Hyde Park City's Planning Commission Meeting 1.7.2025

I do.

Just teasing almost steady. Doesn't it seem like the first and the third?

Yeah. I thought we're gonna go once a month. Is that a maybe or No. I apparently, Marcus, I reneged on that promise. Which month? Once a month. Once a month?

Well Or I thought maybe that's what the purpose of that thing was is so we talked asked to the mayor if we could go once a month. He said as long as there's nothing that we have to have with, like, state compliance for plan approvals, then he's fine if we do once a month. But we're gonna have it possibly two meetings a month just in case.

K. April 1 was in the middle of spring break, I believe. Oh, yeah. For school spring break for probably That's fine. No. That's a good time to have the meetings that we That's fine.

Just plan right now.

Hi. Hello. How are you? Good. How are you doing? Doing good. Just having a busy day.

Yeah. Did you do something to your hand?

Well,

yeah, sort of. Did you have surgery?

I had a procedure in one day.

On a joint?

No. They did a angioplasty angiogram. Check my heart out. It showed the catheter up and put dye in and I was having chest pains and pains in my arm.

They Is everything okay?

Everything's good, which is fantastic. I mean, I've got a I've got one part where it's a little bit

restricted, but, you know, it's

better to find that now than Yes. All the way and Yeah. But I didn't find out what the pains in my chest and arms were.

You know what? I have that.

I'm thinking it was the past month. Yeah. I think that is what it is. My mom's had it too. It gets just Just the stress. Brazen stress. Yeah. Yep. And that's something can

It can do a lot.

Well, I was stressed out about going to the hospital, and I didn't go for about a week. Finally, I said, no. I gotta go.

Yeah. It's HighParkGuest. Right? That's the password? What's that? What's the password?

I have no idea. I put it in once and it it works forever. Let me see.

I'm gonna start by this. Just a little moment. Hi, Charlene. Hello? Hello? Yes.

I'll tell everyone. Okay. You know, I have to sit once.

Well, it'll be twelve soon. Oh, sorry.

Like, I'm getting a text. I had an angiogram. Checked my heart out. Oh, he's gonna repeat that all day? After doing three more real soon. Take a move into it. Yeah. For about

No. About three days, and then we're not supposed to let anything in. It's actually part of it. So there's something

Another high preference is the HPC best. Mhmm. And which network are you trying to is it the HPC?

HPC guest is, like, you know, that mine connects to because I must have password.

No. Password. Password. Password. Password. Password. Password. Password.

Password. I don't remember. Mine just remembers it. Marcus McDowell. Well, I just I have it. Let me try it one more time. Yes. Can I get the password? I thought I have it, but

someone told me that it was best. Yeah. It's so That's what I'm doing wrong.

Okay. I'm like, what? Let me look at that one more time. Sorry. I just wanna

write, missy. Okay. And it's to the Hyde Park guest. Okay. Thank you. Now I should remember it. It will it will just come. I'm not sure. Right. Do you know when is coming?

She's not. She's not coming. Okay. Alright. Welcome, everyone, to the Hyde Park Planning Commission. Today is the 01/07/2026. Happy New Year, everyone. And I'll just say that all commissioners are present with the exception of Melinda Lee, who is absent tonight. Alright. I will start by giving the opening prayer or thought and lead everyone in the pledge of allegiance. It's our tradition to do that. Gonna continue that. And I'll start with prayer. Our father in heaven, we're grateful this day for the many blessings that we have. We're grateful for our city, for our valley, for the state that we live in. We're grateful for our freedoms. We pray that we might be blessed this evening to know the things that we should do to continue to bless our city and to do those things that would be of benefit to the citizens. We're grateful for this time that we have to hear from citizens and to discuss these matters. We say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please stand. 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 very much. We start with, if I remember correctly, the minutes from the last meeting. That would be from December 17. Were there any corrections or additions or deletions that were recommend we would recommend to to those minutes?

I didn't see anything that is different than I remember. K.

It looked good to me. Okay.

See anything.

You're good? Alright. Then I make a motion we approve the minutes. Alright. We I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion to approve the minutes as they stand now with a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes as they stand now, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. Thank you very much. At this point, we will turn the time over to Mikhail, our city planner, to give our staff planning report

our planning staff report. There you go. I'm going to lead by example of talking into my microphone very specifically in order us in order for us to capture the minutes well. Colette's not here tonight. She's gonna have to transcribe. We're gonna have to speak clearly and very close to the microphone. So just a quick reminder. As far as staff reports go, I don't think I have anything to report, and we'll take future items at the end for what you wanna talk about at the next one.

Alright. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda is a public hearing to consider ordinance 26 dash zero one r z, amending the Hyde Park City zoning map. Could you give us a, Mikael, could you give us a brief summary of what we're gonna be talking about? Open

version two of my staff report here. As you can see from the vicinity map

Just one moment. Oh, sure.

They need a small ticket.

Just turn it over.

Where we set that map? That one turned off. Okay.

Thank you for being the IT department, Marcus. There we go. Now as you can see, hopefully, if you're oriented, we're here at Wolfpack Way and Center Street. Just south of that is a water feature, And next to that water feature is this parcel owned by the city. It is split zone currently, most of it agricultural zone, and then right near Wolfpack Way is the residential transition zone. We have been approached by a party that would like to develop this in a commercial aspect instead of residential, and we think this is a really good opportunity for the city to get some commercial business in there. And they're providing kind of a a food and drink establishment small. And the idea is that they would preserve that water feature. They would add in the trail connection that currently exists so that people could walk through that parcel from the walking path through the trail that we'll have there in the future. They're really working with the city to preserve that area for public use. It wouldn't be just for private use. It would be for public use as well. So the first step in that is for us to rezone this parcel to commercial so that we can accommodate that use. We had a survey done to verify the boundaries, and then we posted the notice on-site, on the state website, and then on our city website as well. Staff believes that this request meets city code and is also in compliance with the future land use map and the general plan.

Okay. I have several questions, but I will bring those up

after the public hearing Okay. Meeting the discussion.

In my staff report, I did speak to all of the approval standards from our rezone land use code. No adverse effects were identified at DRC for changing the zoning on this parcel. Adequate facilities and services are in place that support what the zone could allow there. And there is currently an opinion that this would be a harmonious use with the neighborhood as it exists.

K.

And then there is a possible motion at the end of my staff report if you choose to use it.

Alright. Is that it? Sure. Alright. Thank you so much. I will now open up the floor to I will now open up the floor to the public hearing, and this is our our rules that we have. And I'd just like to to remind everyone of these. Please limit your statement or following on Mikhail. Please speak into the microphone so that everyone can hear you and so that your comments can be recorded. Please state your name for the record. Please limit your statements to three minutes. Please phrase your opinions in the form of statements, not questions. We're not allowed to answer questions at this time. This is your time to tell us your opinions. Please address the count the comments to the commission. And let's see. Alright. I think that's everything. Alright. So I'm going to open up the public hearing. Anyone who would like to come up to the microphone, please do, and we'll start that now.

Dang, Gregor. I know the city's been trying to sell this for quite some time, but I know there's a reason that that was zoned, mixed use and transitional zone. By changing this zone to commercial, are we not opening the gates for the the owners of the property on the east side of both pack way to do the same thing? I find that kinda interesting where this backs right up to that boulder development right behind it, that they're fine with this. I just wonder if we're not opening the gates to everybody. What's good for the city is good for everybody else. I'm concerned about that. That's my statement.

Thank you very much. Please. Correct. Go ahead and ask the question, but we may not be able to answer it right now, but we may just discuss it further on. So please come up to the microphone and and state your name and

My name is Brenda Rust, and we have the property right along Center Street at the top in the yellow.

Yes.

You're next to the property that's being Uh-huh. So we are north of this well, the waterway and north of the stream. And I just wanna make sure I'm understanding correctly that in the rezone from agriculture to commercial use, the commercial use is only the purple section on the map and the rest of it is still agriculture. So when you're talking about having a business and then there was still access to the park and that kind of thing, it isn't then the whole piece to be commercial. It was just the purple section. Am I looking at that correctly? No. So that's why I didn't know what

what the difference in colors were. That's the existing zones, the two different existing zones on that parcel. Okay. The purple is a transition zone, and the blue is the agriculture zone, and they're asking to get the whole thing commercial.

Okay. That's what they're asking. And then so how is the water or the access and having it being the water feature, that kind of thing, still preserved in the trail? We're gonna discuss that more in the other in the other section, and then we may answer your question. But is there anything that you'd like to say to us? I would love to have it left agricultural. Okay. Just being on the North side and to have that right up next to our property, to have that left agriculture because it changes the whole dynamic and the traffic flow, everything else to the back of our property.

Okay. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Alright. I don't see anybody else that wants to come up and speak, so we will close the public hearing. And let's begin our discussion amongst the members of the commission. I have questions also. I I think I mentioned that. Can you explain more? Well, there's there's someone who's presented a plan, but once we deem you know, once if we were to approve this or recommend approval Mhmm. Once we would recommend approval, it just goes to commercial.

Correct.

K. And we have if the city were to sell it then to this developer, we would we could not say no to anything that was within the bounds of the commercial zoning regulations.

Correct. Their next steps would be to apply for a site plan, site plan review. And at that stage, we would evaluate their site plan and the use that they propose against development standards for the commercial zone, and they would have to meet those standard.

K. You can Has this

go ahead, Marcus. I wanna say something. So there's a little bit of context here. This parcel owned by the city, the city put it up for sale a while ago, but now the city council and the mayor have no intention of actually selling the project. Twice now, the city has put out an RFP or request for proposal trying to solicit businesses to come and have a partnership with the city so we could develop a family oriented business was the wording they used in conjunction with a public amenity, such as a trail, a small park, but it's still the city council's intention. The intention is not to sell the property. So that's

just kinda some context for you. So the city will then become the landlord.

Right. The city doesn't want to sell the property until there's a plan presented that they're happy with that matches what they're looking for. And then if part of that plan is to eventually sell it to whoever's buying it and develop the business in the park together, then the city council would enter into that agreement with the developer. But, yeah, they're they're not looking to rezone and then just turn around and sell it to Walmart or whoever. Not that Walmart's interested, but you know?

Has has any of the water you call it a water feature. Has any of them designated

as wetland protected wetland? Do you wanna talk about how that was when they did?

So Hyde Park City, when we built the Wolfpack White Corridor, we did a whole bunch of we're finishing up a whole bunch of wetland mitigation, and we had to do a lengthy permitting process with the Army Corps of Engineers. So there was some protections in there, but we've we're doing wetland mitigation right now, and so that has been moved to a different location. So, yeah, there's not anything there right now that we are aware of.

Yeah. That would be considered protected wetlands.

Right. Most of those are on the other side of the bridge.

What is the water feature?

So It's kinda Like, you guys are saying water feature, but I Wampy Creek. Yeah. So go down and park on the bridge one of these days and just look over the side. There's this really neat spring that kind of bubbles out of the ground over here and makes its way and creates this nice little river that goes under the bridge and then over here, and then it goes into all sorts of weird places over here. But there's yeah. It's really beautiful. We, as a city, want to have seating areas, places where people can sit and just enjoy the nature there, and then eventually, hopefully, build a trail around it and integrate into our trail network.

Trail around it?

Yeah. We've looked at doing a trail alongside the river, perhaps to a loop around the parcel. We've got a couple different ideas that we're working through right now, but that's kind of the goal.

The intention is to preserve. Yeah. We're not looking to fill it in or make it do something it's not supposed to do. We're you preserve and keep it the way that it is currently. Yeah. I just I just worry because once we

if we were to recommend approval and it was approved by the city council, then as long as it fits into the the regulation of, you know Of the site plan. Of the yeah. Mhmm. Of commercial, then we can't say no, or else we can get sued.

Right. The unique part about this project is the property is pretty small. And so, really, you're not gonna get a big store that's able to fit in there and have all their parking requirements. If this is gonna stay commercial, really, all you're gonna get is something like what we're looking at right now, small scale, minimal parking, mostly targeted towards pedestrian traffic or, you know, maybe a small drive through or something. But you're not gonna have a big grocery store or something that's gonna attract a lot of noise and a lot of people.

K. I have a question. So why wouldn't we want to have this be a develop this seems like the perfect development agreement kind of a plan for this piece as opposed to a commercial rezone? You're correct. It's it's a good spot for it. So why don't we just do a development agreement with whatever? Because you wanna you still wanna main control. Mhmm. And so that's the the whole beauty of a development agreement. But if you flip it to commercial, then you may lose some of that control?

I know Through the development process, we wanna preserve the public's access to the edge of that water area, and we think the best way to do that is in partnership with a commercial venture instead of selling it outright to a developer.

K. Again, I still think it's better to just do this whole thing as a development agreement instead of a reason.

Yeah. And and you could tell me I'm wrong. It's not it's not big enough to do a lot of things. Like Marcus was saying, it can't accommodate a lot of cars for parking for for residential.

I I completely agree with you. It just seems like it's a small little place that you're gonna have a little restaurant or something there that you could put on the one the south portion of it. Something very small like that. The rest of the city wants to do something cute with, right, or something nice. Mhmm. That I am all I agree with that, but I do think it's seems to me it puts development agreement better.

Can can the commercial, whoever it is that's looking to go and a joint venture with the city to open here, Can what they're considering be accomplished also through a development agreement or only through rezoning?

So like Mikkel said, the way our development agreement code reads is there has to be very explicit benefits to the city to justify the dramatic shift in what the zoning is. So this still very well could be a development agreement, like, if there needs to be an adjustment to the parking or, you know, a drive through or something, if that's going to be what the city wants to do. But if we're going from residential to commercial, that's a very big swing and shift in use. And so the developer would be according to code, they'd have to come up with some pretty sweet benefits to the city. And like Mikel said, we're not sure if they could really get that with this being such a small piece of property. And so by switching to commercial, we still could do a development agreement, but then it's much more equitable exchange between the city and the developer if we're just doing minor shifts to try and accommodate their site plan. Do we know what it is? Like, have you guys been told what Yeah. The the developer's been meeting with the city. They kinda ask that we keep it on the down low until they're ready to officially announce, but we do have a specific business who is putting together a plan right now.

What about the option of carving out this commercial size that you really wanna just let somebody there and leave the rest of it as a city As maybe? Park or whatever you wanna call it. We're we're waiting on

the the developer to kinda tell us their plan before we establish that boundary. The other reason why we're looking at maybe doing a rezone is a commercially zone property would be a little easier for them to go and secure financing for, like, a commercial type loan. Well, I would say if you carve it out, let's say they say they want

quarter of it down on the southwest of that. Mhmm. And then the rest of it you wanted to keep as a park once you're trying to figure out what you want. Then rezone that just commercial.

Gotcha. We we don't have that information yet from them, the specific boundaries of what they need for their business versus what's going to stay as the park. Again, that's something that we could do in the future when I come back and be rezoning a chunk of this again. Back to Back back to park or, or, you know, open space, a couple different options there. But for now, to try and make the land use approval process a little more smooth, it's better if we just have it as a single zone. And since the city council is looking to target a commercial business, we as staff thought the best route would be to propose a commercial zone.

Oh, go ahead. No. Go ahead.

I am new to this, but I feel like once you rezone, yeah, we can go back, but you're giving a lot of responsibility. I mean, commercial is a big change. So what if the city like, like, what if you don't come to an agreement? Shouldn't you come to an agreement first before we rezone it? You're saying you can't come to an agreement without it being rezoned first?

No. It will be it will be more equitable for a developer or the business owner to do something with this property if it's already rezoned to commercial. One of the things that they have to do to get financing in order to build a structure or open a business there, Financing will always check and make sure that that use is allowed in this zone, and currently, it's not. The only thing you could do in this zone is build a tiny bit of housing and then some agricultural use. That's not what the future land use plan had in mind for Wolfpack Way. At one time, it was supposed to stay a little more open like this, but that doesn't seem to be what the future holds for Wolfpack Way. So

there Oh, go ahead. No. That's okay.

We wanna put the work that goes into the rezone on the city so that we can offer that to the people who want to develop there, that it's already commercial, it's already ready to go. It just makes it a better opportunity for the business owner.

So how does it benefit the city then? I feel like we're Because we're going to get the tax that comes from taxes, so that's why. We're just trying to bring in commercial. Yes.

The degree of planning that they would need in order to get financing. I understand that financing is conditional upon verifying that the use of the property they're looking at would work for their business plan. The degree of planning they would have to have together in order to get financing. Would that not also be the degree we would need to determine how much land they would need for commercial also by the time they get that plan put together?

Once the zoning is verified, I don't I haven't done any business financing. But once the zoning is verified by the financial institution, I have never been contacted later by a financial institution asking me for a site plan approval or anything like that. I've only been contacted asking if the zoning is allowed. Zoning verification letters

are what I often write for businesses who are trying to secure financing for a property. So they would look for that prior to me them determining where they would build and how much they would room they would need. Mhmm.

That would all be determined through the site plan process. We would make sure that they're meeting development code and that they've that their site plan works with land use code.

So if it were to be approved to be commercial, is the city considering that that plan with those people with a a sale with restrictions on it? Restrictions as to what has to be done with the rest of the property, or are they considering a development agreement?

So we've bounced a couple of ideas off this developer. And really, the short answer is we don't know yet. We've talked about long term lease. We've talked about splitting it up and doing a subdivision and selling off a piece to the developers. We've talked about doing some sort of public private partnership agreement where it's a joint use and, you know, it's all the same parcel. There's a lot of ideas being bounced around right now, but nothing that has been finalized.

Go ahead, Gina. It feels like there's a ripple effect for potential zoning of the surrounding properties and the effect on them going commercial without knowing how it's gonna be restricted as to its effects to the adjoining parcels?

Well, remember that this isn't we're not zoning this commercial and then putting it on the market. Right. That's not what's happening. The city's retaining ownership. The first step in doing anything worthwhile on this property is to is to change the zoning, to get rid of the split zoning, firstly, and then to make it usable. There are only the parcel to the south is vacant. The parcel after that has a structure that's not in use, I believe. And then the parcel below that is vacant. After that, you have a high density housing development and a junior high. So

I'm I'm not necessarily looking that far to the south. I'm looking to the east. Thane brought it up. There's a Is the east?

Is a development. Out there. Yes. Right there. Mhmm.

And, you know, if making this commercial, unless there were some sort of development agreement saying you can't put your building or parking lot within 50 feet from that from 50 feet of that property line

or what you know, whatever. I just Sure. We do already have development standards in place that require buffering and screening between commercial and residential. Right. And And we've talked about that. Developer. As a,

you know, as a possible issue. I would again, the the question of of my predecessor, I think, was who is this gonna hurt? And we don't know because we don't know your plans. We don't know the plan well, we know your plans, the city's plans, quote, unquote. Those were air quotes, by the way, for the record.

Is

that a double tap on the mic? Yeah. And we know their intention, but if if someone if a private party were to come to us and ask us to do this, would we say yes? Absolutely not. And I would I think the answer is no. We would not. Not without more information and more protections for not only the the people to the east, but the people to the north and the and especially the the water feature. You know, you're not gonna they're not gonna get rid of the water. I know that. It's gonna be coming out of the spring forever. Well, hopefully, we hope. In fact, we're pumping, I think, a bunch of that water out of there. Is that a separate location? Natural. Yeah. It just goes out to the But it's just, like, right next to the pump house. Right? Will you bring up that zoning map again? That vicinity map? Are there water rights associated with that spring that are attached to that property? Mm-mm. So, again, that that's my my one concern. Well, not my one, but my some of my concerns. And, again, I asked the question, if this were a private party asking us to to change this, would we be doing it? No. And I I believe the answer is not without for more information. And that's why a development agreement seems like the perfect solution to that is you make some some of this public access park, and you make the other part commercial. But we can't know what's gonna happen until we see more. That's my

I mean, I get where you're at. You're kinda stuck in the the which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Right? You know, as far as making this all happen. And like I said, if it was if you if this was a commercial of Outdoors that came to us, I wouldn't be in favor of this at all. But I do trust you guys. So you'll just promise that nothing can go in there, that We will gets close to the residential

or to the water feature, then You folks have already put into place development standards to protect residential from commercial, right, in all of the code that you've created throughout the years. You guys have put the city has put But I but I'm not certain that that's airtight. In some places, we haven't

been as good as we could. In other in other instances,

we have made code, new code that was new to our city. And then later, after certain developers had taken advantage of that code, we went back and changed it because it was too much. But it was thousand thousand units were already approved by then. We couldn't change it fast enough. So, yes, I understand that we do have some protections there. Is it is it adequate in this situation for the people that live to the North and to the East? To the South, there are no neighbors yet. To the to the West is the road, and across the road is the is are a few people. But

Well, it's commercial and mixed. So yeah. Yeah.

So the red the red zone, right, just to the north and to the west, those are mixed use.

Yes.

So that's high density housing and commercial.

Can what they are trying to do be done with the resident with the development can it be done with an agreement with a guarantee in there that it'll be allowed to be commercial? Or So the problem with the development agreement is that it requires

more financially from the developer than they would make. It doesn't pencil for them to do a development agreement. They've got to give show that they are giving something to the city. But isn't isn't that the

the trail system or the And it's bringing? Not necessarily.

But where the city owns the property, we already have all We're not getting anything. We we are the owners of company. Unless they put that in there. Unless they put a It's

all about writing the contract. You're basically gonna say, I'm gonna sell you the whole parcel, but you're gonna give me half of it back. That's the development agreement. Right?

I don't think a development agreement works when you're gonna sell. Well, it

it could. I mean, a lot of ifs and Okay. About to I I see. I I know. There's

I I trust the city. I know we do have codes in plan, but a lot of codes need looked at. I know we're Sure. We need to look at a lot of codes. And I was on the council when those codes were written, so I really would not feel confident to say, yeah. All the codes are good, and we'll be fine. I I can't say that. I've also purchased land with commercial use, and I've done loans. And there are loopholes to say, if they're approved, we will change this. We wanna approve the plan. We don't have to change it to commercial. I don't think based in my experience and what I have seen of businesses where you are approved a 100%. I mean, I think they could go and get lending and saying, if we get this, you know

does does that make sense? Sure. But I don't I'm not sure what the point would be because the use that they want to have there is not allowed in that zone.

Well, I guess it just goes back to it's hard to approve it. I mean, I do trust the city, but it's hard to approve it without lots of information because it is opening a can of work. Like, you're just saying it's commercial, and they can really have power to do whatever. Correct? Sure. Except that we're still the owners of the property. And I think it would be great for the city to get businesses. But then will it be weird for the city to just have this one partial commercial and then nothing else is?

Well, exactly to the north is mixed use, which is high density commercial. And then at the other corner of that, you know, just across the street is high density commercial. And then all along Wolfpack Way to that side. Most of the commercial properties on that West Side Of Wolfpack Way have approached the city. Would you say most about rezoning to MX? Or a majority of the commercial properties on the West Side Of Wolfpack Way have approached the city about being high density commercial. This is an opportunity to have a true commercial parcel that is owned by the city that would have a lower impact, a smaller footprint, and we could control

how it's developed through a partnership with the developer. And it would be good for the city. I do see that. I think commercial is good for the city. We we can't function without it. I know. That's for sure.

So with the city is the city looking at I know you said you had a bunch of different ideas that you mentioned. Is the primary foremost goal to once it's commercial, would you need to sell them the property for them to use it? Or what's your are you leaning towards a lease a land lease? Or

So when the city council put out the RFP or request for proposals, in the RFP, it said that the city didn't have a preferred method It was open to a bunch of different options. In talking with this developer, their ultimate goal would be to own the parcel, but we're, yeah, having that discussion right now of are there legal documents that get recorded that say that it's a bunch of easements for public access? Do we split it and the city keeps some? They're very aware that we wanna keep a good chunk of this open for public access, and they are fully on board. And in fact, I think they're building their business model around that. That would So That would be my concern is how do you guarantee if you do the sale,

how tight can we make it so that there's public right of way so we've got easements? And then Right. If there's water coming out of the ground, that's gold.

There's lots of that rights to all of that. Right. There's lots of tools to do that. Really, it's gonna come down to how the city council wants to handle it. You know, we just as city staff, meet with the developers, talk through the plans. But since the city owns this property, nothing can be done on it until the city council votes yes. You know, the planning commission may approve a site plan, but as long as the city owns it, really, the city council determines its fate.

And I would just echo what she said because you guys even said that the people wanting it really do want ownership. So it's just making sure there is city access, the water.

Because if I was buying it for commercial, I would wanna own it. I would want the water. I want I would want it. Mhmm. So All that. And do they understand that you guys want control of all that, that they wouldn't have that access, that that would be publicly would that be controlled by the city, or would you ask them to We've had several discussions about it at this point. They're fully aware of our expectations of that staying open to the public.

So what's your gut feel on how much of this land do they really want? Like, a third of it?

It's parcel.

It's hard to say. Really, when you look at the land, I pulled this up on the regular parcel viewer and did a rough measurement. It's deceiving. A lot of this bank, you actually can't build on. It's even further back than what I've measured. Right. And so, really, your building envelope is gonna be by the time you take out an access for a road, you've got about two acres to work with there. We carve out at least half an acre for all the park and or in the trail, the seating areas that we want. You only got about an acre and a half down there. So by the time you build a building, handful of parking stalls for the employees, plus some parking stalls for your guests, and then you got a drive through. I mean, you're probably only gonna fit a business on, you know, that chunk there, and then you'll have a couple of parking spots. And then we really picture this to be your public access point and keep a lot of that for walking

space. Can you measure from the road from the west to the east borders? West border to the east border.

From here to here? Yeah. Like, the depth of it? Approximately 620 feet.

Near opening there.

Well, usable opening. Really? Yeah. Usable. You see the driveway that's there or the or that's there for driving. Yeah.

Thirty, thirty five feet.

That's really about the whole thing is right away.

Right.

Apparently, room just two cars.

Right. Just When when the city built Wolfpack Way, it was always intended that this would be you would have some public use here, and the city was looking at partnering with somebody to bring in the business. There was a proposal brought in to have, like, a photo studio there at one point, but that that fell through.

Well, being that close to the high school, that'd be bank

walking distance for lunch. Oh, we know kids from the high school walk up to the Maverick to get some food. So

It's because there's good food there.

For for a business that sells food that kids could go get lunch at, it that follows the three rules of real estate, location, location, location Right. For that. So I could see their incentive. I'm sure. I remember way, way back dating myself. Logan High, there was a little gas station across. They made millions a year in the eighties just off junk food to the kids. And that little hostess where they made millions because kids take their money and blow it on lunch and junk. So I guess what I'm saying by that is you guys hold the cards because that's such a unique spot.

Yeah. Let's be clear. The city council holds the cards. We But right. We don't have authority to do anything with the city property. The city holds the cards, and my only concern would be

how tight they can keep the That's what I would be. In the trail and public access. And would the city ever sell?

Completely. Because money

tops. Would it would it be a good idea? We don't know. That would be up to the city council for sure. But when Marcus and I were were discussing what could or should happen with this property, and Marcus explained to me how the city had put out this RFP and asked for businesses to come partner with us, and there were not takers, that that's kind of disheartening because without these commercial dollars, we're not gonna be able to pay for our I mean, you guys know the whole story. And this being I think it's a unique and beautiful parcel, and we were particular about the folks that we were talking to about it because we wanted we don't wanna I know we keep saying a drive through maybe, but the vision for this is a small family owned bistro style, small, not a drive through get a soda place. That's not what we're that's that's not gonna be a Taco Bell. That's not what we're talking about. It's it's somewhere it's a destination for that walking path. Right? The walking path goes right by it. And who doesn't wanna stop and get a treat as you're walking along? This is somewhere to go, to use a walking path, to go somewhere, to go sit by the water, to enjoy being in Hyde Park, to be in this busy ish neighborhood, but be able to get away from that. They've talked about the things they want to plant. They've talked about landscaping and how they wanna create the buffer between them and the neighborhood with landscaping. And I don't think we would be so excited to rezone this parcel if we didn't have a really good idea of what we wanted to partner up and do with this parcel. We really have put a lot of of thought into consideration into this, I think, and I think it has a potential to be something special.

The way it's described sounds like it would be lovely for the community and also for the city for revenue. I think we've all ex I think we're all on the same page of our concerns of it once it's zoned. It's Yeah. It's just special place, and the highest and best use is not a bunch of townhouses in my opinion.

Is this mhmm. Excuse me. When we put out the RFP, that's the responses we got is from developers saying how many houses could I put on it. And the city council said absolutely not. We don't wanna jam pack a whole bunch of houses on this piece of ground. And so, yeah, if we wanted to rezone it as if the city wanted to make a buck, we could rezone it as r five and get a bunch of houses and a fourplex on there and make a lot of money. The idea is not to have a quick return. The city council has been very specific about what they want on there, and that's a commercial property in partnership with some public use and public recreation opportunities.

So in your opinion, since a lot of it since you can't mention the the developer any of the details, and we're we've all mentioned, okay, we trust the city. In your opinion, does this preserve the feel, the open space for the public and public access better than any other use that you can think of? Other than make keeping it apart?

Yeah. Other than keeping it open, developing an actual park, yes. This would probably be the best use.

Is making it a park an option, or is that something not financially feasible?

It's it's something that the city looked at quite extensively with the general plan update. I've got four or five exhibits rolled up in the mayor's office with different ways this could become a park. There's also one in there that shows a restaurant next to the park. And I think the city is just looking for a way to use this land to generate some revenue in addition to providing that.

So get a little bit of park with a with some a bike to

eat. And be a benefit to the city. And some property tax and sales tax for it. Yeah.

When you approached other businesses, how do you go about that? When you say you reached out to businesses, how did you do that? Just developers or actual businesses?

Well, with the when we put out the RFP That's we just let people know it was happening. There was a lot of interest. I had a lot of interest, a lot of phone calls, a lot of people wanting to know more. But then when the deadline came to submit a proposal, there was nothing. So we didn't necessarily have to reach out a ton. We had a ton of people calling us and wanting to know more, but it never resulted in anything.

So park costs money. It leaves it open to the public, but this potential use leaves the principle of open space the way you would envision with the park in conjunction with bringing in a little little money or hopefully a lot of money. Mhmm. And more control

over how it's developed because we're the owners right now.

I guess after I think about this for a while, I guess I'm probably okay with doing commercial now, but I'm not voting for any site plan positively if unless it preserves the north and east We would buffers. We would expect nothing less. Thank you. So that's where I'm at.

Remind us all of the process of if we were to recommend approval and the city council were to approve it to change this to commercial, and then they were to to approve a development of this, how would that development get approved? Would it come through us and we would approve it, or would it still have to go back to the city council to be approved? Planning commission approves site plans.

K. You're the land use authority for them. So

But the city would have to sign off on it if we're gonna retain ownership of any of it. The city would have to be a cosigner on the application. The city council would have to vote unanimously to support the application before it even gets submitted to Mikel to start the review process. K. Alright. And I would I would imagine that the city council would consult with the planning commission at least a little bit in that process. Yeah. You'll you'll have to forgive my

my reluctance to trust the developer Oh, we can. Of past experiences. I'll be flat I I mean, they took they they took advantage of Hyde Park. And I'll just say for the record, we understand.

Yeah.

That's all. And so one once it's sold, even though they gave you a site plan, what's to stop them from changing that plan?

Renewal of a business license. If they wanna stay in business, they'll mind their site plan. We don't renew your business license if you have to be in a development agreement then? No. That's city code.

And there's also the option of the city retaining ownership and leasing?

Mhmm. Or city retaining part of the ownership.

Carving out a piece. What if the city retained ownership and if they do a lease, if that business fails, they have it open to another business? Mhmm. Yeah. Without I mean, if that business fails and they own it, they can turn around and flip it and sell it. But if the city keeps ownership and does a lease, then they if the business happens to fail, that's a great opportunity for another business to come in. These are all It's already the structures are already there. Someone else took the hit. Mhmm. Kinda like buying a used car instead of a used car a new car. But the very first step for anything to happen is that the proper zoning has to be in place

so that we can make plans.

Go ahead.

Oh, I was just gonna make a motion that we recommend approval to commercial, But I'm telling you in the future Is that a real motion? That's a real motion. K. Motion from me. But then on the side, I'm telling you, unless it comes back looking good, I'm not pre I'm voting on any site plan. K. We're gonna hold we're gonna hold you to it. Alright. Deal. Do you approve this. I'll second that with the same caveats of everything we just have said with the Alright. With the crossing fingers, PS, that we hope the city can retain ownership and

have control of that for the future.

Yeah. So we have a motion and a second to recommend approval to rezone this from Mixed split. Mixed use and agricultural Transition. From residential transition,

natural transition, and agricultural to All commercial.

All commercial.

Correct. Correct. Yeah. To all commercial. Okay. Just we have at least two people here, probably three that are gonna be in the city council they know in the meeting. They know how much we discuss this, how concerned we are. I hope those concerns are brought before the city council so that they understand that this is not one way or the other approved or recommended approval or recommend disapproval done lighten lightly. We have lots of lots of concerns, and we can't even you can't even give us the answers to be able to address those concern concerns, which it makes it even worse.

And we'll be right back in front of you when it's Yeah. Site plan time. And and we hope we can answer all of those questions then as well.

Again, site plan is at that point, it has to fit into the commercial regulations, zoning ordinances. It doesn't have to necessarily agree with what the city council thought was gonna happen.

Well, quick question. Will the site would the site plan come back prior to selling it or coming up would would it come back with this is gonna be with a sale or versus this is going to be with a lease land lease?

That's the right answer. It has not been determined, but my advice to the mayor as we've talked about this with him is that the city doesn't do anything with it until we have an agreement signed. So don't turn the property over. Don't do anything until we have some sort of signed Yeah. This plan with an attached plan, and we know how it's gonna be built and how it's gonna be done. Yeah. Good as the city's attorney.

Quite good. Good. I get I get that this is there's not really a give and take here of, you know, the the city getting something beneficial to make it qualify for a development agreement, but that seems to be the only way that we're going to get exactly what we want.

That's still maybe the avenue that we take just because of the unique shape and interests in the property. But

Right. Yeah. It's TBD at this point. K. Didn't you mention, though, they do want to buy it? Like, that is the developers, and they that's their request?

Eventually, that's what they would like to accomplish, but there's a lot of things that need to be worked out until then

or before then. Would their business plan work with Elise? Yeah. Are they have they expressed any willingness to consider that? I mean, there's

there's all sorts of ways that it can work. It's just as business owners, they want to set up something that's long term gonna stay there. And so long term, they wanna retain full ownership of all of their assets related to their business.

Okay. 100% agree with that. I would wanna own it. Right? Who wouldn't? Maybe carve out apart when it comes time to sell once they have that site plan, and that guarantees city control of the just thinking of options out loud. City controls what they wanna control, and if that went under and they sold it, they'd only be selling the part that the city didn't want control over.

That would make the city responsible to maintain that other part. Right. So it With the tax revenue they get from the business. Right? Would definitely become a a park at that point. Alright. Any any further discussion? We have a motion. We have a second to recommend approval to change this from transition and agricultural to commercial. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? K.

Giving you that Look at me. Look at Yeah. Look at me.

I I just wanna say I really do appreciate the thought and the effort that you guys put into this. I appreciate the depth of the questions that you ask and that you take this seriously. I really thank you. I really appreciate that the thought and the work that Marcus and I do is reflected in in you guys taking this so seriously as well.

So if if anything goes wrong, I got there's probably a whole neighborhood of 50 and older, and then this this good resident here is probably metaphorically

gonna punch you in the throat. We're hoping they will all be down there and join.

But if it goes well, she might wanna build a bridge. Right? So you can just get right over to it. Well,

if you're gonna build and sell, that would be a bonus for selling if they have a walking path to go around the corner and get something to eat and go look at the beautiful water flowing by.

So okay. On to the next item. It's an action item to approve and adopt the meeting schedule for 2026.

Did you all get a chance to look at my fancy meeting schedule?

Yeah. It was just every other No. First and third week. There is one week I'd like to bring up. Okay. And that is the week of April 1, I think, is

the date on there. What a great night for a meeting. That falls

into the middle of spring break, and I don't know if there's anyone who would need to

Where is your proposal? I don't is it in box? It is in box. Called meeting schedule. Under the PC meetings?

And it's called meeting schedule twenty twenty six. Back one.

Back up one.

Meeting. Okay.

See how fancy that is?

Oh, it's not in the stuff for tonight. Yes. It is. Go to

01:26.

Go ahead and hit that. And

then right here Oh. Schedule. K. Alright. Were you able to find it, Heather? Yes. I did. Thank you. K. So April 1 is right in the middle of spring break. I don't know if that's Noted. A good time Isn't it great? Meeting or not. We'll find out. Is that spring break or is it the week of the sixth?

I think it's the week of the sixth. I think it's the week of the sixth.

Just looked it up. Oh, you might be right because I did not look anything up. But usually, it's a I was looking it up for vacation dates, and I picked that week because it the week of the sixth because it showed spring break on Green Canyon, but maybe I did it wrong. Yeah. Let's just check.

School district

calendar. I don't have kids in that district anymore, so I don't pay attention.

No. You're you're right, chairman.

Who is it?

School district website. School district website calendar shows spring break April 30 through the third. March 30. Oh, March 30. So they went Oh, yeah. March 30 through April. Sorry. Sorry. I screwed up big time on that. So we'll we will flag that date. We won't necessarily cancel the meeting, but we'll make sure we'll ask if anybody has made plans. And we if we don't have a quorum, then we can have a meeting anyway. So maybe people could push up or push back their Yeah. Projects if they do that. Well, that's why we do this. Right?

Yeah. Thanks for bringing that because my intention was to be gone that week. So And I'm gonna be celebrating

Saint Patrick's Day on the seventeenth, and I don't think I'll be able to be in good I won't be in a good condition to be here. '30 or fifth. There it is. Okay, miss.

We can just have green Diet Coke that night.

That sounds nasty. How about

spring? That's why I gotta switch that. Another brown, green. Another date to know is July 1, and, you know, that's near the holiday. Yeah. A lot of like to take that whole Yeah. We won't cancel that meeting, but as we get closer, if everyone's gonna be gone, we won't have a quorum. Please let us know so we can make sure we move stuff to one agenda or another.

September 2 might be another problem. I know that that's not actually until the fifth or sixth sixth or seventh Probably Monday for Labor Day. The holiday. The holiday is the seventh. Labor Day. The seventh. Okay. Thank you. Monday. But I guess there is school already at that time, isn't there? Yes. So alright. Do we have to do a motion on this one or just say good?

It is an action item. So yes. I make a motion. We approve that with the subject to the caveats on potential conflicts.

K. And I second Okay. Go ahead. I second that.

Congratulations, Heather. Thanks, Heather.

For keeping score. The most motions and seconds gets We have a a motion and a second to agree to approve the the meeting schedule with the caveats of possible conflicts.

K.

K. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Alright. Now discussion item. Definition of a nuisance.

You asked for it, and we have delivered. I pulled this nuisance code nuisance example codes from my planner's dictionary. They will they have put together definitions from all over the country that they feel reflect the best possible definitions for a lot of different terms, and so that's where I went first was my planner's dictionary. And so I did make sure and note what municipalities these were pulled from so you didn't think that I just got them from anywhere. I don't know that any of these are from Utah, but I don't know that that matters. So I don't know if you've had a chance to look through these, but what I did not do was include our definition.

It might just at the bottom? Yeah. It was on That's that's Marcus did that for you, though. He added it. Oh, the HPCMC,

that? Yep. That's ours.

Yeah. I really don't like our definition. It's a little antiquated. Yeah. It's like, whatever kills you is a nuisance.

And at the same time certainly is true. Maybe just isn't broad enough. Right? It also makes you stronger. Yeah. At the same time, looking at some of the other

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Sorry. It doesn't kill you? It's not any sense? Yeah. It's not deadly? But it's strong it makes you stronger. They're gonna be we kill soon.

I did quite a bit of homework on this today.

There is a if you wanna add a I don't know if you can see it or not.

I added a a comment to it. I couldn't see that. I couldn't see it either. I saw the little On the bottom? Just read it. There might be a no. In the It's too long. No. I I just didn't I saw the bubble, and it showed a comment, but I didn't know how to I couldn't see the comment. So the comments in box, you have to open it probably on a a computer or a tablet, and then it'll have the side section, and that will have that has It's not comments. Machine.

Oh, I would have had to cut and paste in about six pages if I'd known I could've do done that. Resolution step machine.

We'll need your back and send it personal.

K. What's that view?

I'm usually the one. There we go. I see a bubble, but I how do I get to the bubble? It's right here. Oh. Well, I have some comments to the nuisance.

I like your comment, Michael, actually. Actually, mine is all

I didn't write that. That's Oh, that's on legal terminology. That's Google. Yeah. Yeah. Google. Yeah. Google.

I think nuisance is a really everyone's gonna have different levels of nuisance. Right. So I think we maybe need to look at how many times maybe the complaint is or from two neighbors because, I mean, a dog barking. I bring this up because that was the situation brought to us was that dogs barking. Dogs bark, and some people's levels are from here to here. You know? I also think as a city, we shouldn't really get involved with dogs barking. I think neighbors need to be neighborly and communicate, and that's also why we have animal control and all that stuff. But when it comes to nuisance, I mean, stuff that kills us is a problem. But maybe, like, something that bugs one neighbor may not bug the other neighbor. So I don't know if, like, we have two complaints. Maybe that then becomes a nuisance or three complaints. I mean, I don't know. These are just thoughts. I'm speaking out loud.

I like that you put because that's a lot of the Google AI stuff. And, actually, this is one that Google got. Right? I checked on that today because when you compare that with some of the law journal reviews of some of the nuisance, My feelings are to stay as close to the common law tort definition of nuisance as possible because it's so well litigated over so much time that you have a lot to fall back on without having to defend yourself with new legal arguments if you get sued. Also, it leaves it has to be pretty extreme because it has to be ongoing, not a one time thing. A one time party has to be, like, ongoing. It needs to be substantial. It needs to be unreasonable. Those have been fairly litigated if you use those extreme words. I saw someone here that said activity or use it as annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious. Well, I could nail a whole bunch of neighbors and people to stare at it down and send their dog to poop on my lawn Every all the time. That's what I'm saying. There's lots of different Every bird that goes up the street is a nuisance. And here's the problem. The city has to be universal in their application of enforcing it. Right. And the more detailed we get, the more we open ourselves up to lawsuits. If we aren't universally applying it to everybody and we end up leaving it based on complaints. Well, that's not fair to some set of neighbors that are more tolerant. If they've got a petty neighbor in one area, then everyone in that area gets enforced way stronger than the area that has a lot of tolerant neighbors. That's really hard to do. We're the government. We're not an HOA. Those are my thoughts on nuisance. So if we stay close to the very extremes of what makes it a common law toward someone could sue on, makes it a little easier. There's a lot to fall back on, like what you put in here unreasonably? Because you have to balance property rights of the owner and whatever the benefit is to them, whatever that they're doing, if there's a benefit to it versus the public's annoyance. And it has to be not subjective. It has to be pretty objective and extreme to where most reasonable people, there's always there's unreasonable in every block, but that the majority of reasonable people would be super annoyed with it and would come and say, this is not okay. So I agree with if we're gonna add to it, follow the common law toward definitions of nuisance private of private nuisance, I should say. There's private and the pro and there's public. Two separate things.

I was thinking that all of these definitions lacked some kind of numerical, you know, not just what's up you know, kinda like you just discussed. I I like the idea of saying the majority people would consider a this that that could some kind of number on it as opposed to just one. So I I like doing something a lot because I I was thinking when I read through it the first time, I'm like, well, we all have different levels. And if only one person's annoyed, then that's not good enough. But so I was on the same line.

Yeah. When I look at our definition currently, it looks to be pretty much the same as a public nuisance definition in the comment that I left, an act that affects an entire community or a large population by endangering health, safety, morals, or comfort. That kind of fits into a public nuisance. It looks like we don't really have a definition for a private nuisance, and that's what we need. Well And that just so you know, the the definition according to this is an interference with a specific individual's right to the quiet enjoyment of their land. For example, a neighbor's loud generator running continuously. I just I again, I we don't know how to write that legally so that it's broad enough and yet narrow enough, but not too narrow as as you were saying.

And if we copy common law tort the basic tort law that gives you a private right of action against your neighbor and make that our nuisance definition, you have a wealth of case law supporting that definition. And you can see how no. No. No. No. There's we don't need to in this No. In this instance, I don't think. And and the part that renders soil, air, water, food, you know, that that covers your general things. It's unreasonable if you've got runoff from someone's that's affecting their ability to grow certain things. You should never have runoff. Or if it's air, if there's an odor coming from a neighbor continuously that's affecting you know, if they're running something that's burning next door and you can't enjoy the backyard because of the smell, that's the air. Soil, definitely, if you affect soil so that your neighbor's soil is damaged, that's a nuisance. But yeah. If we go back to the common lots all in there, lots Black's Law.

Is do you think the it almost sounds like the first definition from Wood River, Illinois to be the closest to what we're trying to trying to get? Anything First bullet point? Anything Yeah. Condition or conduct that in that endangers health and safety or unreasonably offends the senses or obstructs the free use and comfortable enjoyment of property or essentially interferes with comfortable enjoyment of property or of life? The first part,

I would agree with. Second part, if it obstructs or define comfortable enjoyment of your property or interfering with your comfortable enjoyment, that's very subjective. Well But if we if we go with the substantial interference, leave it on the extreme.

Again, you've got in that comment that I made, the legal elements, what has to be proven to to be

And those are your I think those are common law, like, basic four elements. Right. Substantial

interference, unreasonableness, and possessory possess

And having the definition, we still need to look at just, like, the animal code. Like, we need to relook at all that, which would then put stipulations on certain things. Correct?

Right. I I think the goal that we have is to start with clear everything. We have code to follow that. That. Yeah. Start with the umbrella. And then like I pointed out here in this little narrative paragraph I wrote, there's a ton of references to nuisance as well in the code. And so, hopefully, by fixing or redefining what is a nuisance, that may fix a lot of it, but there's also several instances where we know we're gonna have to get into the weeds and deal with it, you know, piece by piece. Like, an animal nuisance is very different from the general nuisance.

So we'll have to get into that as we go. Think if we stick with terms of, like, unreasonable substantial interference with use and enjoyment that significantly disrupts unreasonable harm, then you you keep it from being a being a minutia thing and make it it has to be pretty darn big and ongoing. And I'd be happy to send I was trying to I didn't have the comments, so I would cut and paste a bunch of this.

Maybe I'll do that after. Yeah. If you wanna just email your comments directly to Mikael and myself, then we can start putting that together. Because we're talking private nuisances,

but we're talking about codify.

Do we need to have it divided? Do we need to have a private nuisance and a public nuisance?

Our code does separate those out. We have a definition for both

so we can because I think we should work on that. Have it both. They're they're technically, legally, completely different because public gives the whole right, and it's usually enforced through fines or injunctions from the city and the government versus private. It's neighbor to neighbor enforcement, but can also have the force of law if there's not a resolution type thing. Yeah. It's between smaller amounts of people. It's not a public right. It's a private right. But I do like the majority. I do like putting a number.

I I just do. Whether it's large or small, again, people's opinion of what large and small could be different. So if there's a majority,

I kinda think that should be looked at. Yeah. And Or putting a number of something. I have to think there's a reason why none of these codes have a number in it. That's So we'll talk to the city attorney and figure out Yeah. If there's some reason why majority by def just We don't need a put over half Even if it said just word majority.

Doesn't really put a number, but it kinda sounds like a number.

But that's where if you have your extreme adjectives in there. And, again, if we copy what has been litigated, we aren't creating something new that we would have to litigate what majority is. Do we have to take a vote? Do we have you know what I mean? The closer we stay, unless the less legal fees and the less defensing the more defensible it is from the get go. We can say, hey. It's been litigated. Here's all the case law. Yeah. They've already litigated this privately for private toward actions, and so we're just cutting and pasting what will work. We've got all that behind us instead of, like you say, removing the wheel, we open up a bunch potential for the city to have to fight it and defend it. But then going back through code, that would we could be more specific.

Because I think the ant we said animals hasn't been looked at for a long, long time. Mhmm. So we do need to look at that. It was animal's nuisance, but we also have animals what's allowed. Right? That's separate from That's completely different. Yeah. Yeah. There's a specific ordinance. I think it's called nuisance animals. It is. And I only bring up animal because of that was our letter from a concerned citizen. There's a lot of nuisance. I agree.

Yeah. The animal nuisance, the 7.2 o point o nine o is pretty detailed. And based on that, there's a lot of nuisance going on, but I think neighbors just tolerate a lot from each other. Yeah. When

That was like, wow. Mikhail and I were going through the animal code. The planning commission asked us to kinda go through it and present some highlights last year. And as we were going through it, we said these are HOA rules. These aren't city codes They're great. Really. And so we never brought that back to this group because you said there's too much to present to quickly present that we feel like is a problem. And so we feel like by starting with this, we can start tackling the other pieces of this that are related to nuisances and code enforcement.

And I would say if it's too much to present, it's probably too detailed to enforce properly and equal handedly between the entire community. That's tough. We have to be able to enforce equally Yep. And defend it legally.

I agree with that.

K.

We have a lot of work to do.

So do you guys maybe write up a paragraph and represent it, or how does that work?

So we have your comments. If you wanna email us if any of you have other comments, email them to us. We'll put together a new definition review with the city attorney, and then we'll bring it back again.

K.

And if we gotta workshop it again, if it's good, then we'll schedule a public hearing and start the actual ordinance approval process to get it changed. And then in the meantime, if any of you wanna go into the other parts of code that talk about nuisances or animals and you wanna start doing kind of a similar thing, put together some research, find other codes that you like, it'd be a good time to start doing that.

Used to read the draft notes.

Yeah. But aren't we doing parking first? Wasn't there a parking? We we kind of did a level of bullet points. Right? So we kinda wanted to work I mean, we still can yes. I mean, we still will look at that. I will look at that, and I'll do some research. But we wanted to hit parking, I thought, before animals. I'm just trying to keep us

Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying. About a year's worth of work if we don't add anything else to our agenda for the

year. Try our best.

We won't be we won't be bored.

Alright. Any other future items that we want to talk about? I think you mentioned parking already before we get into the animal stuff. But

anything else specifically? I have a future item that I would like to ask fellow planning commissioners to just look into, and maybe you guys too, as we keep growing to look at the potential of and, again, we don't wanna overregulate, but a very lenient dark skies ordinance. Have you heard of those?

Yes. I have. Oh, yeah.

Some of the areas where I've seen that implemented went way too far HOA level. Others were general enough that it it benefited the nocturnal animals, and it kept light from going from one property to the other because everything had to be downward. It had to be a certain tone. It couldn't be the Vegas bright LED facing outward towards neighbors. And it was so it it left all the freedom of your property rights with putting lighting up, but it restricted after, you know, middle of the night, 2AM. It doesn't matter unless it's a walkway, a driveway for safety reasons. Some of the brighter lights that were facing outward, they had to be off by a certain time. It help it affects the animals at night, and it affects the dark skies if you look outside. It's we live in a beautiful area. It has beautiful stars that disappear very quickly when a whole bunch of people have a bunch of lights outward facing bright LED. Like trespass. Pardon? Like trespass. Yes. And that's something that we need to be forward thinking about. That would be my proposal. I love it. Again, not HOA. I tend to lead beyond that.

To be clear, you don't wanna shoot for dark skies designation. We're not trying to go that far. We just want a light press pass Correct. Ordinance

related to design plans. No. And I only use that because I think using any other word wouldn't trigger the thoughts of where I'm going. So I'm not saying we wanna be designated that, and we don't want that. K. Doesn't matter what they offer some money. We don't want it. Yes, ma'am. I don't think we could anyway with the rest of the the valley. Right. Yeah. It's too bright. I know in our name, our fellowship. So Yeah. It would have to be the whole valley that that can Yeah. But more so if after a certain time, anything that's not on a walkway, driveway gets turned off. And from here you know, some people are already outward facing Like, Christmas can't change those. Are on that are, like, huge and bright and in my bathroom

window all night long?

It's more of a it's more of a time time and direction, and you can't change what people already have. But as we are building more and more and going further uphill and out, it would be nice to say, hey. If you're gonna go do your permanent lighting, it needs to be downward facing, not outward so that it's not going on to everyone else's property. It's not bright. And so that you've got nocturnal animals. It really does make a difference at night for the animals that are going around if we don't have bright light all over. And for people like me who like to sleep at night. Yeah. You shouldn't have to pull your blinds down at night to sleep Yeah. Because of lights.

In my townhouse neighborhood, it's it's just lit up all the time. There's Yeah. Night. And it's something to consider for the city

for future for streetlights to check Well, I know there are streetlights

that have been broken because it shines into people's homes. So, therefore, it's now pitch black, which isn't safe either. So There needs to be a good medium.

And that's where if we have a regulation that says, it's not saying you can't do this with your property. It's saying when you do it It has to be shielded. The boundaries. And even the tone, a lot of them, the ordinances will say it has to be this, and it gives you the guidance. It has to be a warm light, not a bright, which changes how it feels. Again, Vegas versus a cottage community. It's the difference in lighting. Lighting's everything. Mhmm. Okay. Love that.

Right. Anything else? Future. What where are we on, like, park master plan or something like that? You'd said something a while ago. Is that something that's gonna be part of what we're doing here? Or

It may. It may not. So we applied for a grant in December. They'll let us know if we got it or not probably by March. It's through Udot. And so if we get that grant, we'll begin it or study ASAP, and it really just depends on the consultant we get and how their procedure goes. Yeah. I mean, we're gonna get a lot of general public input. That's the plan. But if it's gonna be something specific the planning commission is gonna be working on a public meeting, I don't think so. Probably lots of work sessions, but

probably not, like There will have to be a public hearing before it's accepted, though. Right?

Before it's adopted? Right. Part of that is going to be having an impact fee associated with our parks and recreation. We have one now, but this is gonna update it. And so we will have to have a public hearing if we're adopting the something into the fee schedule. Is the trails part of that same grant? Mhmm. The park So, really, the focus is going to be the trails and connectivity between the parks, and the parks is kind of like an afterthought of the the study. So we'll look at mostly connecting the city in a non motorized way and trying to get people to destinations like city hall, like the parks, like, you know, the future higher density areas that are coming so people don't have to get in their car to make it across Hyde Park. That's really the focus of the study. And then accessory to that is how do we make the parks a place where people want to go and get out of their houses and go on the trails to get there?

Does it address, like, where we're deficient in parks?

Mhmm. That's part of the scope is to look at Okay. Areas where we might wanna start planning to have more recreation areas to get people to.

K. Alright. That's it. That's all I got.

Anything else?

I would make the recommendation that city council please listen to the first hour of our meeting as they go walking. I know Stephanie did that last the other day. She's like, listen to the meeting as I went walking. I'm like, not your average person's fun, but it it would be hard for anyone present tonight to sum it up really quick. And since there were so many concerns, it'd be nice if the recommendation was made. Is there a chance they could listen to that portion of the discussion?

K.

Hear it from the horses the four horses' mouths, so to speak.

Alright. Looks like I make a motion to adjourn. Second it. Right. We have motion to adjourn. We have a second. Yeah. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. I saw you leaning.