand?

So it's a consideration for the agreement between the city and the developer. Number one is being able to build outside of the regular code without having it approved and changing the code. Mhmm. Second would be there's city land going to you and there's your permit land going to the city. You're swapping. Mhmm. And is it the parkland that is currently the cities?

No. It's the North.

So

so yeah. Let me try parcels are on the North, basically. Me try to do a thing with the GIS map while you talk. Okay.

Yeah. Basically, what we're saying is let us build on your parcels. We will open up space down here where it makes sense to build a park. And

so let's swap land there. So the townhomes are going on city land

Well or partially. They we'll we'll trade land, so we're not building townhomes on new property. So what you have two parcels. One of them, we're saying, let's swap with a park property. So I'll build a park on your land, and we'll build on our land. And then the other parcel is that one East Of 200. So we're saying, let's this is mine now. I'm gonna move that over to the park, and then I'm gonna move your other parcel over here so you guys can still build on it. Okay.

So it's Real Estate Rubik's Cube.

Yeah. And that's written into the development agreement as to how we will accomplish that.

Okay. Let's see.

There we go. Not really full. So here is the MX. I can turn on the zoning layers if you want to if you want me to as well.

Let me take these parcels off.

So are they equally exiting onto these two streets here? So There's nobody coming out here. No one's coming out. Well, actually,

I think there may be one across where the parking lot of the high school has an access. Here. I believe we have yeah. We have proposed one right there.

Yeah. I mean, there's definitely one on, like, that commercial corner. There's one outside of the roundabout into each of those, but Yep. That would or would not connect to the town to the residential area.

Is the We can pull up the site plan again and show you. I can't remember. Yeah. That essentially access for both yeah.

Oh, yeah. Those go through. Mhmm.

Yeah. So you can turn in there and access the commercial pad.

You can also turn in there and access the drive through here Yes. To the residences beyond King Price Commercial. Correct. Yep. This is so busy every day. That is an insane

morning. And we did I think we did a traffic count this morning, so that information is

No one's going to school anymore. It's two weeks before the end of the year. It's not as bad right now if you've done it, like, a month ago.

Awful. That congestion is just off. That's it's nice that you can get back in. You don't want people stopping here to try and get in. You wanna be able to hurry and get in because that twice a day is just

Yeah. A backup. Yeah. And then, yeah, they can just go go right down on Wolfpack, or they could go up east on the 200 and

navigate that way. So if they do wanna go to the park, where are they parking? If someone comes from outside of that, because you said that's a public park.

Yeah. So we have and per the DRC comments, we updated this a little bit. I can get that in for the next meeting. I wanna say there's 21 or so stalls right there that would be dedicated for the city park. And then on the north end of the park,

I think that's 500 South. That's housing at the bottom of the park, though, isn't it? The 10? There are housing there are units there,

but we're proposing those stalls to be used for the park. So so one thing with these units, we've we've put driveways on every unit. One, because people like to have a little extra space with the They use their garage for storage instead of parking? A lot of them do that. And so, you know, if they didn't do that, you can have two vehicles in your garage and two in the driveway. So that's

Okay. So on the other side of that road, I see what you're saying. So let's take that bottom left one just above the commercial. You're looking at I'm pulling in left if I live there, but to the right is

public parking for the park. Is that what you're saying? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Saying right here? Yeah. Could that be a whole parking lot? And and we can revamp it.

Quite a few stalls. Yeah. You know? Is that, like, 30? 18 or 30? 20

something. 10. And then on the north end, you'll see in the next version, we added, I don't remember how many, 10 more. Yes. Here. Yeah. Mhmm.

Yeah. I don't know how much parking a park needs. Guess it depends on how cool you build the park. Well, it's a development agreement, so we can Yeah. Ask for I know. But I'm pretty sure we don't want them parking on Wolfpack

Way. Yeah. There there won't be any parking there. I tried to look at other parks that you guys have to see how much parking there is, and it was kinda hard because, like, the park up here, they also have soccer fields. So you need more parking for all the soccer games and things like that.

And Lines Park doesn't have enough parking. Right.

No. It doesn't.

Yeah. No. I I guess the what I see is the elephant in the room for me anyway is we have requirements for the mixed use that are that they're trying to protect the neighbors. We've put those in not too long ago, Mike. Was it, like, six months ago? It's been longer than that.

Anyways Time flies when you're having fun. Yeah. Whatever it is,

I would kinda like I guess, my feedback is for the part that was the mixed use part of that down on the South, that housing part of it to kinda satisfy what is in the mixed use requirements, the current version of that. And I'd like the stuff up top to the North to satisfy what their transition zone requires because we we we had a lot of feedback from people about that live in those houses that they don't want townhomes right next to them. The visual that you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. The noise and the visual and all that, they kinda they're supposed to have be a little some buffer. And I know that hurts you, but that's the feedback we got, and that's kinda what from my in my opinion, what needs to happen in this. The development agreement should state that they need to kinda meet those requirements in addition to the Yeah. And you know what I'm saying? That's the intent of those requirements. Yeah. So the housing in those zones could kinda should meet those requirements unless there's

explicitly a reason that they can't, and then that would be a part of the development agreement. Yeah. So we tried to integrate some of those components. Like, one being on that mixed parcel, we took the the buffering area width between the single family homes and whatever is built there. Mhmm. And we integrated that into the site plan and proposed that being a a walking trail corridor. Mhmm. Yeah. So that's in there. I do think

I mean, I'm not I'm I'm I'm just what I'm saying is that's my big picture response to it Yeah. Is that they and and when you get down when we get down to the later thing where we're talking about, does it meet it or not, the development agreement should state that they should meet all of the requirements unless there's an explicit one for some reason that that's negotiated that they don't need.

Because that's the intent. Does that make does that make sense what I'm trying to say? Yes. Okay. So. Can you pull up the GIS again real quick? Sure. I'd like to check something out.

And I do wanna say on the the RT Mhmm. Zone parcel Yeah. Where in the code, it's it it allows 50% townhomes and 50% residential homes. So we discussed that in one of our meetings we have with with staff and a couple council members. Right. And and we did a layout on there. Mhmm. And the the constraints of It's a bad shape for that. To get single family homes and townhomes and make it feel I understand. Nice, it it just wasn't working out. And and I believe it was Tiffany that made the comment that probably she didn't think single family homes should should go on the Wolfpack Way parcels. Right. Like, I understand that's kind of let's buffer from this to this to that. Right. So like I said before, I think the project as a whole is much less impact as we're proposing it than what could be built today. And so to me, that's a great benefit to those residents behind there.

I mean, possibly. I mean, I I guess I don't I don't know the answer, but I what I'm gonna what I'm saying is whatever whatever it is, we need to I mean, the the neighbors were very adamant or very passionate about making sure we tried to not put two two, you know, townhomes so close to those houses that have been there forever. That's why they moved there. You know? And so I kinda wanna protect them. And so Mikhail? I guess no. I'm not we don't have to solve it tonight. What I'm saying is that'll be a point that we need to review very closely because if for some reason we're pushing beyond that and not honoring them, then I'm kinda Yeah. Will will kind of drag my feet. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Can you show what size those r two lots are?

R t or r two? R t. R two. These here? Yes.

This particular one is point two eight acres. Four acres, I think, if I remember right. Yeah.

Yeah. We did that project.

You did that one a long time ago? Yeah. In, like, 2018

or so. Yeah. The cove. Yeah.

So, anyway, that's that's my big picture comment. Not that we need to solve anything tonight, but that's kinda where I'm Yeah. And that's Kinda what I'm feeling is is is what we need to work on to make sure that the development agreement is Yes. And that's where protect them that way. And that's where my comment comes from of

someone could come here and put five story apartment complex with 25 units in an acre, I feel like I mean, that's a much harsher impact to those neighbors than than what we're proposing.

Yeah. I don't I'd have to go back and look at, like, the mixed use one, but I don't think you could put 25 on an acre. I thought we changed that.

Is that right?

I can't quote you mixed use code right now, but we can definitely make sure that that's available for you in, your packet. Okay. Yep. Yep. I'll make that note right now. Can I speak to owner occupancy ratio

requirements before we end the discussion? You can do whatever you'd like. Yes, ma'am. One concern I have from experience in real estate is that, townhomes, condos, duplexes, fourplexes, those are all ideal rentals, and they're ideal targets for investors. So our one of our concerns is having affordable housing. And the way it stays affordable is if the first time homebuyers or or anyone that even if they're second or third, people that want that price range aren't bidding against investors. I've had experience with developments that had success and that didn't have success that that lost in court. And, generally, if you leave you can't say a 100% owner occupancy requirement. But depending on the number of units, this has enough units that you could probably require 80% owner occupancy or 75% owner occupancy. So So that would mean that as you do your initial sales, you'd keep an eye on that. But what's nice is you don't have to enforce that. The lenders, the title company, and escrow enforce that over the years because they run the owner occupancy ratio to see how many have are nonoccupied versus owner occupied properties because that's in tax rolls. And they will either insure it and do the transaction or they won't based on okay. You're you're gonna be one too many or, you know does that make sense? So that gets enforced for years to come and it runs with the land and it's a deed restriction. That's the way we stay intellectually honest because the big concern we've all had is affordable housing, but it we can't really call it affordable housing if there's no restriction on how many of those can be bought gobbled up by investors. Not just that sale gets affected, but future comps get affected. As you know, they use the you know, if you have an investor come and say, I don't care. I'm paying an extra $50. I want that rent as a rental. That becomes a new comp. You know, you assume they're gonna throw out the highest and the lowest and they do appraisals, but at the same time, that just raises the value of all of them at that point. Then the next resale for the next regular family that wants to be done, it's gonna cost more because they're gonna use that comp for the investor sale. So if there's a an owner occupancy ratio requirement, I've been beating mister Rumm since I got on the planning commission for any higher density housing that we especially with development agreement situations, we're in a position to re request them. And that for me would be, like, the biggest issue. K. And I'd be happy to get you know, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel. I'd be happy to request some copies of I should see if it's in the deeds or if it's in the CC andRs.

There's already done deed restricted townhomes, right, for workforce housing or something of that nature maybe? Yeah. Yeah. That's a little But you're familiar. Different

K. Beast. But yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We did down in Logan, teamed up with with them. They essentially donated the land to us. We went in and built units that are going for $4,550,000 dollars less than market. And then we put some restrictions on there for five years so people can't just flip them. Right. That makes sense. But rather they get set up for equity day one. They honor the requirements, then they can sell that and move up to their next. So that was the idea of that project. So it's a little bit different, but I'll look into some different ideas to hit a specific owner occupy ratio. Unfortunately, for the last four years or so, we haven't had any investors bidding

any higher than anyone else. You know? Right. So it's And if it if it if the restriction's in there and there's not the demand, then it's a moot point. But the point being that we're forward thinking and cash value is a desirable place. No one ten years ago would have ever expected the kind of growth. I don't think anyone would have predicted the level of growth that it's had. And so looking forward, assuming that at some point, there'd be that, you know, desirability for investors, they at least know, hey. There's only so many of these that you could buy up and Yeah. And then you have to wait your turn if until an investor sells. Yeah. So it then it doesn't affect the

value of the other peoples too. It keeps it more affordable. K. Yeah. I'll I'll look into some ideas k. See if we've done that in any any other communities or

so. It's usually deed restriction and also addressing the CCRS amendments. So I I think

what we figured out is that with what we're talking about, with what you're talking about, there is a development agreement that is required. That which was the the main question. Right. The use of the of the actual properties is sort of not really what we're talking about. You've given us ideas of what you've thought of. I'd love to throw one out that northern that northern piece of property above the park, would love to see something that the governor has asked us to to to look at, and that is starter homes. Can you put in a road in the middle or a a drive in the middle and then put starter homes facing the inside with their backs facing the people to the East and Wolfpack way to the West. I know that lowers your profit margin, but that gives a whole bunch of people something other than a townhome Shared walk. With some with a piece of piece of grass. And, yeah, a walkway in between their house and then the house next to them. It may only be a size of a PUD lot. I don't know. Whatever fits there, but just something that someone can say, this is mine, and I don't share it with anybody else. That would that's that's the way I see it. I guess what Tiffany is saying about we don't want any single family homes, but I don't think we want them facing Wolfpack Way. If we have the backs toward Wolfpack Way, then there's nobody leaving the house going on driving on Wolfpack Way. They've got another another way to get in and out of their home. So just a thought.

And we can always update the application with any changes that Visionary wants to make. Again, this is just a discussion item tonight. We're not voting. We're not making recommendations or anything like that. We'll notice the public hearing, and then we'll put it on the agenda and hear it as we normally do. Presenter will present. You'll get your staff report, all of those things, and then you guys can decide should the city enter into this

agreement. So I like I actually like the way this wound up whether even though it wasn't on purpose, I like that we wound up with a discussion opportunity prior to being forced to say yes, no, look at the papers in three days. And I think that's helpful to developers. They kind of would rather it get done faster, I'm sure, but I yes. Sometimes a good discussion is is super helpful. Yeah. And to your point on this on the starter homes,

as I mentioned earlier, we did put a concept together that included single family homes there. But like I said, with the constraints of the dimensions, what you end up with is double fronted lots, which I don't particularly like because, one, now you're driving down Wolfpack Way, and all you see is a white vinyl fence. And, two, whenever you ended up with double fronted lots, those homeowners don't necessarily walk all the way around to take care of their frontage on their backyard road. That makes sense?

Park Strip?

Yeah. In the Park Strip. So I think there's other parcels throughout the city that would be great for a better design for starter homes. This one where it's so narrow and long, I don't think it's the right spot to bring a nice community for for single family homes. Just

the constraints that were dealt with. Yeah. I think when we originally came up with that transit the residential transition, it was that kind of a thought that that would satisfy what Ned's talking about with those people that live there. You know? Like, well, at least my neighbors don't live in a town. At least they have their own walls. And we I would love to see starter homes like that as an option. I think this is beautiful. I don't I think I feel a little differently than most. I think once these go in and they look nice and people move in and they meet each other and their kids are friends and they're walking to school together, I think they come to just love them, you know, get and they're going to church with their neighbors, and they forget, like, oh, you live over there. Like, it doesn't it doesn't have to end up like that. Yeah. Oh, you live over there, which is what I don't like. I don't want I don't ever want that to happen. I don't wanna be so exclusive that, you know, the townhomes are over there and the big homes are up on the hill or whatever it may be. So Yeah. And, like, you know, councilman Osborne keeps bringing up, we everybody likes you know, agrees that we need some townhomes in the city. The best thing is to, like, put pockets of them throughout the city so the where it gets a little hurtful is to those living there because right now, that's the only place they are is on Wolfpackway, and that's the only place that it's been developed. I mean, that it's still open for development, I should say. But, like, I look, you know, I've got neighbors on either side of me who are older and have passed away. And, honestly, next door to me, I could see that home. They won't. But, like, I can imagine that home being torn down and putting up a fourplex of townhomes. And, honestly, the neighbors would freak out. Like, they would have a fit, and that's the worst thing ever. And then people move in, and their kids are playing up and down the street, and all the older people are like, you guys are so fun. Yes. Come over. Come trick or treating. Like, yes. Come to grandma and you know, call us grandma and grandpa. Like, I think once you meet people, it doesn't matter where they live or how they live. I think these are it's a pretty development. I you know, if it's done nicely and somehow kept up, or struggling with HOAs to actually function and do well. So that's Yeah. That's a tough one for me. I get that it has to be an HOA, but I really struggle to see what those are like 20 down the road. I've seen a couple that go well, and I I don't know that it's an HOA or just a landlord that cares. And so I don't know if there's any way to set that to not guarantee, but more than just like, we hope it works.

Yeah. So So to your first point, I'm glad you brought that up because that's our real world experience. I can show you many subdivisions that I've done in the valley that when I go to the city to propose them for a rezone or whatever it may be, and the neighbors come out and they don't like it because it's changed. You're gonna bring crime. You're gonna lower our property values. You're gonna get Children will die. Things. Well, now I could drive you by those specific projects. Now they're all in the same ward. Their kids are playing with each other. Now they're just neighbors, and it functions great. Yeah. That's just how the beast is. To your HOA point, so one thing that we'll speak to in here and just in general so we always put put these HOAs out to a study to figure out, okay, who's gonna maintain what? Is the HOA gonna maintain the exteriors of the buildings, the the lawns, the streets? Like, what is it? So we we go out and we do a study, reserve study, that tells us, k. Here's the lifespan of all these different products. Here's how many units you have. Here's what it's gonna cost to replace. And that's how we come up with our budget. And it seems we've we've been a little high on the HOA fees compared to other builders, but that's why because we wanna make sure that these HOAs, when we turn them over, they have the right amount of funding for their reserves, and they have a realistic fee rather than try to get it as low as possible to sell as many as quick as possible. And then we turn it over, and they're like, k. Now we gotta raise our fees because we don't have enough money. So we're we're very intentional with that. And in here, one of the items that I've proposed is where our streets are private, the city requires the utilities to be private as well. And so I've proposed, and you'll see it. It's a I think it was the last page in that packet, some impact fee reductions. And that's me saying, okay. Like, sewer, for instance, and water. Maybe water was a better example. You guys still have to operate your your wells and your storage tanks and, you know, all your infrastructure to serve these units with water. So the impact fees, you know, are for that point. But now that these utilities are private, the city is not burdened with the utilities inside of this project anymore. And so my idea is we'll still pay the city some impact fee for their general maintenance work improvements on the systems, but let's, let's put some money into the HOA's reserve accounts because now they're the ones burdened with the private infrastructure maintenance down the road. So you'll see that table in there. And the idea behind that is to just do exactly that. Set them up for success in the long term so that it's not another failing HOA.

So you're saying, like, where our current fee for water is $49.50 and you you are proposing half that, you're saying you would seed that fund with $24.75 per unit Mhmm. That would start in the HOA? Yeah. So tell me what kinds of things would the HOA would cover. Are we talking new windows, new roofs, paved driveways? Like, what kinds of things are you finding in your others that an HOA fee would cover or not cover maybe? Yeah.

It varies. I'd have to pick through a few of them, but, generally, we have the HOA cover exterior building materials. So roofing because if one unit needs to replace their roof, well, it's all one roof plane. So it really it all needs to be replaced or else it's gonna look terrible. So we try to include that in them for siding, roofing. I mean, I'd have to see if it includes So it is siding and roofing? Yeah. Driveways,

I'd have to check on that one. As far as the concrete versus the blacktop.

Yeah. Some of the driveways are private. Some of them are limited common. I would I would say that's probably gonna be on the the homeowner rather than the HOA. And then, obviously, all the landscaping, repairs, maintenance for that snow removal,

things like that. So on these, all of the landscaping is with the HOA? People aren't doing any of their own? I know sometimes it's, like, front or back or side or something. On this, yeah, the HOA would do it all. Well, I certainly like if we're gonna do it by half, I like that the other half would go into a seat in HOA.

That does a lot to me. Yeah. And all of the open space will be, irrigated with secondary water.

The mayor likes that one.

Alright. Do you do you leave room for special assessments for unexpected repairs that might happen?

Yeah. I know they include those things. I I couldn't speak to all the details of them. I could get some examples. But and and, typically, we have to give our CCNIs over to the city for review so we could discuss things that are in there, what are covered, make sure that you guys understand the

everything in there. Because that's something that could easily wipe out an HOA if it's not doesn't leave the provisions for one big thing. You know, a tree falls in it. You've got a $100,000. You need to divide that between everybody and say special assessment determines it only a complex that was affected versus does everybody share that burden? Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from commissioners?

Nope. Good info.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys. Yeah. I'll get an updated site plan to you. I think that's probably the only thing, maybe some commercial renderings for our next meeting, and then we can go through the development agreement in detail after you guys have had a minute to review it. The benefit analysis table is in there to review. So if you have any questions on that, we can address that as well.

That was the two pages before the last page. Right? Yeah. No. K.

Thank you. K. Thank you.

Alright.

Anything else on that, Mikael? Nope. K. Next meeting should be June 3. Do I is does anyone know they'll be gone on June 3?

We'll be gone, but I don't know if I'll be able to Zoom in. To Zoom in.

K. So no mic, possible Zoom. Ned?

I will be here. Yeah.

They should be here. Okay.

Okay. So at least three of us, and I don't June 3 stands for now? Yeah. Excellent. Which is a good sign of yeah. That's a good K. We'll plan on the next meeting being June 3 then. Anything else from anyone except you guys? Alright. Without objection, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Great. I wanted to second something. You bet? I wanted to second something. It's a but so she said she got that second in. She took the one out of your sales.