Hyde Park City's Zoom Meeting

It's correct.

That works. Yeah. We're not having who's the it's

just the three.

It's just the three dots. Okay.

It's gonna open here? Right. I can't remember why, but I'm not able to zoom in either.

K. Well, we are reporting, so we're ready to go when you are.

Alright. Commissioners? Yeah? Alright. Welcome to the Hyde Park City Planning Commission meeting. Today is Wednesday, 06/17/2026. And it's a little after 7PM. We will, we have I'm Melinda Lee, the chair. We have Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Mohs. Absent is Commissioner Hansen and Commissioner Taylor. And our opening remarks will be given by Commissioner Mohs this evening.

Alright. I'll just I'll begin with a prayer and then the pledge of allegiance. Our father in heaven, we're grateful this day for our many blessings for the opportunity we have to be here to discuss our city in ways that we might be able to improve it. We're grateful for, the support that we receive and the input that we receive from our community, and we pray that we might know the best things that we can do to to satisfy the demands of this position. We're grateful for our community members. We pray for those who might be in need of of comfort at this time or assistance that they might receive it. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, commissioner Moe's. Alright. We have two sets of minutes to approve. Let's start with the meeting the minutes from our May 20 meeting.

I'll make a motion that we approve both sets of minutes without any changes.

I'll second that. Alright. We like it. Let's be concise. K. We have a motion and a second to approve both sets of meeting minutes, those from May 20 and those from June 3. All in or any further discussion? You got the motion and who made the second? K. Any further discussion? Alright. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. That passed unanimously. Next is our planning staff report by Mikkel Layton.

So as far as staff report, we are processing multiple subdivision applications, many zoning clearance letters for building permits. We heard a variance application this afternoon, and the CUP is forthcoming. So we've got lots and lots of applications in the queue. I am getting them out and through DRC as quick as I can. So just be ready. We're gonna have lots of things on our future considerations. Tonight, I have my intern, Kyle, here. He has helped put a lot of this stuff together, so I'm gonna put him on the spot tonight and teach him how to present at accounts at a commission meeting. So, we thank you for your patience in advance with both of us.

And that's all I have. Great. Thank you. Nothing from Kyle right now? No, that's forthcoming. All right. We welcome Kyle. Welcome. And we look forward to hearing from you. All right. We have no administrative items tonight. And so we just have the one legislative item, which is a public hearing for the rezone of the city parcel 19 Dash 030 Dash 1129. So let's get a stat we'll get a staff report on that, and then I'll open the public hearing.

Let's see. Here.

Here. We're gonna go here. Reason one. Okay. The first thing I'm gonna do is pull up this vicinity map. So if you are familiar with, the main roundabout at the end of center, the park and the school, you'll see as the roundabout goes north through the Gateway development that it meets this parcel that belongs to Heart Acres. If you go east, right at the end of this subdivision is a parcel of land. It's actually a lot in the subdivision that the city owns. It was dedicated to the city at the time this subdivision was created to be the future road. So someone was really planning ahead, except that we have moved the location of the future road to here as you can see where these other parcels lined up. So what we're doing is Heart Acres is going to swap with us this section of land for this section that the city owns. What they would like to do is make sure that the parcel they're taking ownership of is the same zoning as what they're dedicating to the city. So what we're doing is rezoning this city parcel to commercial so that it matches the piece that we're swapping out with Heart Acres to build Wolfpackway. So there will be a plat amendment for this subdivision forthcoming that the city will process in order to remove this parcel as part of the subdivision, and then Heartacres will be able to combine it with this remaining piece here and then have something that they can develop that has a connection to Wolfpackway. So that's the intention is to bring continuity and value to the piece of property that Heart Acres is going to receive in exchange for their donation of land to build Wolfpack Way to the north.

Let's see. If we go Sorry. I turned away when you were doing the pointing. So they'll have property on both sides of Wolfpack Way?

They will. Wolfpack Way will actually And they'll both be commercial that way. They will. If if they didn't if we didn't do the trade with them, they would be left with this bitty piece over here that really wouldn't be big enough to do much on. So I think it was a really wise trade out, and it's Agree. Super beneficial that that piece of land was already dedicated for road purposes. It makes it a lot easier to trade with them than a than something that was supposed to be for drainage or something else. So, yeah, snaps to whoever developed the subdivision and was planning ahead for the future. They really helped us out.

Does that does that property go all the way to Main Street 91?

This prop oh, the Heart Acres property? Yes. I can take you actually to the parcel map, and it meets up with other Heart Acres. So not that particular parcel. Have highway access, if that's what you're asking. It is currently technically, in its state right now, it's landlocked. There's a parcel that does meet up with the highway that has a commercial business operating on it, and you can access that business. And then through that parcel, you could physically access this piece of land. It's vacant. There's nothing happening on it right now, so it's beneficial to both parties. They'll have access, which, of course, you know, they won't get off the highway to increase their use of their business or to add businesses. So, I think this is a win win

Is that the for everybody.

I think it's the old Maverick Building. It is the old Maverick Building, and it is now Long time ago. That's where I think you can rent to use a call there and And they have some storage in that.

I guess a smart smart swap. I think so. How how wide is that new area then gonna be for the city?

For the city? Where it was taking I'm sorry.

For the

the commercial on the East Side Of Wolfpack Way. Commercial on East Side will remain at about an acre.

And how how deep is it? In other words, from east to west, what's

East to west? It's not Right. I mean, it's it's not square, but it's From the top to the it's long. Yeah. What I wanna know is how close is

the is the commercial, if it's built

Oh, I see what you're saying. My bad. You didn't clarify that. I'm sorry. I should've been working. So it will be close, but they will, of course, be required to buffer and screen right here. And the intensity of the buffer and screen will depend on the use, the commercial use that comes in. These two parcel or lots in this subdivision have homes on them already, and this has been open space. So these folks we have met with these folks and spoken to these folks, and they know they know what's in the works. They had kind of there was a shed, I think, that this homeowner had had put up close to this property line, and they've already cleaned that out and are gonna take that down. So they're they're aware of what future things may happen there, but there hasn't been anything proposed.

Alright. You ready for the public hearing?

Mhmm. Yes.

Alright.

Yeah. Yeah. I guess we're Just had a quick question. So once they're both commercial, do they have access to WIP pathway from both sides of WIP pathway, or do we need to make some adjustments based on how many No. They they will both get access from WIP pathway. It'll only be one.

But, again, any development to put in the access would definitely depend on the use, what they wanted to do. Right now, commercial, you know, uses are are fairly specific, but there has been no talk of rezoning or or they haven't spoken about anything that they wanna do in the future. They just wanna make sure that the zoning that they're getting matches the zoning that they have. Totally safe. Can combine those lots, and it won't be

any big deal. So it'll actually be two separate parcels. I mean, they'll give it a new number because they're not contiguous.

They'll merge those two parcels on the east side, and then the west side will keep its parcel number, but it will get a new legal description because of the Wolfpack way to. So they'll get an east side access,

but not a west or, yeah, not a west side access for their existing, or they'll get both? They'll get both. Okay.

That's what I was wondering. Line up. That makes sense. Okay.

Alright. Anything else before we open the public hearing? Nope. Alright. I'm going to open the public hearing for this rezone item. City parcel, it's owned by Hyde Park City. The personal ID is 19Dash030Dash1129. Alright. No one's coming forth. I'm gonna close the public hearing. No comment. And I look for a motion, and then we can discuss. Well, yeah, if we have a motion and a second, then we can discuss. I'll move to approve the rezoning

as proposed.

K. I'll second that. K.

No matter what a chance. I don't I don't know. The terms.

Commissioner Williams has made a motion to approve the rezone, and I've seconded that. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay, that passed unanimously. K. Next up, our discussion items, and we have a few of them. This one, I think, is a mic favorite.

Moving public hearings to the city council level. If you'd like me to, I can introduce that and We would love for you to present. Yeah. So, my thought on this is right now, the the planning commission is the authority that is supposed to receive a majority of the public hearings on land use issues. However, some of these issues are really quite large and and complicated and have a a huge impact on the community as a whole. And instead of instead of just the planning commission hearing this, I thought it would be beneficial for the city council to get a firsthand view of the public's thoughts on those particular issues. And the the underlying part is they're elected. They're the elected officials, and they answer to the community. We are appointed, and although we still answer to ourselves and to the mayor, it's really I think it's their job to to listen to some of these these opinions of the community, which can be quite passionate at times. Less than pleasant? And so my thought is that development agreements should be one that should be handled by the city council. And there might be a few others in a general category, but I'm not exactly sure what might that might be. Simple things we should be able to take care of. But those that are really can have two people on opposite sides are probably the best ones for the city council to to handle. I'm not I'm not suggesting two public hearings for the same item. That's not my suggestion. Although, we might have to do that depending on how we write it. A lot of municipalities

do. So

I would prefer that they get the unadulterated perception of the community on those particular items. So because unless they're here, they don't know what the public said.

They just know our recommendation. They just know our recommendation.

Yeah. Which they decide to listen to or not listen to.

Question. So would it be a hearing at city council, then we would we would hear it and give recommendation. Where does our recommendation come in on anything that's having that public hearing then?

I think Do we step out? I don't think we changed the order. I think we still provide a recommendation, but along with our recommendation, they then hear

from the community. And a lot of our recommendations sometimes hinge on public input too. So how do we How do we? Recommend without hearing the public, but at the same time, we want the city council. I agree. I think city city council who's accountable directly to the people who elect them should hear directly from the people. I agree with that. Yeah. How do we rearrange that?

Yeah. I mean, it seems like at our level, it's a legislative item, and that's why we want the input. But when it moves on with our recommendation, I imagine at city council level, it's an administrative item. It's still legislative. It's still legislative. Okay. Because we're only a recommending

body, and they're actually an approving body. Okay. So they do the vote that determines the outcome. We our vote determines our recommendation.

What would be the pros and what would be the cons of having public hearing at both? You said some municipalities

do both. Some municipalities do both the same way that some municipalities do open call to the public. Some municipalities feel like the open comments section is counterproductive or Like that citizen input. Is that what you're talking about? Mhmm. And so there's some municipalities have done away with that. It just depends on your municipality and and how they run things, and maybe that's something we need public input on. Right? Does there need to be a public hearing at both, or is one public hearing enough? And who should be hearing those comments? Should it be elected officials who answer to those people, or should it be the volunteer people who are doing things out of the goodness of their heart. Right? I think that's worth I think that's worth a discussion. We don't have to decide anything tonight, of course. It's just a discussion item. It's something for you guys to chew on and discuss with your friends and neighbors. And I'm sure you have people who live and work in other municipalities and what the benefits might be. I agree with commissioner Moe's that it's important that the elected officials hear from the people. Often, a planning commission who holds a public hearing is subject to subject to questions they can't answer, that they're not qualified to answer, and that they don't aren't supposed to be answering. And then the public finds frustration in that because this is where we come to air our grievances. Right? And when they are actually speaking to the people that they voted into office, I think it lands better. I think it carries a little more weight, and I think it holds the right people accountable for the kind of meeting that you have. I told you I've told some of you my dramatic stories from county meetings where we actually had to have deputies come and attend our meetings just because order had to be kept, and that's not something that volunteer commissions necessarily should have to be put through. If there's going to be a healthy discussion, then it should definitely be held with people who are voted into office. Again, my opinion, not the opinion of the city

or the state or the county. It might be good to see what the public thinks too because I I think a lot of the public feels like they don't have enough. And I know we give the technical legal notice that we have to, but people aren't people are some of them are waking up to pay attention or get their alerts and Sure. Have it. And it seems like there's been some frustration when they do come express themselves.

Like, we just barely found out. And I think I don't know that two would harm anything. I don't know that my third we could let him know. You could always say that you would you would rather take public input, citizen input on any topic at the beginning of your meeting. And if they wanted to comment about, you know, the the item on the agenda, you could a chair could allow that, or we could say, you know, public comment on things that are not on the agenda. We can set it up however we want to. If if it's important to this body to hear from the public, there's other ways we can do it, or we could keep a hearing at both. I think what happens when you have it at both is you just have a lot of repetition. In my experience, the comments don't change. You know, when we're when we open things for public hearing, what we want are facts, unknown issues. You know? There used to be a well here that got capped and covered up. Nobody knew that. You know, things of that nature. We want information, historical information we didn't have, facts and figures, expert opinions. But when people just come to share their thoughts and feelings, those can change. So gathering the facts at a public hearing, I think, is important. I don't know that you need the repetition for that. And then if folks are gonna share thoughts and feelings, again, I think that should be with the people that they voted into office.

I don't have I don't have an opposition to two meetings. I think there should be one public hearing, however. I think that should be at the city council for those items that we deem the city council should listen to. Public input, I don't mind that at all. And and we can notice it as such public input, not a public hearing.

Mhmm.

And, you know, but it's not a required it's not a required element. You do have to have the public hearing for the legislative items. As far as, like, ten day noticing and such. Right. And then on that, you can say, we are going to discuss this at the public at the planning commission. Public input is, you know, is encouraged, but the public hearing will be at the city council meeting. So I don't know how many people would come to both. Some people who may not be able to attend the city council may come to this the planning commission meeting. If you give them an option, I would imagine that they would rather go to the city council meeting to to the public hearing itself.

I also I just think if they have a chance, if they're available to come to both, they will, and they will speak both times. And to me, that feels redundant. I would hope that city council on heated issues would go listen to the recording, you know, and maybe they don't always have time because there's things that I say, oh, I'll do this every you know, I'll prepare this well every single time. And most of the time, I'm preparing well. And tonight, my son showed up, you know, like and I was gone for three days. Anyway, so, yeah, as much as I'd like to say, they should be listening to that recording. Probably happens, you know, maybe 70% of the time, but not every time. And we do need it to and it would be important to happen every time. Yeah. So that's My staff report, I

really tried to keep track of, you know, four people spoke in favor of this, four people spoke against, received written comments from you know, I try to include that stuff in my staff report. I think The city council? Yes. K. I think commissioner Williams makes a really good point that if we had the public meeting at planning commission, maybe more people would hear about that, and then they would know they had the opportunity to come and participate a week later when it was at city council instead of hear about the public hearing too late and not be able to. So that might be a pro is that they come and attend the meeting where you consider DRC's recommendation, and you get to hear from the city and the applicant, and you make your recommendation. And everybody knows that the hearing will be next week at this time and then in this place. That that might be

It it almost would have been additional

notice even though it's not a formal notice. Yeah. I think they'd be happier And it brings all the issues to light and all of the facts to light so people have a week to actually come up with their good quality comments instead of not

being able to give good quality comments because they don't know the content of the application. So that's a really good idea. I don't think there's any harm in because we serve the city and the public and the residents. I don't think there's any harm in giving them more input. Sure.

So that's something I mean, we can think about that. We can discuss it for for a little bit longer. We can bring it back to discussion at another meeting. That's totally up to you guys. We don't

have to make a decision tonight on anything. I think there's 10 or 15 of us that understand the difference between, let's say, that public input and a public hearing, but all the public knows is, do I get to speak or not? Right. Am I gonna be heard or not? It's no different to them. And I don't know that, like, on citizen input, you use the timer. I almost think citizen input you do. Could be or out of hand.

Well, sure. Because it's it's open mic night. Right? Yeah. On any topic. Yeah. Again, that's not a requirement by the state. Some municipalities keep that because it's a tradition, you know, from before people got notices and emails and could see recordings and things like that. It's not required.

Yeah. I just I don't I don't think any I'm against having it twice under any name.

K. What any specific things that you would want the city council to take the public hearing for?

I'm sorry. I have pride in Like development agreements versus a standard subdivision versus a commercial project. You see a lot more public hearings because

city council and planning commission approved subdivisions. Right? There was a lot more things that required a public hearing. There aren't so many anymore. As you know, c o p CUPs are their purpose is questioned a lot. Things like rezones still need a public hearing, but a lot of our applications don't. Site plans don't require public hearing. They just require approval from planning commission, and that would stay exactly the same. It's it's just the things that require public hearing. And right now, that's rezones, conditional use permits, and development agreements. So there's not not a ton of things that do require that legislative action, ordinate new ordinances.

The benefit of having it as city council, I think there'd be a dual purpose that could be served in that one meeting. Because at the beginning, people can speak about anything that's not on the agenda. Sure. So they could give their opinions about things. And there's the public hearing only heard, like you say, facts, not feelings, but that might be a good merge so that the elected officials hear the whole picture Mhmm. From people, their emotions and their facts. Sure.

Yeah. Interesting.

We could we could give you a couple of weeks to consider, and then we can we could make it an action item on the next agenda if you want, or we could make it another discussion item for when everybody's here.

I think we could I'd like to suggest no. Not another workshop.

Maybe get her on the first, though, anyways. No? I don't know. Oh, I thought we were already doing one.

I'd like to suggest that we have development agreements go to the city council. And the reason I say that is because I almost think of a development agreement as a business agreement between two two entities, the city and the developer. And there's a trade of of goods or services or land or property or whatever. And it's the other two things, the re zones and the Conditional use permit. Conditional use permit, which we're trying to get rid of anyway, are land use items. We can take that. And and we're not gonna give away all of the contentious items. No. Trust me. There will still be things that come to us that and I'm not trying to just pass the buck. That's not that is not the intention here. But it is I feel it's more of a a business arrangement between the city and a developer, a a development agreement is than the other items. And we shouldn't be involved in in the business aspect of the city or land use. It does involve land use. I get that. And we we give our recommendation, but we need to give it on the land use portion, not the business portion, which we're doing. Because We're analyzing all these other We're analyzing everything. And I'm not sure if that's what we're supposed to be doing. Right. Because even on these past that we've looked at a couple times,

you know, on, like, that visionary homes, the last page where they were talking about, like impact fees, and, you know, dollars, like, that's not our purview. That's not what we're over. Yeah, I felt like it was, are we okay with the residential part? You know, the layout? Are we okay? You know, do we like the park? Yeah. I was I certainly have feelings on the impact fee, you know, percentages or, you know, concessions or not, but I didn't feel like that's what we speak to. On the flip side, I think you have to know because sometimes some of the commissioners have complained that we vote we recommend one way and city council votes a different way. I think you have to be more open to changes that way if it's if the public hearing is at their level. Yep.

And they're the ones that have to answer to the public.

Yeah. Yeah. But they also answer to us and take our recommendations

seriously. They don't answer to us, but they take our recognition.

Fair. I feel like they work with us. Like, we're all we're all on the same team. Yeah. So what do you think? You want that as an an action item next time?

I would agree with adding development agreement hearing public hearings to go on agenda for moving that to city council because that is a legal contract between the city and the developer. And everything we've been listening to, all the time we've spent on it, it's the land use portion, planning and zoning has been a small part we've been talking about is adequate consideration for the contract. And that's legal stuff that city council should probably they're responsible to make sure that the city is getting the fair end of the deal on that stuff. That's you're right. It's out of our

Yeah. I do like that division. Yeah. Out of our scope. Probably didn't say that, but I do like that division, Mike. K.

I agree with that. K. K. So we're putting it as an action item. That item next? Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. Alright. And

action. Do we need to ask the city council what they think about that, or are we just gonna

Oh, we'll we'll approach some folks. Yeah. It it won't be a surprise. Hey. Guess what? That's never a good idea. No. He's happy with that. They'll probably get it out as a discussion item as well, so no worries.

Alright. Next discussion item. We're talking about repealing some of the zones, some of the existing zones, specifically the residential transition, the mixed use, and the r two, which is also residential zone and almost like putting them on hold. I mean, what do we do on that? Gonna discuss.

Kyle has nicely written up some talking points and even made you a PowerPoint presentation. I think we're gonna have to hire him full time to be my assistant. Just a suggestion. But we are gonna start right here with discussing. Again, we're not deciding anything. We're not making any changes, choices, or demands right now. We are discussing, the future of the R T zone, the M X D zone, and the R 2 zone. So r T? Is that where we should start? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So the current plan for all of these is to repeal our sunset and sort of either replace or create new zones that accomplish the purpose. But my understanding is the current zones don't really accomplish the purpose that they were designed for. And so our decisions for all of these were to keep it, change it, repeal it, or relocate it, and our current plan is to repeal.

Could you speak just a little louder? I can hear you. But Yes. I apologize.

You kinda have to like. A a lean a little bit. Perfect.

Sorry about that. Sure. It's now and I did print you out a little zoomed in zoning map. That little brown section along Wolfpack Way is where RT exists. And you'll you'll note that we have not had any RT development. So repealing this zone, doesn't affect anyone because we literally have never approved an application in the RT zone, and we haven't found a project that could ax actually get through the application process.

No. Looking at this map is have we haven't actually changed these parcels to be to be RT.

There's there's a But it's in the There's a portion of all of these parcels that was rezoned to RT. Did we rezone them and partial Oh, once a partial

time. Partial RT and partial agriculture

Yes. So Okay. Most of these parcels South Of Center Street all the way down to the Visionary property are split zoned, which is frowned upon.

Yes. That's why I was thinking that's why I was surprised that we had done that. It does happen, though.

There are lots of municipalities along major highways or major interstates who will zone a 50 foot section on, you know, the East side and the west side of this road as industrial or as it happens. Yeah. And I think that was just something in relation to Wolfpack Way. And, Kyle and I did dig out the old Wolfpack Way future map development map, and it kind of did make sense with what folks had had planned to happen along there. It just it just didn't happen, and that that happens sometimes.

The best laid plans. Right? I was under the impression that we had taken that RT all the way east to 200 West so that whole lot would be transition to to Wolfpack Way.

It's just that little strip on your map. It's a brown color, and it's I see it. Very small. Yeah. So that's our intent is to just repeal the RT zone. It would be noted in the land use code that it did exist, but has was repealed and doesn't govern any piece of property. And then we would, of course, have to go through the process of returning those sections of parcels to their parent zoning, which is ag, except down below Institutional? Yes. Where the Visionary Homes section is, I believe that was all that might have been ag too. It'll take a little bit of digging and doing, but we can definitely figure out what they were before and return them to that state.

So repealing that would just be clicking the undo button on the document. You just go to whatever was prior. There'll be more a lot of paperwork involved, but, yes, that's basically the action. You're right. I don't want that public hearing.

What? To put it back? I I think they don't want I think they'd rather have it go back to ag. I think it would be yeah. I think it will be I think it will be much more useful to the property owners

in the future.

Yep.

So And that's the only section that's known out on the whole

Yeah.

In town. Yeah. It's just that little section. So unless you guys have, any objection to repealing the RT zone,

that we will start writing that up as an ordinance. You're you're action. I know. But you're not repealing it to get back ag, are you? We don't actually want ag in that area.

No. But without proposing a different zone for that, which the city wouldn't push that off on a property owner to say we want you to, we would look at our future land use map and say, what should this be? Right? But, ultimately, it's up to the property owner what their land is zoned. And so the rightful thing to do is return it to its parent zoning. Yeah. I mean Unless, of course, the property owner says, well, while you're at it, I would like to be commercial or I would like to Yeah. Or something. We could definitely make that little pivot. But if they don't, then we would just return it to the And they can ask later to switch it. Right. They can ask it in touch. Time. K. Sure. I think I'm mixing this up with the future land use map. Okay. Yeah.

I'm in favor of putting that on I don't have a problem with that one. K.

Great. So let's open the can of worms about mixed use. And I did also give you guys the legend off of the zoning map. It's really small on the zoning map and hard to see, and we're gonna talk about what we're gonna do with this a little bit later. But you you should have a map, and you should also have that legend in front of you. So when we're talking about, MXD on this map I gave you, it's the red parcels in red, and they are also all along Wolfpack Way. And so, again, at a I believe at our workshop we had about future land use map, that idea popped out about should we be rezoning any more of our commercial to mixed use, or should we be doing keeping it commercial or doing something better? So then the idea morphed into is has the idea of mixed use in Hyde Park reached its sunset date? Keep the zone, keep the rules in place for the parcels that are already zoned to MX, but no longer allow new parcels to be rezoned to MX. That's our proposal is to just sunset

mixed use development. So not doing in the red what we were just talking about for the transition. We're talking about leaving the red, not allowing any future changes to that so it's no longer a new

zoning that someone could ask for. And in the future, you can always lift the sunset. Right? You can put it back into play through the same kind of process, But this way, it keeps it on the books, and we could use it again if we wanted to. Or if we specifically wanna hang on to commercial and don't wanna do any more more reasons to MXD, we give it that sunset date. And then we could also address it on that future land use map as places. It could be if the sunset were repealed.

So the difference between these first two zones is that the residential transition was never used, and so that can be repealed. Correct. The mixed use has been used. And so that's why that one just has a sunset to win in two months or two weeks or whatever. Right. The rules need to stay on the books. No one can apply for that one after this certain time. Correct. But the ones that are are that they still have that

they're not losing anything.

No one's gaining anything. No one's losing anything. Yeah. Because we used to have an r one zone that we nobody could ask for a rezone to that, but it was an existing zone for a lot of the homes in the core. Okay.

So any thoughts,

facts or feelings about that? Well, I guess I wanna know what if not that, then what? You know? Because I get that the mixed use either, yeah, hasn't done what we wanted or we have enough of it. And so what what would we paint that in our future land use map? K. That's coming up.

Okay. Any other comments about that? K. And then the future of r two. We met with a developer. We met with several developers about r two parcels, and what they have determined is that they don't pencil. And what they're saying is is they cannot build on our two lots

to make a profit. And this is not cost savings. Half acre lots. Is that what we mean two lots per acre? That's what r two is. They said quarter acre lots are still viable,

but half acre lots just aren't. And as you know, half acre lots are a drain on infrastructure, especially when it comes time to replace or improve or modify or do upkeep, especially to install new, big lots with a lot of frontage cost more than they bring in. There are many, many lots and parcels zoned r two in the city, and so it wouldn't be a repeal. It would be more of a sunset that we're as you annex in, or if you're ag, you're not gonna rezone to R two. We wouldn't make anybody rezone their property at this time to something else, but it also would give folks the opportunity to rezone their R two if they wanted to. Where I feel like in the past, they haven't had that opportunity. Putting the sunset on R 2 would give them that.

Question. So the current R 2 people who own properties owned R 2 right now, they are unable to request a change?

They can't change? Can request a change. I just think the people who wanted to rezone haven't done so because they felt like they, were gonna get a lot of pushback. So they haven't gone to R 4, R 5 like they want to.

It's so if it's based on just a perception, if they if we can change that perception, if the avenue is available to them, do we need to change zoning to accommodate what their their misperception, or do we rebrand it and let them know they're it's they'll get a more favorable ear if they are asking to change from R two? So, ideally, what we'd like to do is to

change the R two designation to low density residential and open the size up a little bit so that folks with that low density residential designation can have half acre lots if they really want them. They can have quarter acre lots if they really want them, or they can go to something smaller if they want to. Right now, R 2 has a couple of problems, and one of those problems is there's not a lot coverage max on R 2. We talked about it before. You can build from maximum. You could cover your entire r two property in structure or unpermeable surface if you wanted to right now, which, as you know, causes a lot of stormwater problems and encroachment problems, and we need to modify our r two zone. So

So when you say they could still do half acre, if they have an acre, they can still do just two lots?

They could, or they could do quarter acre lots. We would open that zoning up to allow smaller lots. Especially as people annex from the county, they're gonna get out of that agricultural designation and they need to come into a residential designation, this would give them the options for doing low density residential without saying it must be a half acre.

So what's the difference between this low density and the r four, r five? Or There's more. Okay.

So that's our intention is to do exactly what you suggested and rebrand. And

Like, limits on it? Minimum, maximum? That's coming.

Those are already kind of there. We would always be willing to look at setbacks and things of that nature if you guys felt like it was productive. But, really, we want the low density residential to to have options just like we want everybody else to have options. Keep it big if you want it big and then be able to to stay in your zone, but have a smaller lot if you want to. And that's where we're headed. Am I saying all of this correctly? You gotta check me if I'm not. Okay. So, yeah, if you think that's worth our time, we would love to give you an alternative future for r two zoning.

I think all of this is the kind of stuff that the public would really wanna make sure that they hear about. What I other than just, like, a hearing, a yes or no, and you're only allowed to speak about this much stuff.

We are thinking, like, either an open house style thing with lots of graphics and lots of, pictures and explanations, and maybe a digital version of that where if people couldn't or didn't want to come down to the city offices and look at things that they could do that on their own time digitally?

I think that digital is a great idea because I think the last thing that had a open ability there weren't a lot of people that came, and I heard a lot of neighbor people mentioning they wanted to. It was a bad time. They only had that time to go. So if whatever's available in person was available digitally, like, right at the front of the city website, here's our proposed plans. Please click, you know, add your comments and let them upload comments.

We would love something that we could maybe put in the back of this big room that was available all the time, during office hours where anybody could walk through and and, leave comments or, get an idea of what what would change and what wouldn't change. It would take definitely, public outreach. This isn't something that's gonna happen super fast. We know that, about land use situations, But it's something that we could, work on if that's what planning commission wants us to spend our time on. If it's not, we need to know that so we can pivot and work on the things that we do need to spend our time on. All of the suggestions for these discussion items tonight come from that initial document that planning commission and city council created in that workshop about the future land use map and future land use uses. And the things along the Wolfpack Way corridor have number one priority. Naming and recategorizing zones is also a red item, which means we need to do that right away. And specifically mentioned in there is the r t redo, r two redo, and opportunities for the a zones along with multifamily. So a lot of what we're gonna talk about tonight is directly from the workshop that, you folks put together as directions for us to go. But as we start to get really specific with this stuff, if we're off course, we need that course correction so that we are, doing what you want us to do and not getting off topic.

There's an entry in box. It is called zone changes visual. It's this, but with red lines and

And so just keep your eyeball on that. And you can make notes on your sheet as you go. I'd probably start each k. I mean There you that's for your use. Yep. As a tool.

One of the things that it's kinda jumping into another topic already, but you have LDR, MDR, HDR.

Hold your questions, Toni Anne.

I can't because it's all interrelated.

It is. And we'll go quickly if you'd like us to so that we can get to those items as well. We'll try to listen Okay. Until the end. Okay. No. We won't. We will not. I hope We respect your need to ask questions.

Always. The right way to Okay.

So as you know, current development along Wolfpack Way, everybody knows we talked about the Aspen Grove visionary developments in the RT zone, and we all know how that went. If you don't, you can certainly watch that YouTube discussion. There are various vested MX projects down Wolfpackway, as you know. Those are the ones in red. And then we do have several applications those aren't something we would repeal. For those folks who are already vested, those would stay. So what we're doing, if you look at this map, is you can kind of see by the red colors on your map is that those are your walkable neighborhoods, and those are your small commercial and residential mix together. And now we just need to decide what we're gonna do with the gaps so those property owners can decide how they wanna use their property. The gateway is already under construction. If you wanted to see what get an idea of how all of these MXC projects are developing, you can watch as the gateway goes up. That was done as a development agreement, as you remember. So there were some challenges there, but there were also some really good benefits. We got that extension of Wolfpack Way going, and we got some amenities out of that for the city. So if we continue to develop that way, are we willing to do larger projects like the gateway, or do we want to keep those mixed use developments smaller is one of the questions to consider. Kyle, do you have any weigh in on that?

Yeah. I'm just from my understanding, some of those bigger projects presented a lot of challenges with those development agreements with those unforeseen, you know, general roadblocks and those sorts of things. And so the curiosity and the sort of bottom line here is what is sort of the end goal for Wolfpackway? Do we wanna do a bunch of large large projects? Do we want those neighborhoods? Do we want those types of things? Or do we want something else entirely? And so that's kinda where this question is leading is what is our end goal for Wolfpackway?

I guess I in my mind, I assume it has to be a large project because we're so limited on accesses. These are long, skinny parcels when they don't get access on the highway if they don't already have it. And we're saying only some people are gonna get access on Wolfpack Way, and it's probably a shared one. And so I don't know how we I guess, talk to me about how that's

We get creative, and we give people opportunities to do different kinds of things that we haven't given people opportunities to do before. We keep an open mind, and we allow creative projects to come in. And I love the idea of creative, but it seems like creative ends up as a development agreement. And we're And that's what we wanna avoid. Right. To do as we can as development agreements as we can. And so if you stick with us Okay. We're gonna get you there.

Mike, I spoke before you. My bad. So Absolutely. I know. I know. I'm sorry.

We do need as you'll notice, the last bullet point there is public opinion. How do the residents feel about various plans? It's great that, we wanna consider what the property owners wanna do. Right? You guys know I'm very pro property rights. But we also wanna take into consideration the people who live here and the people who might live here in the future and are are they on board with this, or are we way off track? And so, again, ideas for outreach are welcome, and we wanna make sure that we're keeping those dialogues open so that public does get to be heard throughout this process.

I love your idea of having something that's open. Like, you know, we can say, hey. This month, stop by anytime during business hours. Here's the proposal. Because then when it comes time for public hearings, people have had time to digest, discuss, and make a decision Sure. What they how they feel and come educated, and they'll have more than emotion that way. They'll have reasons for their opinions based on fact that was presented to them and given plenty of time to review and talk about with the rest of the community. So we're leaving

these PowerPoints and these discussion points, in that box folder for you guys to continue to mull over and discuss and, get more feedback on. But we're gonna move on because it's already 08:00, and, we wanna get you home in a reasonable manner. So, I'm gonna give it to Kyle, and he's going to talk to you about this thing.

Yeah. So we're looking at and we're workshopping the name currently, but a concentrated density residential. The idea here is, as with all of these different housing types, to provide alternative housing options in High Park City. These would be like tiny homes on tiny lots. And so we spoke with Ephraim today, actually, about some of their projects with tiny homes. And so we'll get to that in a moment, but that's sort of the overview of what's going on here. Something they talked about and something that's current in the PUD zone is the aesthetic diversity. So, like, no two designs for a house can be adjacent to one another or those sorts of things. And so these are sort of the goals for talking about this sort of thing, are there any comments or additions to these goals?

My son's in a newer subdivision down in Texas, and I think they have four different styles of home. But when I first get there, they honestly all look the same. Like, I have to stop and go, oh, yeah. I guess the door is a little inset on that one versus like, they're all so similar. So I believe in something a little more than just not this like, something has to specify a little more than the roof is 30 degrees and the other one's 32 degrees.

What are we looking at as far as density on this?

So if we go to

Oh, yeah. I guess this can standard. Yeah. So you've got d r on all the others, but you left the d out on c. Is that intentional?

That might be true. We've been we've been working pretty hard.

Yeah. I just didn't know if it had to We've shopped the name

what was the other not concentrated, but Condensed. Or condensed residential density. We've we've waffled between just c d and c d r so that they all match. We're just trying to go for consistency here. So right now, we're working with c r. So if you see c d r, that's just density.

But, yeah, in terms of density, we would probably put a maximum of 15 units an acre. So this would be under our current zoning, like an r 15 type thing with a minimum of 10 units an acre. These development standards are based off of Ephraim's, because we really liked, what they looked like. And so they have a minimum of 3,000 square feet, per lot. And, looking at sort of our parcels and our current PUD, they'll look closer to four or 5,000 square feet. So we wanna maintain those, you know, tiny lot requirements, but we're also rezoning or we're, yeah, redoing the PUD overlay. And so one of my questions to the commission is what current pre PUD provisions do we want to carry over into the new one as we create a new zone?

We get to speak now? Yes. Sorry about that. Sorry. Yeah. I'm So you remember one of the provisions in PUD is that they can't be next to each other? That they had to be when it was Everybody had to be adjusted the same side. Is that what you mean? Like No. The PUD developments themselves had to be a certain number of Even part. Blocks or feet. I can picture Markland's map right now. So is that something you would want to keep for tight neighborhoods like this, dense neighborhoods like this, or can they go anywhere that the parcel size allows? And that's another reason that I gave you this map. As you can see where there's open parcels that would allow this kind of thing, they're mostly not next to each other. Some of them are, especially the ones that are zoned a, but there's not a lot of places there's not a ton of places for this to go. It's gonna be fairly specific based on parcel size alone. This is kind of patterned after the PUD ordinance. PUDs are scattered throughout the city. So is that something we need to continue, or is this something we need to let property owners do anywhere they have a big enough parcel to do it?

Open house question. Okay. Mhmm.

And I I feel like that question would require a visual that shows the whole everywhere,

not this this section. K. Do your next. When I'm looking at those senior PDUs, like that one up at Highland Cove, I forget, like, oh, yeah. This is a 55 and older. Like, I forget that it's a senior one because they're pretty big. Like, they don't look Although yes. Like, the first ones that rebuilt, they do look different. They Right. They feel smaller. None of them are two story, so they do feel smaller. But some of these newer ones at Highland Cove and Reed's newer one, these are still big giant houses.

I mean It it just provides opportunity for a little more density. They don't have to be bitty tiny houses, but we wanna give people that option. Right? Small houses on small lots. Everybody gets a front yard, backyard. We don't have this requirement for a crazy amount of open space that's as you know, in that development you were just talking about, there's a whole section of open space that just sits there unused. Yeah. Nobody nobody has done anything with it, and they're not allowed to do anything with it, and they really could. They could put three cottages out there that you know, think you could get creative, and that's what we're asking for is the opportunity for property owners to get creative

and developers to get creative. Can I request an update on that PowerPoint? Only because you're talking about modeling after Ephraim and how they look, but the pictures in here are the pictures in ORM. And I've seen the ones in ORM, I've seen in Provo, and that's what I don't wanna see here. Well, hang on one sec. So Okay.

These are the examples that we have in mind. Everybody gets a little bit of a yard. Everybody has either garage parking or on-site parking. Is that in here? Did I miss it? I only saw the Ormond move there. That should be for high density that we're showing. So when there's samples of different cities We've moved some stuff around today. So Oh. Bear with us. Okay. But these are the examples of the small houses on small lots. And

So we spoke with Ephraim today, and they are currently developing some of those things. So they're not finished with it quite yet, but they gave us a lot of advice. And some of the things that they made sure we knew was it provided a great affordable most of the housing there is not affordable for their median income. And so this is a great alternative for, like, a starter home sort of thing. It could also provide, like, a buffer between zones, which is really great. They've had some problems with setbacks and sort of public utility easements and stuff like that. So that's something to consider. And they also need more specificity in the development standards. They've done a lot of development agreements with this sort of thing. And so we wanna make sure that as we're considering this, as we're moving forward with this, we're as specific as possible so we reduce the amount of development agreements we get. Tell me their setbacks on all sides.

So the ones that they were talking to us about today

are We do have the minimum 3,000. What what's their front setback? It's right there.

Six on the sides. Front and behind and then six on the sides.

I'll be out of town during the open house.

Listen. These are just ideas.

I'm okay with them.

We wanna have lots of visuals so people understand, especially from street view, what that's gonna look like and feel like in a neighborhood.

I feel like this is more what we should be having in a transition zone next. Than what than what we're looking at. What the transition zone intended, but the transition

zone's development standards, oh, just go to next slide, didn't Didn't allow it. Didn't allow it. And so that's what we have to be more specific about is the development standards to allow all the opportunities that we can while also maintaining the things that we need to, maintain for Hyde Park. And I think first time home buyers

seeking from a real estate perspective, they would much rather have a small home that has a front yard, backyard, and no shared walls all day long. That'll be they would much prefer that. That's good. I think that'll make it be a more desirable affordable housing option.

I think the more options we can offer,

the more people will like it. Can you go back sorry. Can you go back again? Like, are these all the eFrem ones, are they all ADU built like, ADU built in?

No. They what they they partnered with a developer. If you remember that lecture we were at at, Utah League of Cities and Towns, they partnered with a developer that did there was certain kinds of plans, and you could do a garage or you could do an ADU or you could do a bigger house. Right? All the all the basic plan on the bottom was the same, but you could choose your own adventure when it came time to build toward the back. You could make that, you know, a two car garage, a small garage with an external ADU. You can make it completely an ADU, or you could extend your house and make your house bigger. So there were there were prebuilt, like, footings and whatnot, and then you chose how you wanted to put your Lego blocks together. Yeah. So, like, the one that had the stairway down the outside

and seemed to have that upper

deck area. And we're not gonna limit this to certain kinds of designs and Yeah. We would like people to be creative and diverse That's an ADU. Types and colors. We we would love that. You could you could technically, you could get an upstairs downstairs situation going here Yeah. With with separate entrances. It just depend, again, on how creative you can be with the development standards we put in place.

I like that. I mean, I like that they can choose because they all want the ADU. They all want the garage. They all want And then they know bigger space, but they do have to choose, you know, if they are in that, like, can't afford right now, then they choose what it is instead of the city choosing for them and saying it has to be ADU ready or it has to have a garage. Like, they choose. Of course, they want all of them. Maybe not. But some are gonna want all of those, but they understand, like, well, they cost, you know, similar. You get to choose between one or the other.

K. We're gonna move you on to high density residential. So if you're looking at your strikethrough, you'll see that I struck through the PUDs and the r five and have made some alterations on those names. So what we're doing is we're taking elements from those zones and keeping what's been working and trying to get rid of what hasn't. And instead of being super specific with numbers, right, r two means half acre lots, and r four means quarter acre lots. We wanna give it a little more broad definition, and that's why we chose, condensed density, high density, medium, and low. So right now, we're gonna talk about high. Kyle is gonna talk about high density team. Cool. So, obviously, the the goal

for all of these is more housing options. Sort of the idea is to sprinkle throughout the city so it's not all a a block of apartments, but, obviously, those locations are gonna be based on lot and parcel size. There's no commitments to where it should be or anything quite yet. Minimum, maximum lots per se. Also use this map to maybe eyeball,

right, where this kind of thing might be appropriate along with that way.

And we're looking at a mix of townhomes and apartments in these high density areas. So r five seems applicable to a lot of these looking at, like, integration into the city versus sort of segregating it into, like, a block of constant or high density residential, sort of integrating it into areas that are, you know, a mix. And we want to create a new zone for this. And, our question to you, as with a lot of these zones, is what locations are preferable. There seems to be a lot of locations in the a zone or r two zone that have available space and available next to areas that are looking to be annexed and that sort of thing. And if we want them near schools, if the idea for HDR is to have families move in, multi, you know, multifamily apartments and stuff like that, do we want those near schools and other things? So

major connector roads, parks that already exist, things like that. Where would this kind of theme be?

Major connector roads, having lived through a couple decades of good growth and bad growth, and I you cannot undo a bad location. Three rules of real estate, location, location, location. Our biggest issue is we have no East West artery roads. They're all going past people's homes and residences, and they're all stuck at 25 miles an hour. I would say it needs to be within a very close proximity to a 45 or 50 mile per hour artery road. Mhmm. Because no matter how what you say, every single residence is gonna have a minimum of two cars. Oh, sure. And you put that on the road going through residences, and this is gonna be a that's what I saw as a nightmare, and you can't undo it, and it causes all sorts of problems. If we could imminent domain or do something through straight through, great, and have a double lane each way and be 50 mile per hour from the mountain to the highway, we'd be good. I don't see that because we've already we're developed out. That's the problem. We are. And these are all ideas for infill because Yeah.

Other than annexing in our annexation area, we don't have any other way to go but back in.

So Do we have in I don't think I've looked at the map and but I'm not super familiar with it. Do we have anywhere that that's even an option?

No. Not really.

That being said, though, what what arteries do we have and keep it close proximity so they only have to go up to the box? We spread the well. Right? We don't overwhelm any one neighborhood.

We try to to keep it keep it where where it makes the most sense for the size of the parcels that that exist right now. Go ahead with your feasibility question. Yeah. So,

obviously, we mentioned families, but are there groups that we wanna prioritize for HDR, whether that be incentivizing for first time homebuyers or for our workforce or a 55 and up? And what would sort of those benefits look like if we want to attract that sort of thing?

Abstract opinion is an illness of pipe bucket. Well and you don't have to share them right now. Again, this is discussion. We wanna start collecting information and, again, course correct us if we're if we're going the wrong way. But this these are the things that we need to to think about when we make these zones so that we can put the right development standards in place to give everybody these opportunities.

I think we need to focus my opinion would be focused on getting first time homebuyers that have owner occupancy ratio requirements Mhmm. For any developments and then, require them to be in the price range that Marcus was talking about some incentive from the state. To keep them attainable. Keep them in that at the same time. So you've got you've got a double whammy. You've got code requirement of the owner occupancy ratio. That will be enforced by title and escrow and resale Right. Original purchase. Once it's done, it's done. We don't have to worry about it. It doesn't cost anything to do it. But it ensures that we get people that have skin in the game in our community. And that's what makes community better is people who are here. They have skin in the game. They they have wanna be able to resell their home. They are voters. They're gonna be here for a while because they have a loan, and they're gonna have to resell the move. They can't just pop up and leave six months to twelve months later. So they they care. So if you take that and add on top of that a requirement to qualify for whatever that I haven't looked it up. So sorry. I don't know what to call it. The Utah requirement for it to be For affordable? For affordable. Yeah. Yep. If you put those two together, then I think we've got a great And we have had a couple of developers

come to the city and say, if you had a zone where we could do this kind of thing, we've already got mechanisms in place. We're just looking for places to to put this. And so those folks who do wanna work with deed restrictions are out there. Hyde Park City just doesn't have the zone that allows them to do the thing that they need to do. And I know you kinda had a had a different experience with some of these development agreement folks, but there are developers who are willing to do these things if we provide them a zone to do them in. And, again, you wanna look at this current zoning map to see where that might be appropriate. Kyle's also included Provo has a section of town where they allow this stuff, so we included that case study and some of their development standards. We also went as far as saying, are we gonna require all of these to have the amenities, the playgrounds, etcetera, etcetera. What if they're close already to a park that exists? Can we maybe excuse them from having to build a playground and get another house in there if there are certain radius from a city park or an existing amenity of some kind. So we wanna we wanna make sure we're keeping options open. Right now, our development standards in Hyde Park are very narrow, and it doesn't provide a lot of options.

Where are we in our requirements that the state has for us? Are we how many units are we missing, lacking, requiring So check that out. The moderate income housing.

So our plan or the the city's plan for meeting that moderate income housing requirement was the plan was rezones. We're gonna rezone these a parcels and these big R 2 parcels to R 4, R 5, or M X. And so we met that requirement by those rezones to M X, but now now we've met it, what's next? There's gonna be more requirements coming from the state, and I don't know that rezoning to more r two and more a will get that done. We we've gotta have a few more options there to actually get the houses built. As you know, we did those rezones to MX, and we have houses coming. But I just did the latest moderate income housing reporting I had to do, and all I had were single family homes that got built. And so we're still we're still not where we should be with the state when it comes to that. So this will definitely help. So as far as, like

and I'm a broken record too in that I want to provide all kinds of housing. Right? I want I think it's healthier for a city to have all kinds. But in a in an open house, you're mostly gonna get people saying, no. I only want people here that wanna live like I live. I want you know, they don't.

That's true. And I'm hoping that as people's kids are getting old enough to graduate high school and move out into the world that that they'll look at their younger kids and of their neighbors and go, okay. Our time is coming. Right? Where are my kids gonna live? And the more that we are creative and embrace these kind of changes, I think people will see it's not something to be afraid of anymore. I think that was a lot of fear based reaction maybe in the past. And I think people are are growing and learning, and we need to give our city the opportunity to do the same thing. If it's completely rejected, then we must listen to the people, and we will. K. This is what we this is what we don't.

Yeah. Right? This is if if we sort of have a block of HDR. So Aurob has this right next to the train station where they have an entire zone just dedicated to apartments. So this is what that would look like. Another city did a presentation and created this. This is sort of what we're envisioning of it's sprinkled in. So you'd still have it next to other zones, so it's not just a sort of block

of a park. Imagine Can we get the river? She's gonna say I know. It's a little optimistic,

but it gets the point across. Also, we did not use up any artificial intelligent water. We we

we borrowed this at our gigs. Yeah. I stole that from somebody else. So

It's a the Orem one, the one they put near Costco, it's a nightmare. That traffic in that area, they did not expand any roads, and it is just a congested rat's nest mess. Alright. That was It's affecting the businesses now.

Okay. We're gonna move you on to medium density. Okay.

We went from low to high to now medium? We went from

condensed

to high, and now we're gonna go to medium. Oh, okay. I thought we started with low. Never mind. During your condensed, so that's why my pictures weren't matching. Concentrate. I'm a run one.

Condensed, concentrated. Concentrated. We're still workshopping that. Right. Opportunity. Yeah. We'll get there. We'll figure it out. Okay. So this is the medium.

Now it says mixed density on the top of it.

Okay. Again, workshopping.

Apologies. Anyway, this is looking at single family through fourplex. Obviously, we we really like that our PUD provision that says no to designs, and, obviously, you've mentioned some concerns with that. And so I I think that's something that we wanna bring into all of these different housing types. We don't want it to look like Edward Scissorhands, you know, yellow buildings for forever type thing. We are considering less restrictive requirements to allow some more wiggle room for developers, like a minimum setback or that sort of thing. Do you wanna talk about that?

Right now in our R 5 zone, you can do mixed housing types. We just haven't had a lot of bytes on that. But I think it's because we require 75% of those to be single family homes and two family homes. So we're thinking if we open that range up a little bit to allow a a bigger mix, maybe you could do 50% single family homes and the rest, duplexes or triplexes or something. We think we would get a lot more people who maybe wanted to take advantage of of the density. Right now, setbacks are still really big. We've talked a lot about in the last little bit about not requiring that public utility easement on all sides of a lot that if we did these higher dense neighborhoods, it could just be in the front, could make sure your water lines have their, you know, space they need from the electric and the gas lines and have all of that taken up in the front so that we could make the setbacks make more sense and allow bigger side setbacks on one side. Right? So now you can access your backyard. You can put an accessory structure back there if you want to. You can build an ADU. You can have a garage if you want to, but you've got room to get back there instead of being stuck parking on the street and things like that. So next slide. We wanna talk about what types of dwellings we want and where they need to go. So instead of, again, instead of super specific general development standards, we wanna be we wanna give that wiggle room, but we still wanna make sure that the zone makes sense and that people are able to do creative projects in that zone. So, again, this will take some public input. This will take a little bit of visual street view type imaginings, maybe overlaid on a few of the empty lots around town so that we can kinda get the idea of what this would look like and how this would feel. We'll try not to use AI as much as possible. Yeah. I'd just

comment that trying to get more specific. We tried general ideas, and we translated it one way, and the developer translated another way. And so we ended up with at least three three developments that I'm not real

happy I agree with Smith. And I think that's why it's super important where we take into consideration where these would go and how that would affect the neighborhoods where we're suggesting they go, and then what kind of standards we need in place so that we get the result that benefits landowners and that benefits residents who are gonna live there.

On that note, we looked at Saratoga Springs, and they have some ordinances that I think make a lot of sense for what we're trying to do here. So instead of, like, one development standard for this zone, it refers to the development standard of others. So all that would be required in this zone is a mix of those others. So that LDR, that HDR, that CDR. So those are where that they would get those development standards. All that would be required is that they are mixed together. So they say, like, many different housing styles, types, that sort of thing. And lot types should be dispersed throughout the neighborhood and not be in segregated sections. So this is the Saratoga Springs plan that they presented. So this was sort of the idea of, like, okay. We have got single family homes. We've got duplexes. We've got fourplexes. Got all of those things. Positions of

It's it's kind of what we had envisioned for that. Right? And maybe that's the part of town that this needs to go in.

See that apartment there doesn't look bad with the seven or eight story behind it, but The one in Hyde Park, it doesn't look Yeah. It doesn't look natural in Hyde Park, I don't think. I think it's where those visuals can really help because

it's really hard to take that image and then think, okay. If we put that here, what would that look like? That's really easy to do on an aerial map because it's just a footprint. But a street view visual similar to this or even more of a street view, I think, would give everybody it would take away that fear of we don't know what this is gonna look or feel like, and give everybody a little bit of peace of mind that this isn't, something to be afraid of.

Well, with AI, I think it'd be easy for any developer. I think that you probably should go to Street View and put their renderings, including what's exactly right there actually, because people's minds are always gonna go worst case scenario and justifiably so Sure. Because they don't there's not a trust level there. So we I think they need to put it there and say, here's what it really looks like to ask too. Really wanna try, they do.

Developers that don't wanna put that much effort in, they don't. I think it would be helpful as we as we try to adopt these zones and come up with these development standards if we made an effort to show this is what we need.

So, like, as commissioner Mose said, we don't end up with something that's not what we meant. Yeah. Right? But that's not part of a but that's not part of a rezone step. Like and that's what the public wants. They wanna say, well, what are you gonna do on this property? But that's not that doesn't come at the rezone step. We don't want plaits. We don't ask for drawings. Say we wanna rezone to

medium density. We can bring up several different renderings like this and maybe some different whatever development standards we put in place, and we have those renderings from this workshop and go, these are the kinds of things that will go in this zone.

Again, I just yeah. It's where we say, like, we want five to 10 amenities, and the city's thinking 10. And the developer heard, I only have to do five.

I think that's why we don't we we need to make sure what we're asking for why we're asking for what we're asking. Yeah. Why are we asking for a range? Why are we asking for 10? Does it make sense in this part of town when there's a park on this side and a school on this side? Do we need any amenities at all? It's gotta make sense, and that's what we're really trying to do is is is gather these different zones and be able to put them in their own kind of little pod of not just the the development standards that make sense, but where they need to go. And do those development standards make sense for that place? So making these edits to our future land use map really is gonna take consideration, and it's gonna take a lot of thought and and a lot of being able to make sure what we're doing is for a purpose and not just throwing it out there to see what might happen.

Yay. That feature then that'll be that feature land use map is tough because I don't know that there's would be a difference between, like, r four and r five or, I guess, yeah, that's where you switched to medium high or concentrated.

That's why I redlined r four and r five, and and let's get them into some zones that actually make sense. High, medium, low, and really condensed so that we know exactly what we're doing when we put them on that Miami's map. Okay. Here's your low density residential.

So the idea here, as we mentioned, in our first discussion on Wolfpack Way is sort of redoing the R 2 to rezoning it to low density residential, but we don't really wanna change the purpose. The purpose is going to maintain the same. All we're doing is expanding those standards to allow for, you know, smaller lots or or adjusting that lot size.

So I'll turn the time over you to talk about that site development standards. Right now, as you know, the R 2 zone, we already talked about this. It doesn't have there's not a lot of of specifics in the R 2, and I think that's kinda why people like it. You can do a whole lot of stuff in R 2, and we wanna keep it that way. But instead of pigeonholing it to half acre lots, we wanna just give some flexibility there to to do quarter or maybe even third and still be and not have to change your zone in order to do that, not have come for a rezone in order to do that. That that low density residential gives you several options. You're not just stuck with this specific size. If people don't have to rezone and they can still develop, they're gonna develop sooner, and that's what we want. Right? We want opportunities for folks. So that's really all we have to say about that. Kyle was really great about putting the development standard links in there. So as you go through these PowerPoints and read about how these things might change, you can read how our code exists right now and apply it to that zone and kinda see why it makes sense to make some of these changes.

Alright. So you talked about repealing the residential, the mixed use, and r two, but you're also talking about,

like, the r four and r five. We jumped right to item d, establishment of LDR, MDR, HDR, and CR zones. Yeah. In place of those three and others. Yes. K. So we're kind of taking the best of all of our zones and making them make sense and then giving them a little wiggle room and still trying to keep our development standards in place so that we are able to do the thing we wanna do for the reason we wanna do it. So any reason to keep the senior PUD? I don't think so. I think that can be blended either into that high density or even the condensed density because those are the lot sizes and the setbacks and thing that that we're proposing for those zones. So I think they would blend right in. What about the core? Core, I think we're gonna leave core. Core has kind of its quirkiness with its lot sizes and the way that, things are oriented, lack of sidewalks in some places, extra sidewalks in others. The core zone is is kind of unique and special, and we're gonna just keep it just like it is. We're not gonna get crazy right now. Special. Unique. It has personality. We actually had some visitors from out of town today, and they mentioned how delightful this area of town was and and that it seemed like it had been here for a long time. And, in fact, it has. Okay. The last discussion item is pretty easy. It's definitions. And the reason we're talking about it is the updated state code definitions of ADUs. This is how correct me if I'm wrong. This is how our our definitions read right now Yeah. Is is the first page. And then second page is the red lines and the green lines of what we need to change and the state code citation for that. The only thing we're changing about the accessory dwelling unit definition is we're adding the word parcel because an ADU doesn't have to be on a lot in a subdivision. It could be on a piece of land that's not in a subdivision, which is not a lot. It's a parcel. So we're just being we're being specific with our wording so that people understand you can do that on a lot or a parcel. Just being technically correct. Yep. Definitely should be correct.

We like that. Yeah. It's gonna be correct.

Sorry. You're good. For our IADUs and DADUs, the state made the change to ensure that the internal accessory dwelling unit is only for the purpose of offering long term rental of thirty days or longer. So that's the biggest change for our IADU definitions. For our DADU, it's not much change. It's just simplifying the definition down to what the state code is. So a lot of those things like living, sleeping, eating are implied within a a habitable dwelling unit. And so those aren't necessary for this definition.

So the internal clarification of thirty days or more, that's to make sure we aren't just creating a whole permission for a whole bunch of Airbnbs.

Right. Got it. Inside. Inside. But a detached doesn't have that same restriction according to this. Right. According to this,

my intention is to present you the idea of deed restrictions on detached ADUs that they will not be used for overnight accommodations. That's that was our solution in Grand County for that problem. We don't have to talk about that tonight if that's how we want to manage that, I think that discussion comes with our discussion about short term rentals. And and if that's something we decide we wanna allow, then, of course, we're not gonna move forward with the deed restriction discussion. So as of right now, we don't have any provisions in place either way. As we get through all of these items on the planning list, short term overnight accommodations will come into play, and I think we'll tackle it then. There's one more definition that we're updating.

Yeah. So in our land use table, it defines retail sales establishment and then lists all of that. And so all we're doing is taking what it says in the land use table and bringing it to the definitions

so it's so people can refer back to this definition. Says all of it. It literally does try to list every kind of retail establishment known to man. The list on the land use table is really long, and it's not necessary. If we just define a retail sales establishment, we can all use our good judgment. And as the zoning administrator, I can make those interpretations, and we don't have to list every possible retail use in the world on our land use tooling.

So exhibit c is simply what it would look like in its final form with those new definitions.

Link copy. Yeah. Yeah. Well done.

K. Those are all the discussion items, I believe, that we have.

Definitions will come back to you as adoptable at, hopefully, the next meeting. The rest of these discussion items, we want you to give us some feedback and tell us if we're on the right track or if we need to pivot or otherwise. So let us know what you think via email or stop by the office anytime. We're happy to talk about it some more or read your emails.

So I'd I'd the internal a and a d the IAADU or the IADU versus the dADU, I like the IADU. The way the state has it is is great. I wouldn't mind adding that last portion of the internal ADU definition to the

detached. As like a city specific definition? Right. Okay. Just after

Utah code annex 10 Dash21Dash101. I'm not sure if you see what it allows. Is that It is for the purpose of offering Okay. Long term rental. And I I suppose you put an exception in there, but it has to then match our short term rental

Yes. Code.

What whatever we're doing with that, if that's a limitation of numbers or distances or whatever else we're doing. Yep. That will be a discussion. Requires a business license. You know, short term would have to follow, of course, the STR.

It's standards for both of these that will apply. The development standards aren't a part of the definition, but they there are still development standards in place for internal and external ADUs. Yeah. This is simply correcting our definitions in our in our definition section.

While we're at it, let's maybe we can add that one. I don't know. What what what do you think about that? Do you think we should I mean, I think the purpose the state's purpose in building a detached ADU, allowing people to build an attached or detached ADU was to provide other places people can rent long term. Not hotel rooms. Not short term. That well, I think that was the overall purpose. But they left the door open

K. With that But we can close it. Definition. We can close it. Yeah. Yeah. We can close our door.

If that's what we wanna do, we can K. Noted.

I just needs to I think it just needs to match the short term rental code that we have now so that it not every single per and I don't know how many I think we've had one or two applications for detached ADUs

since I've been here. You would be surprised at how many are in my queue right now.

K.

They're they're coming. I'd like great. To a moment too. In an in internal and detached? Detached most.

So I I know. I get it. Usually, people build this because maybe their their parents need a place closer to them, or their kids need a place to start out with. And then they'll maybe they'll pass on or they'll the the kids will move on and get their own place, their own piece of land. So then all of a sudden it sits empty, and then what do they do? So I get it. There are there are reasons why we'd wanna allow them to some of them to do that. I don't I don't know what that happy medium is, though.

That's I'm not sure. Have to suss out for sure. Yeah. Yeah. And the market changes. Like like, we don't know. Like, right now, we need housing really bad, but, you know, I mean, five years ago, there were companies were trying to hire people, and now it's really hard to get a job. Like, we just can't predict all of those things. But I think that's why it's important for us to provide opportunities,

options, and leave wiggle room while still meeting our purposes. So we're gonna try to do that, especially before the end of summer while I have some help. So that's the plan.

Yeah. I love the concept of that. I like the creativity. I don't know how we write it, but, yeah, I would love to have that kind of a thing in the code with and avoid the development agreements. I'm all for the reduced setbacks too. K. Great.

I have a question that might turn into a future discussion item proposal whenever we get to that point before we adjourn. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. I know that we're discouraging people from use doing green things in the park strips. Correct? Because doing green things We want Oh, yes. I understand, obviously. Want, like, rock and that kind of stuff. So I'd like to propose that we reassess what's the purpose of the Park Strip. Prior previously, the purpose of the Park strip was to have some beautiful landscaping. If all they're gonna do is put the same effect on the environment as a piece of concrete, would it be more a better utility of it to just have a wider sidewalk? What brought that brings that up is I've watched kids get stuck in the rocks in their bikes. And then today, my husband pulled over and helped a handicapped gentleman who's because rocks are a problem with wheels. I've seen kids get stuck. And then today, he had to get out and help someone else came because a guy who was on a wheelchair automatic going up the hill, all it takes is just being a little off and it gets stuck in those rocks and he went down. So they were helping him up. And I and when he told me that, I was like, why are we even doing park strips anymore if we're not gonna do it for the if the original purpose of park strips was to make it look more park light, why don't we just say, look at the possibility of saying, don't have that road. Just have a wider sidewalk.

Well and I think if you go way back in planning

That's part of the easement too, isn't it? Well, it was

where you parked, and trees were supposed to go there because you wanted shaded parking. And that makes sense. And tree lined streets are very you get a lot of that, especially back east. That's kind of how all of this came about. Here, we use it for snow removal. Right? We have to have somewhere for that snow to go to pile up and then melt and go back down into the earth. So it can't be covered with sidewalk. It can't be covered with cement. We actually have a provision in our code that says you can't just fill your park strip

with unperme nonpermeable surface. Be able to permeate that. Yeah.

And so that's the idea. Trees in the park strip are kinda counterproductive if you're trying to keep your streets and your sidewalks from not getting root Yeah. Buckled. Like, there's a really happy medium for that stuff, and, a lot of places, you will see that trees aren't allowed in the park strip. They have to be on your property, and there can't be watering you know, there can't be drip lines or irrigation lines in the park strip that it's for it serves a purpose. Interestingly enough, we did meet with the folks from Slow the Flow today with the mayor and Marcus and a council member, and they have some really good ways of helping us educate folks about just such a thing. What makes sense? Is it really rocks? Maybe not. Could we do something better that still allows for snow removal? And that makes our city aesthetically pleasing, but doesn't cause us to dump out our culinary water in the street like we do right now. And so I'm excited to work with those folks. I hope we'll get to do that moving forward, and they've got lots of lots of really good ideas about how to make that transition happen. So great topic.

Thank you. Yeah. Well, that makes sense. Why we wouldn't do it just a wider sidewalk. But Nope. We're on. That would make more sense, but I didn't think about the permeability requirement for snow melting.

Yeah. There's lots of snow again. Lots of moving parts with development standards for sure.

Thank you.

Sometimes I just want the width of the sidewalk that was originally installed without the grass growing over it. And so now it's down to just a foot wide because of grass growing over the boats. Yeah. Or the trees that Mhmm. Encroach. Yeah. It's a fun adventure.

Alright.

Looks like next week, a week from today, we have a work session at 06:00

for the visionary. I believe that to be true. If something changes, I will let you know. Again, this isn't a decision thing. I don't know if you were updated. I think you were. That after your vote, that visionary item, most some of you were at that workshop we had before city council, and then they I believe they pulled that application at the city council meeting to go back and rework some of their development agreement. So this will be, hopefully, a different document, but still a relevant document that we're workshopping. If they're not ready, then we'll definitely let you know that. Otherwise, yes, that would be a pre meeting

workshop on the twenty fourth. I think that our last one, I felt a little feedback on that. I thought it was hard to hear from 10 chiefs, you know, for visionary to listen to them. I almost wondered if, like, we 10 need to get together and decide what really are the talking points or what really are the sticking points before we meet with them. Well, ma'am, I think visionary needs to decide what their talking points and what their sticking points are. If there's parts of that development agreement that they want us to consider, they need to present that as a

as a very organized and led discussion instead of just, hey. What do you guys wanna talk about? Yeah. That's on track needed to be considered. The development standards for subdivisions and all of that are in place. Right? We're when we meet about this development agreement, we're not deciding where the roads go. We're not deciding how much open space they have. We're gonna do that at subdivision time. What we're deciding is if we're gonna get get into a contract with these folks to do a thing that kind of looks like this for these reasons. And the really, the last page of that development agreement is where our attention needs to be. What's the city getting for giving them this add additional density? And if we're not getting something to make it worth that density, then the answer is no. And if we are, then the answer is yes, because, or what else is there to consider? And I just think we I think you're right. I think we didn't drill down to the things that actually needed to be discussed. I think we were kind of depending on the developer to lead that discussion, and that really didn't

pan out. And I also didn't know if, like, how much the city has just led them along. Like, yeah. Yeah. You know, they start submitting things. I'm like, yeah. That looks good. That looks good. And then all of a sudden when it comes for a final vote, we're like, no. Yeah. And that's that's really not

how well, to be honest, I think that's exactly why that needs to be that discussion needs to be had with city council because they are the ones who can say, yeah. Yeah. That looks good, and you should continue on with this. It's not up to DRC to do that. It's not up to planning commission to do that. We can't enter into a contract with anybody. So you're right. It it staff can't certainly can't do that. So the discussion has to be had with the right people at the right time.

Yeah. So

okay. K. That's next week. And then next meeting, July 1. Are you Do we will we have tomorrow? In town for a July 1 meeting? Yes. He doesn't wanna be, but he'll be here.

And Charlene? Yeah. And I will. So Great. Said he was gonna be. Right? Got me coming vent facing rainbows. Coming four times this month

and double my pay. Right?

I get another 50¢. For here every Tuesday.

Same.

Alright. Alright. Without objection, I will adjourn the meeting. It's a look about five to nine.

Thank you. Thank you, folks. Appreciate it. Everyone. So go