Hyde Park City Planning Commission Meeting 8.19.2026

>> The one thing I failed to mention, but not notice, was your presents. Thank you so much for coming. Uh we appreciate when there's um more than just a couple people. We appreciate those couple people that come all the time, but we're grateful when uh we have an audience and uh citizens come to participate in their city's future. All right. Let's uh look first at the minutes from the last meeting. we'll look to approve those. Are there any um changes, omissions, deletions that we need to make? I'll look this way first. >> That was good. >> You good? >> I don't have anything. I know Melinda had a few things. >> Yeah, Melinda did comment. >> I didn't have anything else. Wasn't changed. >> The only thing I saw was there's one that was an unnamed citizen, but that has he has since been named. But we won't name him here. >> Voldemort. >> He should not be named. Um All right. Uh do you have the changes that Commissioner Lee suggested? Or I'm sorry, Commissioner Lee, would you like to mention those if you're the available. >> Okay, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay, I just the one instead of Lance Anderson and Advance Anderson with a B instead of an L. Um, on the two this one is per minute. It had you making the motion and someone else making the second, but it was me that made the second. And then they spelled Brian Foster's name wrong. And then yeah, I identified I think they figured is that an unidentified resident. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Nope, not for me. Sorry. >> All right. You did you catch those Michael? All right. >> I missed the corrections. >> Any other comments? No. Okay, um Well, someone else can make a motion or I can. >> I make a motion that we approve the minutes according to Commissioner Lee's corrections. >> Long, okay. >> I'll second that. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Motion from Commissioner Hansen. The second from Commissioner Williams to accept the minutes as as corrected by Commissioner Lee. Any other comments? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed say nay. Okay. Those have been done. I'll turn the time over now to our city planner, Michael, for any updates. >> So, before you on the dais is a set of Robert's Rules of Order. It's kind a cheat sheet. It doesn't say cheat sheet, it says quick study. Um but we thought having these might help our meetings um be a little more organized and um straightforward when it comes to making motions and what to do when there's corrections or changes or that kind of thing. So, um feel free to You don't have to try to use this as we go, but feel free to study that and put it to good use. Um additionally, I wanted to give you a quick update on the applications in the queue. Um the Aspen Grove DA is with DRC and um will have a recommendation to come before Planning Commission and then City Council. >> Okay, just so everyone knows a DA is a development agreement. >> Um and then I have one large lot subdivision, two site plans, um Gateways development agreement amendment, uh two mixed-use subdivisions who are all um trying to get code compliant so that they can come before you as well. So, um it's kind of quiet right now for legislative and administrative items, but that will change shortly. Anything else? >> Anything else? No? Thank you so much for that update. All right. The next uh thing that uh is on the item is on our agenda are administrative items and we have uh we're supposed to come up with a recommendation for the Schreiber Foods development agreement. And to start that off we're going to give it to you, right? We're going to give it to Marcus. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Mose. Um so this item is something the city's been working on for a long time and various people in the city have been involved at various levels. So for the benefit of informing those on the planning commission who may not have been as involved in the process and going to go through a hopefully quick PowerPoint presentation. I encourage you all to take a bunch of notes and we'll answer questions at the end to help us just get through, but I'm going to hit some of the highlights of this development agreement to hopefully give a snapshot of the negotiations that have happened thus far and um give you an idea of what uh this agreement says. So as stated, this is this would be a development agreement between Schreiber Foods and Hyde Park City. We started these discussions back in February of 2025. There've been a lot of discussions about master plans. We've had site plan reviews with um their engineers and with our city staff. We're drafting legal agreement and so we are here at this point where it's time for uh Schreiber Foods and the city to make a decision and to figure out what we're going to agree to. Um they have an annexation that's pending. It's on the city's account city council agenda next week. And the hope is to get that approved, get this agreement approved, and then they'll be submitting some applications to start building the first building in their master plan. So it's very very exciting stuff. We've been working on this for a while. Um before we get into the meat of the agreement, I want to bring up a couple of benefits that aren't explicitly listed out in the agreement, but as we know from our code, we need to identify benefits that the city's is from development agreements. So, one of the big benefits the city would get from a partnership and and a project from Schreiber Foods is there's a quite a bit of property tax revenue that would come from this. So, based on the property that's being acquired and all the improvements to phase one, we estimate that the city would get approximately $140,000 a year in property tax value. That's just from phase one. So, there's quite a bit of revenue that could be generated for the city. Uh additionally, a partnership with Schreiber Foods, they've come and presented a couple times to the city council and planning commission, talked about how they're local organization. They donate to a lot of our uh community organizations that we know of around here. Uh you know, food pantries, CAPSA, places like that. Um this would bring a lot of new jobs for our residents. Um and yeah, they're looking to get a 15-year partnership to develop about 120 acres out near the railroad tracks. So, there's a lot of benefits that the city could receive from this agreement. So, before we get into the details of this development agreement, requests some concessions, which means there are things that they're asking the city for that we wouldn't necessarily do for everybody. In our city code 13.10.070 development agreements, it identifies that concessions are okay, but we have to decide, and we being the city has to decide, is this a benefit to us? Meaning, is the applicant providing something to us that would merit the exchange? Um and so, as we go through, keep that in mind to help us focus, I've got a couple of headers to try and make the slides easier to understand. So, if the title's in green, that means that this is a great thing for the city. We're all very excited about it. If it's yellow, that means that the city staff was okay with this, but there's room for discussion. Make sure that the city council and the planning commission are on board. And things that are in red are things that the city staff doesn't have the authority to approve on our own. Um and so we need uh had to have a discussion with the planning commission and city council to make sure that having these things in the agreement is acceptable. Um but generally, going into this generally speaking, we're okay with this agreement. It's It does a lot of really good things for the city. But please note as we go through, this is a time for you to express concerns and bring up things that maybe the planning commission is uh having trouble with. So we'll dive right into it. All right. The first item that is of concern is vesting the rights of the project. Development agreement seeks to entitle about like I said, 120 acres and freeze the development standards and today's code in place so that they have a clear path of how they can develop moving forward. This is not an uncommon thing in these types of development agreements. It's very common to have some sort of clause to keep the development standards the same as the project develops over time. Uh the other thing that goes with that is they're seeking a list of approved uses. And so in the definition section, there's specifically outlined what they would like to have. Obviously, Schreiber Foods is a food manufacturing and warehousing company, and so they want to protect those uses for their future facilities. They also have a clause in there that says since they want to be zoned for industrial, and that's what they're requesting the annexation, they would like to preserve their ability to have any other project that would be otherwise permitted in the industrial zone. Um this entitlement investing would last would the 15 years and the only reason that's significant is our city has grown a lot in 15 years. And so the big question is, is the city council okay with keeping that vesting for that much time? I can say from a city staff perspective, if we can get very specific in these things, do things like attach the land use table and keep these definitions very clear, that we feel like we can get comfortable with that. But we will come back to this at the end of the presentation if there's thoughts from the planning commission. Next item in section six, they discussed public infrastructure. Uh this was a section we went back and forth on for a long time. And the big concern was who's in charge of building what? And so what it came down to is Schreiber Foods has agreed that they will build all infrastructure needed for future projects. And the example here, if the developer comes in and they say, I want an 8-in water line, but our fire department says, well, to meet fire demand, you need to upsize to a 12. And the developers will be forced to do the 12 to comply with the code. Um on the other end, if that same situation were to happen and the city says, well, we know it says 12, but we want you to do 24 because we're planning to have a water park down there. It's just an example. Um the city would be on the hook to pay for the difference in that up-sizing. And this is already provisioned in state code, and so we are very comfortable with this provision. I feel like overall this would be a uh this is a benefit to the city that we get a commitment from them to build any infrastructure that their site requires and not have that be something that the city has to come up with money to fund for them. Um next item is a clear benefit to the city. They have agreed in section 7.5 stormwater drainage uh to work with the city to create some regional stormwater facilities that have odd parcels that may be created by the project. Those parcels would be dedicated to the city to be a storm water facility. Anybody who owns property in the area knows that storm water is a challenge down there. So, we thought this was a great opportunity if this deal were to be made for the city to try and come up with a solution for those drainage problems that are happening down there and get a place for the storm water to go so it's not dumping onto anybody's property or causing problems. Um there is the stipulation that Tri River gets to participate in the plan for the parcels, which is perfectly appropriate because they're going to own them in the first place. And then more details would come in as the site develops. So, that is that's a great benefit that we're very happy they agreed to. All right, our first item for review. Uh 600 South, the roadway that would connect to the first phase. Um the developer is requesting a smaller cross-section than normal due to the airport cut off. And essentially, the request was nobody's going to be using this road except us and the city has some infrastructure at the end of the road. And the airport's not going to move for the foresee- foreseeable future. And so, we would like that to be a smaller cross-section that would serve our needs. And the city staff approved the concept plan. We think it's a great idea. Um but again, there is some room if the city council and the planning commission is not comfortable with that there is room for further discussion. Um here is an example of the cross-section. This is also included as an exhibit in the agreement. And there was a concern about half the road being in Hyde Park and half being in North Logan City. I do know that the project engineers have already reached out to North Logan City and are already planning how they would construct the other half of the road and when that would happen in North Logan City. And so, we are not too worried about that. All right, the next item is one of concern. And this one again is mostly of concern because we as city staff don't have the authority to sign off on this. And so we've talked about it with the um with Schreiber Foods and we think we have a solution, but we need the city council and planning commission to tell us if this is the the way you would like this to go. We'll have some maps coming up shortly. So there's a big concern with uh the some of the roadways that would go through this area. Uh 1000 West uh in Hyde Park addressing goes through this site. And the developer has agreed to build out their portion of the road to where it's already existing and it's already built out halfway as part of phase one. They've also agreed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the road throughout the rest of the project. Now the big question is the developers requesting that we deviate from the master plan, the road master plan that the city adopt Excuse me, adopted to curve the road around the future site. And what happens is that curve ends up uh cutting off 900 West, which is also one of our master plan roads. And so that's the big question for the city leadership to consider is in approving this development agreement, we would be committing to approving a change to our master road plan. And so we as city staff, it's our job to protect the integrity of the plan, but also if you want to change it, we'll help you change it. So this is just uh a heads-up that this is this is included in the plan. It's one of the concessions they're asking for. This is an exhibit straight from the agreement that they are um requesting. Some additional information here. This screenshot over here is a taken directly from our master plan, except I added a few little red dots to show where the road alignment would potentially be, and the large one is where the cul-de-sac would be at the cutoff of 900 West. So, some more context to this site plan. 1000 West is a regionally significant road like our Wolf Pack Way corridor that we're building and so it's eligible for a lot of different grants and funding if the city would like to go out and get money to build it. Um the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization or CMPO has already verbally approved the re-route. They're They basically said as long as the connection is made, that's what's most important for us. As long as the traffic can flow through, then that's what's important for our plan. And 900 West, as I mentioned, is only on the city master plan, not on the CMPO plan. And so that's more of just a decision that we as a city would need to make if we want that to be preserved or if that's something that we can live without. Uh the 800 West corridor, which is kind of the Wolf Pack Way equivalent on the other side of the highway, uh a lot of people are worried about that road. That road alignment is not should not be affected by anything in this development agreement. Should be far enough away from that it won't be a problem. Okay. The next one, and I think this might be the last one. Yeah, here we go. Last one. All right. The last one is uh a concern about it's section 10 of the agreement talks about successors and assigns. Um Schreiber's requesting that the agreement will be transferable to other parties. The there's a lot of nuance to that. So, one of the things they're requesting is they have a lot of partner organizations to help with development of the site, long-term maintenance, with financing, and moving money around and I don't understand all the parts of it. And so, really the city staff and the city attorney were completely fine with any partner organization under the Schreiber umbrella to maintain ownership and be part of this and we would still offer them the same benefits that we agreed to with Schreiber. The main concern that we have discussed with them is that this is a deal the city's excited about making a deal with Schreiber Foods, right? They've come in, they've proven that they are a great community partner their facilities in Logan um and we're excited to have them be a member of our community. But what we would like them to have in this agreement is if they're ending up selling it to a different entity with different goals, we would like to have an opportunity to have that entity come back and renegotiate with us um because we would like this deal to be unique and special for Schreiber Foods. And so that is that's one of the things that we're still trying to iron out, but I'm hoping to get some feedback from the planning commission and city council about that specifically if you have thoughts regarding that. So in summary, is this valuable to the city? Absolutely. This is this would be a great deal. It would bring a lot of revenue, a lot of jobs, a lot of long-term benefit. But the big caveat is there are things in this agreement that we cannot just agree to a city staff and so we're looking to the planning commission and the city council to tell us if we need to if you're okay with what's being proposed or if we need to pivot. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um I just want to verify is this this doesn't show anything about a public hearing? Is that correct? >> Correct. So the public hearing will be held at the city council meeting next Tuesday. Yes, Tuesday, not our typical Wednesday. We'll be having a city council meeting next Tuesday at 7:00 and that's where there will be a public hearing for this development agreement. >> All right. Um and it wasn't advertised as a public hearing. >> This was not advertised as a public hearing. >> Okay. >> I guess one other piece of information, this morning there was a different version of the development agreement that got sent out to everybody. That is there were some things that we were not happy with in there and so that is not the version we are discussing tonight. The version that was sent out with the public materials in the packet that is currently available for the general public to view, that is the version we are talking about and >> Version three. >> Yes, the version we're calling a version three. It's a version that we had sat down with the uh legal representation from Schreiber Foods several weeks ago and hammered out a lot of details and got it to a good spot. The version this morning had a few changes that had been fully looked at by everybody's legal and so we said let's work on the agreement that we already have an understanding on. >> Okay. >> So yes, the version that's in your packet right now is the version that we're we're discussing and talking about moving forward. >> Okay. Um so I'm sure that there are lots of questions. I've I've got several written down from notes from before and notes from let's see, from your presentation now. Um why don't we start here and we'll work our way across or we'll or we'll here and then we'll just kind of switch up. Do you have any questions? >> Um I do have questions but it's probably more clarification. Can you elaborate a little bit more and maybe you said it and I missed it, but the vested time for 15 years with our city growing, what the what's the con of that? Just utilizing too much of the acreage for future building. Can you explain that to me a little bit more? >> Yeah, I'm happy to go into more detail and Michael can chime chime in if I miss anything. I think the biggest concern that the city attorney that we have is so much has changed in the city over the last 15 years. I kind of breezed by it, but in the slide I looked up some census data and our population grew by about 50% in the last 15 years. And just think of how much our city has progressed, how many new businesses have come, how much our processes and codes have changed. So, the big concern is if we vested for 15 years, are we putting ourselves in a position where we would be, you know, have problems down the road. Of course, the city attorney, it's his job to point out risk. It's our job as city staff to point out things we're nervous about. And so, that's something that is gives us pause and makes us a little nervous, but if there's good criteria in place and the city's comfortable with that and you don't have a problem with granting vesting for that period of time, that's a decision that you can make. >> Okay. Um the master road plan, is it just their building plan that makes them have to curve the road? Is that their infrastructure or why do they want to curve the road based on Can they not adjust it to line up with the master plan or >> Yeah, we looked at a couple of different alignments. Really what it came down to is having it go straight according to the master plan as it is today, that would cut their phase three building off. Here, I'll put this back up on the screen. It's a little smaller. >> So, it's their structure. >> So, they have >> It's the way the layout is. >> Phase one, phase two, phase three. Based on the property that they are purchasing, this is their ideal layout. Having 1,000 go straight would cut up their campus and essentially they when we started these negotiations that was something they did not want to happen. They wanted to have a connected campus where they could take a forklift from building one to building two to building three without having to deal with fighting traffic. So we went through a couple of options and eventually this was settle settle on as probably um the least invasive for them um and then they did agree to dedicate the right-of-way. But yes, it's really largely based on >> Okay. >> their desired site >> So it's in red which means the city's concerned about this. >> Right. In the fact that we as city staff don't have the authority to override the master plan. >> Yeah. It's up to you as representatives of the the planning commission and city council to decide if that's what you would like to do. >> Okay. >> Um of course it's our job to say we want it to go straight because that's what the master plan says right now. >> Okay. >> But if you want to approve this agreement and agree that we're going to change the master plan then the new master plan is the one that we will defend. >> I don't think that really concerns me as a commissioner but >> Okay. >> um I think neighbors oh can I just finish one more oh do you want to talk about that? Okay. >> I was up and we're talking about it. Why does 900 stop out? Why doesn't it just merge in with the curved version of 1000? >> um That was an engineering concern and there was a concern about connecting it up and into 1000. It was going to create some traffic problems there. And so the engineers for Schreiber Foods proposed the uh cul-de-sac configuration for the end of 900 West. I'll admit that our >> a stop sign? >> Yeah, I mean really it's for turning around fire trucks or other vehicles. That's why we would want some kind of turn around there. um But yeah, we looked at maybe doing a four-way intersection or something uh to that intersection up there where phase two ends and phase three begins. Uh this was just the one that their engineers were proposing, and we said, "Well, it seems like it would be okay, but really we need the city council and planning commission to tell us if they're comfortable with it." >> it's not a it's not the hill you want to die on for this, but it just seemed like it would be easier if it was connected, and people wouldn't go down and gets have to turn around all the time. >> It is It is an odd intersection. If you were to take 9th and continue on to the north, it cuz it's sideways, but north is to the to the left. >> No, I I understand. >> But, yeah, you've got 10th West, and then you've got Is that 9th, 8th? What is that uh that butts into that? >> That's 1000 >> 400 South. >> 1000 West. >> That's like 4th South or something, isn't it? >> Yeah. >> And then you'd have this coming at the same time. >> Yeah, I mean, you could reconfigure that, though. I'm just saying it just seems weird to have a dead end there on 100. >> looks like a European intersection that was because they built it 400 years ago. >> I I understand. >> I do have issues with adapting our master plan roads because I think transportation and traffic are huge. Looking at how we've been split in our population, I think keeping traffic flowing is a I think letting go of anything that could go possibly go through is a huge negative. Um >> Well, I I would see this I mean, I don't have heartburn with this, but I would see this as no stop sign in the whole loop. But, if you had to go through their campus, I'd see stop signs. So, I'd actually see it'd probably be in slower going through than going around. >> If we could connect it instead of stopping it. >> Oh, you're talking 900. I think you're talking about the >> Oh, no, it doesn't matter. Yeah. >> Okay, never mind. >> That 900 because not the loop. Yes, to keep connectivity and not have dead ends. I think it leaves our options open in the future. And we're talking 15 years. So, 10 years from now we may go, "Oh, man, we should have cut ourselves off right there. We should have left the ability to connect." >> But it's 900 just a Hyde Park Road is it going to supposed to go to North Logan connect? >> Yeah, I mean there is some connectivity to the south, but really it as far as regionally significant connecting multiple cities together, it's not on the regional plan. And so, it's one that's on our master plan because we wanted to have connectivity through the area, but it's not one that the county has prioritized for like grant funds. >> So, we're only talking one block of 900 West is all that really exists in Hyde Park? >> Yeah, right now it doesn't really go anywhere. Um, but the plan would the plan was to take it kind of right connect it right through here. Oh, great. Thank you, Michael. So, that was the plan is it would go straight and connect up with this existing road where there's some development elements happening there. >> Right. >> Um, and really it's just to preserve the grid system. That was a recommendation in our master plan was to keep straight roads in the grid system as much as possible. >> I understand. Well, we're not trying to connect our 900 to the south by to North Logan and they don't care if we connect or not. >> Uh, North Logan I don't know if they really have a dog in the fight as far as 900 West goes, but they they are definitely planning on connecting to our 1000. That's a a big road for us and North Logan and Smithfield City. >> Got it. >> My point would be just to leave options open rather than agree to stop. If they we can leave that as an option. Because we none of us could have I don't think anybody that lived here 15 years ago could have possibly guessed where we'd be now. And I think 15 years from now we're going at an exponential speed of growth. So, why not leave it open? What harm is there in leaving that option open to connect if we want to bring it around and give it an on-ramp to the net you know 1000 So they can get off 900 going to 1000 and come back on to 900 if they want. >> Yeah. >> Or cross over it. >> I believe we do have representatives from Schreiber Foods online. I don't know if they're here to talk to anything or to answer questions. They might just be here to listen. If you wanted to recognize them to answer specific questions, I mean it's your meeting chair. You can You can do that. >> That's it us now at this meeting. >> Okay. They are I believe they're also planning on attending the public hearing in person at next week. >> probably the proper place for them to be presenting this also. >> So would the dedicated right of way to Hyde Park that they're going to give would that include 900 going all the way to intersect this or was it not going to include that? >> No, it was just >> 1000 >> It was just based on exhibit D the site plan and it was just 1000. I believe ooh I believe we had talked about getting 900 dedicated and this would be one of those odd parcels where we're going to talk about having storm water drainage and so we weren't too worried about getting right of way dedicated for a turnaround for 900 because that's one of the parcels with the storm pond. Um but yes, the agreement does explicitly state dedicating the right of way for 1000 West. >> Okay. All the way >> So that would have could have been your option if it was dedicated then it could always be added later. >> Mhm.

>> How long is that road that they're not doing? >> Oh, I I don't have those kind of figures in me. >> It could be a fit >> Well, I see that from phase two is about a block, maybe a little more cuz it's diagonal. But, the phase three portion is 1 2 3 4 blocks, which is >> Yeah, you just this other piece down here is about a block. Right? That what you're talking about? The end of phase three? >> Yeah, I'm not Yeah, no, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the part phase three they're not going to build. >> No, they are going to >> tell them when they've been phase three, don't they? >> No. So, what they're proposing is they would dedicate all of that land to the city, but then it would be up to us to build that road whenever we are ready for it to be built. Or maybe other developers can build it as they need it for their projects. >> Or if we were to receive some sort of grant or other funds from other through the CMPO. >> Right. >> Well, normally these exactions would matter if we weren't We're doing a development agreement though, right? So, kind of puts a lot more on the table than normally there would be. >> Yeah, under the exaction rule we we would be limited pretty heavily, but since this is a development agreement and they're asking for these benefits, the city has room to respond back and request more. I will say that yeah, we have already kind of figured this out with them and this is where they were comfortable. This is where we were comfortable. And so, if we were to go back and want to reopen this issue, it would probably throw a hiccup in the process. And if And if again, Planning Commission is a recommending body tonight, right? You're not making the final decision. I'm sure the City Council will listen to this input and they may want to have some consideration for these items. But just know that if we're reopening this issue and saying we want you to build this whole road, that's something that we have kind of already closed. But again, we don't have the authority to fully close it. So, that's why it's still a discussion item tonight. >> Right. Okay. Melinda, do you have anything else? >> No, I guess that's it. I guess I don't I didn't see it as an exaction. I thought like if they owned Goodnight. Sorry. If they own if let's say they bought one side of it, they'd put I thought they would have put in that path. And if they bought the other side of that road, they would have to put in that path. Because they're on both sides, why don't they automatically have to install the entire road? If it's wider than normal, then we would pay the extra. Am I not remembering right what happens when people develop in our city and they have to go by the master road plan? >> You are remembering, which is why this is in red. Again, from the city staff perspective, our stare our starting point was you're going straight and you're building the whole road. And as the attorneys have worked on this agreement, what's come out is sure, your city code says this, we're deviating from city code, and since our development is only putting this burden on your city, we are only building this much infrastructure, but we will go ahead and deed you the property for the rest of the road, so you can build it when you are ready. Is that I mean, that's what was decided? Is that what the city council wants to approve? You tell me. That's All right. Yeah, phases two and three are are not going to access off of 1000 West at this time. And so, there is merit to the agreement, but or to the to the argument. But >> I also liked her point about the storm drain. That is That does take a lot of city time and and a lot of work. So, I wonder if city council should look at that. And maybe it would be better to divide that and let drivers take care of their own and we'll take care of our own. >> Yeah, that part of the agreement is pretty open. It's kind of a thing where they said, "Yeah, let's work on this in the future." But we can um go back and say that we want a little more specificity to that section. >> Okay. Um Commissioner Lay, do you have anything else? >> No. >> Okay. Um, I did have a few things I wanted to bring up. Uh, some are questions and some I won't bring up because we've already talked about them, but really the the the linchpin in this is the annexation. We're talking about a development agreement to something that is not part of the city at this point. It is within our annexation plan. So, it is um, something that we have looked forward and seen as this is going to be part of our community at some point. So, we are at that point. I guess next week is when the city will decide the city council will decide whether or not to approve the annexation plan. And then it's it's still not a done deal because there are waiting times and other things that have to be done unless that's already been accomplished as far as people >> Yeah. >> opportunity to rebut and and request not to be a part of it. >> Yeah, there's some timing issues with this. The reason it's been post This agreement has been kind of back and forth for a while and we've been wanting to get it on your desk for a a few months now, but it came down to timing. With the annexation, there are state mandated uh, notification requirements. So, we have to send out uh, letters to property owners. We have to wait a certain amount to give time for protest or, you know, things to be filed if people want to fight the annexation. And after that has gone, there's a really small window where the city can approve the annexation or it lapses and you got to like start the whole process over again. >> Right. >> And so, we And the same with the development agreement. We have to have a public hearing, so that's been noticed. We're going to have that next week. And that has its own timing requirement. And so, stacking them up and getting them lined up so we could have the planning commission review this tonight and then next week we would have the annexation decided and then the public hearing for this agreement lined up like that. Uh took a little bit of work. And yeah, if this agreement's not going to not going to move forward or the city council's not going to approve it next week, um I mean, the annexation could still go through, but it would just kind of throw off the timing that Schreiber has been working on. So. >> Yeah, I just just wanted to bring the the point out that I mean, it is a part of the process that it has to happen before the development agreement even can be thought you know, can be approved. >> Yeah. >> We've already talked about 600 South, half is ours, half is North Logan's. That needs to be coordinated however that needs to be done. Not my purview, but um um as far as the annexation, it includes lands that are not just what uh Schreiber is looking to purchase. It is other properties also. And I think those people have been notified and so, just so everyone is aware of that. Um I also had a concern about um electrical and other demands on the city. Um this is all really exciting for this to be happening, but uh there there will have to be infrastructure brought in by Rocky Mountain Power and possibly Questar or whatever >> Dominion >> the yeah, whatever company they're going by here now. Um and I just want to make sure that the city council takes it that into account and um make sure that the draw that that Schreiber is going to have on that does not put our citizens, our residents in any sort of shortage where we've got a you know I don't I I it's a bad example, but I don't want like data center amounts of electricity be going to the Schreiber and we can't use our air conditioning during the the day during the summer. I don't think that would be wise on our part. Um Yeah, the other the only other things I think we've already talked about. Keeping open possibility of changes to the road plan, extending 9th West you know, to continue or or even continue past on the north side to continue to to 9th West where it continues on by Center Street. Um and then those were my concerns and I think we talked about all those already. Um this is in essence a business agreement between the city and Schreiber, so we don't sort of are out of our hands, but we just give a recommendation, so um We've talked about it for an hour. I think we're about talked out. Anyone else? Does anyone else have any comments though here on the on the commission. Commissioner Lee? >> No. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Just so we talk about. >> Okay, so do we have a recommendation that we want to present to the city council? >> I make a recommendation. I make a motion that we recommend they go forward with this development agreement, but try to see what they can negotiate between now and next week is some of our concerns. >> Okay. >> Do you want to name specific concerns in that motion to give us a little more direction? >> I think the road and the storm water were the two that I think were most addressed, right? >> Okay. So, can I take a stab at narrowing it down for you? >> Sure. >> So, storm water, the concern was we want specificity between ownership and maintenance. >> Mhm. >> Make sure that they're taking care of of their stuff, we're taking care of the regional stuff. And then the road, which part of the road are we concerned with? >> You >> Well, I'm not really concerned about any of it, but I know the others are. So, I tried to make everybody happy. >> the ability to keep 9th open as a possibility >> Yeah. >> to continue >> Well, I think there's >> is is a thought. >> Building the road is a concern to some. I'm not really concerned about that. >> Maybe those Maybe those two >> I mean, you can see what you can negotiate. >> road options. >> So, to have ongoing discussions about having a connection of 900 West and 2,000 the curve. And further discussion on the responsibility to build the road. >> Right. >> Not just dedicate the right of way, but also build the road. >> Yeah. >> And >> And that um is important because tonight we're about to talk about that same sort of thing. Cul-de-sacs and hammerheads and Does the city like them? No, but we're about to do one here. We're about to agree to one and I don't know if that's what we want to do. So, I know we're trying to avoid them at all costs. So, a dead end road. >> Okay. So, the the motion is to recommend approval with a note that the city council re-look at the specificity of the storm water in the agreement and leave open the possibility of connection connecting 900 to 1,000 and having further discussions about building the road as well as dedicating the right of way. >> And didn't we all mention transferability? Making sure that who it's transferred to, this the purpose, not just goals, goals change, the purposes >> So, there's three. >> Do you want to include that in your motion? >> Yes, and then >> Okay. >> I would include the vested 15 years. >> Well, I just That's the law. I mean, I'm mostly okay with it, but just uh >> Would you do me a favor? Would you restate your motion so that we all and and what we're agreeing to? >> Okay, here we go. I make a motion that we recommend to the city council approval subject to considering um the storm water issue, whether there's it makes sense to divide and conquer or whether it keep it together and and what how those roles would be. So, revisit that. Um the road, the 10th West Road, whether we consider the 9th West intersecting that and who and the building potential building of the road. And then the last one is the vesting for somebody that's not one of Schriber's uh partners, if you want to call it or whatever that that the group of people that we we're all okay with them keeping those things and and how that might be limited um so that something that we don't want to happen happens. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes, thank you. Do we have a second to the new motion? >> I will second that motion. >> Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Hansen, a second by Commissioner Taylor. Do we have any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor of Ned's motion, I'm not going to say the whole thing again. >> Come on. >> I >> say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> Okay. We have four eyes and a nay. Um and I without putting words in your mouth, the concern is the building of the road just as it's required in other development agreements other developments, is that correct? >> Yes. >> Linda? Yes, thank you. Okay. Um all right. We now move on to We have no legislative items discussion items. We have five ordinances. Thank you so much. I understand that this is a important subject for everyone. Please come to the public hearing next week on Tuesday, not Wednesday, Tuesday. Um if you'd like to make public comments on that. >> And maybe changes between now and >> Thank you for coming. >> Yes. Um we're going to discuss uh several ordinances that we want to possibly present to the city council. The first is a subdivision improvements agreement. And I think we talked about this a little bit in previous meetings. Um >> We did and we don't necessarily need to revisit subdivision improvements agreement, LDR zone, and the public works, and the private roads. We kind of hashed all of that out. Um I left it on the agenda just in case you wanted to revisit any of that. The red lines haven't changed. Um the only thing that did change is that it really was supposed to come back to you as a public hearing this week for adoption and I missed the deadline and so in good conscience I cannot have a public hearing if I did not notice correctly. >> tell you how thrilled Commissioner Lee is that you didn't get that published in time so that she can be in charge of that public hearing. >> I'm I'm sure. >> Stop. >> That was uh a failure on my part and so I did include it if there were any other last minute um discussions or changes that um you guys thought were important. I feel like our discussion on all of those was thorough. Um and like I said we didn't Kyle and I didn't make any changes to those red lines um after our discussions and they're all still inbox if you want to review them even after this meeting. But the intention is to notice those three for public hearing at the next planning commission. We're going to do that tomorrow. >> Does anyone have any comments or want to discuss >> I can open discussions for any of those first three or if you're satisfied with the discussion we had then we don't need to do that. >> So my question is so the public hearing will be September 2nd. Um is that would we also need to recommend or not recommend that evening or would we do public hearing? >> Um we would do public hearing on September 2nd, and then it would go to city council for adoption the next meeting. >> Yes, unless we tabled it, and then that point it would go it would wait until we untabled and came up with a recommendation. >> Sure. >> I have one question, and it's probably because I wasn't here last time. And and it's regarding the LDR. >> Mhm. >> And it's got a half it's got a 25,000 square foot maximum lot size. >> So >> I'm not What I'm visualizing is that we have some crazy topography of a lot that you're you know, you got a bunch of you got a big goalie in it, and you got other things, and it's going to you know, you're going to end up with a you're going to have a bunch of unusable area. >> Sure. >> That you can't use, and if we put a max and I don't even know why we put it would want to put a maximum. >> Well, we put a maximum because that puts an end to people combining lots, and us losing buildable lots. It also weeds out those half acre, one acre parcels and lots that no longer pay for themselves. Remember that the whole purpose of these code revisions was because financially half a anything bigger than doesn't pay for its own upkeep when it comes to water lines, sewer lines, asphalt, and all the other things that cities have to repair and replace. Um they just don't pay for themselves anymore, and it's not um the city can't can't pick up that fee of replacing those water lines for folks that aren't paying their share. And so that's why the maximum comes into play. The other thing I have to tell you is people throw around the word variance. I want a variance for this. I don't want a variance for that. What you mentioned is specifically what a variance is for. If you have some some kind of feature or attribute of your property that you did not cause and that prevents you from using your property in a way that your neighbors can use their property, that's when you ask for a variance. Right? And And so if there was something like that, a goalie or a wash or what have you, where people couldn't use their property um or get their buildable space in, that's when they would apply for the variance. >> Okay, back to the um doesn't pay for itself. I'm not sure that I've fully ever bought into that argument. I've seen the one study that was done regarding property tax on small lots and it just included amount of property tax you're going to get on the small lots. But there's a lot more that goes into the overall equation on cost and I don't know that that was ever fully vetted out as what the true cost of a you know, depending on the size of lot, depending on the income you get. So I don't know that I've ever seen anything. Maybe there's some other data that I haven't seen, but I haven't seen anything that can has made me 100% convinced that we do lose money on a big lot. Because if we have smaller lots, we have more people we have to deal with. And then with more people then you have more issues, you have more police coverage you have to have, you have more everything that you have to do with just having more people, more more staff that is required. So there's there's there's there's lots of different costs, not just the amount that you're going to get, you know, the the income's not just the the property tax, which I understand you get less per acre on the big lot. >> mhm. >> But there's certainly a lot more costs on a smaller lot. So I don't know that it's a net win to go only with small lots. So has anybody seen any full comprehensive study on that? Cuz they hate to base everything on that. >> I think the um the basis is just using they're using like a square. Lots are all different sizes. I think the frontage of the lot may has a lot to do with that. >> Right. >> If you've got a narrow >> Right. >> narrow lot off the street, >> Mhm. >> then you know, the infrastructure that's in front of your house, >> Right. >> in front of your property is less than if you have a a large >> a wide one instead of a square. >> a wide lot. >> Right. >> And so, the idea is that they just use an average. Anything more if And and Marcus can show you the numbers that he came up with. Anything larger than um a third of an acre, I think he was what he was saying. Half acre, acre lots. Um the city is starting to have to pull money out of other things to pay for the frontage that is in front of, you know, this infrastructure that's in front of that lot that's half acre, acre and larger. >> Right. And and I'm just telling you from from somebody that has a larger lot that the reason my road wears out >> picking on you. >> I'm not picking No, not picking on me. I'm just saying I'm just telling you I've observed this. >> So, you've got it. You got it. Your grandfather did. >> I know. I'm not worried about me. >> I'm not talking about your age. >> I'm just telling you I know I'm grandfather I'm a grandfather, too. I I'm just telling you that I've watched the the how things have evolved over time and um there's a lot of smaller lots above me. So, that just means there's a lot of traffic lot more traffic that's coming down the hill by me. So, they're the ones that's wearing out the road. It's not the people in the bigger lots. It's the all the people that >> We all have to share it together. >> Right. And I'm just telling you so that's it's it's not it's not a simple equation that you can just there's it's a much more complicated problem than just saying big lots are bad, little lot little lots are good. Cuz I don't buy that. Cuz I think in in the big scheme of things it's you're actually losing it by going to small lots. >> I have >> That's just my gut feel and that's not I don't have any numbers, but I'm just telling you that's what I think. And so by claiming the other way, I don't know that we have all the data to say that. >> I agree exactly with what Ned said 100%. Um having lived through higher density being put in specific areas, you have a lot more cars. So, you may say, "Oh, well, this doesn't pay for itself." The frequency with which it have to be replaced increases, so it may be a wash. Without that other data, I think we are we should not make that statement or claim. >> Well, and if you guys remember, we went through some of that data at our joint workshop that we had when all of this started. That's how this all began, right? >> only factoring in the frontage of it and the cost of it with the property tax, right? We didn't factor in take any variables from other cities to see frequency of road surfacing if you would triple the traffic on >> Most of Mostly it was about water and sewer lines. We didn't put a lot of stock into the into the asphalt. It was mostly the ex- the really expensive stuff, the water and the sewer lines. >> Because we do increase traffic, we increase cars on the road, we increase population, which is a higher strain on public services. Um I kind of think that we are stepping on property rights when we say you can't merge your lots. How many people actually do that? If they do it, it's either of necessity. Could it be because of luxury? Yes, but if you look at 100 lots out of those statistically in the city, how many actually merged? And if are we are we redoing our code to block just a few people specifically? >> We're that's not why we're redoing our code. We're redoing our code so that we can have a zoning code that's usable, that developers will come in and and be able to turn a profit on. Right now, we've had three different developers I met with say that half-acre lots are not going to pencil for them. So, we want to provide opportunities for them to do other things. If we don't if we don't come in with lot minimums and lot maximums, then we're not providing those opportunities. And we're not taking away anything from anybody. We the lot size is still the maximum is still a little bit over half an acre. So, we're not taking away from anybody. We're just providing more opportunities um for folks to do things that they haven't been able to do before. Um before if you wanted to do anything smaller than the half an acre, you had to come in and rezone, right? And and just in the last uh if from the way I understand it, the last five or six years, has there been the opportunity for our four our five even? And to have to come in and rezone your property, that's a whole process in and of itself. Uh the a survey's required, title reports are required, um a public hearing's required. Um you have to go through all the plans and all the procedures for the rezone and all you've done is is giving yourself those new parameters. Now, you have to start the subdivision plat. And this provides the opportunity for developers to be able to not have to rezone in order to get different sizes of lots. Instead of just saying you have your lots have to be acre, half acre, quarter like acre, we're coming in with um a scale. So, it just has to fit in between these two things. We're not saying that all lots have to be one size. They could be varying sizes even in one subdivision. Um and that would provide more opportunities like I >> I don't I don't understand that. That part I'm I'm totally on board with. I just don't know that cutting making a maximum is right. >> I just want to clarify. So, if a subdivision is created, someone can't go in and buy two lots to make their lot bigger. >> can. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And we're not saying that all lots have to be one size. We're saying when we put a maximum in there, >> Okay. >> what you probably couldn't do is buy three and put them together and make one big >> So, they could buy two and merge them if they want. >> If they needed to and they were still under the maximum size. Now, if you have two lots that are half acre and you want to combine those into an acre, no, that's you'll be charged >> charge them a higher fee if someone wanted to do that? >> No, we have we've lost many building lots in Hyde Park City due to people combining lots. There's people who have not had the opportunity to build a home on a lot in the subdivision because somebody decided they wanted a giant yard. >> I can tell you I merged two lots. It was out of necessity. >> Sometimes >> argue I would argue two things. I'm not in support of putting that maximum. I agree with reducing the amount because they should not have to rezone if they want to do smaller lots, we should have a zone to allow the smaller lots. If they want bigger, I don't think we should restrict that until we require the developers to retain and flatten every lot. >> And we do require that now. You guys adopted that. Slopes ordinance. >> So, that's in >> So, they will have to do retaining walls between them. Yes, cuz that has to happen. We had we had that public hearing. We had that discussion. It would be absolutely never going to happen that someone would have a gully on their property because it will be a level lot. That is that is exactly why we passed that ordinance. So they couldn't have a gully and make it unbuildable. That's what we want to avoid is unbuildable lots, right? Lots with with wash unnatural gullies and unnatural >> I didn't have that in before. >> It needs to be He's just not sure. I'm understanding that larger lots are the problem. >> I don't think a lot like >> Like that's not fair to just say it. We're not criminalizing large lots. >> You you kind of are by making it a maximum and I don't think that that needs to I don't even think it needs to be in the code is a maximum. >> I agree with that part of >> the builders want to build quarter acre lots, they don't have to that doesn't affect them. But if there's if there's somebody out there that wants a one acre parcel and they're willing to pay for it, then I think they should be able to have that. >> the developer says it's not it's not penciling out, then we're providing them a way to make it pencil out. We're saying yes, you can go smaller lots. You don't have to come rezone your property. We're giving them the tool that they say that they need without handcuffing anybody. I agree with giving them more tools, but I don't agree with turning around and handcuffing them on the other end of it. >> That's just my thought. I mean, I wouldn't have come to High Park if they were all quarter acre lots when I moved here. >> Sure. I think there's a lot of other people >> to live in Logan. I lived in Logan. >> Okay. Sure. It keeps us High Park if we leave that flexibility and that makes us different from our surrounding neighbors. >> Okay. Uh let's move to D ordinance >> The ADU >> 26 2026-18 ADU ordinance revisions. >> All right. I'm going to start with some slides. Um so, as we move through our cleanup and tidy of our code, we the very first thing we're going to do is um remember the definition that we just adopted in 12210. What we need to know is do we need that definition to stay in the ADU ordinance or do we want to put it in the definition section? All by uh where it belongs. Right? Some of our ordinances have a few definitions at the beginning for specific clarity. Um do we need to keep that new definition? That's where we adopted it was into the ADU ordinance. Is that where we need to keep it or should we put it in definitions? Does everybody know what an ADU is or do we really need to spell it out in the ordinance? >> I think it should be in the big definition pile and not in the >> I think to get all of the definitions. >> be a reference if you need to cross-reference back, but I think it should be in the big one. >> It's also a copy of the state definition, is that not correct? >> It is. >> So, yeah, and if we have it um it's frustrating having had to do it at try to find all of the definitions of the same thing and make them all match up. If you have it all in one place, it's not an issue. >> Um it's much easier to find alphabetically when they're where they're supposed to be, sure. Um and then adding to the ADU ordinance is the prohibition Whoops. Prohibition on short-term rentals for ADUs that they're only to be used for um over 30 days. And then some general grammar, spelling, and format fixes throughout the ADU code. Um the DADU specifically, uh we're adding in verbage that they cannot be larger in size than the main dwelling. An accessory DADU was never meant to be the bigger structure, and so we're specifying that. And then, um we're decreasing the minimum lot size to factor in our new zones. So, what that means is if you have a smaller lot, then your minimum will be smaller. It will give you the opportunity to still have a DADU. Your DADU will just have to be smaller because your lot size is smaller. So, the requirement will go down based on the size of your lot. >> I have a question about that first statement in that on that slide. Ensuring DADUs detached ADUs are not or cannot be larger than the size of the main dwelling. >> Yeah. >> I don't know if this situation exists here, but we have a lot of homes that are older, so they're not as big because people realized they just didn't have to be as big. >> Right. >> Um if they're under 1,000 square feet, the the current residence, if they build a new building, can that become the new main dwelling and then the other existing building become the DADU? >> home, if it fits the DADU parameters, becomes the DADU. It happens all the time. >> As long as you've got enough setback everywhere, you're fine with that. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We're zoning for the rules, not the exceptions. We're always going to have some exceptions, and we'll try to deal with those as fairly as we can when they pop up. We don't have a ton of them. Um but yeah, we're trying to trying to make these rules for most every property. >> Okay. >> Um the instrument by which we will enforce that these ADUs are not used for short-term rental will be through deed restriction. Um the deed restriction will include the parameters of not having an area that exceeds 1,000 square feet for your ADU. The ADU will not be sold separately from the main dwelling, so you can't condominiumize your ADU. Um that it won't be used for short-term rental purposes, and then will not exceed an occupancy of two persons per bedroom. That last line is repetition of existing code. Um I didn't write that, but someone else did, and so I didn't want to just get rid of it just because it wasn't familiar to me, so we've just kept that. >> Wouldn't the first line really be less than 1,000 if it was a small but from what you said a minute ago or a few minutes ago? If it's a smaller primary unit, then it can't be 1,000 square feet, so maybe that >> It will be less than >> be worded to be or appropriate per the main dwelling size or something like that. >> Well, the maximum you could go for our largest zone is 1,000. So, as long as it doesn't go over 1,000, >> guess what I'm saying is if you're putting the deed restriction in and it's on one of the small houses, >> Sure. >> then it won't be 1,000. It'll say something else. So, if you you might just word that to say that it's whatever it can be, not cuz it won't doesn't apply to a small primary residence. >> Okay. >> It's a smaller number. >> Regarding the second bullet there, not being sold separately from the main dwelling, um do we know what the state has the state toyed with that because California toyed with that? Luckily, the people fought it. I don't know if they brought it back. >> Yeah, in California you can condominiumize your ADU. >> overruled local zoning. So, if we put this in and is is Utah thinking cuz the state overruled local and said, "Hey, you can sell your ADU that you put in your backyard." And then it just increases insane. >> You know, if the state legislature decides to do the things that they often do and and change the rules, then we'll have to roll with that. But at this time, this is what we would suggest. >> So, that's something to keep in mind as we consider what we what we allow. We need to probably look at that and go, "Mhm, what if

Utah decides to cut and paste California?" Which they've done a few times, which we don't want. Um and if they're trying to cut and paste that, are we okay with the ADUs that we approve? Are we approving in such a manner that we're okay with them becoming another dwelling independent? Is this a factor that we >> of our DADUs um follow the the development standards, right? They have their own entrance, they have their own driveway, they have their own parking. And so, that's why we'll continue to keep those standards um for the just in case. It just makes your neighborhoods cleaner when you're not trying to share a driveway. >> But here's where the the problem exists and that is that uh the utilities are run off the main building. And the including the waste water and water. So, they're not separate. You >> So, good luck splitting them. >> Yeah. >> From a state perspective. >> Difficult. >> I'm sure with the right resources, it could be done. But it's not something we're not planning it we're not planning ahead for that because that's not something that we've considered. so I was >> if they if you were familiar if they toyed with it if you've seen any headlines or any >> news. >> No, I haven't heard anything about that. I think the fact that we've just now started to allow DADUs, um it'll be a while before if that ever were to happen, I think it'll be a while. >> And do the DADUs contribute to our affordable housing? Can we count those units? >> Um we once we rewrite our um moderate-income housing plan, we could include them. >> I think I think we should. I know other areas have done a great idea. I think other I know other areas have done that and what's nice is you have homeowners building an accessory dwelling unit detached from the property. They're taking care of checking the boxes that the state requires of our city without us having to say, "Hey, let's do high density over here." They get it in their >> Without having to rezone, without having to jump through all of those hoops. I think it'll uh provide people a lot of opportunity and that's really what what we want to do. Um Yeah, so the We just kind of took out that whole section of definitions and put that reference in of where it will be found. And then added in um the grammar and the designations of uh not being used for short-term rental. And then the lot size standards for DADUs. Um I'll take those notes and we'll when we run those through um legal review, we'll make sure that all of those make sense. And then when this comes back to you for public hearing. Um we'll make sure that you agree with it. So, these will stay in box. Um you can take as much time as you'd like over the next week to look through um and see if there's anything else that you'd like us to address. >> Well, comes up with the same question. Yeah, you're not even allowed to have separate meters. >> I thought we could have separate meters if they were already there. Um not for a DADU. >> Hm. Not for those that are being built from this point on. >> And they shouldn't already be there. When you combined your lots, you should have had to abandon your PEUE and your additional utility hookups. >> Yeah, cuz we've got two sets and it's still there. >> Interesting. That was before I got here, right? >> And so that's when I'm like, "Hm, I wonder if." >> Anything else about ADUs? And the ADU ordinance? Tired of that? Okay. >> Next one is the title 12 and 13 cleanup items, side quests. >> I Kyle uh lovingly calls this the side quest ordinance. Marcus doesn't like that very much, so we'll be changing that title for sure. This was kind of the working title, but um as we go through code, you guys understand the ripple effect that some of the changes have. And as we go through code and read, we're noticing in places where there's other grammar, spelling, um those kind of things that need to be cleaned up, uh a line here and there to clarify some things. So, I have sent Kyle on a few side quests and here's the slides for these. Um The first one is uh comes from the state legislature. They passed a law that says we have to add somewhere in our code that our city will consider the impact a proposed ordinance amending title 12 may have on family health, stability, and formation. And so, we just want to add that right at the beginning of title 12 that our city will consider the impact any proposed ordinance change may have on family health, stability, and formation. So. >> We we have to. This is an uh This is an uh idea from >> We've also come up with other standards that we have to look at for land use issues that are brought before us, so. Um Yeah, that that really may be more for city council to worry about than us. >> Well, it's state mandated, so. >> I I know. >> If you don't mind, we'll add it in there. Yeah. >> It's The state gave us a pretty vague thing. You will consider family health. Okay, what does that mean? >> I don't know who wrote that bill, um but I'm sure they had their reasons. And um there may be something that I don't fully understand about how to use that um language um in the right way. So, I'm I'm attending a planning association conference next month, and they're going to speak to that, hopefully, and we'll get some clarity on the actual purpose of this language, so that we can use it uh the way it's intended. Um the next one is we're asking to add a line about current property tax. Uh most municipalities make that a part of your application is that your property taxes have to be current in order to move forward with a land use application. And so, we would just like to add that language to our code as well. Um making sure an application is complete including property taxes on the subject property are paid in full. The next one is uh we define structure not too long ago. We tweaked uh the definition and added it to our subdivision ordinance. Um where we didn't tweak it was in our land use ordinance. So, we would like to change this definition in 12 to match the one that we recently updated in 13. We don't need to define it twice in two different places in two different ways. So, it needs to match. >> Would Would it be easier just to put 13 as a reference back to 12? So, if you ever change 12, you don't have to do it twice. >> I think it would be better just to put it in the definition section as a whole um and make it there one definition section instead of one definitions for 12 and one for 13. >> Yeah, that would be good. >> Um yeah, I'll make that as a note for Kyle. Sorry, these are really boring. These are just the little side quests that we went on as we found uh things that need to be corrected. Um So, in 12 10 80, it says a conditional use permit uh is required for all uses designated in this title. And it's the conditional use permit title. It kind of just refers back to itself. Um and so we've completed the sentence by adding in the land use table. Um what that does is it just clears up the fact that a conditional use permit is required for all the places there is a C shown on the land use table. Um let me see if I can go to the red lines so you can get the full the >> Get the hoop. >> That's the plan to just beef up the development standards and not have to do CUPs at all. Um unless there's somewhere where you guys really want to keep them. Um >> Here's Here's how it reads uh currently. A conditionally use permit shall be required for all uses designated in this title. and we added as shown in the land use table. Because that's where you really find where the C's are located. So we're just cleaning that up. Um back to the slides. And then lastly um public institutional development applications and zoning amendments will be limited to areas within annexed territory consistent with the applicable provisions of the master plan and general plan. So in our master plan and general plan, it says that we shouldn't be setting aside um big swatches of residentially developable land for public institutional uses. Um that those kind of uses should be coming in as annexations. So, as we go further north and especially um on the other side of the highway, that that's where the next school might need to be is further north of town in the annexation area instead of in the middle of town in the middle of a residential neighborhood. >> Do we even have anything anymore that's big enough to >> Um in the city, we do. We have a few spots that would be big enough. Would do the roads support that? Probably not any better than where the elementary school is. Um but we can see how that has actually been not beneficial to their neighborhood. So, I really think that requiring new schools to go out into the annexed area where it makes sense and where bigger roads can be built. Um I think there's a reason that was put in the master plan and I think we just need to update our our um land use code to reflect that. All right. Any questions or comments about this last one we talked about? >> Boring side quest. >> I'm still awake, so we're doing >> Oh, that's good. I'm glad. >> Um All right. Then, future items that we have that are coming up. >> Um future items uh that you'll hear as a discussion. Um I don't know if you folks remember the Arya development. It was one of the first MXD super high density developments that were approved along Wolf Pack Way. Um, in our code for MXD development, if you haven't broken ground within 2 years, uh, your approvals expire. And they have not moved forward. They recorded their final plat, but nothing else has happened. Um, and so, uh, my intention is to revoke their approval and allow that property to be developed by >> Is this along Wolf Pack? >> It is, yeah. Um, >> Is this the one that went and had the city or had the county divide all the properties into the possible? Has it already been >> No, this is the one that didn't have a sewer easement and can't get a sewer easement. And they had they had >> Um, no, it's much more north of the high school. >> Oh. >> Um, they had conditional approval on their final plat pending they get their sewer easement and they've never been able to do that. Um, their connection would come from over by the highway. Um, so yeah, they've kind of stalled out and, um, we'll make sure we've I've already reached out to the property owner and the developer with our intention. Um, I put it off for a couple of months. I said, "I'm not I won't put this on the agenda for a while if you want to try to, you know, get something together and ask for an extension of your time. We're going to give you plenty of time to do that." Um, I haven't heard anything back after our initial conversation. Um, so they do have the opportunity to file for an extension or to come and speak against uh, uh the revocation of their approval. Um but we we would like for that development to not just be stalled out and and sit forever. Um so this is kind of our way of saying it's uh it's time to do something or to do something else. So that will come before you as it's required to be a public hearing and so that will come before you as a public hearing. Um and then we'll start on our medium-density residential, high-density residential um and small-lot residential standards um so that you can see them. It'll be great to see them all side by side with the large-lot residential so you can see where all the minimums and maximums line up. Um so those are already in box as they're evolving and you can look at them anytime, but they will come as a discussion item hopefully next month. And that's that. >> Okay. Next meeting 2nd of September. >> Will we have a quorum for that meeting or does anybody know if they will be unable to attend? >> I will be gone whether I can be here via Zoom. I won't know until that day. >> Okay. >> I am here. >> As far as I know I'm here, too. >> Great. >> I believe I am. Melinda Are you still with us? >> Yeah, I should be available. >> Well, that's right. You've got to be here for the public hearing. >> All right, I will not >> I'm so excited. >> schedule things for public hearing that day. Great. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I have a question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I've people have been looking and I want to listen to the meetings after the fact and I have trouble finding them myself. Is it on our city website with direct links to our meetings that I've been missing? >> see if I can show you. >> Because if it's not linked on our city website, could we put a link to and you know, like on the city website have a specific section recordings city council recording right on our city website so people don't have to go to YouTube and Google and look. >> So you you actually don't have to go to you could start out by going to meetings and agendas on the Hyde Park City website. Um that's your link to the YouTube right there. I don't want to double >> I went on there today >> double play us but >> and the links are there. Okay, I'm missing it. So >> The recordings are actually on let me go back one page. >> all the way through but I could see Yeah, I don't see a recording. If we could Is that a request we could do it? Couldn't be that hard to add a link in there. >> So the recordings are uploaded to the state website um but our minutes and the transcription of those minutes are on Let me go to it's city code and we just Oh, here it is. City code and then we have a whole section that is just for your meeting minutes. >> Can you show it on the screen? >> See the meeting minutes and materials and stuff under city council and planning commission? They're on Would it be easy enough for us to link to the state website where it's sent There's somebody said planning commission recordings and city council recordings. That way it's a one-stop shop and it'll >> Okay, so here's your meeting minutes. You just go to Let me back up one page. So here's the main Let me put it on the How about this? Okay. So here you are at Hyde Park City website. You're going to go to meetings and agendas over here at planning commission. You're going to go to meeting minutes. And then here's where the meeting minutes all the way back uh um >> Yeah, there's 2026. >> Yep. So here's all your 2026's. And you can read all the meeting minutes there. If you want to go to YouTube and watch the meeting, you can do that as well. >> Is there a way that we could link that? Cuz I've had people ask for links and then I spend my time looking for the link. I'm like, man, can't we just link it on our city website? Cuz there's some people like to listen as they go walking and stuff. >> Here it is. They're all They're all there. >> I wish you just went up to the >> YouTube at the Hyrum City. So where is it on here? >> It is on >> live streams >> city website meetings and agendas, the live stream. >> The live stream takes us to all the recordings. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Krista in our office has done a really good job of making sure that our public notices are here, our live stream is here, and that agendas, materials, and minutes are here. Um we have gone so far as to adding a public meeting packet inbox so that anybody from the general public can see every piece of information that you guys are getting um ahead of time that it's not just an agenda and we don't know any of the details. We're posting all of the details, completely transparent about um meeting materials for our meeting and they're all posted on the meetings and agendas page of the city website. >> I'm on that because we have several new residents are moving in and they are eager to get involved. >> It's It's super easy to find. It's >> Could we put live stream and past meeting recordings right there? Just because I wouldn't have known that. I would think I need to click that to join a live link versus Sure. I think that would help our new residents find it easier instead of asking us to do something that would be easy if it was spelled out on our website. Yes, it'd be awesome. Thank you. >> Noted. >> All right. >> All right, let me close out. >> we're all done with the agenda, so no, you don't need to. Don't lean over. I see you in the corner of my eye. He wants to so bad. That's been taken away. >> Oh, he stole it. I wonder. >> He wants to make a motion to end the meeting. Just thank you for everyone. Thank you, Melinda. I hope no grandchildren were harmed in the making of this meeting. >> He just had to kiss while while I was trying to talk to you guys. >> And we'll see you when you get back. Hopefully with all your brain cells. So. All right, and we'll adjourn this meeting at this time. >> We wore out the audience. Way to go. We have one >> Yeah, we have one one lone survivor. >> So, and >> He is consistent. >> He has to watch live. All our meetings are live streamed. >> Yeah, all of them. >> Cool. >> But it's not the same. >> Not same as Zoom. They can't >> Not same. They can't raise