Hyde Park City's Zoom Meeting

Click two. Let's try that. It's achieved. I just click. I get the Excel. Would you send me to It is hard. It's mostly easier.

Oh, no. I'm featuring sorry. It's starting to start our voices recording, but

I see how they set up the rooms. It says record. I've stopped there some But the problem shows there on the side. So they for anyone closer to them when they create a set. You hit this button. Start recording.

Session wants the readiness to

The livestream is just a courtesy.

So the last three or seven months being the father that's what you've been talking about last week? Yeah. Yeah. As you were being a Zoom.

K. So We just didn't

recognize it until we took so then do you see. Here. Oh, shoot. That's it. Okay. So we ended up not approving the minutes last time. That's really good. Yeah. I was I was on the back up to So the first thing that Facebook did. It's a great and I was introducing, like, who was here. Yeah. So Kellogg came up. Yeah. So I was talking with Kellogg at the end, and that I think when I said They said hello. I approve. I Oh, no. Bounce on me. But you're like, oh, by the way, I've never cared about. I had been there from the beginning. Okay. So I do. I have with me today, pal. You know what? This for a minute. September after the show. My key problem. So one Yeah. I see. I don't know. So sorry. I like I like moved. He walked around. Like, we moved. We walked around. I live. We're not in the long term anymore. I was just getting dinner with my teacher. Yeah. And I was like, my daughter, she had a baby. And so then I went downstairs and turned my camera But it isn't and she's like, her camera's back on. Like, which do not not supposed to be hard. Most people don't wanna do. I just wanted to show them what's best. Are impressive. Yeah. And I still love the Haven technology. Which is fine. Like, it's fine. I just wanted to be involved. And

Most of the time, like, if it's just this,

you know, then we'll see, like Right. That up there with the Zoom. But when you're making those notes on there, none of the Zoom will kinda show up. Zoom. So let's I don't know. Anyways, if I was there report that it's his team's market. No. It's all that. I mean, I might have been too long. We were going to Yeah. I thought we're at a seven. So it might have taken me to see what A minute. A minute, but I was there. Fifteen minutes even. Yeah. For index.

Now we're ready.

I was late. You how quickly you start the recording? We've not even hear me.

So Saturday, we take off. On the last one? Fishing? It's been slow on the seventh. It's a little slower than you. It'll come. You might be there, Dwight. We might be there just as it starts to My dad ramp up. My dad was always at July 15. That's one minute. Yeah. That's the that's the day, isn't it? Yes. My phone says 06:59.

So But he so he would go start. Out of state.

So

that'll that's your weirdest.

Oh, last year was incredible. It's just like You just kinda threw your line in and then pulled out a fish.

I was there. What did you look? Oh. White people didn't find five no. Perfect. So they it's just a

So or this is or Marcus is.

Alright. We're gonna get started. Yeah. Welcome to the Hyde Park Planning Commission meeting. Today is Wednesday, July 15 Yes. 2026, and it's 7PM. We have everyone present here today. Some commissioner Lee, we have commissioner

four years. That's right. Taylor,

commissioner Williams, commissioner Mose, and commissioner Hansen. And commissioner Hansen has agreed to give our opening remarks, which is prayer of thought and the pledge of allegiance.

Give her prayers. Our dear father in heaven, we're grateful unto thee for our many blessings. We're grateful for the freedoms we enjoy. We're grateful for this community we live in and all the great people that are here. We're grateful for those that serve us in all of very many ways and for our neighbors. We ask that we'll please bless this bless us in this meeting that we will be led to do good things for our community. Bless us that we'll be civil. Please bless any of those in our community that have special needs, health, or otherwise. Bless them. They'll they'll be watched over. And we pray for these things humbly 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. Thank you. Last meeting, we had too many changes on our June seventeen minutes. So let's get those up to the tonight, and then we'll get to the July 1 meeting. So June 17. Commissioner Hansen?

I have no comments on Commissioner Mohs? No changes.

Commissioner Williams? Taylor?

Okay. I look for a motion on June on the June 17. Make a motion that we approve those minutes on the sixteenth or the June 17.

I'll second that. K. We have a motion by commissioner Hansen, a second by commissioner Mose. Any further discussion? Alright. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. Those passed unanimously. Then we have from our last meeting, July 1, The meeting the minutes from July 1. Again, commissioner Hansen.

I had one comment on page eight. Somebody else brought up the boilerplate template thing, not me. So I I wondered about that too.

One of these too. Section?

Page eight, paragraph two. Was that you, commissioner Williams, that I thought she brought that up. Not the boilerplate. I brought up a lot of other things, things, but I didn't do that.

You know how

I think that was me. I do too. If it's the boilerplate template for development agreements, that was me. Yeah. K. K. That's the only comment I have.

K. Commissioner Mose?

I have no changes.

Commissioner Williams?

Nope. That would have been to me. K. Commissioner Taylor?

Yes. I was actually present the entire session, and it says that I am absent and initially noted and joined partway through. I was I was there the whole time. We just didn't recognize her.

Hey. I'll look for a motion on the July 1 minutes.

I make a recommendation that we accept the minutes from July 1 with the changes that have been noted. And I will second that. K. We have a motion by

commissioner Moe's and a second by commissioner Taylor. Any further discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passed unanimously too. Okay. Next is our planning staff report.

Just a short update on applications and developments underway right now. I have four preliminary plats under evaluation. I have two site plans, three plat amendments, one CUP, and then we're currently reviewing gateway's development agreement and subdivision plat amendment. In our office, we're currently working on a subdivision improvements agreement or to go along with PLAAFPs. Now we will record the improvements that were agreed to. So that's all in one package and can be found historically or looked up by title report. So we're adding the subdivision improvements agreement to our subdivision plat as required things that will be recorded. So Kyle and I are working on that verbiage, and it will come as a discussion item to you folks before we pass it. We're also working on site development standards for our new zone, and we'll talk about that at the end. And that's all I have. Yes. We will. Question on the CUP. I don't wanna know who it's from, though. What is it for? It is for industrial use in a commercial zone in Long Wolf Pathway.

Okay. I think I may have heard of that.

Okay. Thank you. No administrative items on our agenda tonight, just legislative items. We have two public hearings. The first one is for some changes to our definitions and changes and additions to some of our definitions, which we've talked about for a couple meetings. Do you have a staff report on that specifically?

I do. I'm going to, pass that off to my intern, Kyle, who led the discussion on this at our last Great. Kyle, you're up.

Perfect. Thank you. So ordinance twenty twenty six ten mends section 12.12 o dot o one o, the definitions. The purpose of this these definition changes is to be consistent with state code. Accessory dwelling unit, internal accessory dwelling unit, and detached accessory dwelling unit have been amended to match state code definitions. Retail sales establishment is being defined to reduce extraneous language in the land use table section. In addition, changing the format of the definition section would be beneficial for both consistency and clarity across city code. Each title and section of HPMC HPMC, excuse me, uses different formatting, whereas the Utah legislative drafting manual and style guides suggest having the word in quotations followed by means and then the definition. Large cities as well as the state of Utah follow this template. And so exhibit d shows an example of what this would look like in Hyde Park code. So that was a recent addition to this ordinance. And moving forward, similar changes will be made to other sections to increase the uniformity barcode. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We've already talked about this a couple times. So We make a motion that we accept

the,

ordinance twenty twenty six dash 10. Do we do we have to have a public

Oh, that's right. Sorry.

Yeah. I was with you, Mike. I was right there. I was ready to go. I'm all I'm all for being a heavy thing.

You've lost me now. We will have the public hearing before we vote on this. Alright. K. I'm going to before I open the public hearing, just some generic rules. We encourage all participants to follow the rules of decorum by behaving with polite, respectable, and dignified conduct. Please state your name for the record, speak clearly into the microphone, and take no more than three minutes. Please phrase your comments as statements, not questions. A public hearing is an opportunity to share facts and information about the topic and not an exchange or dialogue, and we, commissioners, need to remember not to respond either. We can take notes and answer to it, like comment on it later, but it's not meant to be back and forth during the public hearing. Please make sure your comments are factual, accurate, and original, and that they are addressed to the commission. Okay. I'll open the public hearing for ordinance twenty twenty six dash 10 for definitions, additions, and changes. K. Seeing no comment, I will close the public hearing.

Yeah. I'll take that motion now. Oh, you lost me. I'm not doing it, Nathan. You had your chance.

I'll make I'll make a motion then. I'll make a motion that we approve this definition amendment to the number that was given before. 12.201220

o one o? Oh, title 12. K. I'll second that.

K. We have a motion by commissioner Hansen and a second by commissioner Mose. Any further discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passes unanimously, all five of us. K. We have another public hearing. We'll on this one to repeal zones r t, the mixed which is residential transition, the mixed use, and the r two, which is also residential kind of half acre zone. We'll take a staff report on that from one of you. Kyle?

Perfect. K. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash 11 amends the r two, r t, and m x d code. This ordinance would cease development applications and zoning map amendments for the r two and m x d zones and repeal the r t zone. Current standards would apply to vested developments in R 2 and MXD. However, since there are no vested developments or pending applications in the RT zone, the zone itself can be repealed. The commission preferred to have the added language at top of each section, and this change is now reflected in the ordinance exhibits. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. That was a great addition. Thanks to commissioner Mose. K. We will open the public hearing then for ordinance twenty twenty twenty six dash 11 to repeal the residential transition, the mixed use, and the residential two zones. Anyone want wishing to speak to that item can come forward at this time. Same roles at play. In case I scared you out the first time. K. No comment. So we will close that public hearing, and I would look for a motion on this item.

Before we do that, just a just a comment real quick, just to ensure that we change the dates effective from the fifteenth to the twenty second if that's when the city council approves it. No. And I'll make a motion to, recommend approval to the city council, approval I'm sorry. Recommend approval of ordinance twenty twenty six dash one one to the city council.

I'll second that motion.

Okay. We have a motion by commissioner Mose and a second by commissioner Williams to approve this ordinance, change, repealing, and Recommend approval. Recommend approval. Right. Sorry. Recommending approval to city council. Alright. Any further discussion? K. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. Another one passes unanimously and timely. K. We're up to discussion items. We'll start with the rezone criteria proposal. And does staff have a report for us on that?

We sure do.

Thank you.

Okay. So this is the rezone criteria, for considering zoning map amendments. Specific additional criteria will ensure thorough examination of each amendment. But before we dive into that, I would like to bring to the commission's attention a recommendation from legal experts, various lawmakers, and the federal rules of evidence, civil court, and criminal court. They emphasize that the word shall has become both ambiguous and outdated. It can mean a variety of things depending on the context, and the courts have ruled in a variety of different cases, including a 1995 Supreme Court case that shall does not imply requirement. Thus, future ordinances, including the one that you're about to see, will begin this language transition to be in compliance with the 2010 plain language act and prevent any confusion about the language down the road. Wow. So this is a pretty recent change. Obviously, the the state has not adopted this. It has started on the federal level and, specifically, the judicial branch on the federal level. Congress has not approved it or updated this yet. But there has been many court cases where shall is ambiguous. And so just to increase the clarity as well as to make you know, shall is a outdated sort of archaic word. And so the plain language act encourages removing shall from our city code.

That seems crazy to me. Alright. We've trusted that word for a long time, but we knew that meant must. Okay? Interesting.

K. So the general updates to this one is, again, as I mentioned, we're changing all of our musts to shall or will or is or may, whatever makes more sense in the context. Future ordinances should also include this new language. Furthermore, we're ask adding master plans to be considered, and we're using the word is versus would be, just to make it more grammatically consistent. K. For our main edits, for our first criterion, we're adding compatibility and density with overall use and character just to sort of encapsulate the full vicinity of the area that's being considered.

Oh, sorry. Go ahead. No. You're fine. All of these can be argued. If shall can be argued, I'm thinking anything can be argued. Right. Go ahead.

The world has crumbled before that.

I've always I have always thought that shall is ambiguous, and I always wanted must. And I was told not to use it to use shall here. Your fault with him. You went you went over our heads, Mike? I I went over your heads, and that's I've always thought that. Fine. Just a have a number.

Right?

I can go now.

So shall not will become must not? Yes. Or will not?

Depending on the context. Okay. Number three, just make sure that the proposed use is consistent with the use table. And then number four considers the impact on traffic, specifically traffic congestion, road safety, pedestrian ass access, and public transportation. K. The second to last one is considering the natural environment. So the topography excuse me. Topography, geology, hydrology, and ecology of the property, and environmental hazards or impacts. And then finally, it concludes with community needs and city benefit. What we're trying to ask with this is what will be improved by approving this? Why is this going to be, a benefit for the city? So, yeah, those are the, proposed changes.

Thank you. Thank you. So if you folks remember a few months ago, we brought this before planning commission. The question was, are our rezone criteria enough? Do we need other rezone criteria? Do we need more rezone criteria? And, I didn't get a lot of suggestions, and so I did my own research and took all of the suggestions and the discussion that we had about this a couple of months ago and gave it to Kyle. So here's where we're at is these excellent additions to rezone criteria. I think these will be super helpful to make thoughtful decisions about rezones that speak to code and speak to actual criteria instead of having to have, a feeling or a, overwhelming number of citizens chime in one way or the other. So this this should help clarify, when a rezone's going to happen and by what criteria.

Okay. Probably supposed to have a motion, but I imagine there's some comments to go. Someone wanna make a motion, and then we can discuss it?

Is there I don't think there's any motion. It's just been Oh, sorry. What was the problem? Approve. This is the Never mind. K. Listen. You guys are so used to just getting in there. I know. So I Sorry. Hate that. Hey. Discussion. For today. Commissioner Hansen.

It seems like on number four, I like the list, but it seems like it might need one or two other things to the list because the two that that popped into my head are you know, you've got some kind of an emergency and you're trying to egress your citizens out of an you know, the transportation system's trying to get people out. I don't know if that's necessarily covered by that, those ones that are on the list. So maybe something along that line. Those kinds of master plan. By development standards

and by the development of the roads and the structures. This is just rezone criteria. Yeah. This So what would This is we would say here is if somebody was proposing a rezone to a high density area, what would be the traffic impacts of just general high density development for this parcel? Right? We wouldn't specifically be talking about access points or road widths or anything like that. We would say, as it sits right now, can this neighborhood support the thing that would be allowed in this zone or the uses that would be allowed in this zone? I guess what I'm saying is, would that neighborhood dump too much

traffic onto other parts

of the city? That's something that you would have to determine through probably a traffic study or something like that. Right. So we can take initial opinions, engineering opinions, and DRC feedback Right. About stuff like that into consideration, and this lets us ask for that.

I I think also the one document that would you'd look to is the traffic master plan, which is up there in g. So that's part of g. And that's one of the things that has to be consistent with is with our I think you have to go to the next page. Oh, too far. There are g. There's just the original, the red line. Right there. Yeah. It's the red line. It's on page two of three. Change the shower last time. Yep. They're adding that in there. So we have to use that as one of our criteria, one of the sources of information as to whether or not it's meets the other eight criteria for consideration.

I mean, it's kinda it's kind of somewhat implied in the traffic congestion. But Do you have, additional verbiage to suggest? No. No. I was just I was just reading the list. I'm like, are we really covering that issue? Or Okay. Can public safety get to things with this? You know, that that was another thing that was are the both of those things covered in DRC. In in the whole thought process of considering a rezone?

Yes. One of the people who attends our DRC

is our fire chief. Right. I understand that. But do we need to put anything in here to say that? Could we say ease of access as something? Say Consider safety? Public safety. Not just road safety. Yeah. Maybe that would be Public safety in general. Yeah. Alright. That's all. That's my two thoughts when I read through that. I mean, it's not saying that they're mandatory. I'm just saying that those were it seemed like there was a hole there.

K. Commissioner Mohs?

I don't have anything to add. I like that it gives us these things to look at and to review before we start to consider a a request to change someone's zoning.

Thank you. Commissioner Williams.

I would need to look I would want more time to look at this before I make a comment,

actually.

K. I wonder, like, right there, consider before it's the list of one, two, three, do we need to say consider each or consider every or all or just that it's not like, consider one or two of these? I mean, I don't know. Applicable? That you're covered by. Well, I Just before it starts to get to the one, two, three. Mhmm. Authority must also consider

All of the fall

Yeah. Every Yeah.

About that. I think we're okay. I mean Well just because you consider it doesn't mean that you're going to actually Yeah. Even use it. Yeah. Although we ought to at least consider it.

I would on it. I He must.

I would like more than just ought to. On number three, where we have 12290, can you just put the title that that's the land use table also?

This may be fine, but I just want to ask on number six, when it says the proposed amendment may adversely affect, that could that's really wide. You know, someone might say, oh, that's not affecting that area too much. Like, is there more guidelines, more specifics, or does it follow a table I'm not aware of? No. That's

currently in our code, and that's one of the ambiguous criteria that we talked about in our discussion that tends to have people draw a conclusion or have an opinion. We can look into this one additionally and maybe come up with specific criteria that lead us to what we're looking for is something that DRC can give us, members of DRC can give us to speak to these criteria for you to consider. So we can definitely tackle that language. Maybe that's different. Yes. Open.

Or mhmm. I feel like it is not Like, to to say. Yeah. It's just really if we can't say shall, I I think this is a big can of worms. But Agreed.

That it shouldn't be so oh?

Damn back. Successful.

I probably would take it out because I don't know how you can pinpoint it unless we just can look at the wording. I disagree with taking it out just because I think that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. We might need to just

narrow the language a little more specifically. More specific. Mhmm. K? Ned, what do you got? So it's I'm back at a comment before about putting the word, like, consider all. That that seems to imply that this would be the only things you need to consider. You may wanna say something at least the fall all of the following. I like that. Could be bad as you don't get boxed into, oh, it's something outside of this list Okay. That we At a minimum. At a minimum, yeah, kinda thing. Okay.

Many good stuff. Must they must consider the following,

but not limited to. Right. Something like that. Any of those. But not limited to. Must be similar. We wanted to give ourselves some wiggle room.

And I don't I think we ought to also in number six. If you want to make that less ambiguous. I would also I even take out may and adversely and put effects. So it could be a positive effect. How much does it affect positively? Doesn't have to always have an adverse effect. Of course.

Should we also include

some kind of finding a fact with that? I think we need more facts k. Personally. Because I still think even if we took out May adversely effect, it's like it's just still really open in my opinion.

I I don't know if when we're talking about adjacent properties, I don't know if we can actually look into the future with facts. We we may be able to with, like, transportation studies, but that would fall under number four.

Well, that's why I mentioned if we remove it because aren't there other guidelines to even have it pass through

other channels before it's approved? This is this is where we get the children will die type response from neighbors, or this sounds like the best thing since cooking with Christo. Christo. So, you know, it

I think it it's helpful to remember that these are this is reason criteria, not a project criteria. This isn't a drawing before us. This isn't a project. This isn't a subdivision or a development. This is whether or not this whatever could happen in this zone, no matter what they say they're going to do, are you willing to have anything that could be allowed in this zone be in this property? Even though they often come with saying, we're gonna do a nursing home. We're going to do a drive in. We should be considering anything that can could be in the zone they're at they're requesting.

Yeah. Like a gas station. Right. Which I think

I don't know if that changes some of the discussion that we're having, but this isn't for specific projects or developments. Just a rezone. Yeah. And I don't mean to say just because a rezone's a big deal, but approving a rezone is different than approving a development.

Well, six is a prime example of the next thing thing we're gonna talk about. So I don't wanna distract with it, but I wanna say this is one of the reasons why CUPs are being removed. Right? Because the conditions that you're trying to mitigate sometimes are are not factual. They're ideas. This could pollute the air. This could cause a noise problem when there's no facts before you that say that it will. And so is six really something are adverse effects something we really need to consider, or should this be more about can the infrastructure and all of the things that exist now support any use that could be developed in this zone? So I'm kind of I mean, not that my vote counts, but I'm kind of with Heather. I I think if we try to guess the adverse effects that any use allowed in this zone might have, then that's a guessing game, and that's certainly not a game we wanna play. So I think it's it's definitely worth some thought, and maybe you guys can send us some email feedback on that. But it's certainly worth some good thought about whether that needs to stay in or go away or be modified, for sure.

I think I think almost anything we consider, a lot of it on this list, they are projections. They're estimates and guesstimates to the future. Nobody's got a crystal ball, even traffic. We're making statistical guess, statistical estimates based on past information. So we can't rule out just because we're guessing at the future, we can't rule it out or we have to rule out all of the estimates that we're given. I think we need to leave something open and consider that there might be something out there that we aren't aware of that doesn't fall under traffic and these other things that might be brought to our attention by an adjacent property owner. K. I think we need to be open to there are things that we may not know, and we can rule out just emotions. When we hear those things, we can say, okay. Thank you. We'll consider you know, that's emotional. We don't say that out loud, obviously. You know, we don't but we can consider we're capable of filtering out what's emotion and what's fact when we hear it, and I think that's our job. Sure.

Yeah. I think it should stay in at some in one form or another just because, I mean, you're it there's not a hard line criteria. It's just like, you should think about all these things before you do it, and thinking about the neighbors is a good thing to think about.

K.

We'll definitely work on that. I mean, the wording may be tweaked, but I think the concept of thinking about the neighbors is a good thing. K. And if you guys have specific suggestions

or arguments one way or another for some kind of verbiage, definitely let us know that in the coming week or so. And this isn't saying that that pushes us one way or the other. It's just saying we have to consider. We should think about it. Need to we need to at least think about it.

It should go on the pros and cons list at the top form.

K. Hey. Any other discussion from commissioners on this on rezone criteria? K. Is that good from staff?

K. Thank you. Those are all really helpful suggestion. K. Next are the

land use table revisions two point o. Okay. And remember

that you heard this as well. We talked about this, but it came to our attention that it needed some before it didn't make it to city council. This is why I should let Kyle speak. It didn't go to city council. I held it because it occurred to me there were more changes that needed to be made before it went to city council. And instead of pushing it on with things you had not heard, we decided to bring it back to you. Did we already vote on it? You did. You voted to approve, but I felt like it was correct to bring it back to you with additional

Substantial

changes. Final changes. And I'll let Kyle explain all the things that we did to this, and he's put it together nicely for you. Alright, Kyle. Cool.

So the Excel spreadsheet that's part of the packet, mister Layton graciously put together a line by line sort of edits of what was edited. Here's what the final product would look like, assuming all of these changes go through. And I created some slides going over categorically some of the changes that were made. So first with the headings and titles, we're renaming the heading to 12 dot 290 dot 10 just to be consistent with the rest of the code. We're also starting the transition to our new zones that we're writing. So we're titling these low density, medium density, high density, etcetera, but we're keeping the designations of r two, r four, and r five until the new zones are created. So down here. So those standards are still in place until we pass the new ones. We're removing the RT and PUD zones. As you recall, we're repealing the RT zone, and then the PUD is an overlay, so it shouldn't be a part of the zones. We're also adding this use specific standards, column. This is going to reference the related part of the code. And as we get more definitions or as we update the code, we will be able to add its, related reference in that column. Are there any comments for this slide?

I just think it was motioned on the colored tablet to have the top the headings on every slide because it gets confusing. I I swear we asked that. We we did. Okay. We did. It's a top it's a format situation

Okay. For the heading to stay. So But this isn't what you see on the website. It's not. Okay. Yeah. I didn't know. You see one continuous

Okay. I just On the website, the heading stays there as you scroll through? Yes. That's the intention. What about lines across? I remember Melinda said something, and I agree with that. Some kind of a line Yes. Between Agree. Agree. I'm sorry. Very hard to scroll across and keep track.

I'm sorry. I was about to say something, but I wasn't sure if it was my turn. It's your turn. I see that underneath the the name of the zone, we're still using our old zone names or designations, R 2, r 4, r 5. If I remember right, r two or the low density residential was actually an r four or larger lot.

So low density is gonna be a combination of agricultural and r two. It's gonna be the lowest density that we have.

Are we even? I I thought that as a city, we wanted to stop with the half acre and larger lots because of the Mhmm. Cost to the infrastructure.

Yeah. So what's being reflected here, we took the names that are on the future land use map, which were kind of categories where we had bunch of zones lumped in together. And what we're doing now is separating them out and renaming them again because the r thing just seems to be confusing people. And so we're taking the names in the future land use map and assigning them to the new zones that we're creating. Then at the end of this mess, when we get it all straightened out, we're gonna redo the future land use map again.

K. Well, I I still thought that the low density was four lots per acre or less.

It will be once we once we create and write and pass that low density.

Medium was about eight. Mhmm. And high density was about 15.

So these uses will fill the cloud in the zones. The minimums and maximums will change, and a few of the uses may change. But, r two and low density residential will be similar, but it will be small. We have to keep these in place because, as you know, we didn't do any kind of moratorium while we make all these changes. So it's kind of like if you sold your house, but the new house you bought, people were still living there, and you had to move in with them until they could find somewhere else to go. Right? So we're having to house both of these kinds of codes at the same time because we don't have a stopping point. We have to blend everything together. So because we have developments in R 2, we have to keep it on the use table for right now. Once we pass our low density residential zones, we can go back in and remove R 2. K. But for right now, it's gotta stay, and that's as close as we're gonna get. So all we're doing

right now is adding these or changing the names, not the designations, but the names on the land use table. We're adding them in.

K. Sorry?

Yes. That's part one.

And the reference column. Yeah.

Right. But I you know some other things. That's I'm more worried about the the residential. I'm more Yeah. No. I'm just saying. Yeah. For the most part, it's formatting thing that now

Correct. The Excel spreadsheet shows the proposed changes for today and also the future changes. So you can see that we're just changing the titles for this iteration. And then in the future, those are all the things that we're going to change. So, like, the creation or re redoing all of those zone site development standards. Yeah. I just what I

what I'm afraid of is the community is going to see low density, medium density, and high density. They're gonna focus in, of course, on high density, and they're not gonna understand that we don't mean high density like a skyscraper

apartment building. Well and right now, our high density is r five. Right? That's what we're saying. Right now, our high density is r five, and that's true.

Yeah. Our high density is really more mixed use, but

because we've got the These don't line up exactly, but, again, this is kind of the best we can do right now without coming to a full stop.

K.

I get it. Yeah. Well, we also have a like, we may split commercial into re adding retail as it's on call now. Small and large or, yeah, retail and

there's lots of different things you can do with commercial and industrial. Because we're not tackling those right now. We're trying to get our Yeah. Residential

right, and then we'll move on to those. We're a small city, and this is a huge document. Like, big cities still do it this way? No, ma'am. Okay. K. I appreciate the reference column being added at the end. Yes. K. Alright. I think we're ready for Kyle again. K.

So here are some of the additions, to the table. So first, in the com the commercial area, we've got hospitals, and we're adding ant health care facilities just to make sure it covers all similar uses. These three here are adding data centers, power plants, and detention say centers, jails, prison facilities, and we're saying they're not permitted across the board. This is to put those uses in, but to buy us time to figure out what the city and the commission wants to do with those excuse me. Sorry. With each of those uses, for the future.

So are there any comments for this slide? Under power plants, I would put wind, solar, nuclear. We're talking all power plants. Right? Water. I mean, right now, we're we can only think of wind, solar, and nuclear. Things are moving so fast. I think we gotta put any power plants including wind, solar, nuclear. Just so that we have that full umbrella of that because we keep hearing about new stuff every day, and they make them and go, hey. This isn't wind, solar, or nuclear. So we you're applying it, technically. You should approve it because it doesn't fall under that.

I'm guessing that we can't say no to a jail or a prison if the state chose to put one in our boundaries.

If if the property was private, right, and it was a use that was considered, we could say no. If the state or the federal government came in and bought a property and it belonged to the state or federal government, just like the school district, we wouldn't have a say. They could just do the thing. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't see Hyde Park being the first place that they're gonna look for.

We do have some land close to the airport that would be useful to a great many number of things. So we just have to be prepared.

I like being prepared and proactive. Mhmm. Can always change later if we want. That's right.

K. Perfect. Moving on, we've just got one removal, and this is p star permitted with specific conditions outlined in ordinance. This was part of the legend. This is unnecessary because it's true of permitted use as well. All uses have to follow the conditions outlined in the ordinate ordinance. And it's worth noting that the legend was moved to the top of the use table as well so that they can see that and then go Excellent. K. Are there any comments on this slide? Perfect. K. We've got a few language changes. So it used to say discussion item in this top left corner. We are changing that to uses by zoning district. Instead of accessory building, we're adding or changing it to accessory structure to match the rest of the code. This also matches state code. Under our short term rental section, we're saying overnight accommodations instead of Vrbo, so we're not referencing a specific company. And we are modifying sexually oriented business to adult oriented business. Are there any comments for this slide?

Isn't a senior care facility an adult oriented business?

Ma'am, we invite you to read section four about business licenses

Okay. So that we don't have any awkwardness here tonight. Got it. Okay. So section four Yep. Will give me the definitions of

that. Yes, ma'am. Okay. We'll give you an idea of the changes to come as well. Okay. Well, we're talking about I'm not sure if there's a definition

that we I'm sure we have a definition There will be one. Yes. Of businesses that don't allow people underneath us, you know, under a certain age to enter. I don't know if that could be

We we will Like, it's technical or We will bring that definition before you. Yeah. Yes. But right now, this is the change that we're gonna make. We wanna keep our language professional and consistent throughout code. Got it. Okay.

K. Perfect. So like the retail sales establishment definition that we saw earlier, there's a lot of extraneous definitions, next to a lot of these that list all of the uses or add, extra information. And so we're removing all of those descriptions, and we will slowly add definitions, putting those uses into the definition section that can be referred to rather than using up extra space on the use table itself. And so here's a list of all of those that we're shortening down to just the, use itself. Are there any question or sorry. Are there any comments for this slide?

This is a description removal just off of this table or just Yes. Okay. Got it. And you're going to separately define them elsewhere if they're not already. Correct. Is that what you're saying? Add it as a definition. Yeah.

K. Perfect. We've got a couple of use relocations. So first, we are moving the agricultural experimental station from the residential zone to the industrial zone. Sorry. The use thank you. We're also moving the use of the agricultural and food production business from the commercial to industrial use. Are there any comments for this slide?

What are the ramifications of moving to from commercial to industrial?

So nothing changes. It's just the fact that, agricultural experiment I don't even know what an agricultural experimentation station is. I assume it was put in put into the use table for one specific instance maybe. It was in listed in with the residential uses. And in residential, it was just a bunch of x's, but it's allowed in industrial. So that tells me it's not actually a residential use. It's an industrial use, so it needs to be in the industrial uses section. Let me Same thing with the food production business. It was listed in commercial, but it's an x in commercial and a p in industrial, which tells me it's not a commercial use. It doesn't belong in the commercial section, Belongs in the industrial section. So we just took the uses and matched them up with

what they actually were and put them in the right category. Okay. So it's already what you're moving it to. It was just wrong on the table. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

This is this is mostly just to tidy up and, get things clean and, useful situation.

Cool. We the last one's same idea of just relocating where it is. The accessory caretaker unit is moved from commercial to residential. A stable is moved from residential to commercial, and fruit and vegetable stand with a business license is moved from residential to commercial. Are there any comments? I have a question on that one. I do too. The first one. Like, I think Cash Honda used to have someone stay in their building

overnight to check for lights and alarms.

So that That would be a residential use. Right? The thing that's happening, someone's living there. It's a residential use. In a commercial zone. Commercial zone. Okay. It's not a commercial use. It's a residential. The thing that's happening is residential. Yes. Same thing with the stable. Hopefully, no I mean, some people were born in a stable. Sure. It's not a residential use. It's a commercial use, and we had it in the residential section. And same thing with fruit and vegetable stand. That's a commercial use. It doesn't belong in the residential section. It belongs in commercial. It's allowed in residential, but it's the use itself is a commercial use. So a stable like a barn.

Right? Like a place where you would board horses Yeah. Where someone would pay to board their horses. I've seen people convert those to homes. Is that just do they have to go get that rezoned then? Like, it would never be considered residential.

It's just about the use. Right? It the use is renting out stalls to horses. Okay. That's not a residential use. That's a commercial use. It's allowed in residential zones. Okay. But the use itself is commercial. So, again, this is just about putting the uses in the right category, and then they're still allowed in the same zones that they always were.

Yep. An accessory caretaker unit. Are we talking about a just a we're talking about an ADU?

No. Most often, it's considered a a guard apartment or an on-site caretaker's facility in something like a help me out. Where where you keep all your cars and your car parts. A junkyard. Right? We'll have somebody who stays on-site all the time in a in some kind of apartment or RV or something like that. So a caretaker unit, our code allows that. Somebody who is living on a commercial property for a purpose. Does our definition need beefing up? Yes. It does. It is it is a version of ADU. It's the commercial version of ADU. Does it have all the rules and regulations? No. It does not.

Yeah. Lots of questions. A bit? Lot. A bit. Why not? Yeah.

K. Our last section is the use changes themselves. So a lot of these are just removing conditional use permits as miss Layton mentioned earlier today and either putting in permitted or not permitted uses. So first is our accessory dwelling unit or our detached accessory dwelling unit. We're getting rid of conditional uses permits for. We're permitting it in all residential zones and agricultural zone as long as it meets development standards. We're also permitting it in the mountain recreation zone, and we are prohibiting it in all other zones. For the agricultural experimental experimentation station, sorry. We're removing the permitted use from commercial and public and industrial for the state sorry? Public institution. Public institutional. I apologize. For our stable, we're removing the conditional use permit and prohibiting it in the residential zone, and we're permitting it in the mountain recreation zone.

Okay. Clearly, I I misspoke when I said it would still be allowed in all the zones it was allowed in. We did take the commercial use of staples out of the resident by that.

And then finally, our car wash, we're removing all of our conditional use permits and we're prohibiting it. K.

We're seeing no more car washes anywhere?

That's what we're saying. That was a topic in one of our discussions. I think it was it came from water use.

So the accessory dwelling unit by the way, I I watched

The DADU from the Utah League of Citizens? Yeah. The ULTC.

I watched that today. That was very interesting. They're gonna record or they recorded it, and it'll be available for everyone. And the best part, I guess, was all the the sample or example codes that were in other cities that we may wanna look at and and figure out if if we would like to make some of those changes also. That was interesting. A stable, as far as replacing it with an x, I can understand if it were a quarter acre lot, you wouldn't want a stable. But we've got lots that are two to five acres, and I don't know why they couldn't have that opportunity if they are horse people and wanted to do that.

We talked about that. And a stable, much like a dog boarding facility, is not a home occupation. And so there are commercial standards that would have to come into place if you're going to run a big stable and board horses.

Well, I guess we need to figure out what the the maximum number of horses are before it's considered a, quote, unquote, stable

Yeah. There's a lot of definitions we need So prefer. So right now Yeah. This will have an x. It can always be changed once we've got those standards.

If you want to leave it in Do we have any do we have any in town now? Does anyone know? We I don't get any horse horses. For a stable right now.

Do you know where some are?

What if there's not a stable, but they're putting tons of horses on a property?

That's a state. We would wait for a complaint, and it would become a code enforcement case, and then we would have to ask questions. But that's exactly why we need to maybe put a not allowed right now until we can come up with that good standard. Right? We already talked about the animal ordinance and what a mess that's gonna be. But we are gonna have to define it. We're gonna have to figure out where it's allowed. We're gonna have to figure out if it's an agricultural use, then it's permitted on agricultural properties. Right? We're gonna have to make all these determinations. So we can either leave it open right now and come back to it later. We can leave well, actually, it's conditional uses right now. So it would have to be a p across the board or an x across the board.

I would rather lean on the side of people having the right to use their property the way they want until we get something codified K. Rather than carte blanche, cut it off. Because I'm I'm I'm not aware of any, but I can't imagine that we don't have people that have horses that let their family or a friend keep their horse there.

Would that technically be blocks? No. I'm not talking about just letting someone pay for it. Yeah. Like

Yeah.

There's people that Boarding horses that they move through this you know, when you haul horses, you have to stop somewhere

Yeah. And let them stay overnight and stuff like that. Right. Yeah. Because in other cities, there's people I'm I am aware in other cities of people who let peep take money from people to let them keep they don't have a big enough lot themselves. Sure. Someone's got five acres. They pay them a certain amount to basically board their horse there. They go take care of them. But Well, and remember, we're not just talking about horses.

Right. K. Yeah.

So if we if we allow it for now without standards in place and someone is doing that, then what happens when there's a complaint?

We can't do anything. There's no complaint if there's no complaint if there's no standards unless it falls under the noise ordinance or the

So if we later come up with standards and then someone complains, I mean, they would have to come in compliance with those standards that we come up with lay later, or they can say we're grandfathered in. We're using this for is not code enforcement. We I

like I said, I looked, and we don't have any business licenses for stables. There's nobody who this would apply to right now that I know of. What we're doing is setting things in place for future use. If somebody were to come to us and say, we wanna open a stable to keep, you know, 50 goats. We wanna be able to sell them and It's not a stable. That's a farm. Not if you're just keeping them temporarily from their folks. It's just stable. Like I think my park business happens all over the place. I'm not picking on goats. I'm just saying. If we don't have standards, then we say yes. And, yes, if there's a code enforcement complaint, nobody's violating any codes and there there's no case. So you guys get to choose. If it stays it can't be a conditional use. Either it's allowed or not allowed, and then we need development standards to allow it. So until we come up with those, which we do not have, would you like it to be not allowed, or would you like it to be allowed across the board? I'm a no.

I'm into the x. I lean toward not allowing.

I think it's hard permitting just for you. It might be some

can. So wait.

Yeah. I think this is one of those that we need a definition on before we can say.

Right. And say or the other. I think putting an x now doesn't mean we never want these. It means we don't have for me, it means we don't have standards yet. Once we get standards, then that x can change.

Can we set a basic standard of 24 right now for those who might have it? Because I think I'm very much aware of people that are

No. We can't set any kind of time where No code enforcement issue. So Yeah. Okay.

Then if there's no code enforcement, I don't know why we're even This is so somebody can come get a business license

for STABLE.

Okay. Just exit then. This is only for business license applications. It's not for use. It's use. Commercial use.

And we don't have any that I know of. One one thing I think we should do is if you wanna if you want something there

To replace the condition. Replace the condition.

You've got x in all the residential. Why don't we just change that to be a p in the the agricultural and the r two k. And then x and the r four, r five. Smaller lots. And for the smaller lots. Yeah. That doesn't make sense to have a a a stable on a smaller lot when you've got neighbors that close, and that then does become a a nuisance K. With the odors and whatever else.

Good

compromise. K. Excellent. For our last slide, these are continuations of last slide. So the gun range is going to be prohibited in public and industrial and permitted in the Mountain Recreation Zone. Manufacture of goods, retail on premises is permitted in industrial and prohibited everywhere else. Machine and welding shops are we're replacing the conditional use permit with prohibited in commercial, and the cemetery and mausoleum, we're replacing the conditional use permit with prohibited in industrial.

Sorry. What's the MR again on the first one? The gun range? Sorry. Mountain Recreation Zone. Mountain Rec. Got it.

Question oh, go ahead. I was just gonna say, why are we not letting

welding shops in commercial?

Right now, our development standards the development standards

for getting I guess if they have if they're a commercial thing and they have a welding capability in the back,

that's not the same thing. We didn't go into that much detail. Okay. It's just about, the machine shops and welding shops fell under the category of they were conditional use permits because they had things that needed to be mitigated. Right? Noise or

odor or whatever. So

if we wanna allow them in commercial, then we need to come up with those development standards. Right now, they're allowed in industrial. No problem. But if we want to allow them in commercial in the future, we just need to come up with development standards for that kind of mitigation.

Right. Probably just a definition too because I'm just thinking of some retail stuff that might have welding it These use changes

are mostly just once we take out the the c for conditional use Right. We either have to allow it or not allow it. We're erring on the side of caution.

I just leave it. I even believe, and I'll fix it later. Yes.

We intend to do that as quickly as possible too. Question on the manufacture of goods, retail, on premises. This is specific only to which zone? Because I know lots of people do home businesses.

Right now, this wouldn't be a home business. Okay. This is only specific to This is strictly to a manufacturing place. This is manufacturing of goods on the premises. So we're not lucky Right now, it is only allowed in MX with a conditional use permit. It's allowed in commercial with a conditional use permit, and then it's allowed in industrial. So right now, we're still allowing it in industrial and just taking it out, taking the conditional use out of MX and commercial until such a time as we can write those development standards, and then we can make it a p if we want to. So this is large scale manufacturing. We're not talking about mom and pop stuff out of there. Absolutely not. None of this is home occupation. Home occupation doesn't come into play for any of these. Thank you.

K. That is all I have for that discussion item. So thank you all.

Thank you, Kyle. Alright. Yeah. We'll also hold. That's our land use. That's item discussion item b. That was b. Yes. B. Any other discussion before we move on from that one? K. We move on to and nothing else from staff for that one. K. We move on to seven c, water rights dedication revisions. This is if you recall, last fall, we kinda made a hard stop on water dedication, and a lot of the developers were not complained about it. And we put it off or said we were gonna put it off, but then we brought it back. And we did vote on it quickly before we had, like, a workshop of some sort, but then we decided it someone realized it didn't really work. This is my memory of kind of this. It's probably not how staff sees it. It's been going on. Yeah. And I I mean, I was uncomfortable voting to stop that, but staff assured us, like, no. This is how it needs to be. So I'm actually happy that this is coming back to be amended in some manner.

Information. We needed to know how much water we had, how much water we were using, how long it would last. Right? We had none of that information. So now we do.

K. So is that why we were encouraged or given information? Because because I this was, like, the first thing I came in on, I remember. And I thought Hyde Park was running out of water shares and water rights, and they weren't being charged enough from the developers.

We thought we were, and that's what necessitated the change. So just like we talked about where in these these changes, we just put the big x because we're trying to figure out what's going on. That's essentially what happened with the water rights code. Last fall, Melinda's remembering correctly, we kinda had scare where we had all these units coming in. And we were doing some math and thought, I think our water rights are disappearing way quicker than we can find them. And so we started trying to come up with a way to slow it down and do some changes. We had a couple tweaks to the code, and then it hit a point where in discussions with discussions with the mayor, it was decided we need to hit a hard stop while we finished a study and figure out what's going on. And so we have the preliminary results back from our water rights update, and turns out we're doing okay. We're doing better than we thought we were. And so in discussions with the city attorney, we have a new draft of our water rights dedication code that we would like to present for discussion tonight. And the short version is we've loosened it up and brought back a couple of options for developers to get water rights so they don't have to go out and search high and low across the state to find rights to develop. We can get to kind of the heart of that issue on page one, two, three, four of the draft. Just a couple of new not necessarily new options, but we're bringing a few options back. One, we're bringing back a fee in lieu of water rights dedication to allow for that option again. We're bringing back the well, I guess that's the only one we're bringing back. We also have a new option that we discussed with the city attorney, a leaseback option where developer could do a lease agreement with the city to do a payment over time to get those water rights taken care of. The other thing we're bringing back, I'm not sure how it's gonna work out yet. I'm still kinda puzzling through this, and it's not really showing a red line. The other thing is these red lines are red lines of a version that was already red lined. So for the public hearing, I gotta get all the changes together in one nice, pretty document for everybody. But if you turn your attention to the final page, very last paragraph, we're bringing back the discount. Right now, I said it have it set at 50%, which is way more than we had it before. I need to get some opinions from the city engineer and the public works director on the 50% amount. But, basically, what we're saying is everybody needs to contribute to our water situation. We need to make sure we're making room for the people who are coming next. But paper water rights are becoming more and more valuable and more and more scarce. And so we want to offer an option where if a developer wants to take the time and go out and find water rights and do a change application at the state level, we want to offer them some kind of discount and let the city water rights kind of make up the difference for what they would need to contribute. And so, yeah, the 50% is quite generous. It's probably gonna be brought down a little bit. Previously, we had on the code of 75 well, 25% discount. They would need to bring This is if they give us the water right. If they go through all the trouble and headache of actually finding a water right, getting it turned over to us, assigning it to one of our water sources because it's it can be a lot of headache, and then we're willing to give a discount to the total required dedication for the project. Instead of a fee in lieu. Is that what you're saying? Right. So let's say somebody has to go find

I don't know. Just say a 100 whatever.

One. Well, we'll do one. One. Great. Somebody has to find one acre foot of water. Our fee in lieu is $10,000 per acre foot. I don't know what it is right now. I'm just throwing out numbers. So right now, developer could hand the city check for $10 and say, I'm done. Let me build my houses. Great. Now with this option, the developer could go on the private market, potentially find an acre foot of water, buy it, turn over half of that to the city, and maybe they only paid $5,000 for that. Because the city got paper water right. We'd be willing to give them a 50% discount.

Like, that's all we would require from them?

Well, they're turning it like it's not much, but it's actually quite the process of getting it under to a High Park City. They're giving you that water right. It's it's pretty much like buying property. You have to buy it. There's a deed process. And if you're turning it over to a different it's like if you're getting it changed from groundwater out in you know, for Color Reservoir or something, a point of diversion over there. If you're getting it changed to one of the wells in Hyde Park, there is a process. You have to go turn into the state, do some paperwork. There's a little bit of a hearing that happens. It it sounds really easy, but it's a little bit of a process. So if people are willing to do that,

we would like to offer them some kind of discount. So we're incentivizing their labor to go out and get it. They could potentially save money if they're willing to do the

boots on the ground work. Right. And the problem that we have previously is we're collecting these fees from developers, but we couldn't find water rights fast enough to be able to spend the money we were collecting or anticipating collecting from these projects. So we would rather have them go out, do the legwork, find the water rights, bring them back, and then we'll let the reserve of water rights that we have planned for the next twenty years of growth supplement that.

And I thought the fee was too low,

the original fee, when we discussed this last time. Yeah. It was. The the funny thing is when we change it to 5,000, everybody thought we were gouging them. And then when we went to go buy water rights on the private market, they were, like, 7,500. We were, like, what the heck? So are we changing that as well? Yeah. There's a section in here. It's a new section that was added about it's got a right of first refusal thing in here, and it talks about how we're changing it to be market driven. I still don't know what that looks like because the water rights market's really volatile. It is going nuts right now. And so I'm still having discussions with the city attorney about what that means because most cities just set a price point. They just go in every couple months, check the market, put it on the fee schedule. I think I read today I wanna say it was Wellsville. And in one of the local cities, I was looking at the codes, and they changed it to 12,000. It was a higher higher city. They just charged $12,000 per acre foot now. So

Like, that doesn't have to go through a city council approval process because they have just said market value.

And so every month, they're just updating what that market value is. They're updating their fee schedule. Yeah. So it's a fee schedule update. It's not necessarily what I don't wanna have happen is every time somebody submits something for a lot split or adding, you know, some small amount of water that now Michaela or I or somebody in the office has to go spend two hours doing a market study to figure out how much water rights would cost. I'd rather we do that

at set periods of time, and then we can just update our fee schedule. Or could we tie it to specific size developments this size and above, then it's tied to the market schedule? So the market Not really.

Because of how water rights law works, you can't really do it based on size. The table on when you start section 12 dot one fifty dot zero two zero designates how we're gonna get the waters rights dedicated. We just do it based on unit counts because this is a requirement handed by the state. When they audit our water system every year, they wanna make sure that we're not the amount of water that we're collecting from our reservoirs, from our wells matches as closely as possible the amount of water going out to projects, and that's how they track our water rights. And so when we're acquiring new water rights, we're allocating new for new projects. It's the same idea. We take the numbers from the state that they're gonna be checking us when they come to the audit, and and that's how we determine how many water rights we need from these developments.

So, yeah, that 1.87 per unit doesn't matter if I have a 10 bedroom home or a one bedroom townhome.

Oh, I didn't say we liked the numbers. I just said that's what the state hands to us. And when they do our audit every year, this is what they want. We've had several discussions with developers about pushing the state to maybe redo their calculations, and I think we would all enjoy that because the city's water rights would go further, and the burden on the developers and our new homeowners would be lessened as well. But that's a huge lift at the state level to get these numbers changed, and I don't know if there's an appetite for them to do that.

And so for now, that's what that means. Right. Had been 10 bedroom home, same as one bedroom townhome. Right. This and the thing that is

hard for us to explain without sounding like jerks is we don't do this to be greedy or because we wanna hoard water rights. We do this because it's what the state requires when they audit our water system. If the state didn't have the requirement, we probably wouldn't care half as much about this as we do. But because every year, we have the threat of getting points put on our system, getting put on some kind of improvement plan, and getting fines from the state, we have to track this really meticulously, and that's why it's become such a huge deal across the state for, you know, developers, cities, everybody to be accounting for and watching your water rights.

Mike? I I appreciate everything that you did to update this, and I appreciate that it is in title 12, our land use code. But I wonder if because this is, again, kinda like a development agreement, a business end of the deal. I wonder if this really should be handled as far as a public public meeting on a public meeting, but a Hearing? Public hearing. Hearing at the city council level. Because, again, this is Dollars. This is more like a dollars and cents type thing where we're just land use. You you either have it or you don't have the Mhmm. The water and and then we say yes or no. I mean, that's

do you Yeah. It's another great example. Unfortunately, right now, our process is all public hearings for all land use codes happen here at the planning commission level. But I'll definitely pass on to the city council that you think there should be a them problem and not a you problem. This and development agreements are the two things now I've come across that I think really need to be

Yeah.

Wasn't that valid? Focused at the city council level. Wasn't this a public hearing when we voted on it

back last week? Just discussed it, I think. Yeah. There was a public hearing on this before. Yeah. I was not here, but from what I understand, there was a lot of input from the development community that they were not pleased with the changes that were being contemplated. And so, yeah, we hope that this is a

an all of it showed up. So to speak. Conveniently absent. They booked it. You're right. Was that in fall? Is that the fall? So much. Okay. Yeah. I wasn't here for that. But I was here when it was passed, and I just did a lot of research at that time. And a lot of cities do require them to bring their water rights. And I did a lot of research. We are not out of the ordinary to require them to bring the water rights, but I do like, I also felt bad for the developers. I don't want to halt building. So I do like but at the same time, I'm just kinda torn a little bit because I hate going back and forth.

I mean, so many water rights. Right? Right. That's This is absolutely.

This is kind of the fight that we, as cities, have with the state every year because they say build, build, build, and we say, k. But when the water wars start, we're coming for you. Like, we're not gonna take it lying down because we're gonna get to the point right now. Cache Valley, especially, still has a lot of water rights that are being circulated and that are available generally. But, like, down on the south end of the state, it's getting tight. Like, their water conservancy districts down there are saying we're limiting the amount of water rights we're giving out. There's communities that are I mean, you're looking at tens of thousands of dollars for one acre foot of water to build one house. Like, it's it's getting crazy down on the south end of the state. Yeah. So, yeah, it's not getting any better, but we're doing what we can. The state auditor actually did an audit of water right exactions across the state last year. I think I had talked about this last year when we this came up first. But they found that of all the cities that they audited, which we were not one, but we would fall into this category, more than half of those cities had some kind of exaction for water rights. Meaning, they said, you, developer, have to do something to bring water rights with your project, whether that was a fee, whether that was you're out of luck. You just have to bring water rights. And of that 60%, more than half was you're out of luck. You just have to bring water rights. So, yes, we we were not out of the ordinary when we passed that ordinance and said no more. But, yeah, when we finished our study and found that we were in better shape than we thought, we as city staff would like to propose this kind of taking things back to what they were.

So based on what's happening in the southern area of our state and our current drought, it's reasonably foreseeable that we will be in the same situation potentially within the next three years?

I don't know about three, but eventually, we'll get there. Okay.

So this is something that is foreseeable that we should at least anticipate. We might hit that same.

Mhmm. There's cities out there that have gone out and purchased water rights. They said, we know we're only going to be this big. This is our municipal boundary. This is our zoning map. We anticipate we'll need this much water rights, and they've already gone out and bought it all. And so they don't require developers to bring it because they thought ahead and saw the writing on the wall, and they're good to go. That's why they get a little grumpy when the state does stuff, like changing the ADU codes and saying you have to allow more units. But, yeah, Hyde Park's not one of them. We if you look at the records of the history of the city, everybody always thought we'd be a teeny tiny town forever. Nobody ever anticipated we'd be more than a few thousand people. And so we're low behind the eight ball, but, yeah, we do have a stockpile of water rights that we could dip into for growth for the next

while. I like the changes. I mean, I I wanna I don't wanna hurt the growth of Hyde Park, but I do think the market value because I think we were giving it to the developers way underpriced. So I think it's important for us. I mean, as a resident, I hate the charges. I want it to be low, but as our city as a whole, I wanna keep it running well. So I think following the market price, and then if they will turn over their water right, I love that incentive. So I think this is a good com it's a good it's a compromise. Yeah.

Yeah. I appreciate this coming back. I guess there's nothing I mean, a law doesn't mean that everybody will live by the law, but are there laws that you can't sell water rights separate from land that needs it? No. Our city code has a very flimsy

I almost call it a throwaway line where we say that you can't do that, but it's not something that we track. We are not getting into everybody's real estate transactions, telling them you can't sell your water rights off.

But That's just a buyer beware. You buy that property. You know it's below a canal. You're thinking great. And then you come to develop, and the city's like, where's your water rights? And they're like, I don't know. I'm sure I got it with the land. And then they find out, no. They don't have it with the land. Mhmm.

So I guess one thing other thing to bring up, people aren't really gonna be happy about this one, but it's a reality of the situation that we are faced with. Previously, in our code, we allowed irrigation water to be brought to the city at a one to one. Like, one acre foot of irrigation water could count as one acre foot towards your indoor use. Based on some recent water exchanges that we've become aware of across the valley and some historic precedent, we know that those shares, have we have never seen a situation where the state engineer has allowed, secondary water shares to be transferred at a one to one rate for drinking water shares or rights. Sorry. And so we're changing our code to say that if somebody wants to hand in canal shares and count it towards drinking water, we will only do that at a rate of two to one. Yeah. I saw that. But if they wanna go out and get a right of diversion from Logan River, which is really hard to find, another water source, we would allow that to be exchanged at one to one.

Why is it less than?

Why would it be two to one? I was I just wanna understand that.

I'm not sure why. But the history is typically when there's an exchange of water rights, the state engineer does a calculation and decides that moving the water diversion point from here to there is going to have some kind of diminishing effect on the aquifer or the water source or something, and so they can't grant the full

Value.

Value of that because there's gonna be some diminishing Okay. Factor. I just wanted to understand that. Yeah. I don't know all the science behind it. I'm not an engineer. But what we do know is based on our research, we have not seen a situation where a secondary water right, like, from a canal is allowed to be transferred at a one to one rate for, like, an underground well share or something like that? It's probably because

your secondary water isn't very reliable. I mean, some a lot of times, it would just run out Right. And it's not there, but wells are pretty dependable.

So that's why. True. It's not as reliable as source. A lot of secondary shares out there are, like, on a good year, you'll get your water. Or when a water is over this amount, you'll get your water. Yeah. We don't have a lot of those in our local canals here, but, yeah, in the valley, there's lots of situations that, like, that exists.

Well, yeah, rules. They gotta keep so much water in certain rivers to keep things going, so they can't pull it out for irrigation. And Mhmm. So they're not a primary user on that, so that's probably why would be my guess.

Yeah. There's a lot of factors.

Yeah. I mean, at that at the conference we went to in the spring down in Saint George, I went to that water class, and he talked about those old, old rules about a, b, c, d. You know, a get if there's if we're short on water, then d is the only one who loses out. They don't all get a percentage, you know, like 80%. A gets every a, b, c get everything, and d might get some, and they might not. And he said, yeah. That's not gonna change. Like, those old, old rules are not gonna change. The other thing, we went camping last weekend out in Hiram, and the guy that is the camp host now, just nice, mild man, used to be over the sewer in Hiram. And he said, you know, at the time, they were counting, like, parts per million. And that water, once it's gone through all of the cleaning or filtering, would be, like, 99.9% clean, like, practically drinkable if you didn't know where it had come from. You know, if mentally you didn't think back to where it was five days ago or five months ago, but Hiram was using that for irrigation because they owned, like, Smithfield. They're in the irrigation business as well, and so they were pumping that butter water back in for irrigation purposes.

Mhmm.

I'm guessing we don't have any of that option because we're using Logan City

for sewer? The mayor and I have actually talked about that with the Logan City folks a couple times. And, generally, it's just cost prohibitive to get the water from the Logan treatment plant back out Bring it all the way back. Where it comes from is cost prohibitive. And the other thing is, like, was mentioned, there is an agreement to deliver so much water downstream to get to, like, the Great Salt Lake or other places. And so they can't take all of that water and pump it back into the system for secondary water.

K.

Alright. Anything else you wanna talk about before you read this again and again before we leave? Commissioners, you're done with water rights dedication until we meet again? Yep. K. Future items. You wanna talk about those?

So next, we will be having discussion about the site development standards for our new and revised zones, the low density, medium density, high density, and center density. We wanna get those before you as a discussion item so that we can work through any changes we need to make and get those adopted so that we can make that transition and let people start subdividing in the r two zone again. So those are coming next. I did send out an email last week asking who would be available if we had a special meeting on the July 29, and I didn't get a lot of replies back.

I think I think I replied and said something snarky about You don't want to planning my trip very well and being

Then if he's gonna go, then how can he

I won't be here, and I'm sorry. Okay. I did reply. May, I know. I'll I'll find out. Okay. Is it at six? We don't know yet. Okay. There's I just leave that night, so it's just Yeah. It's just hard to see. No worries. We

Yeah. And there's some if you have a quorum, could you put them on an agenda, get them looked at?

Is that city council night?

No. It's a fifth Fifth one. It's a fifth Wednesday.

Yeah. I prefer it be on a night that there's other meetings in that. Yeah. Yeah. Well, these are things that we would do, like, work session or something. Okay. Plan for July usually because, you know, excited to go on for just work. But if they have a quorum, the mayor would like to know. Maybe scheduling a a special

short

Yeah. If you can promise me it's short, I will be here. I'm right here, Marcus. Hey. So far, you have me and Mike.

So would it be it? Don't have. No. I was gonna be here. Yeah. What time he said you were gonna No. Because he didn't plan his vacation well enough to be gone. Yeah. He made a snarky remark that he didn't plan his vacations right.

True. Right now So Mike and I are yes. Heather's a no, and we don't know about Ned or Charlene. Currently, I'm

I am scheduled to be here. We are trying to put a vacation together, but we don't have dates. I'm a 60 percenter right now. Alright. I'm a 70. Percent.

And I feel really bad. I'm gonna be gone that first week in August. This is just I'm sorry. August 5. I am a I'm a 0% on August 5. I feel terrible. I can surely zoom in. I can maybe zoom in.

August 5, I'm currently planning on being here. Okay. Trying to get a big vacation place. Have to have three for a while. Yeah. Right. We need three to have a meeting. And I could possibly zoom in. So I'll just be out of town. Alright.

Perfect. Well, that's item c as well.

I think I'll miss the second meeting in August. And I you.

Babysit. Can make Heather chair to make up.

I think I'm going for a suit. No. I'm gonna plead. No be still.

Goes. Okay. So we you have a bunch of maybes on that. Understood.

It's so much July and August, right before school starts, is is rough. It's getting crazy. Yeah.

K. Without objection, I'm adjourning the meeting.

Thank you. Great. Second that.