Hyde Park City Planning Commission Meeting 6.3.2026

Okay. Are we almost changed? Upstatements, not questions. This is not right.

And then Mike is gonna join on Zoom. Yeah. Because otherwise, we don't have a quorum.

You good? Your agenda? I started that one. I just I opened it on my box, but they didn't see if I can exit basically.

It's just like one of our houses. Okay.

You waiting on me?

Sorry.

We're ready when you are, I think, recording.

Alright. So well, sort of a full room. Welcome. This is the Hyde Park Planning Commission meeting. Today is Wednesday, 06/03/2026, and we're starting about 7PM or a little after. We'll have an opening thought or prayer and pledge of allegiance by commissioner Williams.

Our father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity to join together as a community and work towards Hyde Park's future. We pray that thy spirit will be with us, that we will have open hearts and minds, that we will be inspired and be able to listen and do what's best for our community and represent our citizens will in what we do and pray for the blessing upon this meeting and say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please rise and join us in the pledge.

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, and for all.

Thank you. I neglected to introduce us and let you know that one of our commissioners is attending via Zoom. So my name is Melinda Lee. I'm the commission chair at this time. To my right is Heather Taylor. She's a commissioner, and this is Charlene Williams, a commissioner, and then Michael Moe's is also a commissioner on Zoom. Ned Hanson is a commissioner, and he's not here this evening. Mike, can you hear us?

Yes. I can.

Okay. Thank you. K. We're good with Mike then.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from our last meeting, May 20 May 2026. So I don't believe those minutes are ready. My mistake for putting that on the agenda Okay. And not having them ready when I did that. So if we could postpone that until the next meeting, that would be preferable. Alright.

Wait on that one. K. The next item is a planning staff report. Mikael Layton is our Hyde Park City planner.

My staff report includes that my intern and I have been working diligently on code updates, the ones that we talked about in all of our workshops. Right now, we are tidying language and code references to state code. We're working on a few of those things, and we should have some things coming to you as a discussion at the next meeting. Additionally, applicant or item b has requested to be removed from the agenda this evening. So if the chair would make that change to the agenda, we just have one item to consider. Make that changes and we need to vote on it? You don't need to vote on it. You just need to assumption. Acknowledge that that one will not be heard tonight. Okay.

So we will be dropping item six b will not will be dropped from the agenda tonight. So we really just have the one legislative item. Yeah. Not even any discussion items. K. Anything else on the staff report? That's all. Thank you. Alright. No administrative items tonight either. Just as an education, for sometimes the public doesn't understand the difference between administrative and legislative items. Administrative items are when someone applies for something, we have some sort of application. And so we compare that with our city code. And if it meets, then we have to approve it whether we like it or not. If it doesn't meet, then we cannot approve it whether we like it or not. Those are administrative items. And so those we don't have public input. Legislative items are a little different. Those are things that can be influenced by the public or things that can be changed or massaged a little bit or amended or they're not final yet, and there's not necessarily something exactly on the books for us to compare something to for a legislative item. So now we'll go to that our one item on the on the agenda. It is a legislative item, and we're having a public hearing for an ordinance to approve a development agreement or consider a development agreement with Visionary Homes for the Aspen Grove subdivision. So before I open the public hearing, let me let you know how that goes a little bit. We have to have a clock. We do encourage all participants to follow the rules of decorum by behaving politely, being respectable respectable. Sorry. I don't know why that's not coming to me. Having dignified conduct. Please state your name for the record. You don't need to say your address, but your name. Speak clearly into the microphone. Sometimes these get bent around a lot, but they're meant to they don't catch the sound really well from the side. And use no more than three minutes. And that's not the kind of thing where you can say, I want her to have my three minutes so she can have six or whatever. It has to be your own. Please phrase your comments as statements. These aren't questions. This isn't a back and forth where, like you say, well, what about this? And we say, well, that's this. Like, that's not the time. A public hearing is not the time or space for that. You can add I mean, if you do ask questions, we'll try to jot that down. And then afterward in our discussion, we'll try to we may try to answer those. We may not have the answer to those, but it's not meant for back and forth during the public hearing. A public hearing is an opportunity to share facts more than opinions and information about the topic, not an exchange or dialogue. Please make sure your comments are factual, accurate, and original. If you're saying the same thing, like, I agree with the person before me, then you don't need to say it. And make sure that your comments are addressed to us, not necessarily staff or the applicant. Any questions on the rules of a public hearing before we get going? Okay. I will open the public hearing for this, considering the development agreement with Visionary Homes for the Aspen Grove subdivision. So you can

state your name, and we'll First, we'll have the applicant Oh. Present. Right. Remember last week, it was just a discussion item. My bad. And so we'll again have the applicant come up and present to you. We'll have staff

present staff report, and then we'll open for comments. K. Yeah. If you didn't catch that yep. Sorry. First, the applicant, then we'll have a staff report on this specific item, and then I'll open the public hearing. My mistake. Alright. Applicant.

Probably, I assume the discussion would be about it.

I got it. Yeah.

Yeah. So my name is Bryce Gooden with Visionary Homes, yeah, you know, on this project. And, also, I don't know what the staff report, if there's anything in there that is worth having discussion on looking me up here. Or

No. It's just staff comments to commissioners.

Okay. Perfect. So I don't know if there's a specific way you wanna go through this, but we did meet a few weeks ago on this project to go through some ideas of the project as a whole. And I'll just give an an overview, and we can get into whatever specifics of discussion we want. Currently, there's four parcels or so that we've assembled here, and it spans two different zones within the city. There's the residential transition on the north part, and there's the mix zone is on the south. And so we recognize that assembling as many parcels here in this area together for one project is gonna give us the most cohesive design and the most efficient. There's within that residential transition, there's a few parcels that if one person came along and did one project on that three acres or whatever it is, and then someone else came along on the acre and a half to the north, tried to do another project, it's gonna clash. It's not gonna feel like one design that flows with each other. And so we tried to assemble as many parcels as we could. And, the city also has a couple parcels on the North. And so in some discussions that we've had for what should be built here, what does the city want here, one idea for the city parcels well, two ideas, I guess, for the city parcels was potentially a future park and potentially a buyer substation, where Smithfield handles Hyde Park. And the way that Hyde Park's growing, you may need a service station somewhere within the city. So what we've done, to address that with the city is essentially a land trade. And you can see on the bottom right side across the street there, that is included in the property that we own. We're discussing or inside of this development agreement proposing a trade for the land that the city currently owns on the North. We trade that for that property there. So the city still has flexibility to bring something. If that's a service station, then that site could facilitate that. And then also, utilizing the other city property, we'd bring that down into the middle part of the project here. And as part of the project, we would build out some sort of a park and then, dedicate that to the city as a public park. So anyone can use it, not just the residents here. And then on the bottom left, that red shaded area, that's proposed to be a commercial corner. We wanted to make sure that inside of that mixed zone, which is all of the it's the parcel on the south. So currently, there's a commercial component there, and the city felt strongly throughout our discussions that there should remain a commercial, component to this property. So we're proposing, that stays for the commercial, and maybe eventually we'll get to it. I set some renderings so that you guys could see, like, what could fit there and get some context for different uses on that. And then on the north part where that's in the residential transition today, that's a mix of single family and townhomes, and you can see how long and skinny that is. It doesn't lend itself to a very good design with single families on that on that piece of property. You end up with double fronted lots on both sides, and integrating that with townhomes there just didn't make a a well designed project or an efficient use of of the property here. So we've assembled all of these. We've provided architectural renderings for all of the units, what they would look like. We can get into that now. If you have any questions up to this point, feel free to ask. I don't know how you wanna All the questions at the end after all. Yeah. So do we wanna go through, like, the development agreement itself? Do we wanna go through all the exhibits? What is the highlights of the exhibits? K. I don't know how you're I can just spell for the portal. Okay. So so this shows street cross sections, basically. The orange one, that's the only city public road that we would build through here. The others are private roads within the project, and so you can see the the widths of those. We made sure to meet fire code on radius of turns on the width of the roads themselves, and then it shows the alleyways that some of these units would be would be loaded on. Scroll down here. Let's see what you got. And then so this is pretty hard to interpret, but it's kind of a bubble diagram of the park. So we worked with, Utah State and their landscape students, and they came up with six different designs for a park. And we didn't wanna do and especially with the wetlands there in the middle, we didn't wanna just do a typical, you know, call it three acres or whatever, grass park with a playground that's pickleball courts. We wanted to see what other ideas were out there. So the students came up with six different designs, and they were more of, like, nature themed, I would say, which we've got some some images that eventually we'll get to so you can get a feel for what type of park is was being proposed. So what we did is when they were finished in their final presentation, we went through each of them and kinda highlighted a few good ideas that everyone liked. And then the ones that were voted on the most, I, went ahead and implemented them here. So a few of those are there's an amphitheater. It's in red there. Kind of in the yeah. Right there. Some some hills to help kinda break up the the property, provide some some sledding areas for kids in the winter, put some natural vegetation on them just to help with the the feel through the project. And then there's some fire pit areas that are scattered through there. Like, there's three or four of those, and there's some hammocking areas so that people can set up DIY hammock sort of a thing. We provide the post, and they bring the hammock. And then there's a little play area down there. And the idea is to provide different types of walking paths, connect from down where the school is. They can come up through the project. That way, on the east side, there's a trail between our units and, the active adult community that's right there. So a good trail through there, and then they can wander up through the park and to the north up towards the new school that's being built. Yeah. Yep. It's right through there. Yep. Kind of a trail corridor all the way up through there. So, really, it's I'll call it a nature themed park. Here's another diagram that kinda shows where the wetlands are. The idea would be to enhance those, create a boardwalk across it if that's what's needed, and then just have different areas that people can explore that isn't your typical park that that we see. So yeah. Let's keep it rolling. K. So here's some some renderings that the college kids put together. Should give you a feel for the idea here. Lots of plantings and trees and trails and few gathering spaces. K. So that's the park. Now this is where we get into the architectural side of things. So this exhibit right here, I wanted to make it very clear at this stage what you're gonna see at the end of the day. So we've got three different units here that we wanna provide, and I wanted you to, one, see what they're going to look like, but also point out that you're not gonna get the same building one after another after another after another. We've got so, like, for instance right here, this is to give a different building feel, if you will, than a standard, two story fourplex where you've got, two units on the end. They're single story units and kinda break up that roof line, and then you got two units in the middle that are two story. So we're calling this a mansionette style. This will go if you scroll back up real quick. So those units would go on the north side along Wolfpack Way. There's five of those buildings, and they all face Wolfpack Way. And with Wolfpack and 600 South, we intentionally put rear loaded units there. So as you're driving down that road, you're getting the best looking side of the units themselves as well as we've got a a setback. I believe it's about twenty, twenty one feet, with some landscaping, some trees, things like that, just to try to dress up Wolfpack Way and 600 South where, their they're two main roads through the city. So let's go yeah. So here so this is an an alley loaded unit. These are the units that you'll see along 600 South. So as you're driving, that left picture there is to depict what you would see essentially from the street rather than, you know, we we can't load units onto that road, but, you know, you're not seeing garage door after garage door after garage door. So we've got two different styles. So the top is a craftsman and the bottom, what do they call that? Contemporary? So what we would do, and you can see it on the left, is stagger the the styles so you're not getting the same elevation over and over. You're not getting the same colors over and over. They they have their independent style, and that's what we were showing on the very first slide. I don't know if you wanna go back to it, but you can see Like, all over that? Nope. Nope. Nope. Damn. Right there. So so we're highlighting which building type and which elevation that's gonna be. And then as we get further down, then you'll see the the colors of the units themselves. So we can keep scrolling down. And then okay. So here is front loaded units. So these are going to provide rear yards where they're front loaded, then the homeowners have a backyard and a patio. All of these units have driveways, so we wanted to make sure that there's plenty of parking space. You get two cars in the garage, two guest stalls, if you wanna call them, in the in the driveway. So we're not just loading garages right under the alley, and there's nowhere to park. So now this will show you every building we put together. It's got a key for all the materials, the stone and its color, stucco and its color, the soffit and fascia, its color, the post, paint colors, everything. So you can use these in combination with that first slide to figure out kinda get a feel for, k, what building's going here, what building's going here, what building's going here. Yep. Yep. I believe that's the end of the architectural stuff. What do you have next? Okay. Yep. And then this is the benefit analysis table that we were asked to put together. I don't know if you guys have had enough time to digest this, digest the actual document itself. I'm not sure how much review time you've had, but do you have any questions of any of that stuff? And then we did you wanna go down to the impact fee reduction schedule. So so this Sorry. Where so there's there's two parts here, I guess. One is is the utilities. So if if we have private roads, Hyde Park City requires that the utilities inside of them also be private, the water lines, the sewer lines, storm drain lines, all of those, which takes a certain burden off of the city for long term maintenance. But that burden's gotta go somewhere, and it goes to the homeowners. The HOA here is now responsible for any breaks, any repairs, any replacements down the road. So what I proposed here is an understanding that the city, you know, they still have to provide water. They still have to drill wells, tanks, all sorts of things. So the city obviously still needs bees for those things. But what we wanna do is set up the HOA for success. And so reducing the impact fees that are that we pay to the city at the time of building would help us to put a fund together within the HOA that gives them a reserve account for when they encounter issues with these private utilities. So water and sewer is a 50% proposal. And then park where we're spending a significant amount to provide a public park. We're asking that the city help offset that somewhat, which would allow us to enhance the park even further by waiving the park impact fee at the time that we go to build these units. And, you know, if we pay that and pay to build the park, we're essentially double paying parks. So then we got the Logan Wastewater. Obviously, the wastewater has to go somewhere, so no proposal to reduce that. And then stormwater is a a private utility now. And then the roads, just recognizing, yeah, we have some private roads on the interior of the project, but all these residents still use Hyde Park roads everywhere. So no reduction on that. Is that the last one? Okay. K.

K. Thank you. We may pull you up later again to help us answer questions. Yeah. Yeah. As we go through the actual document itself, I'm sure there will be questions. So K. Thanks, Bryce. Alright. Staff report.

So if you'll indulge me, I will read a little bit from the staff report. If you could pull up Bryce's site plan, that'd be perfect. Yeah. There's a lot of pages involved here. Okay. Perfect. So a little bit about development agreements. The development agreement that they're requesting allows them to develop outside of the parameters of what the property is zoned. There's a section of this where the park and the south townhomes are that is zoned MX for mixed use. The stuff to the north is in the RT zone, which was initially for we called it residential transition zone. It was it was intended to be a buffer zone between high density and commercial on Wolfpackway and the neighborhoods that it backs up against. So it's really the northern part that is being developed outside of its zoning parameters. All of these parcels have existed for some time as vacant. The northernmost parcel that belongs to the city is actually Lot 19 Of The Cedars Cedar Springs subdivision. Say that three times fast. And it holds a large drainage easement that serves the subdivision. And so that drainage easement will be relocated, from what I understand, into the park. The plat for the subdivision will need to be amended, and we have not received that application at this time. There are also, there is also a 20 foot canal easement that runs through those properties, and three utility easements that run east to west through the RT section, for water and sewer. Those will all need to be rerouted in some way, and, we haven't really gotten the renderings for where those will go. As far as site improvements and additions and changes, the county did notify the city that, a a subdivision by deed recordation was executed by Visionary Homes dividing the southernmost parcel at the December 2025. I did reach out to Visionary Homes to ask why they moved these boundary lines without going through the subdivision process, which you can do. The county allows you to do that. And Bryce advised that that it was done for internal purposes. There were some legal reasons that they split those parcels at the bottom without going through the process. The future land use map shows this area as medium density residential. The general plan addresses this area in the special development areas section where it says some areas of Hyde Park City have special development considerations. Each area will be regulated by zoning and other ordinances, but the vision of these areas is summarized below. And it talks about the Wolfpackway Corridor and the things that should happen there with the commercial properties and some mixed use. This proposal does fulfill some of the goals identified in the general plan, specifically to encourage new or expanded local business to serve more of residents shopping needs. Although the commercial part of this development is proposed, I think it will be sold left as vacant on the corner there and sold to someone else to develop commercially. Visionary Homes doesn't build commercial properties. And then goal 10 in the Wolfpackway corridor is to allow mixed uses in the community core through ordinance flexibility. So it is meeting some of the goals for the general plan and the future land use map. It should be considered that the city is officially planning code revisions to update the RT zone and areas along Wolfpackway and to modify the mixed use development standards. The city's also planning a future land use map amendment to the general plan that would change future zoning along these parcels in the Wolfpack Way corridor. So, although we don't have anything in writing at this time, as you know, we've met and considered these items. As far as conformance with the Hyde Park City land use code, an application was received and processed in accordance with title 13 of the land use code, and it does follow the development agreement standards by incorporating that list of benefits to the city and benefits to the developer. Can you scroll way down to that and we'll so that's the heart of a development agreement. The reason to DBA. Paint the rules of the game, for lack of a better term, is because there are extraordinary benefits, to doing so. And so Visionary Homes did put together this list of benefits. You'll see that the city of Hyde Park benefits are listed in the first column, and Visionary's benefits are listed in the second column. They call out a cohesive master planned community versus disjointed residential transition and MXD sections as a benefit to the city, integrated public spaces, which is the pedestrian loop and the city park, consistent architecture and attractive streetscapes, sensitive transition to the single family neighborhoods. And as we go down this list a little more, the public and open space amenities are included there. And also the housing benefits. So it's kind of up to you to read through those benefits to the city and decide if those are in fact extraordinary benefits to the city for deviating from normal zoning requirements. I'm happy to talk through those if you guys want to. We did hit those in the discussion that we had a couple of weeks ago. As far as staff recommendation goes, the development review committee is the reviewing body for development agreements, and this body determined that this development agreement should not be approved based on the facts showing the benefits to the developer far outweigh the benefits to the city. Furthermore, the only amenity the park has been reduced to mostly retention ponds for the residential area, and the parking for the visitors and park goers is lacking. We did ask for additional parking because we can develop our requests to develop outside of, you know, the specific rules for zones. We asked for a little more parking than is required by ordinances, and that request was rejected. There has been no proposal for what's going into the commercial area. Like I said, visionary doesn't build commercial, and so that I don't think that's addressed at length in this development agreement, but that was the recommendation from DRC. Do you have any questions for staff?

Shani? Were there any discussions about requiring an owner occupancy ratio as a condition of a development agreement? No. K. I know I've said that a whole bunch of times, but one of my concern Right. Right. Beating a dead horse. But one of my concerns is when we do higher density, we all say it's for affordable housing, but it doesn't remain affordable if we don't have an owner occupancy requirement that, you know, 75% have to be owner occupied. Otherwise, they turn to rentals.

Why don't we go back to the park? I just wanna hit one one highlight, the renderings, like, the very first rendering where it turns to color. Yes. Here. So this is a beautiful rendering, but where this corner gateway is proposed, they've since changed the site plan and that's houses, that's townhomes. So the renderings of the park are not accurate at this time. They'll have to be modified if they want to still be included as part of the development agreement packet. So I expect the development agreement packet to be modified just a little bit before this goes to city council, but I did want you to be aware that that the site plan has changed and that the renderings aren't actually

Right. The park these are just the exhibits made by the Right.

Alright. Got it for staff. K. Alright. We're ready to open the public hearing. Again, we ask you to state your name, be polite. We wanna good decorum here, and we ask you to speak facts. And then it won't remember, it won't be a dialogue back and forth with us. We'll we'll after the public hearing, we'll close the public hearing, and then we'll discuss it among ourselves before we take a vote. So I now open the public hearing, again, officially this time for considering the development agreement with Visionary Homes for the Aspen Grove subdivision. You're welcome to come forth.

Good evening. My name is Charlie Nelson. I live in The Cove. The property that we're talking about is immediately to the south of our residence. We knew eventually it was going to be developed. What is being proposed here is high density housing. In the mornings with traffic coming off the hill, the the high school, the people going to work or getting medical appointments or whatever, If you're at four hundred six hundred south and 200 West, I have set basically, I'm the corner house. I've set at the stop sign for over ten minutes trying to get into traffic to get out And trying to make a left hand turn to go up to the post office and down and go around is almost impossible because you can't get through the traffic. And so now a middle school is going in, which is gonna add. A church is going in on the other side, which is gonna add somewhat to it, probably not significantly. But you take all that high density housing that Visionary Homes is proposing, and the traffic flow and the message that's going to create, what is being considered for to control the traffic? How you gonna do it? Because right now at certain times during the day, it's a mess. And it's only gonna get worse. And the

Oh, I gotta start the timer. Sorry.

If you're first, you get extra time. Yeah. I said extra time.

Okay. My bad.

I'm I'm sorry.

The other thing is that and I would post this to you folks as well as to visionary. A number of us have built fences in our backyard for privacy to keep out critters and people out of our backyards. What is visionary? And I'll discuss that with him later. What are they gonna put in? And for us that have spent thousands of dollars on fencing, is there gonna be any consideration for us? The gentleman from Visionary Homes indicated that it doesn't make sense. The land use is really not for use for other than what he's proposing in high density homes. However, if I remember correctly, and I may have my facts incorrect, back when I believe the zoning and planning commission sent a recommendation to the city council that that land be zoned r five. Now I may have my numbers right mixed up, but I believe that was the recommendation, and the city council voted it down. The man from the gentleman from Visionary Homes, obviously, they want high density housing in there because they can make a whole lot more money. And it stands to reason the city can probably make more money as well on property taxes and and other assessments and so forth that that goes in. But somewhere along the line, somebody's gotta make some consideration for the people that that live there. Traffic control. And again, it it all looks nice. It all looks pretty, but it's high density. And I don't believe that it that it fits I got fifty five seconds left. I just don't I just don't believe. No. I don't have fifty five seconds left. I took too much time. You didn't start the clock. I'll defer. I've already taken my allotted time and will. Thank you. Thank you.

You actually only get three minutes.

My name is Emily Delisle. I sent an email, but it said it didn't go through, so I printed it out for you. My home is at 336 West 400 South, which is part of the the north section between my home and Wolfpack Way. Currently, there are two retention ponds. Since the construction of Wolfpack Way, the road floods at 350, West. I contacted the city in January about this, and North Park Police Department code enforcement officer came to talk to me about it. Since then, nothing has happened and the road continues to flood. I have seven pictures from seven different days showing the road at 350 West flooding. My pictures do not cover all the days the road is flood nor does it cover the extent of the flooding because it's hard to get the pictures during the night or when it's raining. So, obviously, I have concerns that this is high density housing. I have concerns that it doesn't, mesh with what we already have in the neighborhood. But my significant concern is currently the water management from the storm drains is not adequate for the neighborhoods that we have, and the destruction of these two retention ponds is going to make this problem even worse. Can I approach you to give you copies of the pictures? Sure.

You're welcome. Thanks.

Maybe.

Thank you. Would you like me to? Yes. Emily DeWyle.

Be the key. Thank you. You also just get three minutes.

My name is Jared Delisle. I'm a resident of Hyde Park. I'm also going to talk about the North section where the two retention ponds are. So currently, those are owned by the city. So Visionary is asking for a land swap for those. I also have more pictures of the of the road flooding in that area. And I also have that same concern that Emily just brought up. Another concern of mine brought up by the first gentleman is traffic flow. He was talking about traffic flow, Mark, on the south. On the north part, they're proposing the road come in from the neighborhood to the east. I don't feel like the the the roads in that neighborhood are meant to handle traffic that's going to come into the the new subdivision from that side. I think it'd be more appropriate to come in from Wolfpack Way rather than from the residential side. And so those are my two concerns. And I only have one copy. So would you like We can put it in the record. Yep. Thank you. Thanks.

Hi. My name is Kirsten Sessions. I'm a new resident to The Cove. I don't have a lot of facts or pictures. I recently moved back to Logan after I grew up here, moved to Salt Lake for my career, and decided to come back so I would have a nice quiet place to retire. And I guess I have all the concerns of everyone else as far as traffic, water, and resources, but I'd like to add. I moved back for a a quiet place, and I remember Cache Valley being a quieter place in Salt Lake. And I also miss the view of the mountains, which is another reason I moved back. And it seems to me that since I since I purchased my my small home in the in the retirement community, that when I look at the diagrams, it seems like it's going to ruin my view of the mountains, which I came back for. It's going to be much more noisy with more people around, which is something that I enjoy with with my neighbors. And I'm just really disappointed that it seems like all of the open space left in my hometown is being used up, and we won't have the parks and the views of the mountains that we did when I was a child. I'm sorry. I'm getting a little emotional here, but I I moved back from Salt Lake because I didn't wanna live in a place that was just buildings and pavement and traffic and noise. And it seems to me that Hyde Park is turning into Salt Lake. And I don't wanna be another Salt Lake because I don't know where I'll go after I move from here. And I'm just disappointed that and this is certainly my opinion. It seems like we don't have a lot of say in our own communities, and it seems like we're a little bit like Box Elder.

Thank you.

K.

Last call.

Oh, we have a

We have another resident that wants Alright. Do you wanna I should speak for my agreement Not during Not during the Now we'll call you up afterward. Yeah. Thanks. So Yeah. We'll give you more time.

Hi, everyone. It's Craig White. I'm gonna speak quickly because they wrote down a lot of notes. This is the first that I've seen this. So in in in no logical order are my comments. First, I I know this is a public, forum. I've sat in those seats, particularly when the Farley zoned, when it was rezoned, the commitments made by the city council. So I feel like I have some historical understanding related to this, and I can echo some of the concerns. I also know that there's really not a lot of opportunity for public comment, at the city council meeting if this were to move forward. And so I do know there are city council members here, so I wanna make sure they heard my comments here publicly as well. Here we go. The park designed by USU students. I work at Utah State University. I love students, and I work with them. However, having USU students design a park, when when these students don't live here, they don't use it, and they're doing it for credit for a greater an internship doesn't resonate well as a citizen of Hyde Park. Traffic flow within this existing area, the current development is the current existing development cannot handle this type of traffic flow. I see bottleneck after bottleneck after bottleneck, and that's something that definitely needs to be reviewed by by this group in the city. Park. Let's develop something that'll actually be used by kids, but that will also be respectful of the cove. I questioned the legitimacy of sledding heels to bring joy to families. Those are not sledding heels, my friends. Who monitors and maintains the space within the public at the park? Particularly in between middle school and high school, what about sound and evening usage? Who is responsible for managing that space? What advantage to the city and to citizens with the proposed land swap? What is the benefit to the citizens of Hyde Park in this development agreement? Not to mention the impact fee reductions from the city to accommodate the development. I feel like Visionary is getting the win, and the city is not. I would ask what the average cost will be for each of these townhomes on average. Is this really affordable, or are we building them it it the density is concerning. Oh, good. It's forty five seconds. The residential transition zone, which is currently in the code, where is the transition? There is no transition here. Next, the park appears to be a water drainage moving it from different parcels to the north, not a fully functional community park. It's a drainage area for water, and it'll be tried to landscape to be usable space. Medium development fulfill some goals of the general plan, but what it does not meet with the city plan, only meeting some goals of the city plan and future use of land swap, I feel should not merit moving this forward. Finally, when the city was rezoned and the Farleys owned the sit or owned the land, the city council was hyper focused and committed to protecting the existing development of The Cove and neighbors. If this development moves forward and is approved by the council, it 100% goes against the intent and the agreement from the city council several years several years ago.

Thank you. Last call. K. I'm gonna close the public hearing for the, considering the Aspen Grove subdivision development agreement and turn it over to commissioners for your thoughts unless staff wants to speak up. So

the procedure would be that you call for a motion, you get a second, and then you discuss.

Shouldn't we discuss the following motion? I know. You you think A discussion should be focused on some of the but you kinda need to say, like, what are we discussing about? And so it I know it feels different. Last time we met was

random discussion. Right? And at a public hearing, you wanna make sure that your discussion is focused on a specific talk topic. We call it a discussion, but if you dig into the law of of Robert's rules of order, it's more like an argument. Right? You make your motion, you get a second, and then you get to argue about why why your motion is right. And so that's kind of the the spirit with which we direct the discussion. We we ask for a motion and a second. If you get the second, then then there's time to defend or for someone else to defend against that motion.

And then if it doesn't pass, you'd make a different motion. Right. And so there's no harm in making a motion, having it not go anywhere. If no one seconds it, then that takes a lot off the table. If someone does second it, then there's always then we open it up for further discussion. And sometimes motions don't go anywhere and a new motion is made. So, yeah, I would look for a motion on this item.

I make a motion to deny To recommend. Recommend to deny the visionary.

Need to pull that up so I stay there. There is a possible motion in the staff report if you wanted to pull it up. I did see that. Thank you. You don't have to use it. It's there for I will.

I move to send an unfavorable recommendation for the approval to the city council for the development agreement for Aspen Grove based on the findings of fact in the staff report, nonconformance with Hyde City land code use, and upcoming changes to the future land use. I would also add the owner occupancy is a big concern of mine.

I'll second that motion. K. We have a sec a motion by commissioner Taylor. We have a second by commissioner Williams. Is there further discussion you wanna make? I imagine so. K. Give me guess I'm not sure how this works. Do we give reasons? Oh, yeah. Reasons might be about it? If anybody

Or only if they disagree. Position to to commissioner Taylor's motion, this would be the time where they say I disagree with this motion because Or can we support it? But if you You can. You can defend it if you choose to, and you can also the chair could also recognize the applicant or request specific information from staff. The chair can recognize anyone in the room to add to the discussion if they wish.

K. Mike, let's go to you first. Mike Bowes is our commissioner that's on Zoom.

Thank you. I do have a couple questions for the staff. I wasn't sure about the timeline. Not that it changes my thoughts, but was there before you received a copy or the initial version of the development agreement from Visionary Homes, was there any discussion with them to negotiate this, or was this just given to you as, hey. We got this great idea. Here you go.

I'm gonna let Marcus speak to that because there was a a significant amount of discussion.

Thank you. So Visionary Homes met with myself and Mikkel a number of times for the past, what, year. And even before that, they had presented a couple of concepts at a work session with the planning commission and the city council and kinda talk through what would be acceptable as a starting place. And it was presented that, yeah, doing townhomes throughout this area would be an acceptable starting place. As the negotiations continued, it I guess I would say the layout never really changed. The city proposed a couple changes here and there. There was a different person who we worked with for a while. That person was not super understanding of the city's concerns, but it progressed. We started meeting with the USU kids, and the city was invited to those meetings. We were participated in looking at features of the park and helping with selection for what we thought would be good to happen there. And, yeah, so there was a lot of discussion that led up to this, and then the development agreement was submitted as an application after that.

How does the proposed development now compare with the current code for townhomes?

Like, how If they just did it by the by code instead of using the a development agreement?

Right. Well, I mean Mhmm. I'm not sure why we need a development agreement. That's as far as other than the current zoning of the property, are there any other things that we are giving to them as far as changes to this code the current code?

So a couple of big concessions we're looking at here. Number one is is the zoning. So the residential transition zone allows four townhomes, but it's a limited number of townhomes. There's supposed to be a mix of townhomes and single family to kinda create a variety of housing types. The mixed use zone is where there's a lot more flexibility. You could go as high as a five story multiplex apartment building, or you could do a single story townhome or something in that zone. There's a lot of flexibility in the mixed use zone, and so Visionary proposed kind of a more uniform look throughout to maybe not go as dense as they could in the mixed use zone, but increase the density on the residential transit transition side and just try to make a uniform look throughout the other big code concession happening here is the open space. Typically, we require open space to be spread out throughout the project and be accessible and really close to all the units. But we said, hey. Let's condense it all into one spot in a a park a public park area. And that way, maybe we can do more with it than just having little tiny lawns or something in front of every unit. And so that's I don't know. I guess we didn't do a full calculation of how much open space would be required if we weren't condensing at all, but that is another concession specifically for the land use that's being looked at here.

And then there's also the land swap, Mike, that we could that wouldn't happen, I think, with the reg I mean, maybe that would be separate from them developing. Maybe we would do a land swap, and then they could present a development. But right now, that's part of the development that is a reason for a development agreement as well. So the

is the park considered part of the open space?

Yeah. So we're we are allowing that. The part of the discussions was that we would allow that to count towards the total open space for the development.

Hey. Yeah. Once it belongs to us, it's no longer belongs to the development, and then the development doesn't have any open space. So that's my personal view on that that particular subject. Let's see. Oh, the inside the agreement itself, there are several references to Utah code. They are outdated and incorrect, just so you know. Okay. That those codes don't exist anymore. They've been changed and renumbered.

That means you did your help. Thanks, Mike.

And excuse me. And then I'm just trying to figure out what benefit the, the city gets from a park where only maybe 15 to 20% of the land is actually usable. I don't not sure if it's such a great deal for us. And parking, I noticed we we'd already talked about parking as inadequate. By the way, the public parking is within the private road. So, we how does that work? Does does the city have to pay the HOA to be able to let people drive to that parking lot? That's that's a rhetorical question for thought. You know, who's paying for the fair wear and tear of the road that the public is doing by parking in the public parking place? And then but it's a private a private road. I don't like this. The idea of having public private roads because by the time the the infrastructure underneath the road needs to be replaced, the HOA will will find a way to deed that over to the city. And now we have private road sized roads instead of public roads, and we're still responsible for what's underneath. That's happened in the past, maybe not here, but in other places. And then the city is is stuck, trying to fix that. And then my biggest worry is the commercial component. Not my biggest worry, but another large worry is the commercial component. Mixed use requires it be included in the initial phase, and all we're doing is reserving a spot that may or may not be used for commercial in the end. So Citi is not getting anything as far as commercial out of that. Thank you very much. That's all I have.

Alright. Thanks, Mike. Alright. Either of you wanna say anything further before we let Bryce come back. Alright. Commissioner Williams?

I have a number of concerns. My number one concern is for any higher density developments. I think we need to require owner occupancy ratio requirements of, like, 75%. And the reason behind that for anyone who hasn't heard me go on ad nauseam about it, is because when we call it affordable housing, it's supposed to be affordable for people. It's a starter home. It's supposed to be their like, their first purchase. But if there's not an owner occupancy ratio requirement, meaning certain percentage have to be owned by the people who actually live there. Those are the your ideal investment properties for investors, and so they purchased them with the purpose of renting them. That changes the the the demographics of Hyde Park significantly when you have a large number of residences with people renting. Nothing wrong with renters except that they don't have a stake in the community. And then it defeats the the affordability factor because you have people with cash coming in and outbidding people that are having to get a loan. First time homeowners aren't coming in with cash. Investors come in with cash. So they they went over the everyday average homeowner that's trying to buy their first property. They also will outbid. We may not have experienced that yet in Hyde Park, but could anyone have foreseen this level of growth ten years ago? I think it's very foreseeable that our growth is gonna get to the point where we will be seeing people fight and overprice and bid on affordable housing, and it's no longer affordable. So that's my number one issue is for any high density, we need to make sure it really is affordable by having owner occupancy ratio. I'm concerned that we've eliminated the transition zone that zone that was mentioned by citizens. I know people purchase properties relying on the zoning. I know that's what I look at when I purchase. I go, what who owns this land? What's the potential uses of these things? That's not to say that the codes you know, the zoning doesn't change in the future, but we have to really respect residents the extent to which residents, especially in the cove, relied on that when they purchased their properties because it's gonna affect traffic, it's gonna affect their home values. So no transition zone puts that right up against single family. I'm concerned that the development agreement there should be consideration on both sides and it should be equal or even greater for the city before we cave, and I really think it's lopsided. I think it's in favor of the developer over there's more benefits to the developer than there are to the city. I'll just say that that traffic's a big concern. I didn't know water flow is an issue, but that's that makes sense when they're taking up where it would normally be draining. I don't like the commercial's deferred because we're needing so much. We're depending on commercial, we need that income. Is deferred, and I could see that if there's not a requirement of it being filled in a certain amount of time or take responsibility for it, I think that could just sit. I think those are my big yeah. Those are biggest things. And then the impact oh, private roads. I do have a concern about that. I don't think the city has accurately estimated what the impact really will be on the community traffic, sewer, roads. And I agree with Mike. I think that could probably fall back on the city in years to come. HOA's have not a great track record with that kind of thing.

Can I have for a quick clarification? So to be fair, yeah, the city staff has not fully fleshed that out because that's not usually done at the development agreement stage. This is more of a conceptual overlook, and the city is saying, yes. We agree to this. And then at the time where they come in with, like, a phasing plan or an actual site plan where you get into the really tight details of it, that's when we would require the really hard details. Now in this case, it's probably enough units in there that, yeah, we could go back and get some kind of traffic study. I think you guys are already working on one. So So there are additional details we've asked for and we're looking for. But generally speaking, development agreements don't always require that level of detail. It depends on the project. Thank you for that clarification.

So the impact reduction impact fee reductions that they're asking for, those would not be solidified until later, or do do they get solidified now? So they they would best they would have that vested right to have that. Agreement is the contract we're getting into. K. Right? It's not the details of the subdivision, but it's the agreement we're getting into to allow this concept to So we would be agreeing to the reduction in the fees without knowing for sure yet the numbers until later when they get flushed out? Yeah. And there is precedent. The city has done development agreements before where we did offer impact fee reductions or offsets,

but that's always been in conjunction with a project that would otherwise be bought and paid for with impact fees. So, essentially, we're telling the developer, hey. Instead of us collecting your road impact fee and then building your road for you, why don't you build the road, and then we just won't collect your money from you? Got it. This is a little bit different where we don't we don't have a I don't know if we have many impact fee eligible projects in this area, and they're just kind of asking for that discount as a way to jump start the HOA and potentially do a better park that we have not done an impact fee reduction for that purpose yet.

That helps. Thank you.

K. That it for you? Alright. Commissioner Taylor?

I don't need to repeat everything that's been said. I disagree with what commissioner Williams and and commissioner Moe stated.

Yeah. I'll make a few comments. May or may not you may or may not feel like it's related to this, but I will tell you that everyone who lives here now lives here because someone before you made space for you. I imagine when they came here, you know, you look at some of those original grids, and they were 10 acre lots. And when they were divided into five acre lots, I'm sure they were aghast that who what could you even do on five acres? That's not enough land to grow anything. And then to be reduced to one acre and half acre. So things have changed over time. We've moved from being county to being city. And what that means is we provide more services. County you've been in the county. Sometimes those are gravel roads. You may or may not have a shoulder. You're not getting parks in the county. You have a well. You You have your own septic tank. There are benefits to being in a city, and it comes at a cost. Roads cost a lot of money. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, parks, all of these things come at a cost, a water system, and then building new tanks serve you so often, and a sewer system. They cost us a lot of money as a city. And so you're right. There are more perks, you might say, to living in the county where you might get more of a view, and it might be quieter. And but that comes as a cost. When you choose to live in a city, you choose to accept I mean, you're you're probably choosing a city because you want those services. You like having sidewalks and pathways to walk on. You like having public parks to take your kids and grandkids to. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say I want to live like I do in like they do in the country, in the county, and not pay something and then but expect all the services of a city and not expect to pay for that. So, yeah, I think if we all had our druthers, we would say we'd like this this big open space. There's a cost to it. What you don't see when you drive around, you see the road, and you probably only see the potholes because when it's smooth, you don't notice. What you don't see under the roads and the sidewalks are a lot of pipes for water and sewer, and they cost a lot of money, and they age. It's really great when we get a brand new subdivision. Everything's brand new. Yay. And then twenty five, thirty five years later, there's a lot of complaints and some breaks, and things go wrong. So the city has to budget for all of those things. And to have your house there's a difference between your house having 20 feet of pipe in front of it for water and sewer, 20 feet of road, versus a 100 feet of road. So you're right. It works out. It pencils out better in the city's budget to have smaller lots. From my personal opinion, I like having a mix. I like having a blend. I like that you could live in Hyde Park when you're first married and you're renting, and then you get a bigger space when you have the kids and they want a bigger yard. And then maybe you become empty nesters. You don't need as much space. I like the fact that you could stay in your same city for all of that. So I I promote having all kinds of housing in Hyde Park, and I know lots of people don't. But it it makes it works better for a city budget, and it works better, I think, for neighbors and getting to know each other. I hate the thought of meeting someone at the park, let's say, and, oh, well, where do you live? I live over here. And you tell them, oh, you live over there. And you're like, oh, I know where that is. You live over there. Like, I hate that sentiment. I hate the thought that we look down on where someone lives because it's over there. I am not against townhomes and not even next to a single family home. And I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine. Believe it or not, some of you are in that 55 and older PUD. And before we got our first one, I wasn't here, but my understanding is that the room was full more than this of people opposing these 55 and older PUDs. Like, no. That's a terrible idea. It's way too small. There's gonna be way too much traffic. There's terrible idea. Terrible. With similar complaints to what you have now for this. And then the PUD goes in, and wonderful people like you move in, and you go to church together and you see each other at the park and you find wonderful neighbors. And even though there's 10 of them where there used to be two or three houses, you love them all. Right? Except for that one neighbor that we all have. Anyway, I'm just I mean, it it goes that way. I think a lot of things are opposed. And then when people move in and you get to know your neighbors and you mix and mingle with them, I think it adds life to neighborhoods when you get some young families in there with some little kids. I mean, I get all of the concerns, and all the things you're afraid of will probably happen. Yep. You're gonna lose your view. Anyway, I'm I'm actually not for this particular project as written exactly, so I will also be voting against it, but I'm not for this kind of thing in general. I mean I mean, I am for this these kinds of projects in general. And you're right. That is what we're looking at as a city because I think you expect us to have a balanced budget, and that's part of it. We our half acre lot homes, third acre lot homes don't pay for themselves for many years. The only thing that comes close to paying for themselves budget wise, and we don't do budget work here, But the only thing that comes close is quarter acre lots. That's when you start to almost break even within five years. So we like the PUDs. We like the 55 and older communities as a city also. Anyway, that's way too much information for something, but we don't very often get public here. So that's my spiel, and my kids would tell me to get off my soapbox. K. I think if there's no further discussion, Sorry. Speak one last time.

Mike, do you have some Yeah. Real quick. Just I I texted Marcus. But if we do a traffic study, it needs to be done during school school times. So we get the full the full effect, the full impact, and not during summer break where there is no no, student traffic. So please be mindful of that or at least consider that in the traffic study. Thanks.

Alright. Bryce, come on up.

Thank you for that. I don't know where you're starting. I know. I know. I have a whole chapter on owner occupied stuff. I've written down a bunch of notes here. I will say just in general, maybe kind of side note for Citi approval process, quick opinion. Going through this process so Citi's been great to have discussions with, bounce ideas off of, talk through things to create this. And then once the application happens, it's very rigid. There is, like, no discussion with applicant. DRC meetings, applicant should be there. Eight out of 10 of the comments, we could address right then and there, way more efficient. So that has been sort of frustrating. And then to paint the full context of the project, it seems preliminary plat should be intertwined with a development agreement because what you see here is very close to site plan. I sent Mikael an updated site plan after we addressed some parking concerns, but she responded that we're not addressing the site plan. We're only addressing the development agreement. Well, you've gotta see the site plan to see what the development agreement is gonna provide. And there's a disconnect here that is really hard to overcome. So maybe

just a little side note on Yeah. Good feedback. Process. Good feedback. That helps.

So I'll go through a few things here from the city. Parking was one of them. So we added we added some guest stalls throughout that's not on this plan. We added driveways to each unit. So, really, you could park four cars at each unit, 196 times four, whatever that is. I had all my calculations here somewhere. It's 784.

Yeah. Verse verse Is that in your head? No. Oh, perfect.

City city Maybe. That

each unit has a garage with two spaces and then one and a half stalls per four units, something like that. We're providing eight stalls per four units. Yeah. So way more. Now granted, you can argue tandem parking and this and that, cut it in half, and we're still exceeding it. So commercial property. So once again, I've provided commercial renderings that seems we're not gonna see tonight. With that commercial area, that's market driven 100%. You know, most likely, Main Street fills up with commercial before it starts in filling. We're not a commercial developer. We're happy to provide a space for reasonable commercial, provide utilities to it, make sure it's ready to go. And then when the market decides, the commercial developer will come in, and he'll decide, does a restaurant fit here? Does a strip mall fit here? Does a clothing store fit here? What fits here? So I provided renderings that show if this was a restaurant site with a drive through, one building, what does that look like? And, also, if it was a strip mall type building, similar to over by Fisher Furniture Store, Mobeta's, the

Yeah.

Yeah. So, you know, you could fit I don't know what it is because we're not looking at it, but 12 units there. So there's a lot of flexibility with that space. It just needs to be driven by the market. For me to come in and build a building, one, it's what building do we build? And two, now it's gonna sit vacant for however long until the tenant decides that it's a feasible location. So that's why we're providing the commercial, but we're not building it. Let's see. The park being majority retention isn't a true statement. With the retention issues, we're out there. And and with with those basins, they can be utilized in multiple facets. We just have to create an area that can hold a certain amount of water during runoff. So you can still create a usable area that can still hold water.

I'll help you out a little bit, Bryce. Legacy Park, is everybody familiar with our park on 600 South? Yes. The ginormous soccer fields? It's a retention pond. So it can be done. And we can It's got the berm around it. Right. It's got a big berm around it. There's outlet boxes. So it it can be done. Again, this is high level. We haven't got into the elevations and how the water is gonna flow, but you can create a retention pond that most days of the year, it's gonna be pretty dry, and you're gonna be able to play in it.

And once again, that engineering comes further down the road that we can't look at because we're only looking at development agreement here. With existing easements on the North, stormwater easements, all those things, We still have to provide capacity for all of that, and I would argue that building this out provides the infrastructure for the water that is currently becoming an issue. It gives it a place to go. Those were all designed with previous subdivisions based on stormwater requirements. Ours is gonna be the same. We have to meet the state code and provide an outlet for all of that. So I would argue once this is built out, that becomes a nonissue.

But the Cove was a Visionary Home subdivision. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. And that's really an engineering question. I mean, I don't Right. Anyway I know. Let's see. So so the so the the comment on, USU students, drawing up a parf that they have no stake in, the entire idea for that was let's let somebody come up with a bunch of ideas that are nontraditional and see what we like and what we don't like, and let's implement the ones that we do like.

So And the city supported that. We were very much in favor of that and the wild feel of the park. I'll support that park 100%. It was a really great experience to work with those students and hear fresh ideas of parks that are not just a soccer field, that it's for all kinds of people to to experience nature in. I thought it was great, and I

I'm all for that park. And Yeah. Bryce. I liked it too. I love the natural playgrounds. I love using, you know, the wood itself to be, you know, whether it's stumps or logs or things. And so what I see on there are, like, 20 or 30 amenities. But what I feel like the development agreement is committing to is something in the park. And so I worry that you're showing pretty grand pictures and ideas. But I to me, the development agreement doesn't guarantee what those pictures show.

And and to me, that's part of the disconnect during this approval process that we need to come up with a development agreement. Obviously, I have to paint you a picture to some degree of what you can expect, but we're not far enough down the road to get a full design on the park. So we're trying to give you an idea. Yes. You don't know exactly what you're gonna get, that's due to the process that we're working within.

Yeah. But there's also, like the city will say, we want five to 10 amenities, let's say, something like that. And when we say that, we're thinking 10 amenities. Right? But the developer who has to pay for all of them is like, oh, cool. We only have to do five. You know what I mean? Like, sometimes there's a disconnect there too, and that's our fault for being vague.

And and that's and that's what we did. We tried to show here. Let's go through those six presentations they put together. What are some cool ideas that people like the most? And they are and you can see I mean, call it not a sledding hill or call it a sledding hill. But, you know, we integrated that into the basin because the basin's gonna have a slope coming down. You put a hill, it's gonna have a slope coming up. You know, you can create a decent hill there. I mean, it doesn't need to be a very big hill for kids to go rolling down and have a good time. Right.

We have we have a place with a really big hill for the steep kids that want something steep. So sliding hill is one.

The fire pits are another. The hammocks are another, and the amphitheater was the other one. And

And

And for me, that I guess that would have been helpful that all the features you see will be there. We just don't know where. I felt like the development agreement said, here's some ideas. We might do some of them. Well and and to me, like, this is an exhibit to the development agreement.

With the development agreement being approved, I mean, we're being held to what we're showing. Yeah. So So let me just clarify that. So, like, that fire pit might not end up right there. We may come up with a better design that we're gonna stagger fire pits in a certain area, but you're gonna get fire pits. So that's kind of where I'm headed with that. Appreciate the pictures.

Yeah. They're very helpful. See. I have a question I have a question on the commercial, but I don't know if you want me to wait till the very end because you addressed it, and I understood it. Go ahead. Just to follow-up on that. That totally makes sense why you would not be building it. That's not your wheelhouse. Because you're kicking that down the road for the next person and not building it, it would make it would not make sense for you to build it because you don't know is it gonna be a drive through? Is it gonna be a shop? Is it gonna be a clothing place? Whatever. Because you're not having to do that expense now, would it be a possibility as would it be something to consider to put the money in escrow equivalent to potentially building that? Put it in escrow so the city has access to that to incentivize a commercial business to come in since you aren't having to build it instead say, hey. It'd be approximately somewhere between here and here. Let's take the median price of putting a commercial building on that lot and put it into escrow.

So so we're a residential developer. We don't we don't get funds from people to fund our endeavors. And so for me to fund a commercial developer's endeavor doesn't make sense. He'll come in. This pad will be ready. He'll run his pro form a, figure out what his land cost is, what his development costs are, what he wants to put there. He'll make a pencil, and conversations with the city staff is that at that point, that commercial developer would come back to the city and and present their proposal. And that's when they have to figure out the use. That's when they have to figure out the parking. That's when they have to figure out retention for stormwater, all those things. So I would argue that that doesn't make sense to put money towards a future developer's project.

Or any portion, which is thinking for incentive because because it's further away and it hasn't filled in in the other areas, it's gonna be harder to get somebody to come right there.

On on the owner occupied. So I had lots of conversations, but I was expecting to bring those here. So when you asked that earlier and and it was stated that it hasn't been addressed one bit. I didn't feel like I needed to address that with staff. I wanted to address that here where it came up last time. So I met with our HOA attorney and our HOA management company just to pitch this idea because Visionary has never implemented it, but it's out there. And so just a few points, and I don't know that we're gonna solve it today, but some ideas. With with your point of protecting first time home buyer values, so to me, that points to an issue like an investor issue within where I've seen it, nightly rental communities in, like, Fair Lake, Saint George, those areas that we've got some experience in. Yes, it's true. You build the same unit in a community that allows nightly rentals that investors purchase and rent out. That's a more expensive unit than in a community that doesn't allow nightly rentals. So if that's the main concern, question that I had was, does it make more sense to restrict the nightly rental idea? It's not really an issue here in the valley yet. Could become one. But that's really where I see a discrepancy of investors versus owner occupied people. So that was my question is, do we look at restricting nightly rentals? In regards to a general subdivision, one interesting fact that the HOA company brought up was these investors that are buying our townhomes because I wanted to figure out what's the ratio of our projects in this valley. And he said, the investors that are buying them, they're your local residents for the most part. Mhmm. They're farmers who sold their land to get developed that needed a $10.31 exchange, so then they went and bought these so that they could pass them on to their kids, so on and so forth. They're parents who buy a townhome for their kids to go to school. Their local real estate investors that are building their portfolio. It's not BlackRock is coming in here, buying up 80% of our townhomes. You know, we have a group that we work with down south that does that. They come in. They're larger. They buy stuff for rentals, but they're not haven't been interested in cash value market yet. Yet.

Power of yet. Right.

So I just wanted to point it out that oh, yeah, it really is our neighbors that are the investors. They're not these big, large offshore companies. So with that, like, we're open to the idea. You know, let's call it $75.25. That's what we've thrown out there. The question is enforcement. Is it through the HOA? Is it through the city code? Okay. I Is it through from past experience.

I've the reason I have that concern is from past experience several decades out in Ventura County, California. So we watched them trying to l we I call it LA venture. We called it don't LA or Ventura. So we would probably say don't Salt Lake or Cache Valley or don't California, Utah. But from experience, the the more desirable community gets, and Hyde Park is getting more and more desirable, the more people want to invest because it's a good rental community. And if it's not a current issue for investors, then I don't see a harm in putting it in there. What I've seen is the enforcement comes on the title and escrow and lending and insurance side. Because if it's a deed restriction, that's caught at the title company level and escrow also when they're going through the papers, and and they run the owner occupancy ratio and look at the loans, how many are non owner occupied loans, it's fully self enforced by the home sale process. Mhmm. HOA doesn't have to deal with it. It's not something you have to leave any money for.

It is self

enforcing through purchase and resell in the future. So the initial people yeah. So right now, the state of Utah has a program

for first time homebuyers that they're doing. You're probably aware of this, Bryce, but it's kind of the same thing. You have to have a written agreement with the municipality that you're in, and you have to set a price point for your townhomes. It's something like less than $450,000. If you do that, then the state can get you more favorable terms on your lending, But there's a requirement that you have to set a minimum of 60% or I can't remember what the percentages of your units as a first time home buyer in that affordable price range. And it is governed through deed restriction, and it is completely self governed through the real estate purchase process. So the city doesn't have to worry about it. The HOA doesn't have to worry about it. The developer doesn't have to worry about it. It just happened naturally as you do your title reports, and that comes up and, oh, we can't get this because we don't qualify for the program. Yeah. It it really is self it's self regulating. And I don't know all the details of,

you know, thirty years from now as people are selling and reselling and Yeah. And not always the property address is the owner address, and sometimes these get put into family trust. And so you can't just say, oh, it's not in someone's name, so it's a rental. Like, there's all those details. I think there's a way to do it, and we're willing to do it. And then there's there's so one idea, it sounds like you're not in favor of the HOA enforcing it. When I talk to the management company, you know, if they have to manage all of that, now they have to charge more money. Now your HOA is higher. They don't need to. But at the same time, he said when they do manage it within the HOA, the residents are all about it because, yeah, we wanna limit how many rentals are in our neighborhood. So it's not necessarily a bad thing.

It's a plus for when you're selling them too. If you tell people, hey. X amount of of the owners are gonna be owner occupied. That's kind of an incentive for a buyer.

So but but with that, another idea came up of the the HOA had what did I call it? Rental permits, if you will. Like, there's so there's 200 units. We'll issue 50 rental permits. First come, first served to whoever applies. But then, you know, you've gotta understand there's gonna be exemptions. There's gonna be times that, say, someone gets deployed for a year. What goes on? Well, we're at our 50 cap. So if he rents it, now we're at 51. Well, you've got to allow some exemptions for things like that, temporary job locations. If if someone bought a townhome and in two years, they wanna now go build a home, but they wanna keep that townhome for an investment property, well, we're at our cap of 50.

Sorry. You have to sell it. I mean, how do you handle those things? And that's if the HOA was having to do it. And that sounds like a gnarly can of worms. I wouldn't even wanna suggest that even be really doing it through deed restriction, so title and escrow. And usually what happens is if they do leave, like you say, if they got an owner occupancy loan and they genuinely stayed in there for x amount of years and then they moved, they don't have to refi. They keep that original loan. They still show as an owner occupant

for the stats purposes for when they go when other people wanna sell. The state program is minimum five year owner occupancy. So after five year, it could go back to that need restriction could go away, and it could be sold normal.

Yeah. So like I said, I don't think we're gonna get through all the details here, but we're willing to do that. We just need to figure out the right vehicle to take care of it appropriately. Is it as you're talking, is it through HOA? Is it through city zoning? How is it done? But we're definitely open to that discussion. I do wanna add. I love the designs.

I too am open. I mean, townhomes are affordable. That's what people can afford right now, a lot of people. And your designs are beautiful. The park is beautiful. I'm more with commissioner Lee. I didn't realize those items were exact. I felt like it was more big. So maybe that is the disconnect we talked about. But if I knew that park was for sure, that would guide me more. Yes. You know? But I do I am concerned about the traffic too and going into the park, going in through the neighborhoods. So the layout, you know, there's some concern there, but I want you to know your project is it is really nice. So Great.

So, yeah, that'll lead me right into the resident comments that I put here. I wish I brought some water because I think we're learning how to I'm a need in the kitchen. So traffic study so we did the day after we met at the last planning commission meeting well, it was even prior to that. Maybe it was when when I got DRC comments regarding the traffic study. I engaged our engineer to move forward with so probably three weeks ago with the traffic study. So they went out and got traffic counts. We're gonna put the whole study together, and then we can evaluate that. One thing could you scroll up, Marcus, to the the site plan overviews? This one? Oh, actually, go down one more. Okay. So that Orange Road, that city road, with this project, that connection will be made. So that provides one other route. Oh, thanks.

You mean this one right here? Yeah.

Yeah. So so that provides I mean, you know, people in the active adult, I assume they're coming onto is that two hundred east west? Total West. Two hundred west. Yep. Coming down to six hundred south, trying to get out that way. It sounds like that's where the majority of the school traffic is. So just to note, once that connection's made, now you can travel out directly to Wolfpack. And then another comment, I think, was made with our very North Blue Road going east, saying maybe it makes more sense to go out to Wolfpack. Well, a large idea with this project was to minimize the accesses on Wolfpack because that's a that's a heavily traveled road, so you don't want six accesses there. And then the other part is what's being built on the West Side. We looked at those connections and match them up. So we don't have offset connections. We don't have too many connections on the Wolfpack. So

Yeah. For the public, the city limits the number of accesses on busier roads like Wolfpack Way.

So that's just a note there. I think, one, that connection will give all of residents in the cove, which is a project that I did many years ago, so I'm very familiar with that. And, anyway, we don't need to get into that. But I think it it'll give those residents another way out rather than going down to 600 when all the students are are coming and going. So density was brought up that this project is too dense. So the mixed zone, which is the south parcel, if you guys read through, and I have it here for anyone who wants to review it, the mixed zone has a minimum density of 12 units an acre. It has no maximum density. We are just under 11 units an acre. So we don't even meet the minimum density that the mix zone requires. So one could come in and propose a project under the mixed zone and check the commercial component box, check the open space box, which on open space, I had that written down too. The mix zone is a minimum of 20%, and our project has, I think it was 35% open space. So one could come in, check all those boxes. They could build 55 foot tall buildings there. There's zero foot setbacks on certain parts of it. There's a buffering component to the residents to the north of 20 feet and a height restriction that matches their zone, all these things, which we conform to today. We have that buffer with the trail. Our buildings match the same height restrictions as the neighboring zone. But I'm just trying to paint a picture here that someone could come in. They could put 35 foot tall buildings along there. They could put 55 foot tall buildings on the interior. They could put underground parking structures, above ground parking structures, get their open space. You could end up with I mean, I played around with it a little bit, but, you know, 800 units. Say say you only get half of that, you get 400, and our project is 200, and that's not even to bring in the north part. So so the mixed zone today could produce a very different project. And so when we talk about buffering existing neighbors and transitioning there, this is way softer than what is currently allowed. See retention pawns, talked about that. Accesses. And then, I guess and I have other notes, and we can answer more questions. But, yeah, I was just gonna comment on the the thing that I hear at all of these meetings is when the public comes out and they say, I moved here for this small town feel. I moved here because it's less busy than Salt Lake. I grew up here. I moved away. I moved back for this and that and the other. Well, that's a lot of people moving here. So it's not gonna be what it was forever. So I don't really feel that comment should be taken into consideration here, but I just wanted to bring that. Because I and I grew up here too, so I understand, you know, what the value used to be versus what it is now. And, anyway so those are just my comments to address what I've heard tonight. If you have anything specific or wanna go through the actual agreement itself and discuss certain points, I'm happy to do

that. Thanks, Bryce. We'll probably let you go. For the public, no matter how we vote tonight, this item still goes to city council. Is it next week? Is it on their agenda for next week? Potentially.

I have a little side note I wanna make. So there's frustration expressed at the process. I'll admit Hyde Park City is redoing a lot of our land use processes because they have not been great great in the past. But I think what's happening here is probably appropriate for this type of agreement because it's a very heavily legislative agreement. We reached the point of city staff where we were starting to get into the realm of making promises that we can't keep. We were getting to the point where visionary homes was saying, yeah. We want these things, and we need them to be agreed upon. And we were saying, k. We can't give that to you, so it's time to take this agreement from workshopping with the mayor or with a couple council members and put it in the public space where it could be debated upon. And so, yeah, if if visionary needs more time to work on this, the appropriate thing would be to schedule a work session where they can bring in their people. We can sit down with the city council with the planning commission in a public forum where the public could come and listen, and you hash this out with everybody. But we're past the point where the city staff can be like, yeah. You just move this around and change that. We're to the point where visionary needs to start getting some assurances from the city that they're okay with things and how they're moving forward. And so I just put that for the planning commission to consider. If you feel like you wanna give visionary more time, if the city council wants to give visionary more time before they vote on it, the next appropriate thing would probably to be to schedule a work session with the commission, the council, and Visionary's team to really dig into the details of this agreement.

Thank you. I like that idea.

Anyway, yeah, the item still goes to city council. They've got a recommendation from the development review committee, and they'll have a recommendation from us. And then they will be the final vote on it. And sometimes changes are made between those things. So, you know, we may the planning commission may say we make a negative we recommend not based on a, b, c. And if between our vote and city council, the developer feels like they fix a, b, c, then it wouldn't be outrageous for city council to say, yes. You know, we do vote the approval of this. Anyway, that's kind of about the processes in general

at our city. They're gonna be in a production next week if they have none of them.

No. The city council does not hold a public hearing.

No. They the city council can choose to receive public input at the meeting, but there's no requirement in our code or in state code to have a second public hearing where it's open to everybody.

Yeah. This is the step for the public hearing. That's correct. Alright. Well, thank you everyone for coming. Thank you for your comments and concerns. Thank you for making Hyde Park City a place that you wanna live, that you like living. I hope you make I hope you welcome others as they come, just as we've come, but to the you know, and join the people before us. We do have our our next meeting will be two weeks from today, June 17, 7PM here. And without. Oh, we didn't vote. Oh my gosh. Sorry.

Well, there was a lot of space between the motion, the second

second, all that discussion. Yeah. Thank you. Alright. My job's up for bid too, by the way. Anyway alright. We have a motion on the table. We have a motion to recommend not boy. I do not like this wording. To recommend an unfavorable a motion to

Her motion was to send an unfavorable recommendation for approval to city council for the development agreement for Aspen Grove based on the findings of fact of the staff report, nonconformance with Hyde Park land use code, and upcoming changes to the future land use map. In addition, no requirement for owner occupancy.

K. And then we had a second by By commissioner Williams. Yeah. The motion by commissioner Taylor, second by commissioner Williams. Mike, are you still with us?

Yes.

Alright. We're honestly ready to vote before I adjourn the whole meeting without okay. All in favor of the negative recommendation, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. I think that was unanimous with the four in the beginning. K. Again, thank you for coming. And without any objection, this meeting is adjourned.

Well, the applicant can I mean, you could request to yeah?

But I appreciate you guys to find out how