Hyde Park City's Zoom Meeting

It just have to tell you? Yeah. It would be. Check it later. It's fine. It's just nothing about them. It just happens. What's

that? Looks like nothing about them.

Yeah. We've got some one thing.

I think Okay, Chair. We're live whenever you're ready.

I have, yeah, not quite time. But Oh. Are we

Yep. We can hang out for one minute.

I don't want anyone to miss the opening prayer, pledge of allegiance. Commissioners ready? Alright. We'll go ahead and start. Welcome to the Hyde Park City Planning Commission meeting. Today is Wednesday, 07/01/2026, And we have myself, commissioner Lee, commissioner Williams, commissioner Moe's, and commissioner Hansen with us tonight. And commissioner Taylor is away, may join via Zoom, but not at this time. We will start with the opening, and I forgot to ask someone. So I will pray and lead us in the pledge. Our father in heaven, we come before thee at the beginning of this city meeting, and we pray for thy enlightenment and direction and pray that we can be mindful and have clear minds and open minds and be able to discuss with each other things that pertain to our city that we can make it a good place for us to live now and for those in the future. Help us to be mindful of those that we may not interact with each day but are affected by our decisions. Please guide us in all that we do. We pray especially for that guidance at this meeting. 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. Next up is the approval of the minutes from our June 17 meeting. Ned, I'm wondering if you don't have any comments. Do you? As far as I remember, it's just right. Is it? Because I think your name is misspelled.

Oh, I did see that. Usually, I'm just happy they get mad. Right?

We can correct that.

There is one thing I wanted to look at. Page 11, I believe that the person who brought up so 11. I believe it was commissioner Williams that talked about the 45 to 50 mile an hour to avoid funding. I thought you broke that up. Artery Road. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So that wasn't me.

Okay. He doesn't want blame or credit, whatever, depending off your math.

Said he argued. Is that your said

K. We can make those two corrections.

Is that it for you, Mike? That was it. Charlene?

Yep.

I had a bunch of those. I felt like it mixed up Mike and Charlene on page three and four.

May have. Also,

maybe you guys know who said what, but I thought like, where it said commissioner Williams.

Yes.

On three, the top one Yeah. That was it. Was me Yeah. Where it says for mister Williams. To take these minutes and compare them to the YouTube and make those corrections, and then we can bring this back to approve at the next meeting. Okay. There's just a bunch of those, and it refers

to, like, planner Layton as a he. Yeah. So maybe you've adopted that pronoun.

Not to my knowledge.

But it's okay. Yeah. So It wouldn't be the first time it was assigned to me. So I do have, yeah, Ned's name spelled wrong and then a bunch of mixing up between Mike and Charlene as far as comments and calling you a he and Efrem being spelled e f r a m.

Oh, I Our AI companion is not helpful. It was it brought up moving the public hearing. It wasn't me. So, yeah, that one got mixed up too. I had to completely reverse the two of us. So the

yeah. AI got it got it through the I figured it was just AI. And, yeah, Ephraim, at first, I thought that was some business name, and then I kept reading it. I went, oh, this is the city of Ephraim, and AI doesn't know how to spell how we spell Ephraim, not the okay. Yeah. There were a bunch of those. Okay. So you So we'll table that to the next meeting Okay. If that's okay. Alright. Yep. Do we need to vote on tabling that?

No. You can assign that to be tabled. Great. Thank you.

Okay. Then next up would be the staff report also by you.

Okay. And what I'm gonna do is tell you that my super great intern Kyle has a status update on your little monitors

there. Oh. Are they on?

It mine says no support. No support.

They were on They were on. Right before this. But actually, I unplugged mine to plug my computer in. But Oh, that's why. That's why. It's It all goes off of the first one. Yes. It's a Christmas tree or Christmas light situation where you unplug one and they all back in.

We'll we'll bring everybody back live. Yeah.

But, yeah, the IT individual and I went through we figured it'd be really helpful to have it, like, right in front of you and readable, especially as I'm going through slides to be able to read the slide instead of turning around or looking over there. So, anyway, if there is still problems, I can come afterward and hopefully fix that.

Nothing I not helpful, or

you just haven't been doing it?

Yeah. Okay.

I don't yeah. I mean, I think it would be helpful too. Think this will circumvent the can you zoom situation. You know, can you zoom in? Right. We can just zoom in up there, and you should be able to see it right now.

Oh, I'm up. Yeah. There it is. Yep. Thanks, Ned. There you go. Thanks, Kyle.

Motion that we get more electrical outlets here because there's not hardly I would second that because I've tried to plug in before too and had issues. Oh, we need some

Outlets is the problem.

No. Nick, there's, like Oh, you have two If we come, we need to plug our plugged into your system. Stuck with the choice of either a lot. You know? We have to unplug something else. Unintended consequences?

Or even just the little Here, you can unplug mine. I've got it right here. Well, I got it right here too, but I we can't see Yeah. I mean, unless I I'm not logged in to their YouTube. So I like to be able to look at other things.

I know. I bring my iPad on the side. That's what I like to do. Yeah. I have mine on the side too.

I'm not watching the game. I'm not

Not yet. Have fun.

Sometimes I'm looking at a different page than you're showing on the screen. I've got my iPad too. Alright. Maybe. Is there more on of for the staff report?

Report is that we have had some IT upgrades,

via the intern class. So Alright. Kyle for that. Thanks, Kyle. Of course. Alright. We did we have one administrative item, an application for an amended development agreement for the Hyde Park gateway.

Yes. There should be well, there is a folder in box called gateway amendment three. There's a folder where you have seen the original development agreement documents. There is an addendum one and addendum two, and then they have applied for amendment three. I believe it is also an addendum, but we're gonna kinda sort that out. I also included the application, that was submitted, the site plan that was submitted, and the actual amendment itself. So you have many documents to choose from if you've done your revision there in box. And because we kinda expedited hearing this item, there was not time for a staff report. So, the applicant has graciously, agreed to present. So if you'll recognize him, we'll bring him up to So amendment is a change and addendum is an addition? Correct. Alright.

Kelly Harmon, will you speak to us about this item? Thank you very much. I appreciate

Mikael and council putting this on the agenda today. So this is in regards to the flats or the apartments. Originally, our development agreement, showed a 120, condominium, apartments or flats. And, we were originally gonna do a market rate funding and do this as a market rate project. With interest rates like they are, which, is kind of painful from our perspective, it makes it really difficult to get financing for the apartment section. So we have hired a consultant, and we're working with the state of Utah on doing an application, a 4% low income housing tax credit application. There's a whole bunch of steps to this. This is a 4%, not a 9%, so it's not quite as competitive as a 9%. What that means is that the 4% tax credit, this this will help Hyde Park with the moderate housing in housing plan moderate income housing plan. But what I understand is that this will target tenants that have I think it's a 60% threshold of the average income level of the state. So it's gonna bring in it's gonna provide housing to lower income people. One thing I wanna point out is that, sell assets is doing all of our property management across numerous properties, anyway, and they will maintain management of the the apartments. Just as a a side note, we've actually done some work with branding. And so the apartments are gonna be called Ridgeview Flats at the Gateway, and then the townhomes are Parkview townhomes at the Gateway. But so the consultant that we're working with, we're working for a application submission to the state. I think it's August fourteenth, fifteenth, some somewhere in there. And And one of the things that the consultant told us is in or she she's worked through our performance with us and, you know, all of her costs and revenue generation and everything, and she said that we really need five more units on the pro on the on the flats, on the apartments. So, Skyler has, asked, Ken Erickson, our designer, to come up with some designs for a clubhouse that incorporates five units. And so I don't know if that if that is shown in in the folder. I think I thought I put it on I read it. I read it somewhere. So, yeah, I don't know if you can see it from there, but that is a image of the clubhouse with the five additional, flats. Or So it didn't change the size of the clubhouse? Clubhouse is the same size. That's correct. Is the footprint the same?

No.

Square footage might be it might be a little bigger, but we're still accommodating the same size pool deck and the playground area. The amenities are all the same. But, so, basically, what we have with this building here is we have one additional flat on on the Ground Floor, and then the rest of that Ground Floor is the clubhouse and the and the pool room for the at the pump room for the pool. And then the other four additional flats are stacked above the Pool. The clubhouse. And yeah. So it I think it did increase the footprint a little bit. Anyway so what we're asking for is you're probably right. It's a change, but maybe you wanna explain the amendment versus the addendum. But I'll finish this. So this amendment requests a change from the 198 condominium apartment units to 200 to a 125 from one nine one one twenty I'm sorry. One twenty condominium units to one twenty five, and then it, dedicates an additional two and a quarter acre feet of culinary water for the increased density. And then it says that all of the impact fees would be adjusted accordingly for the increased density and and then all other this is all other terms, conditions, and standards of the original agreement would remain in full force. So that was the idea behind this is scattered. We're hoping that the council and the city agree to this. It'll help us with our application. We are going to great efforts to get as many points, and that's kind of these applications are based off points so that we have a good chance of getting funding for this. We get funding for this. The the funding will the tax credits will be awarded. Well, the notification of these tax credits will be done this fall, and then we'll be breaking ground early spring. With this funding, we'll be able to just go in and knock one out after another, so the four thirty plex buildings and the community center. So construction will happen a lot faster than it would if we were going market rate and trying to trying to finance finance this. So, anyway,

any questions?

So you said you're going from one a 120 condos to a 125 condos? That's correct. Yeah. So as far as far as a function of the total number of units on the project, it's about two and a half percent increase.

Was there a change in the in the townhomes? No. Townhomes evolved. Townhomes stayed the same. Apartments stayed the same?

Just the apartments are just the apartments changed. Condos are changed. Is condo and apartment the same? That's the way the development agreement is written, is condominium or apartment, and then the townhomes are separate. So there have always been 78 townhomes. And right now, I think I just got the I just got a check cut for the last of the first 46 townhomes. So that's where we're at

moving forward with the ones on the East Side Of Wolfpack Way. So condo, flat, apartment, all are all referring to the same thing? Yes. Thank you. Will they be rented then? Or I'll need to rent. Everything's rental.

Yeah. What's the number? You said that 60% of the is that of the state average income? Median? I believe yes. That's the median income in

I'm not an expert in this. It could be the median income in this area.

Yes. It is. It'd make more sense to see if it was It's a local median. It's not a state median. Like a county? Yes. Right. Yeah. I believe it's county. Mhmm. Okay.

Yeah. So you you can probably see how this will help with the moderate housing

plan moderate income housing plan. Is that a permanent requirement for rental for renters? It's not permanent.

I think I'm going I think it's fifteen years. Okay. So the 9% is actually forty five years forty five to fifty years, but the 4% is fifteen years that we're locked into that.

Wow. 9% is how long? I'm curious. Excuse me. To fifteen. So forty five. I'm just curious the difference between the two. What you said, 9% versus the 4%?

Yeah. So nine percent provides a lot more tax credits, but it it's a lot more competitive, and and the thresholds drop. I think they go down, maybe to 45% median income. And with a a 9%, you can have a sliding scale. So you can have so many that are 45, so many that are 50, and up to 60%. But with the 4% and with the application we're doing, these are just I think they're 60% across the board. And, the management so this is actually managed differently than the townhomes. We'll have the managers are all being the clubhouse, but they're managed differently. And the compliance with the state is very strict as far as making sure that, all of the documentation's in place and that these the tenants meet those requirements.

And yeah. Are the townhomes rentals also or are those Townhomes are just market rate. Okay. So everything's rental. Townhomes, ten day, and apartments. Okay. Yes.

How many units does that end up being that you're gonna be So it'd be a 125 units that Yes. Better your building, but how many will be for the the low income housing?

It's it's all of the one twenty five. All of it? Yes. Wow. Yeah. That's 245

total?

No. No. So 25.

I thought it was a 125

That's what went from one twenty to one twenty five. Then how many townhomes? 78

townhomes. Okay. So one twenty five plus 78. That's townhomes not restricted by any of this at all. At all. They're managed they're managed

differently.

So those are gonna be market rate? Just whatever is Yeah. Whatever the market will bear.

Just

So is this in the phase three where the where I see the pool that's on the site plan? That that's correct. The blue ones are the additions? They're more like they're Building 3. It probably looks like the clubhouse in Vegas, what I'm thinking. Is there a way that can go on a bigger screen?

Yeah.

My iPad's not big enough. I do I do have a site plan and this kind of stuff Yeah. That I can bring it to if you want. It's the it's the blue ones in the latest

So now the blue ones okay. The blue ones are additions? A

type a full handicap sensory, but we're actually going to have instead of three, we're gonna have seven type a units. That's that's what is on the plan so far.

On your roads in there that have question marks on them, you just don't know what they're called, or you don't know if they're public or private?

So the only roads that are public is off to the west, the 580 West. That's a public road. And then we're coming down to fiftieth or sixtieth that runs east west. That is public. And then all the internal roads

no. The the the these are all private roads. It's probably the addressing that we don't have. Okay. Yeah. I just see how the question mark's like, public or private. I'm like, I feel like that's a big deal, and we should know that by now. So those are all private.

So phase one, obviously, you can we see this that one's going in right now. What's so phase what what's the time frame on two and three? Okay. Yes. So phase one, we're we're hoping to have all the townhomes done by the end of the year. Okay? And then with this funding here, we're going to jump over and do phase three, the apartments. And then depending on how quick we get phase one stabilized, get them all rented out, then we'll jump into phase two of the townhomes. So I just wanna I just want to toot our horn a little bit.

L 59

Downtown Logan, this is, an anomaly, but we've been between 97 and a 100% occupancy for the last two months when a lot of our competitors are in the low nineties and high eighties. And I'm just gonna say putting it out there. I think it's a function of the product that we're putting out there.

I like You're you're gonna see that here. I like it. I like it. On the carports, I don't know, but I was here when this final was I feel like this came through for the couple years that I was gone. Are these carports is it just a covering, or do they have walls? No. It's just covering. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's kinda like that

place down on 2nd North and 6th West. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That Meadows or whatever it's called, the handle of the vessels. That's the other ways. Yeah. Yeah. That there that's a similar Same goes far more than that. Mhmm.

So the agreement, your amendment refers to phase six four, five, and six or five and six. But on the picture, I don't see a phase six.

So, originally, we had the apartments broken out into two phases. So I yeah. On your application? On our application. So the townhomes on the East Side, we had were phase one and two, and then phase two was broken. Those townhomes were broken out into phase three and four, and and this was a long time ago. And then the apartments were five and six, basically. Oh, okay. To come up with, you know, $30,000,000 to build the apartments, we thought we'd have to break it up. Oh, okay.

K. Alright. Any other or, Mikkel, do you have things you wanna say?

No. I think that clarified for me a little bit what this was about. So, yeah, I have nothing to add.

K. And what is our what is our quest?

Yeah. Do we recommend

And since this is an addendum, we don't need to worry about public hearings?

Correct. They're not asking for financial in fact, they're asking the opposite. In number two, you'll see that they understand that they're gonna have to do their water dedication. And in number three, they understand their impact. There will be additional impact fees. Right? Normally, we would be doing a public hearing because they don't they don't want to pay their impact fees, and they they want financial rules changed and ordinances sidestepped. So this is, in fact, an amendment to the original development agreement. It's just not in the version that you're used to seeing of red lines and green lines. It's crafted like an addendum. Normally, in an amendment, you know, you would get the strikethroughs of what's being changed in the original. So that's kind of where I was confused.

K. I I look for a motion.

Just I'd like to just say one thing real quick before I make a motion. K. And that is that I appreciate and I understand that money is tight right now because of interest rates, but I appreciate the efforts that you're going through. And I hope that they get approved because I'd really like to see some assistance for the those lower income families that don't have a a nice place to live. And I'd love to welcome them to Hyde Park. So I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval to the city council for this addendum.

And I can second that. I can second that.

Thank thank you. We have a motion by commissioner Mose to recommend approval to city council and a second by commissioner Hansen. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. That passes unanimously.

Do we have anyone on Zoom? Do we have what? Do we have anyone on Zoom right now? No? K.

Yeah. I'm here.

Do you guys have a wrist there? I'm like, I've been here the whole time. I thought I heard an echo when Ned said something. Yeah. I second it. I thought as well. Like, Kel said she hasn't seen you.

Oh, yeah. I've been on. I've been on since.

K. Hold on a minute, Heather. We're gonna have to get quiet to hear you. Okay. Go ahead.

I have been on since we were discussing the minutes and all those things, so I'm here.

Okay. Did you have anything to add to our discussion of the, addendum?

No. I love it. I I'm I I agree with what you said.

Okay. So you voted for that as well. So it's unanimous with five votes. Yes. Is that correct? K. That is correct. Alright. Well, I'm glad you spoke up. We all thought Ned had a female echo.

I've gone for people.

It's hard to watch the Zoom stuff. Okay.

Alright. Moving on. We don't have any legislative items, so we're moving on to discussion items. First one is ordinance for definitions, additions, and changes.

Okay. Once again, I have assigned my intern to present to you. He's put together really good packages for these, so I hope you guys got a chance to see them. And he's gonna walk you through

We like it. So

I have drafted ordinances for both our definitions that we looked at last meeting as well as our zoning map, cutting off applications and repeals for those zones. And the goal for today is to gauge whether or not this is ready to be an item next meeting to be voted on. So we have a public hearing in place already, so we need to know if there's anything we need to change beforehand. K. So this one is the definitions. The ordinance is up, but the only change from last week is in addition to the definition of detached accessory dwelling unit to include the purpose of offering long term rental of thirty consecutive days or longer, as per commissioner Moe's request. We are currently working on as well, in the ordinances for ADUs to include a deed restriction to prevent sort of, like, that Airbnb type thing. So this would be the first step in doing that. Great. Other than that, everything should be the same as last time. So are there any comments, questions, or concerns with the definitions?

So it makes it sound like these are only for rentals?

Long term long term rental.

What if it's a mother-in-law? Because there's some of these are mother-in-law customers. Family, that's not a rental. Okay. But then it says the person purposes are rentals.

So Oh, good point. It's just not I don't think it's considered separate. It's not considered an ADU if it's family. It's just a separate entrance, and it's a single home still.

Well, I mean, you build a you build a little house up back for your mother-in-law, which I don't wanna Usually, you can ADU a family, usually. So I I guess what I'm saying is is that by saying its purpose is for only rental, then it kind of if the purpose was really for your mother-in-law, then it's not Well, she rented it for a dime a month. Okay? I I know, but I'm Put dinner for us sooner

you get them. I mean, you do. Park City doesn't require a business license for long term rentals, so we don't track that at all. Right. What we wanted to clarify is not that it was for rent, but that it was for long term residential use. Right. Maybe we should And we're copying state code here, so this isn't I guess maybe what our language to be more logical is to say the purpose of this is for a long term rental or for additional family members. Or just say if it's being used as a rental, it needs to it requires thirty days of work. And that's why we just went with state code here. They've already they've already debated all of it. Yeah. The first So this is straight from the state. From the state. Sorry. The in internal, that's exactly the way it is in the state definition. Exactly. Yeah.

So there you go. The internal ADU? Right. They don't have to be rented. So all we did was add that same verbiage to the detached ADU so that we didn't have the issue of Airbnb

Right. Short term rentals. Yeah. It's an interesting point that Ned brings up because we're talking about rentals, and yet we're referring to it as a mother-in-law apartment, which for our purposes is not considered a rental. That's just considered part of the main family, the main dwelling.

Yeah. The financial back and forth isn't something that we're considering. Like I said, you could charge your mother-in-law to live there, and that's still none of our business. So the purpose is for long term rental use. If you wanna let your family live there, you can I mean I would double Yeah?

I mean, it's kinda nitpicky, but I don't know if it turns anybody off from doing something because they don't really want it to be or maybe brings up questions to you later. I don't know. That doesn't just say it's kind of inconsistent with what it might be used for. I would agree with that only because if we want to encourage ADUs to be built, that way when they sell their home, then ADU exists. The existence of them in and of itself is what we're encouraging. Right? What the state wants is Mhmm. Having ADUs available doesn't mean you have to rent it out. Maybe we just parse that out. Or Or do you say it's not for the purpose of short term rental? Yeah. I don't know. It's not Again, we we've gone along with the state code definition, and that's what we're trying to adopt so that we can be consistent. The internal

ADU definition, I don't think we should change because, again, that's word for word from the state. The detached where we added that last sentence, how about if we put for the primary purpose of? That allows some leeway. So instead of reading how it does right now, it would read a detached accessory dwelling unit is created for the primary purpose of offering long term rental of thirty days

thirty consecutive days or longer. Just say long term residential use.

It doesn't even have to say rental. I like that better than rental leases. I think I agree with Ned. If we use the word rental, I think that will stop some people from building. And what we're trying to do is to encourage it. I like long term dwelling purposes. Either that or, like Melinda said, say, not for the purpose. She'll not be used for

short term rentals. But I think we're we're coming up with another code for that. So let's not let's not start

mixing any keep things super simple and basic.

Yeah. I mean, it is nice that it says the same thing under both Yep. Because we mean the same thing. Yes.

Yeah. I'm not hard on this. I'm just, like, saying it doesn't Yeah. I'm sure that

the state in in the way they put this are not gonna say anything about family living in there.

So Open. Yep.

Us using the exact same verbiage on the next one down doesn't change the meaning from the first one, and it probably adopts that same meaning. Is the is the definition above for accessory dwelling unit the overriding That is the word for word for definition from the state. It's the main if that said

that it was locked off to be, you know, different from the regular part of the house, then that would make sense as it's a rental as opposed to a family. Whatever. Because that not stuck on it. I'm just saying it's a little bit quirky.

K. So is the consensus to add primary in front of the purpose for that second

definition? Well long term housing.

I don't I actually don't like primary because then they'll say they'll use it for short term, and they'll be it's not a primary use. We're just using a secondary. You know what I mean? Like Yeah. I'm not I like just keeping it for the purpose, the only purpose.

Stick as close to state code as we can.

Yeah. To be clear. I like that it says the same thing for both.

K. The state will fix it, and it will fix ours then.

Sounds good. That's usually how it goes. Alright. Okay. Yeah. That sounds they'll get somebody that complains or Susan or whatever. K. Charlene, you have something else? Presenting. Give us just a second. Charlene's thinking. Apologies. Think I can tell. She has her thinking hat on.

Their law degree hat on. By def by definition, like Ed said, if it's a it it could not be an accessory dwelling if it's created not for the purpose of offering long term rental for thirty consecutive days or longer by definition. So we're we are boxing people in a little bit with this or a lot of

it.

Because if that is a accessory dwelling is created for that purpose, and if they're not created for that purpose, then they don't get categorized as an ADU.

Can they Right. Your mother-in-law would not be in an ADU. She's just in part of your house. Right. But ADU Even if it's detached. Well, like, Brent Kelly lives next door to me or down from me. He has a separate apartment

built right into his house that's right there that, you know, it can be used as a rental or they use it mostly for families. But for the purposes of ADUs, are they not now

green lighted tell them. With different rules than non ADUs because of the state's desire for more? Am I correct that the state there's it's easier to do an ADU because of the encouragement of building them now. The states kind of put that down. But so if it doesn't fall under the definition of ADU, they don't get that benefit. Correct? Under the definition? If it doesn't if what's being built doesn't qualify by definition as an ADU, if there was someone that was trying to fight that, could this definition be used to deny someone? No. So they don't have to say it's a rental that doesn't

We again, the city doesn't we don't license long term rentals. That is something we've never done, and it's not something we intend to do. If you let somebody live in your ADU, that's that's between you and them. We don't collect contracts. We don't go door to door asking how you're related to the person you're living with. We don't do any of those things. This is simply us adopting state code so that our code is consistent.

At one time, we were charging separate utilities. Is that different now?

Yes. K. That's in the ADU code that they share.

No. Then we put meters on ADUs.

You can request one, but you don't have to have a separate meter. Yeah. So right now, we're just talking about definitions. We're not talking about ADU standards or anything else. This will be proposed for public hearing on the July 15, and then it'll go to city council from there.

I'm fine with all of it. Commissioner Hansson?

Who's that? It's it's not it's not the hill I wanna die on, so I'm all Alright. Commissioner Mose? I'm fine with it. Commissioner Williams?

I'm the same. They tend to hang on the technical definitions, but if it's not if it's not restricting and giving the ability to deny people based on that definition

No. Our intent would not be to restrict ADUs. We wanna encourage that. So K. It's a step in the right direction, I think, for us. Okay. The other thing that will go for public hearing on the fifteenth is our ordinance to repeal the RT zone and to sunset MXD and r two. So Kyle's gonna show you that ordinance.

as you can see By the way, I remember why I don't use the screen because I can't read it. It's it's tiny. It would be better with the slides.

Okay. Just But, yeah, for the For the documents. For the documents, it's Yeah. Because I've got my iPad by the side, and I yep. Oh, that's better.

We can zoom in. Yeah. That's way better. Yes. K. Apologies. So this first one is cutting off our two development applications. As was discussed last time, this is pretty simple. It's just adding a clause, promoting applications until the city council council reauthorizes them.

I had a question. I wasn't here last time, so I'm gonna ask a dumb question. So you you turn these off, and you're gonna rename them to low density or whatever the whatever the terms were. But is there are you just gonna use, like, the r two development standards that we have now in the ordinances? So it's really just a name change for now, and then you fix that later. So, really, it's just name changes today.

Precisely. This is just cutting off application. So I have

a r two watt right now, which I don't. But if I did, I could still use the old R two Yes. Build on it? Not at all. Yeah. Just for a new new subdivision, they can't use they can't do R 2 until

but they couldn't do the low density or R 2. Rezone anyone to R 2, and we wouldn't annex anyone into R 2.

Okay. But existing R 2 remains. Mhmm.

Yeah. Which we've had at least when I was here before, we had an R one zone for a long time. A lot of the homes in the core were r one. But as far as new residential zones, we only offered r we didn't call it r two. R twin r e 20 and a one. Like, the only new zones that people could ask for were the half acre and the full acre. And so at this time, like right. R 2 still exists, but no one can get that as a new zone. You can't switch to that zone Gotcha. From something else.

Cool. That's correct.

Okay.

Here is exhibit e. This one is repealing RT because they're am I correct in saying there's no developments? There hasn't been any developments presented

And you send letters to those property owners telling them that the zone their property is now a different zone than it was yesterday? Yep.

Is this what it's gonna look like on in the ordinance itself?

Yes. This is the language that I was planning or we were planning on using.

The the reason I ask is because I would hate to be the guy that started reading exhibit e and got really excited about it, and then got down to the very last line and said, hey. This is repealed. Why are we why are we not just putting it underneath the title 12 dot one forty five dot zero one zero repealed?

Like as, like, an announcement

before? Like, it's like, if they do it in state code, repealed.

This was what I looked at other cities did, and so I just copied it from other cities. But I'm okay. We we can do that. Yeah.

Maybe behind that title, put down repealed in parentheses Up there. Just so that people don't get excited about, hey. Yeah. That sounds like perfect perfect project for me. Sure.

Would you want the same thing for the other ones as well, cutting off the applications? Yes, please. Yeah.

Gotcha.

K. I got a question. Oh, yeah. So what's the advantage of repealing it now versus just realizing that we're going to make a different kind of a zone down there as opposed to sending it all back to its original And then doing, you know, because we we never got anybody to apply. And then so we're gonna just repeal it, but then at some point in the future, we're gonna do something. I don't know what it is. Make make a new definition of whatever, and then you're gonna have to bring all those back for that new whatever it is. So what's the what's the advantage of doing this as opposed to just saying, hey. Let's let's just fix RT to be what we want the what we're gonna have to do anyway. What's the advantage to doing it? And it's So are you gonna not really a matter of advantage.

It's a matter of the time it takes to do that thing, to take it from RT to something else. We're working on those zones right now, but they have to be exactly right, and they have to meet state code, and they have to pass, attorney review.

Right.

And so we're not ready to give them an alternative to the RT, but a a piece of property can't just sit with no zoning. Right? It can't it can't just be a ghost. So it has to have zoning on it. So our options are to freeze it as it is and continue to let these parcels be split zoned so that when somebody does wanna develop their whole parcel, now they've gotta rezone that little bit of RT because we don't have our new zones in place yet, or the city can take it upon us to do that work ourselves. And when these folks wanna do something else before the new zones get assigned, they they can. But this immediately gives that property the ability to be rezoned or to be used as a whole. Right? A lot of those are zoned ag with just a little bit of RT on the edge, so they're all in the split zone status right now, which is not ideal. And this would just make them whole again, and then the owners could proceed from there, do what they wanna do.

So untie their hands for that require that one requirement? Right. When we untie their hands, are we gonna end up with something we don't want?

No. We're we're not tying anyone's hands. If anything, we are helping them because a split zone property, as you know, is problematic, especially when it's time to get zoning clearance or zoning verification to do a project. And especially if we're gonna deem this RT zone a no go, now they can't do anything with that section of their property. So repealing this and allowing us to return it to its whole zone as a whole, would actually give folks more opportunity if they wanted to develop their parcel according to the a zone. They could do that on that entire parcel and not have to go through the process of rezoning just the RT part. We're we're not going to assign a new zone to anyone. We're gonna let this sit as it is until the owner wants to do something else with it. If they wanna keep that zone, they keep it. And if they wanna change it later, they can change it later. They could change it now. They could rezone to R 5 the whole thing right now if they wanted to.

Does this affect visionary?

No. Because they're they're asking for a development agreement. They're the zoning for them doesn't matter to them. So this is mostly cleanup and then move forward in a tidy manner instead of letting the RT zone ride and not be usable.

Well, I mean, I I get that part. The only thing I guess I'm questioning is, is there anything any negative that can happen? I mean, if we kept it in RT, then nobody wants to do anything anyway. So it kinda

slows the Someone could cut put in an application tomorrow for RT. Oh, no. It's done. Then we'd be stuck with it. Not this week, they haven't, but who knows what could happen. So we wanna clean all of these up so that they're ready to go when we've got our new zones and people can use their entire parcel instead of just a portion. Right now, the RT zoning is just a portion of everybody's parcel. So the RT benefits only apply to a tiny piece of their parcel, and then the rest is ag, and those RT provisions don't apply to that. So now they're having to develop their parcel in two different ways, and that's that's not helpful. So we're trying to be helpful.

K. I'm just I was worried that there might be a a negative out of out of this, but if there isn't

Oh, there's always something. Something will always pop up. But what we're trying to do is clean and tidy and then make it so folks can use their parcel now if they want to. Or when they're ready to rezone, it will be for the whole parcel instead of just trying to rezone a part or a portion of it.

Is there a follow-up to Melinda's question on the visionary? Because part of theirs is zone VAT. Correct? In the RT? Yeah. So that portion, would it default to the prior and would we need to r two? To r two. So would we need to what would we need to do to the development agreements?

Right. Because this is The development agreement currently has been withdrawn.

Okay. Yeah. So it would default to r two. In the in the new development agreement, it would it would need to say, here's what we're asking to do to it up to Yeah. The development agreement just

throws out the zoning. They're making their their main appeal, and they can they don't have to follow any of the zoning. They only have to follow their deal. K. I was just thinking because the reason for the development agreement was because they were asking for different zoning. So this is absolutely gonna be different zoning as well. Right? Yes. And I'd if they really wanted to do what they

are proposing density wise, they could request that all of that be rezoned to MX right now. After this gets passed, they would neither be able to do MXD or RT. So

K.

K. They'll still do a development agreement either way.

Bless you.

K.

Are there any further comments, questions, or concerns regarding any of these changes?

K.

So I'm sorry. Yes. But you kinda have a question. But Are we saying that we don't want any more mixed use

development along Wolfpack Way? Is that what we're saying here? That is when I read my notes from the discussions we had, that was exactly what what was communicated to us. We wanna preserve the commercial that's long there. And if we are gonna allow high density housing, we want it in a high density housing zone, not an MXD zone that just wants to have a development agreement over the top of it saying they don't have to do the commercial.

K. Thank you. Again,

the properties that are vested as MXD, we're not we're not rezoning anybody. We're not taking away any any rights that they have. We're just it's a sunset on the MXD results.

K.

If that's not the direction you folks wanna go, then now is definitely the time to say so. But the conversations that we had previously was we wanted to preserve the commercial that existed before it all became MXT, and that we wanted opportunities for different kinds of housing along there in place of just townhomes and apartments on top of commercial.

I think it would require them to do their homework first, and they would come really, really ready Better prepared. Rather than back and forth because with each discussion, the city would need to consult council, and that just racks up a tab. So I I agree with that.

I do too. I they may want I don't know if it makes sense, but, I mean, if the city got a good enough deal, then maybe they would go back and forgive those that requirement. Sure. But, you know, I don't know if you wanna state that or not, but that would be Yeah. But I do think it would be great that they pay the little fees and I would keep the riprap away. Cool.

K. The American Planning Association broke down what a good development looks like. I'd like to focus on the specificity portion. As mentioned, it's a contract, so it should be prolific enough to minimize interpretation and vagueness. But that being said, if something, South Jordan brought up like changing a fence direction is not relevant, then it shouldn't be included in the development agreement. So only the important things that the city wants to sign to should be included in the development agreement, and those minor sort of design or whatever should be left as leeway to the developer. And those can be handled administratively. They emphasize that portion. K. The Utah League of Cities and Towns encouraged text amendments before develop agreements to lower the amount of development agreements that are being applied for. If there's a provision or desire consistent across a number of DA applications, it makes more sense to create zones or amend the development standards fulfilling those needs rather than jumping to a development agreement each time. This is what miss Leighton and I have been working on in our rezones to accommodate things like townhomes, apartments, and mixes. Furthermore, as mentioned, they should be substantial deviations from code. The Utah League of Cities and Towns had a number of cases where developers sought development agreement simply to bypass a height or width requirement, and this does not constitute a development agreement in their eyes. It should be a substantive deviation from the code.

So would it be a variance instead? No. No? You asked me that. Well, that's the question. To add. How about it tech well, yeah. So I asked the same question. What would it technically be? First

first saying, like, consider a text amendment. And, yeah, we don't like to do amendments for one project at a time. Or multiple amendments.

I think this was Gateway's third, and there'll probably be more. Right? We just dealt with the variance today, actually, and there are five or more criteria. All criteria must be met in order to even be eligible for a variance. And one of those things is you didn't bring on the problem yourself. Right? And so developers who want bonus density or to get past the height or setback restrictions, that wouldn't be eligible for a variance because they don't have to do it in order to use the property. Instead of development agreements being the fallback to solve every problem, that's what we learned is that, we should be considering ordinance amendments. If this is an ongoing problem that needs to be solved for people to develop, then we need to update our zoning, and we need to update our standards instead of jumping into a development agreement every time. They should be few and far between, and they should be for a very big deal and not just bonus density. Okay. Take it away.

Thanks, Kai. This informative thinking.

We did lots of lots of question and answers about development. I know. They're they're tough because I I want them to be few and far between also. But I but in that, I I don't know how to write code that allows developers to be creative. And I'm not very good about thinking outside the box, so I don't know how to write a code that allows for flexibility and is specific. And you know what I mean? Like, we want to get what we want instead of what we, you know, we create the mixed use zone and we're like, oh, we're picturing this. And then they read it, and they go, oh, we can do this, which we're like, no. No. No. Not that. Right? So it's tough. I think it's really hard, and I think things are always evolving. The market is changing, and

interest rates affect things. Like, it's Absolutely. Everything's complex. That's why it's super important to update your land use code often. It should be they call it a living document, right, because it's constantly changing and it's not just something that stays the same forever and we always do it this way, specifically for those reasons. Right? Here we are going from planned professional to RT zone to just pulling the whole thing back because it didn't work and you're supposed to do that. You're supposed to be giving opportunities for your citizens to use their property the ways that they want to and develop the ways that they want to without putting lots of hurdles in place. And it is difficult to write those ordinances. But, thankfully, all over These United States, it's being done. We have lots of good examples, and Kyle is very deep into it right now with the high density, the medium density, the center density. We're gonna have a little more leeway for folks to have wiggle room and not be you know, you can only do this, this, and this, or you have to do a development agreement. We want to get away from those development agreements because, again, they are a contract. And I feel like in our workshops, we got really distracted by the exhibits. Everybody wants to focus on the site plan and where the roads go and and what the buildings are gonna look like, and and we're not paying attention to the contracts that we're entering into. The exhibits don't even really belong in there because, as we know, just like the visionary, workshop we did, that cute site plan that we spent an hour arguing over wasn't buildable to begin with. There's no way they can build that. Zero setbacks aren't a thing when you have to consider 15 foot easements just so your water and sewer lines are far enough apart. It wasn't buildable, and yet we spent an hour talking about it instead of focusing on the facts in the contract. And I think that's what what Kyle and I have learned by going through these educational pieces from these different folks is that not to get distracted by the pictures, to really focus on the words. And as we move forward with development agreements, hopefully, we can hold our developers a little more accountable for presenting the words instead of just showing us all the pictures and and trying to woo us with a with a cool park. It's a big deal, and development agreements, when they need to be when things go awry, that's not an administrative situation. That's two lawyers have to get together and figure out how people get out of these contracts. And that's that's expensive sooner or later. So, yeah, this was just a good good reminder for me, and I think sometimes the best way to learn something is to try to teach it to someone else. It was super helpful for me to review all of this, and I think we both came away with definitely some education about development agreements. So I think you guys will be more prepared for the next one. Utah League of Cities and Towns actually has a whole YouTube lesson about development agreements, and I can definitely send you that link if you're interested in it. It's it's super helpful, and it's current, and that's helpful as well. I'd love that link. K.

I do think having the developer paper for the legal fees is a wonderful filter And engineering. At the very beginning. K. Regarding the agreements themselves, I recall that Visionary, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong. Visionary made the comment that they took the development agreement from one of our boilerplates. Mhmm. If that's the case, how old is that boilerplate?

It's at least, I would say, five years old. Oh, we should get that checked every year, probably. But the same thing holds true for our template for subdivisions. That thing's probably twenty years old. It still says Pacificor on it, which isn't even a thing, I don't think, anymore. I can do that. So a lot of our templates do need updating. And as we go, these are really good things to keep in mind. I think that would be a really great thing for our city attorney to go over, but, again, that's expensive. Yeah. So we might maybe we'll take a little stab at that and and and then get attorney review and see.

I should be able to rely and think if I use what the city's has it out there, I should be pretty good in good standing with the city. And we were looking at that going, what's this isn't for him to say? This is your development agreement. I was like, oh, we should probably update this. Yeah. Because it the language just wasn't

I think I think the development agreement's gotta be maybe in the first part is you have to submit what you're giving up and what are we getting, like, the the summary table that they tried to do Yes. Something like that so that you could just say, look. We can all just look at it and go, we're getting nothing out of the deal. Why would we wanna do anything with the rest of your time? This is the criteria for moving forward is we first need to get your summary table. And see. And we'll take a look and

give you a score. Get below 80. You're out. I agree with that because your first element in the contract is is there sufficient consideration. Right. And so, I mean, if you're making an offer on a home and you go in and say, I'll give you 50,000. You're asking 500,000, but I'll give you 50,000. You don't even discuss, you know, what inspections you're gonna allow. You don't even go to the next step. So I agree with Ned. I think consideration should be the first hurdle that's hit. You don't hit consideration. Don't waste with the legal fees. Don't do it. Next. I don't think

when we had our workshop with Visionary, I don't think the site plan was the thing he should have brought. I think that chart should have been the thing that he brought. People. And the table, when you look at it, it's like, we're getting nothing. And most of us, that was our concern is that there's not adequate consideration.

Yeah. City's not getting enough return. There's no

Some of this is definitely on us. Right? As as staff and as commissioners and council members, we need to make sure that the applications that we allow people to apply for are are something we can actually consider, something we actually want to consider, and that we're asking for the information to consider instead of just give us everything you have, and we'll we'll let DRC carve at it first, and then we'll let planning commission carve at it. And then whatever city council decides is what we're gonna live with. We should be thoughtful with our applications and our and our ordinances governing them. It takes time and effort, of course, but it's I think in this for this particular thing, development agreements, I think that's something that would be definitely worth our time. I I just foresee kind of been a it's starting to be a fallback for everybody. Just I don't wanna even read through the code. I just wanna present a development agreement instead. And, it's it's expensive. It's time consuming. It's cumbersome, and still you don't end up and then they get amended. So it's just an ongoing, ongoing, ongoing process that we could definitely handle better for sure. That's a good suggestion to look at the application process.

I'd like to reiterate my previous stance that development agreement should be the public hearing for development agreement should be at the city council level. The the main the main

one. That made a lot of sense to me too as I was reading through the minutes. Because it's a business agreement. It really is, and we're we are not allowed to get into that. Only city council is allowed to do that. We don't do dollars at this level. Right. Correct.

K. All very good and helpful suggestions.

Are we ready for future items? Sure.

The use start with the use table? Sure. You remember that use table that I brought you and we talked about it?

Let's assume this be under past items then? Well, you would think so. Just

check it. I remember. As we are considering these new zones, high density, medium density, low density, center density, it occurred to me that I'm gonna have to come back to this use table and make all kinda edits. So I'd like to get ahead of the game and maybe combine some of those like, the a and r two right now are are real similar, and we can go ahead and kind of make some combinations. But then I can also give you what I've created is a line by line spreadsheet of what I changed. And I will be this is inbox. You can take as much time as you want to go through it, or you can wait for me to walk you through it. But mostly, what I did was still formatting and clarity corrections and those additions of data centers, detention facilities, and a couple other things. Along with Kyle's been super helpful about finding those use specific standards so we can add them to the table so that it will actually be a quality helpful document. So, again, this is my edit spreadsheet. I am gonna put the corrected is the corrected use table already in there? The yes. The edits.

all of the c's should come off. What was the recent application for a conditional use permit?

The conditional use permit on Wolfpackway is for a an industrial use in a commercial zone. So that one On Wolfpack Way? Mhmm. Did that come before us? No. It's it hasn't been through DRC yet. It will come before us? Before us. Before you. Mhmm. For where mister Chiu has his dumpsters, what the pink one used to be kind of on a the dirt pile, and he since moved the pink storing much of his dumpster business overflow. He has a location in Logan, and his overflow is now in Hyde Park. And so we're encouraging him to either start a legit business and do the improvements on the lot with through a conditional use permit or, right now, it's a code violation. So we're trying to clear up a code enforcement case through possibly the conditional use permit. If that's not approved, then, yeah, then he would have to move all of those dumpsters to an industrial location. So that's a future future

consideration. Can you do can you do me a favor? Sure. The top line of the land use table where it says uses by zoning district and across Yes. Vertically? Yes. Can you make that the top line of every new page? Yes. So that I

Yes. This Yeah. This isn't done being

formatted. I know it's probably for a web page where you can continually scroll, But, unfortunately We can lock that down. Yeah. Yeah. It's really hard to okay. Now which line is this again? You should try looking at it on paper. Yeah. Well, at least you tape them together, which I would do because I'm old fashioned, and I use tape.

That's the way mine is right now in my office. Yeah. I just fold it up. Yeah. So we can definitely do that. Thank you. Yep.

It's only for ease of review. Absolutely. That makes it so much easier. Ease of use when it lives in the ordinance

online ordinance as well. It will be super helpful for it to be that way. So those will stay inbox for your perusal, but they will change a little bit and be presented to you as a discussion item at the next meeting. And then, hopefully, by then, be ready for public notice to be heard in August. The other one that we're gonna bring to you as a discussion item is the rezone criteria. We talked about that several months ago about how our rezone criteria didn't seem to be super helpful really when it came time to decide if a rezone should be granted. So we discussed that a little bit. I took your suggestions back. I put Kyle on it to do some more research and to help me with the legal verbiage for all of those, and we've come up with some good ideas. So at your leisure, again, this is a future item. This is not something you have to read right now, but we'll leave these in box so that you can kinda get eyes on them. And then on the fifteenth, we'll actually dig in and discuss. So bring your questions, comments, and concerns, suggestions, etcetera on the fifteenth, and we'll we'll dive into these. I think it'll be super important to have these rezone criteria in place because our next step is to propose these new zones, and we need to make sure we can actually let people use them, and make those decisions wisely by crafting our criteria now ahead of time. And that's all I have. Our next meeting is oh, no. Not yet. Next meeting is July 15. Is that everybody will be around for that?

Heather, are you still with us?

I am. Isn't it the sixteenth? I mean, look.

'15. No. It should be '15. Should be the fifteenth. Today's the first.

Before Hyde Park days, remember everybody.

Right. We could get on the grass and cut off Yeah. That was my mistake. Sorry.

No worries. So, yeah, as long as we'll have a quorum on the fifteenth, then I'll continue to to keep my public hearing offices open. We will be. You will.

Okay. Sounds like Heather, if you're here, we we might have all five of us. I will be there.

Sweet. What a change.

Mhmm.

Okay. Chair, that's all I have.

K. Anything else from commissioners?

K. Make motion, we adjourn. Second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Can you stay on, Heather?

Heather, can you stay on for a minute?

Yes. I can.

Okay. Let me end the YouTube really quick. Everybody just take a couple of minutes, and I will

shoot.