Hyde Park City's Zoom Meeting

And and assuming every three to six months to check pricing,

and we will charge the re the fee in lieu of based on those market studies. Do we know what that is right now? Because I think it was too low when I did a lot of research back in December.

Our fee and load used to be $5,000 per acre foot. If we had to put a number on it today without a full market study, but based on the numbers that we've seen, we would be at $10,000 or more.

Okay. I just wanna make sure it's because I know I know developers have water rights, and I know they didn't like this happening, but I just wanna make sure the city is compensated. You know? I don't want it to be a flat fee across everyone. So I like that we're checking the water rights and the prices.

Yes. There is one more feature, we'll call it. We're offering a discount to the developers if they are willing to cough up water rights and go to the state engineer and get them switched over and put in our name and do it the right way. We're willing to offer them a 50% discount to their water dedication. That number is not necessarily set in stone. If the commission and the city council feel like it's much too generous, city staff is perfectly fine with changing that number, but we would not recommend that we go lower than 50% discount or no.

Then The problem with that is, like, I don't know. Like, who's who's to say what that number should be? I agree it shouldn't be lower, but why not 75 or 80 or nine? Like, I don't I don't know. I'm not So our the number we had in the previous code before we did the heart stop, we did offer a 25%

discount, and we had one developer take advantage of that,

but there was only one. And the rest did the money instead, and we don't want the money instead. We want the actual Well, that's what it was. Now we're saying

We'll take either one at this point, but we would we would rather have the paper water rights. We would rather have somebody go through the heartburn of taking it to the state and getting it exchanged and put in our name and attached to our sources, and that can be difficult. And so we're offering a discount to the total water requirement and maybe letting the city's water rights that we own and have stockpiled offset that if they're willing to actually bring us water rights. Because the hardest thing that we have, we've started collecting the fee in lieu of pretty heavily after I started working at the city, and we accumulated a nice chunk of cash, but then it hangs out while the mayor and I comb the Internet and try to find places where we can buy water rights. Thankfully, we've had a few that we've been able to spend that money, but our big fear is all the developers will continue to pay the fee in lieu of we'll have this balance sheet that keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger, which I'll save the municipal accounting lesson, but that looks really bad when audit times come for the city to have a huge pot of money that has no definite time of when it's going to be spent. It's also worth less and less over time as prices go up. Correct. They paid the market value of a year ago

And now

And so since the city is much better off than we thought in our water rights, our attorney felt like we could not keep the gates firmly shut anymore. We had to provide more options. But we would definitely prefer the developers do the process of bringing actual water rights and putting them under the city's name.

So yeah. Go ahead. It sounds like this is fixing two issues that we previously had. Number one, we were underpriced. Because if I had stock worth 10,000 to 15,000, it was only going to go up over time. I would definitely pay you 5,000 to keep my stock that's gonna go up over time and it's worth more than you're asking me to pay you anyway. And then secondarily, maybe 25% was not enough of a discount to make it worth their the headache that obviously you guys have experienced. And so you guys are probably best suited to determine the what that's worth. Like, how much headache is that? If if a 50% discount, in your opinion, based on your experience of how much headache it is and running around to get the water rights, if that incentivizes them to do it sounds like those two things are good remedies to incentivize them to do it the right way, to either bring us the water rights, there's an incentive, or pay it so that it we can actually go out on the market and buy it.

Right. And the 50% discount, really, it's kind of a trial thing. Like I said, we only have we've had one developer in the past take advantage of the previous discount.

Could that have been, though, because of the $5,000 was so low?

There were several reasons. I won't bore you with the details here. But maybe it turns out that everybody's gonna do that, and then we also have more water rights that were being gobbled up, and then we have to put a stop to it. But for now, we would rather take that risk and get our hands on real paper water rights instead of accumulating a huge amount of cash that we have no, like, plan in place other than we'll buy water rights when they're available.

It just doesn't look good when it's audit time. So it sounds like there's a difference. They can they can give culinary water rights that are still in their name, and it's one to one. But if they go through the hassle of changing it to our name, then it's point five to one. No. It's

8.85 to one.

That's what it was previously. What we're proposing now is 50%. So it would be so their their water shares would essentially double in value if they were to take them to the state engineering, go through the process. Did you say 50 or 15?

Five zero? Five zero. Because previously, it was 25. Correct?

Right. The previous discount was 25%. This

on the green.

I like what this is. Looking at the previous piece.

But

I I don't have any experience to base on whether it's too steep or not. So, personally, I'm relying on Well but, again, like he's saying, that's what can be adjusted

for now where everything's such a tight market. That is that's a pretty big carrot in front of a developer.

Mhmm.

So if they were requiring two, if they actually transfer it over, they would only need to transfer over one. Right. And the big

caveat to that specific thing is they need to take it to the state. It's not they just they don't just hand it to us and say, congrats. You get to go do the paperwork. No. The we're saying the developer needs to go to the state, go through the hearing process, get them changed over and put in our name, and then bring that back and hand that to us and say, here you go. They're clean and free and ready for you to use. So it's not we're not just saying, yeah. You get a walk all over us. No. There's a process that they'll have to follow. There's paperwork they'll have to turn in to prove that they've done it the right way. And at that point, we would let them have their discount.

Okay. I've lost it. Direct us to the paragraph that has that 50% number in it. Oh, it's, like, at the very end of That's what I thought too. Is it the 20 instead of the 10?

Yes. It's in 20. Okay.

Sorry. I sent you to the wrong place. Wild goose chase. Waiting. There you go. You're welcome. Oh, yeah. The yellow, please.

Yeah. You say it's at the city's discretion. Yes and no. I mean, if they meet the criteria that we've outlined, then, yeah, we'll give it to them. But, you know, if they'd go to the state engineer and get it all turned in, the state engineer says, actually, they're worthless, and they're not they're not actual valid water rights, or they are they've expired. They've lapsed, so they're not worth anything. Then they come back and say, I have nothing. And say, okay. No no discount. You know?

Yeah. I think that's I'd rather say 60 or 70, but I don't know the market. And, yeah, as tight as it is right now, I imagine we need to have it.

I thought you're gonna give them a 15% discount, not a 50% discount. No. Yeah. Time for the hearing aids, but that's another subject. Yeah.

Yeah. That's what I mean. We don't we don't know the market. Yeah. How how yeah. How confident are you in this 50%?

Could you alter that 50%?

Comes through here? Like, back here through the Cool. Like, we're doing this. It's not gonna be approved by us. We're just recommend recommending approval. Right. I mean, we can If we get this approved in the next three developments who apply, I'll do this and we lose out on, I don't know, how many acre feet of water. We're probably gonna revisit this real quick and be like, man, actually, this is not working out. Right.

So it's certainly we can put a recommendation in our in our

I mean, you can have that stricken from the ordinance entirely. This was something that we tried previously. We wouldn't do that. We would just recommend

maybe removing it or changing it or or reviewing it. Make sure our city council knows that we're concerned with that. K. And I'm sure they are too. So they'll they'll but the other thing that I wanted to propose or recommend or suggest is that when you do come up with what the cost is per acre foot in lieu of, a fee in lieu of actual water rights, there probably needs to be an administrative fee attached to that to find water rights and then to also transfer them to the city. Mhmm. If we're gonna give someone a discount for bringing water rights and transferring them, then we need to charge people that same amount or something similar if we're gonna have to go find them and transfer them to our name. Agreed.

So Yes. And changing that fee would be just a changing of the fee schedule. Right. That wouldn't require Right. That's outside of the purview of this Yeah. That would just be after six months. Would schedule a public hearing to update the fee schedule, which we do about every six months anyway, it seems like. But that's usually done with the city council. That doesn't really come to the planning commission.

So just a a suggestion while I've got a city council member reading my minutes. Within earshot.

I like the number 60%. 60% discount? No. I guess 40% discount.

Yeah. I would agree with that. I like I like 40% as well. I mean, I I do like getting the water shares, though. I mean, we could try it for let's see how many applications we get, and then we could change it, but I don't have enough info as well. But 50 does sound very enticing.

K.

We also haven't had the public hearing yet. It sounds Yeah. I don't know what the

I don't know what the actual process is and how difficult it is to switch name, you know, water rights over from one entity to another. So

It depends. It's not necessarily expensive or difficult, but it can be long, and it also depends on the quality of your shares. We the last one that we dealt with was an individual he purchased water rights from. He had really good water rights, and so there was relatively minimal hassle. It just took, like, what, six months just to get through

the process outlined at the state level. So it's the state that's the bottleneck?

Yeah. Surprise.

Okay. I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. I did forget to have the public hearing. So let's pause the discussion. Yeah. That was all part of staff report. Not give and take, just the staff report. Alright. We're gonna pause and have the public hearing, and then we can discuss some more if you want. Gonna open the public hearing for the water dedication ordinance. This is 12 dot two fifty, 12 dot one fifty, 10 dot zero one zero, and zero two zero.

Brian Cox for the minutes. Water is complicated. That's the biggest thing. Yes. They can convert water shares into water rights. State ultimately approves it, but it has to be approved by the canal board too. And if they don't approve it, it doesn't happen. So there's there's that problem. I appreciate commissioner Morris bringing up the cop that that there is additional costs in searching and finding others, and we only have a certain amount of capacity that we could actually pump from our pumps up there. So you'd have to plan long term that we've got great aquifers, but we'd have to have another well, another mainline, another all of those things have to be built into that. I I don't like the complete buyout. I I agree with perhaps some, the valuation of their shares, you know, whatever the amount that they have to exchange to get one acre foot, whether it's two two acre feet from a canal converts to one acre feet of water. Right? It doesn't matter. In order to get one acre foot, you have to give in as much acre footage from shares to equate. It may be different conversion for the Upper Canal versus Hyde Park Canal. The other part is the other part is not knowing the valuation. I would say the valuation, you know, the going mark you you pay going market rate, but no less than 10,000 per acre foot. So if it goes up, you can pay market rate. But knowing that things are going out there that we can acquire now, I've been looking, working on some water acquisition now. It's not cheap, and it's you need to have a lot of capital to be able to buy it. So it's more than just their development. It's for the city long term. What can you do to replace what you bought? So it it's difficult thinking that way, but I encourage you to think that. And, yes, they need to have options. They need to be able to have discounts, and maybe part of that option is water conservation in the plant. So my thoughts.

Thank you. Thank you.

My.

Dave Hells. And I wasn't reading the minutes. What I don't know and I need to learn and find out is how any of this impacts a move towards higher density housing, which I know is gonna be is being discussed. You know, just more more, you know, higher density housing. I and I just don't know the relationship with the amount of water, the cost of water, how that is impacted by, you know, going away from half acre lots to to more medium and high density. So more work that I need to do and if any and maybe it doesn't have any impact at all, but just something that I I wanna be thinking about. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, yeah. We have lots of people speaking. We have three. Oh, time's up. Sorry. Don't eat it. Same burger. Oh,

I just text the cow company treasurer to see what it was worth. I didn't dare call him because I didn't wanna interrupt. But I I know Lyle real well through they own the Middle Canal and the Upper Canal. A year ago, I asked him what it would cost me to buy another share. He told me $3,500 if it was available. You might also wanna know that in May, that state passed a house bill, So I own a share. If I die and that share is not in my family trust, I lose it. The family loses it. It's not pass that bill. To the property. So there's something for you to consider too. Plus, if you're figuring out prices for the cost of shares and what you pay I I when I first bought my share from the Smithfield Highline Corporation, I I think I paid $19 a year fee for my acre foot. I pay a 153 now because they piped it. And eventually, they're gonna pipe the upper one, but not until the senate one's paid for. So it'll also be pressurized. But last I talked to Lyle, there's no shares available. Now it depends on which canal company you're talking about. My dad owned four shares in Providence, blacksmith fork Providence Canal, which runs right through his backyard. He had four shares. When I went and talked to the guy from Utah State that was over the Watermaster, he says, well, your dad didn't really need four shares. He could probably get by with two. If you wanna sell a couple, there's a whole list of people waiting. And I says, what's it worth? And he says, whatever you can get out of it. He just had a lady in Millville sell 12 shares for $14,000 a piece. So it's what the market is, but I don't know what I I text Lyle, but he hasn't text me back to see what a current share is in cash high line. So just some information. Alright. I'm very curious on that. Thank you. Lyle? Lyle doesn't go on the record time. Well, I always know that. I'm so I don't I can go call them. Yeah. It's great. That's too annoying as well.

I'm very curious on that. Watershares, if they're not in a trust, so they cannot be inherited through a well then?

Does anyone know that, Bill? I don't know the specifics on that one. To read that.

I'm very curious. I'll ask you a couple more.

Anyone else want to speak on this?

I just I wanted to say that I'm grateful for the for those in the city that had the foresight to start getting shares and put us in a, at least as of right now, a really good position that we can we can do this. So Yeah. Yeah. A lot of people may not have thought about that. But I do know that water is is what people fight wars over, not just oil. People get killed over water. And I know some people that feel like they would like to, maybe a neighbor who overuses their spraying. Yeah. So it's it's very important, and I'm grateful for the city for doing the work that we didn't think about.

It took care of us. I like the mayor's comment of market rate not to be less than, but never to be less than 10,000.

I like that. That's probably part of our discussion. Anything else on the public hearing? K. I'm closing the public hearing. Thank you. Sorry. You're okay. You can be part of the public, I guess. Yeah. I I too the mayor reminded me of something that I wondered about too. Like, shares and rights are not the same thing, but it seems like our ordinance is treating them the same. No. They previously were if you go back to section 12 to 10,

we do different differentiate between those two things, and specifically about the dedication amount. Right? We covered this. I flew through this at the beginning. But, typically, with secondary water, you can't get those exchanged at a one to one rate because usually it's a share of a parent right. Like, somebody like the canal company owns the rights of diversion out of one of the rivers or native water sources, and then they will sell shares. So they basically sell off pieces of that right for people to use. What the city needs is we need the actual parent right. And so we take that back to the state and say, well, we know this isn't gonna be used for secondary water anymore. We wanna get it converted now. In theory, that's gonna pass through, recharge the aquifer, and we wanna be able to pull that from our wells. And that's in a very, very, very condensed version what the state kinda looks at when you present these shares. And so the change that we put in here is if somebody can get their hands on one of those parent rights, we'll call them, you know, like a right to draw water directly from a river or from an aquifer, those can usually be exchanged at a one to one rate. Those are very hard to find. But, yeah, if somebody turns in a bunch of canal shares, then there's a bunch of math that they go through to figure out how much is actually gonna be recharged into the aquifer if this isn't being dumped out on somebody's farm ground. And based on that, they'll go back and say, Kable, you turned in 10 shares. They may give you five or six rights in exchange for that. But it's not an exact science, and it's different every time. I didn't know a share could be turned into a right. Yes. But it's every piece of research that we've seen That's every application you're talking about. Never we have not seen a case where a canal share can be converted at a one to one rate into, like, a well right.

But even on this 50% reduction that we're talking about at the end, it still says rights slash

shares. The big caveat that we've changed in this code is for somebody to dedicate the water, they gotta take it to the state. Okay. So that person has to go to the state, go through the process of getting those converted into our municipal name and rate, and the state engineer says it's worth this much. If they can come back and say, hey. We needed 40. We got you, you know, 20. We'll say that's good enough if we adopt the 50% discount.

Share it on the other, and that'll just start equal to one share in my property.

Right. But, like yeah. I like that it's yeah. I mean, we prefer that they do that part, which is why we're dangling that carrot. Like, you do it. You go to the hassle, and you figure out it's not even two to one. You might be six to one or something. Correct. Yeah. I like your minimum. I get the how you price things. I had an accounting class long ago that talked about first in first out versus first in last out, how you price things, and that's a big difference. And then, yeah, that density, whether it's a townhome or a single family home, that's where I feel like the city could play around with those required state numbers where we the state only gives us one number to play with, but we know that's very different if that's a home on an acre versus

16 townhomes on an acre. Right. There's a big push right now at the municipal level and on the developer side to have the state redo these numbers because both sides, the private and the public sector acknowledge that the state's one size fits all approach to this is not working for anybody. But nobody's really sure how that's gonna shake out yet. Especially when they're pushing for smaller lots, smaller homes too to have that same number. And as far as how this will affect multifamily, yeah, it's not included in here because we're not messing with the table. But there's a table in the ordinance that says how you can calculate that. And, really, what you're looking at is you're gonna need you may need more water rights. There's a tipping point. Right? If we're building an 80 foot tall skyscraper, yeah, you're gonna need way more water rights than you would if it was single family homes. But if you're talking a a half acre lot where you gotta do your half an acre foot for your indoor, two acre feet for your outdoor, that's the same that you could get a fiveplex with minimal outdoor landscaping. That same water right could supply five Right. Units Five families. Of indoor use. And so, yeah, there is a there is a benefit to doing the multifamily and having the WaterRight stretch a little further rather than using our drinking water for watering landscaping. But, yeah, if if we're doing super high density, it doesn't It's gonna be more expensive.

You just used the 80 story skyscraper as an example. We're not building those. Right. I'm not approving. I'm not recommending approval on that one. I vote no or 60 or whatever.

Sorry. Yes. I That started.

Yeah. I actually want People will see them there. So are there any specific

text changes the planning commission would like to recommend to the city council?

There was one a that should be an that I highlighted in there. An owner instead of a owner. That was the only thing I caught that way. Did you leave it in box? Yeah. It's not uncommon. Let me just I'll go find it. Your order. Melinda Lee. Yeah. I'm like, yes.

There was talk about recommending the percentage change down to sixty forty rather than fifty fifty. Is do you wanna is that something you wanna formalize as part of your motion,

or you're not very correct? Yeah. It is just a recommendation. So Yeah. City council can always just

choose something Maybe we'd bump it to 60, and they bump it to 70.

Yeah. So hard to know. It's true. We have to remember it's ours is just a recommendation.

Yeah. Yeah. Again, that's just an idea to try to incentivize people to bring the water rights. It's not something that we are gonna die on the hill over. It's we just thought it might be a good way to They have to go through that hassle. I I do have a question.

Recommendation.

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just gonna say, I agree with Melinda. I would I would prefer 40% discount. I feel better with that. That's just my recommendation.

K. I do too. K.

The the mayor mentioned conservation, and I believe that new building, new construction already has state requirements as far as flow rates for for faucets and toilets and things like that. So that's but is there a way we can use the funds that we gather from people who provide to incentivize those in older houses or buildings to switch over? I know the state has had programs like that. But is there a way that we as a city can do that? And maybe not right away, but maybe, hey. We switched over, and over a year, you can see that our usage has gone down 25%. Mhmm. Is that something that we could look at doing?

Yeah. I think that's important to research. One of the things that I've I'm thinking about, I might as well just throw this out there. I don't know if it's gonna be legit or not. One One of the concerns with doing the fee in lieu of is we'd have this giant pot of money that, in theory, would just accumulate if we never find any more water rights. And so one of the questions that I'm contemplating with the city attorney is, are there other things we could use the money for, like, to potentially stretch the water right? You know, if we were to partner with the canal company to improve access to secondary water across the city, could we pull from this pot of money? Because then we're stretching our drinking water right by eliminating outdoor watering. We're not sure on the legality of that yet, and somebody's probably gonna have to take that one to court before we know for sure. But, yes, things like that are ideas that we're we are probably gonna have to start exploring sooner rather than later if we end up getting a ton of fee in lieu of again and have no word no water rights to spend it on.

Yeah. I I just bring that up because I know I've been to maybe you go to a hotel and you get in the shower, and some hotels, you've got the really restricted flow shower heads. And others, you're just getting dumped on, and you're going, this is wonderful. But but if this was my house, the water would be turned off already because I can't afford using this much water. And we can't use it as a city either. So I just I don't know if that's an option. Maybe a portion of it to use as incentive, but I wouldn't do I know the state sometimes does. You send me a receipt of a low flow faucet, and we'll reimburse you up to this much money for that. That's an automatic. That might be an option, or you just say, hey. Show us that after a year, you can reduce your water usage by so much of a percentage and see what happens. I, you know, I I don't know. But I know you'd have to probably limit there's no unlimited funds out there. You only have a pot of so much money that you could do that for.

Right. There's a lot of really interesting water conservation prog programs that are happening across the state. The city I don't know if the planning commission heard the city council recently approved a formal partnership with folks from Slow to Flow, which is a state recognized organization that focuses on water conservation. Right. We're working on a couple of things with them to try and have more education for our residents to educate people about these programs you've you mentioned where, yeah, if you install certain types of plumbing fixtures or do a little study of your water on your lawn, you can turn that into the this organization and get, you know, some kind of rebate for those products. Yeah, there there there's rain barrel programs out there, and Right. The list goes on and on. And I would like to have the opportunity to use these funds for all sorts of stuff like that. But first, we'll wait and see how much money we end up accumulating from this.

So I'd like to make a motion. Right. Are you ready for that? I am. I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval of 12Dot090Dot010 and 020.

12Dot150.

12Dot1. It's one fifty? Yeah. Okay. Whatever the We got the rest of it. Code is that we recommend the changes that have been presented to us with the recommendation that we change the percentage from 50 to 40. Discount or The discount of 50% to 40% discount.

I'll second that motion.

Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Mills, a second by commissioner Williams to recommend approval of this water dedication ordinance 12 dot one fifty ten and twenty with the only change being to change the reduction from 50% to 40% in that specific situation at the end of twenty. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. All right. That motion passed unanimously with the four of us. Okay. We have another public hearing. I'm gonna get this right. We're gonna do a staff report first, and then I will open the public hearing before we get going too deep into any discussion. This is a public hearing for the or sorry. We're not doing the public hearing yet. Staff report for the rezone criteria.

Yeah. So in addition to adding our standardized legal language for clarity and conciseness, these changes to the zoning map amendment criteria would allow for a more thorough consideration of rezones. Factors including traffic, natural environment, use table consistency, and city benefit would be examined by the land use authority. There is concern over the language of number, four excuse me. Number three, the extent to which the proposed amendment may adversely affect adjacent property. And part of the new changes that will be removed. The staff believes that that is covered by other sections. For example, criteria number one talks about compatibility with density use and overall character of existing developments in the vicinity. Or number five talks about the natural environment, which could also adversely or be a benefit to the adjacent property. So because the language is so vague of what is now number six, that has been removed. Other than that, all other changes are consistent with what we discussed last time. Thank you. Thank you.

K. Open the

Alright. Thank you. We're going to open the public hearing for this, ordinance twenty twenty six dash 15, the rezone criteria. You have up to three minutes again. Public hearing is opened. No one's coming forward. K. We're closing that public hearing with no comment. Alright. Now we can have discussion.

I make a motion that we recommend approval of the changes to 12 dot 10 dot zero five zero as they are presented to us.

K. We have a motion to recommend approval.

I will second that.

Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Moe's, a second by commissioner Taylor to recommend approval of the rezone criteria 12 dot 10 dot fifty zero five zero. Any further discussion?

I need to be convinced that the two areas that you mentioned do adequately cover adjacent immediately adjacent property concerns or effect on immediate adjacent properties. Is there a way could you go over the language of those two and how it would encompass that and why removing it doesn't change anything

as given adjacent part. So the language as it is is, as we discussed, really vague. Like, it's really hard to categorize adverse effects. And so what those other ones do is include specificity. So number one includes density use and overall character, and number four includes the traffic congestion, road safety, pedestrian access. So it's just more specific in other sections. It may not include everything, but because of the vague language, it's impossible to include all adverse or just effects in general around the the property.

Five adds to it as well. I'm gonna touch on the geology, hydrology. Right. Yeah. I think we we've covered all the aspects we wanna cover without having to determine if something

is adversely gonna affect somebody here. There we go. Sorry. Mine wasn't pulling up. I was And and the other thing I know I I brought it up last time was that some of the effects aren't adverse. Right. And we that specifically says adverse effects. And I said, well, can we put beneficial effects too? Because they're both. But, yeah, it really

difficult to figure out. I think striking six makes the rest of it even more neutral. Right? You can weigh the pros or cons. Can we strike just adverse and say the extent to which it affects adjacent properties?

So we had we had a discussion very similar to this as a staff, and the reason it is the way that it is now is really because when we prepare our staff report, we have to be objective. Right? If we're saying, what are the effects, that's an opportunity for subjectivity, and that's something that we should not be dabbling in. That's something that, surely, elected officials, you guys have some leeway with the general plan with other things. We judge things based on what's in the ordinance. Right? So in shifting from what are the effects to we're worried about traffic. Like, we took on the discussion from last time. We said, what are the planning commissioners worried about? We said you're worried about traffic. You're worried about all these other things we've listed in there now. We said, let's put that in there. So now we have a list we're judging off of instead of just saying, what could go wrong or what could be good? And so that's really the heart of why it got changed.

Does it limit what could be brought up and what would be relevant in public hearing hearing from the public? Or does it encompass the same things that could be brought up? No. Because, really, you go back to

I mean, this is the list. Right? But also, we look at the general plan. And so that opens up a broad category of things that the planning commission could go back to. You know, looking at number one, leave some openness there about character to existing development and those types of things. There's still an opportunity to get into maybe what we would call the weeds a little bit. Yeah. But we as staff need a nice clear list so we can provide you with nice clear staff reports saying, does this meet the criteria you've set forth? Yes or no? And then that leaves you room to get into beyond what we've said. They other things that you're concerned about.

I can sit down with applicants. When they come in and they wanna talk about doing a rezone, I need to be able to show them a list of this is how we determine if this is a good idea or not. And I think these really specific things will help them make that decision if if the reason that they're thinking about is a good idea or not based on their own knowledge of the area. I think it's I think it's super helpful just for people who may be thinking about rezoning to be able to go through this list and and kind of prejudge it themselves with with these specific criteria.

So would you say the intent of one where it says whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the density use and overall character for existing developments, would you say compatible with existing developments would be the effects the effects of it on the surrounding properties would be encompassed within that?

Yes. Because you're judging just the stuff in the vicinity, right, of the subject property. And

And compatibility is kinda like affects just another word. It is. But I think compatibility

gives us the opportunity to weigh in favor of the property owner instead of looking for something negative.

I I just wanna bring, as an example, what we did earlier today when we looked at the conditional use permit. This was a framework, unintentionally possibly, that we use to judge whether or not we would approve or disapprove that conditional use permit. It sounds like a sound change. Was it traffic congestion, road safety, pedestrian safety, whether it met the intent of what that neighborhood was is gonna be used for. I mean, all of the things there weren't many things, I don't think any that we didn't think about as we discussed that conditional use permit. So it's pretty all inclusive. It's not too limiting, and it's not too vague. It's not as broad. So I I think that this worked very well. And we may not have used this specifically for that. But when you look down at what we discussed,

we discussed all of these things. Right. Notice it says pedestrian access. Use of pedestrian safety. Is there one for safety that I'm just missing? So road safety is included in there, and that's broadly,

like, accessibility for public safety. All those types of things would be included in your road safety category.

I like the change. I've been on both sides, and I know we do have to be able to defend whatever we're doing and, yeah, write those staff reports. So I'm all in favor of this. I think when we say, well, but what about, like we're thinking of someone who's on our side, but it can just as well go to someone who's not on our side. And you're like, well, that's not what I meant it for. But it's gonna go for both. And so for me, it's safer to not have it in there. I yeah. I think of, like, this project that we talked about earlier, the conditional use permit. Let's say that wasn't there at all. The townhomes are all in, and then that guy wants to come in and do that. We have a roomful of people saying, don't you dare allow this, please. No. No. No. Well, we didn't actually need all of that public clamor. We can look at this reasonably and logically and go, yeah. This doesn't fit because of these reasons. Ned will disagree, and that's fine.

But he's not here. He lost that lost that opportunity. He forfeited that opportunity.

Just just for the record, I tend to on the side of wanting more public input as I feel like that's our I feel like that's a duty even if it's annoying sometimes. I like to on the side of making sure that whatever the language is that it welcomes input from the public and that they they're they have some weight to what they say, property owners. This is us saying, whoops. Sorry. That's not relevant. I don't I wanna make sure that we have the most expansive versus the most restrictive.

Yeah. We're also a republic. Right? We elect people to study out the issues when we gen when the general public may not know as much as whoever is elected or appointed. I mean, isn't that what a republic is? Right? So I get that. I We just can't satisfy everyone. Go ahead, Heather.

Sorry. I thought you were done. I apologize. I agree with Melinda. I think I'm all for it. I mean, we can't the wording, we could spend hours. You know? So just so you know my opinion, I think it's good.

Thank you.

One last question for me, and then I will be quiet. What did the lawyer say about removing that? I'm assuming that we talked to him about it.

Yeah. I don't think there was any specific comments about this ordinance. Just kind of was like, that's what you wanna do, then it sounds great to me.

K.

Alright. We my notes say we already have a motion and a second on this. So I think this that was our additional discussion. Any other discussion before we take a vote? Alright. We have a motion on the table by commissioner Mose to recommend approval of twelve dot ten dot zero five zero, a second by commissioner Taylor. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Ned's not here. Alright. That passes unanimously with the four of us. K. We're done with public hearings. We are thank you. I feel like that too. Have a cookie. We're up to discussion items, which have been very helpful in the past to make those public hearing items supposedly go quicker. Those done didn't feel fast, but that was pretty fast. Alright. Subdivision improvements. Someone wanna talk speak to that? I was gonna tell you all that.

Yeah. You're stuck with me today. I'm the guy. Alright. So we are defining subdivision improvement agreement, which we're defining it as a written agreement between the city and developer wherein the developer agrees to complete all the required improvements exhibited in the subdivision improvement plans. So we're just having them sign this agreement to be like, we're gonna do the thing we said we're gonna do. It's implied throughout, but it was not explicit by name. And so all of this is doing is putting subdivision improvement agreement, naming it throughout the relevant, sections, and then we're adding it in our definition section. Let's see. We're also including it as a requirement for the final plat, which was already implied, and then adding a few things to the final plat as well, like financial guarantee for construction and the engineering estimate of cost, which was already part of it, but it was formatted weird. And then in this section, we're saying that the no final plat will be approved until they've submitted their subdivision improvements agreement. So pretty simple. We're just adding language in there to include subdivision improvements agreements.

Is this not just I don't know. I feel like we have an ordinance, and and people should abide by it. And I know that doesn't always work out as pretty as it does. Tell me we're not just adding a layer of red tape. Let me outline where this would be super useful.

There's a subdivision. Why not? Let's just name it. Juniper Trail Subdivision took three years to get done, and it was it was painful. And, you know, there was some drama with the developer, and it it was kind of a family owned thing. And so it was they were kind of looking at each other about who's responsible for these things. And the city went to try to call their bond to get to for us to pay for it out of the money that they left with the city. And it ended up being this big legal drama and mess. And there's still a couple things that haven't quite been done, but the bond has expired, and we are kind of left with cleaning up a mess. And this would have been super helpful because what this is going to do is the developer's gonna sign on the dotted line saying, I will have these things done by this time. And if I don't, then here's the way the city can fix my problems for me, and here's the method by which they can get the money from the bank. And it's just a way for us to protect ourselves if we have a development that goes awry. And, sure, in the code right now, it's implied, and there's a mechanism in place right now, but it's messy. And when we've tried to use it in the past, it has not been easy.

So you're adding a legally binding contractual obligation in writing

with a with a specified remedy. This is the practice used by both of the counties that I worked for before. So I kind of borrowed this idea. The plat guarantees the division of the land, right, and the details that go with that division. The subdivision improvement agreements would record the conditions of the improvements themselves, The civil plans. Right? The plat takes care of is the recording instrument for taking care of the land division, and the subdivision improvements agreement would be the recorded document that takes care of the civils. And so they go hand in hand. They go together. But having it recorded means that anybody can find that information at any time. It's on their permanent record for the subdivision, and the contract is is definite. Right? There's not a lot of ways to get around it once it's recorded. So you're no longer enforcing a code

in the city you're not no longer enforcing city code. You're enforcing a legal contract.

So you're doing requiring them to enter into a contract that they will do these subdivision improvements agreements exactly like they said they And that's an easier thing to enforce than proving

Absolutely. Okay.

The other way this is going to benefit is right now, we have a lot of developments coming through wanting to do private utilities. So we've got these multifamily projects saying we're gonna have a private road so it doesn't have to match the city spec, and we're gonna have, you know, these private utility lines. And so what we're finding out as some of these are starting construction is it's a mess. And we don't have great records of what's gonna be private, what's gonna be public. And so what this would allow us to do is when somebody comes in and says, I'm gonna have this private road, we can list in this contract, which will be recorded, here's your public improvements, here's your private improvements. So in ten years, when the residents come to the city and say, you need to fix our road and the developer's long gone, we can pull out that agreement and say, well, actually, the asphalt is your responsibility.

The city will maintain I mean, maybe we maintain the pipes underneath, but you guys need to band together as an HOA and take that fee you've been collecting and resurface your own road. So where this is getting recorded then, is it gonna be recorded in such a way that it will show up on each individual property, not just as a whole? So that when they run title reports for initial sale and resales, their preliminary title report's gonna show this development agreement. That way when people purchase it and they sign that they've read it, they can't come back later and say, Citi, you're responsible for it. Nope. You read your prelim. You said you read it. That's yeah. What you say, like, people sign for CC and Rs who really ever reads them Right. Besides me. It's like this it's Yeah. And that's why you're on planning commission. Yeah. You should be reading those. But I can see where this would be a good shield for the city down the road. And as long as it shows up in the record adequately recorded so that it shows up at each individual facility. Especially when some of these approved subdivisions are immediately sold to a different develop. Right? We need

we need the contracts to follow with the land and with the plat. And the recording will make it run with the land. Correct. Yeah. So talk to me about the process or when this comes into play or who it comes before. This subdivision agreement

would go right along with plat.

Preliminary, final.

We wanna see your template, right, at preliminary, and then we want the signature ready version at final. You sign it and hand it over to Cindy just like you do your mylar, and then they both get reported at this point. Anyone digs anything,

unless you're a district.

Unless you're a school district. That's right. See, because normally, if it was a separate contract like this, if it was not recorded, they would have to do an assignment, and they would have to accept the contract, the next person. Whereas if you record it, it's running with the land. By virtue of purchasing that land, you Except. Take that contract Yes. With the land. It cannot be separated. It's already done yet. Right. K. That makes sense. Sounds like a good move.

Okay. I give.

We'll leave it in box, and you guys can read through it, in more detail. And take your time, and we'll bring it back to you as a, public hearing.

K. Sounds good. Alright. Next item, six b new LDR zone and standards. This would be our low density residential zone and standards.

Woo hoo. It's here. Woo hoo. We're very excited.

Says take it. Somebody hurts. I'm excited about it. I I just need hours on this. I get that. When you mind.

When you work on stuff like this, it does. And then, yeah, it works its way into planning commission and city council, and they're just kinda like and I'm like, no. Like, this is a fixer. It's on the show. We get to nerd out and go this Yeah. In the fine print. Yeah. I'm glad you have a baby.

Of course.

Okay. So I'm just gonna go kinda slide by slide, and then I'll ask for sort of questions, comments, and concerns. But first, we're repurposing because this is combining the residential use on agricultural and our current r two zone. We're not allowing farms or, well, in this case, rural amen amenities. This is for development only. And then we're going to create separate agricultural protections for ag the agricultural zone. So this is no longer allowing development in ag. Is that a fair summary?

It's separating the uses of residential from agricultural and then putting the protections for the actual agricultural use where there's no residential play. So this is taking the the a zone properties with a house on them and the r two properties and putting them into one category. A zone properties that don't have a house on them, this is not part of that.

Oh, okay. If someone just has a field that's being farmed. Yes. That's different than if

protection on the a zone, and then we're taking the residential uses and combining them together into this low density zone.

And are we like, some people I know live on, let's say, three acres and have animals. Are we taking any rights from anybody to have Right. But are we saying no more new ones of those?

Not no. Not necessarily. What we're doing is we're changing the development standards for this zone, so, naturally, they won't occur that way.

I'll listen better. Okay.

Commissioner Lee brought up in comments beforehand a concern with hometown feel being legally defensible. Because this is a purpose statement, it is not legally binding. This comes from the general plan over what they kind of wanted in what is now the r two zone, preserving this sort of hometown feel. And so that's where I got this purpose statement from. If that's language that is not satisfactory, I'm not super tied to that. But I think it's relevant in the purpose section because that's when people are reading what this zone is supposed to do, I think that contributes to, oh, I want to do this sort of project in there. And that's a term that we've heard in public comments over and over. Sure. K. So I think, by definition,

most people would relate to that word. K. Everybody has a different

definition of it, of course.

Right. But the You wanna write this code so that people can open the code and read it and decide for themselves if this is the zone that they want.

K. Are there any The townhome zone's not gonna say hometown field. Got it. They are not. Fun fact.

K. Are there any comments on the purpose section before you move on?

Outcome. K.

This is a pretty quick change. We're just making it more concise. So the code as it is has separate sections for permitted conditional and prohibited uses. We're putting it all in one place and just saying permitted conditional prohibited uses. This is how I think all of the other or all of the other but one work, And so it's just It all goes to the land use table anyway. Right? Right. It's the same thing three times. They don't need three pages to tell us to look at the land use. You could. I know. Controversial. But, alright, here is the meat of LDR. So the development stand is rack adding max dwelling unit per acre. So, anyway, we're just ensuring that it's not overly dense in this area. So we're saying four per acre, so quarter acre lots. Reflecting that is our minimum and maximum lot area of 10,000 or 25,000 square feet. So this isn't going to be, at maximum, a half acre and, at minimum, a quarter acre lot. Each zone beyond this, and this is looking a little bit head, is going to leave off on the last number. So that one is going to be Our MDR is maximum 10,000, minimum 7,500, and then the next zone is gonna be maximum 7,000. So this is setting up for our other zones as well, just creating a hierarchy of lot sizes. And then we're removing oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Sorry. That max lot area, we're not letting anyone build on a lot bigger than 25,000 feet?

We're not gonna have them rezone to this zone and then split their lots bigger than 25,000 square feet. Their lots. Or Or split them up. Right. If they've got a giant parcel and they're ready to chop them up into pieces, the max they're gonna do is 25,000 square feet in their subdivision. Per lot? Per lot. A lot. You have we have time to think about and bring back comments from where this is discussion.

Oh, I'm all for it. I'm just yeah.

The math can math as long as you need it to math. Sure.

Keep going. How how eloquent?

You don't have to stop at my face. We're removing

subdivision bonus density because we're offering higher density options in our next wave. So It becomes irrelevant then because it's already available in a different Precisely. Zone. Yeah. And then we're decreasing the maximum lot width. This is just reflective of our decreased area. So you can't have a 115 feet area and then anyway, it's how the math works.

So the minimum lot width is matching the new It's proportional.

Okay. I did I looked yeah. I looked at other coats who used that size, and this is what they use for their width. And this isn't frontage. This is just at any point, you can't go more narrow than 70 feet wide. You can't have an hourglass shaped

lot. Precisely. Yep. K. Any comments, questions, concerns with this first wave of standards?

K. I just just one thing. The max lot area, I'm just wondering how that's gonna be accepted. Or if it's gonna be misconstrued as, wait. I've got a three acre lot, and I don't wanna put a house on it. And you're saying I can't do it now? That's I'm wondering if that's what a lot of people are gonna say when they don't understand this is actually referring to rezoning and subdividing.

We may do some public education, and I answer lots of calls and lots of emails all the time. I mean, that's just part of my job is answering those questions. So I I'm happy to answer those questions.

And even then, if someone has a two acre lot and they say, well, I wanna give half of it to my kids to my kid, one, because I don't like the other one. Sure. And

Two,

naturally. I have four. I only like one of them. It's one. He only wants to get one for the one. The other three.

And they're gonna say, well, I can't divide it now into a two one acre lots and then build on it. And this is saying, no. You can't.

To inherit them for smaller lots. Sure.

And then they wouldn't be able to build on combine those four lots.

No. If it was in a flat, it's seven.

Are we are we going to distinguish between the mom and and the mom and pop, so to speak, versus the developer? Like, if it's just one person doing a lot split for a family?

It would still be a minor subdivision if they're doing a lot split.

So all the rules that would go apply to a developer in a minor subdivision would apply to a mom and pop that's subdividing. Is there a way we can separate those out? We we specified

the difference between minor and major. We said it had to do with improve needed improvements.

Right. But what we're what we're doing, remember, is we're getting rid of these giant lots with giant houses. They can't financially support themselves in this economy, and we as a city can City can't afford it. We can't afford these anymore. So we have to take the stance of we can't allow these large lots and large homes. It's just not

So if someone on three acres

would have to go through subdivision process, for For them financially, it'd be better to leave one house on three acres. Have their three acres and they want And one house. House, we're not gonna keep them from building. It's this doesn't keep anybody from building it. It's just they can't give more than you with time to divide. You can't just cut it in half. If you're gonna subdivide, then you subdivide. Or leave it big. Yes. It it's financially more viable to stay three acres

than it would sound like. Keep it within the family

and just build another structure on it. You can only do one structure per parcel.

One resident. Unless it's a Yeah. Somebody wanna do an ADU or something. ADU. Okay.

But if they want to divvy it up Yeah. You're gonna have to split it into small pieces. Yeah. Days of of of hoarding big swaths of land are are financially coming to an end for all municipalities of for people who like to live, like

That's the one thing I would say we need to research and discuss more is that maximum lot area. I agree. Whether it's, you know, half an acre or an acre or 25,000 square feet, which is just a little less than half an acre, isn't it? Mhmm. Mhmm. I think. A little more. Yeah. Oh, it's a little more than one. Than half an acre. Yeah. So which

yeah. Half an acre is bigger than we want. Yeah. Half an acre is bigger. I've got a third, and I'm

I'm happy with it. But if someone gave me an extra little bit and made it a half acre, I wouldn't wouldn't say no.

That's more than half.

I know. So

K. So look at these numbers, maybe draw them out, and see where this could fit in our city. We don't have a lot of giant parcels left. We're gonna be doing a lot of infill over the next few years, and so there's really not a lot of places for big lots to even exist.

So, for example, the ag the parcels that are right now zone is agricultural down close to Wolfpack Way. If someone wanted to rezone that to build a house on, or would they even have to if they wanted to leave the leave it the way it was and build one house on it? Built. Could they do that?

You could Leave it the way it was and build one house. And it would stay agricultural. Hate no. Once you build a house on it, it's not agricultural.

It's residential. Well, that's the goal. Today's code, you could build one house in the ag zone on a ginormous lot. That's fine. But the goal eventually is to get to the point where the only parcels that are gonna have the true ag zoning are ones that have an ag use happening on them. Somebody just wants a massive house with that one. A massive lot, we wanna get a residential zoning for them because we wanna make sure we're protecting the actual agricultural uses. Right? So when he wants to have a farm, Hyde Park is very ag friendly, and we want to preserve that. But we don't want that to be used as a shield just to go and have a really big lot that's not sustainable for the city to have.

So would we not allow someone to have a home on a property that they are doing agricultural uses on?

It would no longer be zoned it would be zoned residential. And once it's zoned residential,

would they be allowed to do any agriculture on it? Like, if they had a four acre lot, they could Sure. Build a house and then still do agriculture.

Little goat farm in the back. Have your goat farm in the back. As long as you follow the codes, that would be fine.

No. We're not removing anybody's rights. We're not removing anybody's ability to do anything on that property. This just comes into play when it's time to subdivide,

split up and top. We're also not suggesting that anybody who lives on a lot right now should go in and mess up what you have going for you. Right? If you live on one of these lots right now, leave it. Great. What we're saying is future developments in the city can continue the pattern we already have, or we will be in serious trouble financially. Like, the big lots we have now are enough.

If we keep the pattern going, we are gonna be in trouble. So as it stands right now, our finances are not sustainable with our existing residences. Correct? Correct. Yeah. So at what point are we better to merge with an adjacent city?

But he wants to see finish.

No. I'm just Just jolt. No. I'm just wondering at what point if we're not financially viable because to me, what makes Hyde Park is our difference from, like, Jason. But at what point do we look at the sustainability if we can't get that to that point?

I'm still thinking. At what point is it better to start merging stuff? Plan ahead so that we don't have to Yeah. And it's that care. I don't Is that possible? That our neighbors have. It's very possible. So commercial can make up for this.

And If we can get them. And if we go this direction, then these make up for them they cover themselves, and they subsidize the big ones we already have.

It does both. So with this, this is potentially sustainable. If we So with this, this is potentially sustainable if we if this plays out the way that we're thinking it would with this planning it.

Yes. That's the goal is to keep Hyde Park Hyde Park and to keep Hyde Park taking care of itself.

Yeah. But if you let that 25,000 get bigger, we're in trouble.

Well, even that's why we've been at maximum now. We've never had a maximum before. No. Yeah. It was always you can go as big as you want, but you can't be At a minimum. Too small. Right. We're shifting that and saying, you know, we're we're adding an upper boundary as well. Because, really, the when you're at the quarter acre lot, that's when you start reaching the point of maybe we can keep up. And we're not making money on this, but we have a good chance of keeping up with what's happening. So, really, if we're just doing it based off residential property tax alone, we need to be looking at the 24 plexes all across the board. But since that's not the plan, we're not doing that major shift. We're saying, let's move the single family to a more sustainable route, and we're we already have the rooftops coming along Wolfpack Way to start being an incentive for businesses to come in. So I feel like we're doing good things, but, yeah, we just can't we can't keep incentivizing the thing that got us into the trouble in the first place.

Okay. So I want a big house on a big lot. So I go in a subdivision. I buy two smaller lots. I bypass the city. I go to the county, and I have those combined. But then I come to you to build on it, and that's where you say, nope.

Is that correct? Where we say That's how that works? Your your plat says that you were two separate lots, so

you need to put it back. Or they need to keep them separate, pay taxes on both properties.

We are currently discussing with the city attorney. The the question that came up previously was if somebody's in a platted subdivision, we have an outright prohibition on combining of lots.

We're looking into that with the attorney now. And they can keep them separate like you say, but they wouldn't be able to build on that line. They'd have to build with the setbacks, right, within one. Under one their yard. Right.

Yeah. We're ready for the next page. And it

Oh. I was gonna say regarding the regarding the density. So far, we're doing it well, having lived through that we don't have to think about put density in the wrong location. We are talking about the cost of infrastructure. You put it in the wrong location, a longer stretch of infrastructure wears out a lot faster versus a if you have it in the right location, you'll need a short of infrastructure that wears out faster because you've got hundreds more cars going on a short section. That makes sense. Yeah. And we get potholes here way faster because we have weather. Alright. Heather, go ahead.

Was she just talking or was she? I mean, this is Heather. Gonna yeah. I was just gonna say I need to go. I'm so sorry.

I It's getting it's getting so exciting.

I know, and I wish I could stay. I I stepped away from a from something I'm in charge of for two hours, and I've gotta go back. I'm sorry.

You can watch the rest of the session on YouTube at your leisure.

Okay. I apologize, but I was here for two hours. Have that noted. Thank you, Heather. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

See you. Bye. Alright. Let it be noted on the minutes if it's about ten after nine or 09:11 on this clock, and Heather is leaving the meeting.

Can I go to? Alright.

And Mike cannot leave yet.

We're gonna get through this quickly, so you can yeah. This is the last major slide.

So we're reducing the setback requirements. This is not only because we're having smaller lots, so having a 30 foot setback wouldn't necessarily make sense, but this comes at recommendations from both the building department and the engineering firm that we work with. They really like 20 feet or at least 15 feet. Front.

Front.

Yes. Sorry. Oh, shoot. I should have that open. Yes. Apologies. I should have specified that. Yes. This is for the front setback. The the rear and side are not changing. Anyway, they like that for utilities. So at least 15 feet. So as we get to our higher densities, we're gonna see 15 feet. But 20 feet, maintain that sort of, again, that hometown feel. You still have a yard, but it's a little bit lower. And then Does that

I think the the one of the biggest reasons we have 30 feet right now is not just because it's further back from the street, but it's because you can put a car without any problem in the driveway without it hanging off into the into the sidewalk. What effect does that have? Because I know that my truck, which isn't the longest truck, is probably more than 20 feet long or right around 20 feet long.

You should make sure that your garage is not hooking up further than your house when you build it.

Well, the the the garage is or whatever whatever part of the house is is furthest toward the that's that's where we measure the the setback from. The setback should be from the property line,

not the street.

So, typically, your property line Right. Got one foot, and then the sidewalk starts. Yeah. So I think by saying that, he knows he doesn't wanna have his truck over the sidewalk where people are walking. According

to Google, the average length of modern pickup trucks ranges from 17 to 21 feet. With most of the trucks compact to midsize that we see around here, you're looking at just under 20 feet. In theory,

most trucks, you would do Yeah. That's if you're that far away from the garage door. Well, no. If that's 20 feet

plus your yeah.

Who parks their car in their garage? I have a

club, you know, crew cab.

So it's a Mhmm. Two two rows, and I've got the full size bed. I don't have the short bed, but it's not the long bed either. And it's just under 20 feet. You can still do a 30 foot setback if you're a guy with big truck. We're not saying you can't do a 30 foot setback. We're saying if you drive a smaller car, you could do a 20 foot setback.

K. So

Just to make sure they can go bigger if they want. It's not the

maximum. It's the minimum. That's the minimum. Correct. Got it. If you want Sorry. Yard, you can take K. Is that a loss oh, not a loss? No.

Sorry. We also have a a lot coverage maximum that we are adding. This is new, but we're redefining it to include all structure coverage, so your accessory and main structures and your impervious surface area. So this is to prevent concrete or asphalt or whatever that prevents the seeping of water. And so then it becomes your neighbor's problem or sits there until it evaporates. And so on these larger lots, we're saying maximum on your lot is 50%.

The city, and whether you I don't know if you know this or not. We got a stormwater audit from the state that's been going on for about a year and a half. It's been brutal. That's a long audit. And, yeah, one of the things that we're being looked at is how we're dealing with stormwater as a whole. And this is something that's come up often enough that it's been a concern. A lot of these properties will go in and build a house and then pool and then ADU and then they concrete everything in. And then also we're gonna put a pickleball quarter on RV pad. Before you know it, there's no you know, we're we're like, great. No grass to water. But suddenly, when every time it rains, there's waterfalls coming off their property into their neighbor's yard, which is a problem. And so what most cities that we've been looking at and Kyle's been looking at, they have the same requirement because you need some sort of dirt, some kind of grass, some kind of landscape area where that water can infiltrate so it doesn't just fly off your property into your neighbor's yard.

Do we have other code sections that help? Like, I I've seen properties that wouldn't even come close to 50%, but yet drain on their neighbor. I understand. Those are caught in other codes?

Or So this is now including impervious surface area, which it did not previously. So that's going to be anyway, it's an engineering term, but it any area that water cannot seep in. So I imagine those properties probably have some sort of surface area because previously, the lot coverage requirement was only structures. Or location makes a difference too. Roofing. Well, it's less. You've had no mats. It's hardly new. And what? Not the parts. Too. No mats. Plan. So this just sets

sets that for success, stormwater wise.

Yeah. We have other codes in place where if somebody's leaking their stormwater onto their neighbor,

there's things that could be looked at houses. To try and help with that. Because everyone should be taking care of their own runoff. They shouldn't be going to their neighbor. Yes. Yes.

K. That's it for that slide. Any further comments, considerations?

Oh, we would have said it. Yeah.

K. There was a lot of language that did not make sense, so I decided to scratch it all. So the this superscript references things that don't exist or not relevant. It was a artifact from a time that I was not a part of, so it is gone. This superscript references the table, the the site standard or yeah. Site development standards table itself. So it's just reiterating everything we see Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we are taking that out. Also, every single zone has an accessory setbacks table that looks something like this. We are going to move this over to 12 dot a 100 dot 12, the the site development standards table. That's what I was thinking of. And we're just going to reference that, and then we're going to put the table there. So every single zone is just gonna reference that instead of repeating the same information in every single zone beneath the table. Thank you.

I the last, I don't know, edit or something that I looked at on that, it did jump from, like, class a to b or whatever it went from Mhmm. Up to 400, and the next one started at four fifty. Like, there was a gap between four and four fifty K. In one of those edits. So I will keep that in mind as we pop that page over. Okay. That looks like that's been corrected. K.

Yeah.

So that's not really any substantive substantive change. It's just cleanup to make it look better and not have any unnecessary language. Love it. K. Are there any final comments before we move on to our last discussion item? Fantastic. K. This one should be pretty quick. So the public works dep

Keep going.

You you're making fun of me? No. The We are. The public works department, for my record, since 2021 has requested a prohibition on hammerhead turnarounds. This has not been in code. And so anyway, they requested of me knowing that I am the code guy to add this in, and so I did. So we are adding a prohibition on hammerhead turnarounds in both public and private streets. The private one is more for the fire department because they have a lot of trouble backing up, fire trucks. It's also not covered under the insurance if there's any damage to the fire truck while backing up. So hammerhead designs are not feasible. It's also used, as it shouldn't be. So people will often park trailer. I know. Trailers or have a basketball court or whatever, which can be a a safety concern if a fire truck needs to access it. So we're just

getting rid of them. And then the other That's a lot of extra space that you're asking them to do in these townhome subdivisions I mean, these townhome developments. Yeah.

And then the other

sorry.

The private

Yes. Is it here, or is it up there? Anyway, it's going to here it is. Public utilities must not be placed within or beneath a private residential lane or road. This is so that if something happens to a public utility beneath the private road, it doesn't become the city's problem to dig down and then replace the road. We can replace grass cheaper than we can replace a road. Or so that wasn't already in there somewhere. No. No. We're

requested this specific. So Makes sense.

So these are the two, yeah, public works requests that they wanted to get done. So here it is. Any final comments, questions, concerns, queries, clips?

Quick clarification on the insurance thing. It's not that they won't cover it. It's that our specific insurance provider has a backing policy where you have you're supposed to have a flagger or a spotter back there helping you back up. When we have the snowstorms that we do, not enough people to load two up in a truck to be doing the plowing. Everybody's in their own vehicle. And so in order for us to comply with everything and have our insurance give us the thumbs up on any potential problems, we don't wanna be put in a situation where we have to back the snowplows up. They draw the routes out specifically so they don't have to back up. And so having a hammerhead turnaround would just cause a situation where we may face getting into an accident or having something happen, and our insurance company could say, oh, you didn't follow our policy of having your flagger, so we're not gonna cover that.

That's the one that's Sorry. I misunderstood. You're good.

We're gonna leave all of these inbox for the next week or so until we get them into an actual ordinance and then move them into the next week's meeting. So they're there for you to do the math on and think about and if you have questions or anything like that, you can come see me. You can email us. Give us a call, and we're happy to answer any questions about it.

Yeah. One interesting exercise with these new zones is to do Melinda's favorite thing to do. Just pay attention to subdivisions as you drive through them. Look at them and say, do I like this? Do I not like this? And then you can pop on to the county parcel viewer and try to find it and look at the lot sizes and try to do a little measurement of the setbacks and see how does it affect. I like to use my subdivision as an example for the quarter acre lot. We're full quarter acre lot subdivision, and it doesn't feel tight or compact. It looks a little tight compared to our half acre lots, but it's a really nice place, subdivision, full of families, full of kids. It's a great place for

people in my same life situation to live. Yeah. I just pulled up my daughter's home in Syracuse, and we, Mike and I think it's more than 50% lot coverage with just a little patio in back and the driveway in front and just skinny sides. But that's They probably have specialty stormwater.

Well, remember also that what we're what they're talking about here is what is it? 10,000 square feet and up. Yes. If we wanted to do, like, new first time homeowner play you know, starter homes, that may be a different like like the senior lots. I mean, I'm just yeah. It might be too late to be in a meeting. I'm a 10 year old 10 year senior here. So I'm having a rough time tonight. It must be past my bedtime already.

But yeah. I did look at it. Because you're not gonna be here. Go ahead and tell Okay.

Kyle's gonna chime in. Our future zones have that. So Right. MVR is 60%, HDR 70%, and our small lot residential is gonna be 80% maximum. So the maximum is gonna increase as we get smaller to allow for those situations.

The one thing that I'm grateful for is that we're not putting a McMansion on a big lot.

We just can't afford to

maintain. Put the biggest house you can on that lot. And that's Not here, but

I paid attention to a subdivision. My sister-in-law lives in in Provo, and they had bigger lots. And then the developer sold. The new developer re subdivided the remaining section into much smaller lots with very small site. And something I would make note of is they're ending up with a lot of legal issues between neighbors because of how tight it is. People aren't accounting for basement window wells because that doesn't show on your plan. Right. And when your basement window well goes right up against the fence line where someone wants to put a fence and they need an extra three inches, nobody's Nobody's given each other those three inches, and they're like, well, then I can't put a fence in. Well, then you're gonna be on top of my window well. And and if you make them force their window well in, then they aren't to code for their window well. For fire safety. Yeah. So it Egress. The tighter it is, we have to look at, like, lots more layers that we don't have to look at when there's more room. Right. It's getting nasty. It's better to avoid those things for our residents in the first place. I'm glad we've got, what, 10 foot on the side?

Mhmm. 10 feet. Yeah. Yeah. That that allows for like, California, I know that there's lots of developments there. You're talking about a four foot, five foot. You're just going, woah. They're right on top of each other. But I like shaking people's hands out the windows. You hear everything. But it's the tin cans. It's the tin cans with the string in between, and your kids are There's there's no string needed.

I saw a video actually last night of two houses that overran the eve overhang rule, and their eaves touch each other. Neither one can put up a Rain gutter? A gutter. Neither one can put up a gutter because their eaves are too close, but but it's the same kind of thing. You have to You don't think they do that right. They could just shoot it right out the end of the to consider the eve overhang when the window wells and everything. Yeah. I love that. It gets complicated. We got our eyes on her. Yeah.

K.

Alright. Alright. Eric, back to you. I'm making a motion.

I'll second it. I'm reading your mind. Alright.

Pay attention to your agenda. Next I will not be here next time. Mike Mohs has agreed to What? It's not conduct. Is it conduct? Yeah. It's conduct. Chair. Chair. Mike will chair the meeting. Heather's going to give the opening remarks. You probably gotta know that. Thank you. And I'll zoom in if I can, but I will have five kids, eight and under. Like It's true.

Just don't unmute.

You do not want comment from me. They they may have better comments than we have.

That sounds fun, though. Alright. We have a motion and a second and 09:30. 09:30. She's turning right. We're thorough. The meeting's adjourned. We're thorough. Thank you. You got me, Brian.

Yeah. Apologies.

Just say it again.