Hyde Park City Planning Commission Meeting 10.7.26

And we are recording, so you can start the meeting up. Alright. Welcome to the Hyde Park Planning Commission meeting. Today is Wednesday, 10/07/2026. It's about 7PM. And we have commissioner Charlene Williams, myself, Melinda Lee. This is Ned Hanson, and commissioner Mike Mose. We're short a commissioner right now because Heather Taylor was elected to fill the empty... The vacancy in city council. So we definitely have a quorum. And we have everybody here that's on planning commission right now. We'll start with opening thought or prayer by Ned and leading us in the pledge of allegiance.

K. And I'll say a prayer. Our dear father in heaven, we're grateful unto thee for all our blessings. We're grateful to live in this community of Hyde Park. We're grateful for all the great people and neighbors and friends that we have, and we're thankful that we could be here tonight and to help promote the correct growth in our community. We ask how please bless us, help that we'll all be kind and civil. Please bless all those in our community that may be struggling or have special needs. Help us as a community to be able to help them also. We pray for thy direction and do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Please rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America

and to the Republic for which it states,

one nation under God, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. K. We have a couple of meetings to approve minutes for. We're... We'll start with September 2, which is two meetings ago. I think none of us had any problems with it. Heather Taylor had issues. She wanted something added to it, and she said that she got that to you. We made those corrections

for the minutes from the meeting on the sixteenth. Mhmm.

I'd like to make a motion. Great. Thanks, Mike. I'd like to make a motion to approve the meet... The minutes from September 2 as well as the minutes from September 16 as they are now. K. I'll second that.

K. We have a motion by commissioner Moe's to approve both sets of minutes, September 2 and September 16. Ned Hanson seconds that. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passed unanimously, which is four zero. And thank you. Thank you for those minutes. I've had a lot of corrections the last few months, and I didn't have any this month. I understand Kyle did those. So

thank you. Not this time. I

Was that Mikael? It was a group effort. K. Well, much improved. Thank you. K. The next part is ex parte communications and disclosure. So if anyone has any connection to anything on our agenda tonight that you need to state, like, disclose. Charlene? Nope. Ned? Nope. Mike? No. And I don't either. K. Planning staff report.

So the notice has gone out for our recruitment of a new PC commissioner. That position should be filled by the end of October, I believe. So we should have somebody in here for November. How did you send it out? Marcus.

I mean, like, did you do a blast to, like, text or email? Or Yeah. So in the past, the mayor would

select people based on whatever criteria they have. Our new mayor is elected to have a... Basically, cast a net out there and invite the entire community to put in statement of qualifications or statement of interest as to why they are interested in being on the planning commission and basically do a, kinda like a job search approach to find the right person to fill out the commission. And so that's what's going on. It's posted on our website right now under the get involved tab where we post stuff about service projects and things. And then I'm pretty sure we put out on social media. And if we haven't,

we will... On Facebook? Yeah. It's on Facebook. Okay. But not a blast to everybody's

email or text. We have not done a text or email blast. We're hoping maybe we'll get some interest generated just with what we've done. But if not... If we don't have anything in a few weeks, we'll definitely try some other things. So what's what's the deadline right now? I believe I have to have them all turned in by October 29 at 5PM. And after that, the mayor will review, decide if there needs to be some kinda in reprocess, and then the names will be presented at the city council meeting in November.

Did you put it in the

newsletter or whatever that We missed the deadline for the newsletter, but we could potentially get it out into the next A month?

Did it just barely come?

Yes. It did. Yeah. No one missed the next one too. A week ago.

Well, no. It usually goes out around the twenty fifth or something. I mean, it goes out with the utility bills. Yeah. We get all the printing and stuff ready usually around the twenty

twentieth to twenty second.

So we had... Yeah. We missed the deadline to get into the newsletter. Okay. Sorry. It's on Facebook. Get any volunteers, then you could still do it on the next one. Yeah. You'd have.

Okay. Sorry. Next item.

That's it for full support. Yep. K.

K. First item. Really, only administrative item is considering the application from ask... For Aspen Grove subdivision development agreement. So do you have a staff report for just this item?

I do. So I did include the staff report in box for you folks. It's not that much different from the staff report you read last time for this development. We did get a new version of their development agreement, which you were able to see inbox. There hasn't... There weren't a lot of changes to it to the contract itself. Correct. I think a couple of the things that just made the staff report stay consistent is that the reduction of impact fees that were requested and the reduction of water dedication. Is that the other

Reductions. Water dedication is common. The number they're using are from our old system, how we used to do it. So I guess there's a reduction if we're applying it versus the system that we have now. Sorry. I can't hear you. Right. Microphone. So the water dedication is an interesting predicament because, originally, when this development agreement was proposed, the numbers they're putting in here are what we were doing at the time. And then there was the complete cutoff, and we wanted everybody to bring all their water rights or shares, and we weren't doing the fee in lieu. And then we've opened it back up to the fee in lieu, and we're doing a market study right now, having trouble finding good sources for the market study. I reached out to a couple of law firms across the state who are good with water law. Hopefully, they'll get back to me. But at this point, we haven't found any watershed... Rights for less than, like, $10,000 an acre foot. So our market study points to that 5,000 meeting to be much higher. So, really, the $5,000 they're proposing in here is appropriate given when this was initially submitted. But now with what we're doing moving forward, it does not match our current numbers. So take that

as you will. It's complicated. Do your own math. Yeah. Okay. But applicant is here. So if the chair wants to recognize the applicant to present information to you, you can do that.

Yeah. I'm... I guess I'm not certain that there's major changes.

Well, there are actually some changes. Last time I remember seeing it, it did have some more starter homes in it. And then now it doesn't look like there are any in there. Actually, they've redone... At least in the exhibit b site plan, they've Yeah. The layout is different than it was before. It looks like there are now more more properties, townhomes there than there were before, and they've filled in that small acre lot that is just to the East Of 200 West with ten ten townhomes. I'm not sure if it's an acre or if it's a little more than an acre, but it's right around there.

Okay. Do you wanna come forward?

Good evening again, Bryce Gadee with Visionary Homes. So, yeah, this development agreement, the contract itself, like Mikael said, didn't change a whole lot. Yes. The design has changed, and because of that, unit types and counts in here have changed. You know, we started... We've gone through, I don't know, three or four or five different design layouts. You know, we've presented a few of those here. Gotten feedback from DRC, planning commission, city council, health workshops, all the things. When the city repealed the RT zone and stopped MXD applications, we came to a DRC meeting to hear their comments or address the comments. And and, you know, at the end of the day, we kinda decided, here's a layout that works. We're not super excited about it, you know, for various reasons. So, anyway, we met with mayor. We met with staff, had some conversations, and and decided to go back to the drawing board on the design. And so, I mean, we could talk through the design, but I think there's also been an emphasis at this point to focus on the agreement itself, and then the design will come, with, you know, the preliminary plat process. So we can talk about whatever we need to, but with the agreement itself, the... What was the first thing that you just brought up? On the impact fee. The impact fees. So, yeah, there's an impact fee reduction schedule here. So I just wanted to make it clear so everyone understands what it is and why we're asking for it. So with the city's requirement to have us keep the water, sewer, storm, etcetera, all the utilities private if the roads are private. You know, we recognize that burden of maintenance has shifted from the city to the residents of the project now. And one thing that we always try to focus on when we have HOAs is making sure that it's a healthy HOA. So when we turn it over, when the project's built out, it doesn't become an issue within the HOA that, oh, great. Now, you know, we've been underfunded, need to raise our our fees, doesn't become a burden on the city. So this is our stab at saying, we recognize that the project still needs the city infrastructure, the wells, the treatment centers, the holding tanks, you know, the the wastewater treatment plant, all those things. So, yeah, they still need to pay into the citywide system. But now we have all this infrastructure that the HOA needs to own and maintain. So what we wanna do is come up with a percentage that shifts from the city to the HOA and put that into a infrastructure reserve account for the HOA. So that's what this is proposing. You know, the the park is at a 0% reduction because, you know, they're still gonna use your parks. We don't no longer have a city park proposed here. Logan Wastewater fee, no reduction there because, you know, I'm assuming that just goes straight to Logan City for for their plan. The roads is a 10% reduction just because all these residents are still gonna use your roads. It's just the ones within the project itself are private, so they'll have some maintenance there. And then you can see the water, sewer, and stormwater percentages that that we've come up with here. So that's that's schedule. I don't know if there's any specific questions on that, or we can move on to the the water shares.

Was there some sort of study done that determined 4050% or 10% reduction? Or is this just sort of a... Let's put our hands in our pocket and see what comes out?

Yeah. It's... I mean, we went through your impact fee analysis for each item to try to gain an understanding of, you know, all the elements that make up this fee. Is there a perfect formula out there? I don't know. So, yeah, we we wanted to take a stab at something that felt reasonable, that still gave the city a substantial amount of funds as we build this out, but also builds a fairly substantial reserve for the HOA.

Nice. John, we're at Visionary Homes. One one of the things that we looked at with it was the amount of the the infrastructure that's gonna be internal to to these to these units and to the project is gonna be a... Is private. So everything internal is going to be a burden upon the homeowners, and that's where putting this into reserve fund to allow for the maintenance and and that we see as as a way for us to keep our HOA fees down as well. Reinvestment fees, keep those down, and to keep our attainability with this project. So we we studied this. We actually studied this quite a bit. We went back and forth. Like, Bryce said, we looked at your guys' impact fee analysis. We're open to feedback on it, but this... I think this is what we're we're proposing. But, again, this is supposed to be the two way street with us in the city, so we're open to we're open to what you guys... What your opinion is and then with, you know, work with the with city staff and with the city council as well. So... And I... One thing I would... I'd just say too on the the design, we did go through a lot of iterations of this. And one of the things that we feel is that this this... What we're here for tonight is purely mechanics of this development agreement. The however to that is I do feel like the design we've come up with is meeting a lot of the comments that we heard. I think it's the best thing we've we've we've shown. We've we've shown that we have an anchor. We... We're not gonna dedicate anything less than one anchor to the to the commercial. We're putting that in the development agreement as well as well as a lot of benefits to the city through use of that if one... Until it's developed. So I would ask that we've kinda... That there will be a time when the side plan comes back and we can and we can tweak that. And, really, tonight, we just wanna focus on the agreement. The the development agreement allows us to move forward with the city to get this going. We... We'd love to deliver this. The sooner, the better for us and with the citizens of the city. So

thank you. Thanks.

Melinda? Yeah. Go ahead. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we forward this to the city council without any recommendations since this is dealing purely with the contract between the city and the developer. It's beyond the purview of this of this committee... This commission.

I don't know that we can, like, not have our business.

For... Before you debate the motion, see if there's a second.

K. I mean, I second it. Because I I agree. If we're just talk... If we're just talking about a contract here,

I'm not... The lawyer should help with that, not me. Well, there she is. Take your place on the stand, John.

So I agree with Mike on that that on that motion in the sense that, yeah, that's not what we normally do. I mean, I do have other thoughts on the the site plan, but that's really not what it sounds like we're talking about. K, chair. So you have a motion, and you have a second. We have a motion and a second. And so now it's further discussion. Correct. K.

Yeah. For me, we are a land use body, and so we do need to do the land use part of it. When I voted last time, I voted on the land use part of it without... You know, I didn't I didn't have an opinion on the impact fees because I was with Mike. Like, that is a city council. They do the dollars. As far as the land use, I guess I still think we have some duty to vote on the way the land is used. And, like, for me, it's... I liked it when we were getting that really cool park. Sorry. These aren't arguments for or against that. Well, yeah, I'm not sure how to do this. Chair, you can say whatever like. Yeah. Well, that's... Anyway, okay. I'll go through mine. I liked it when we had the cool park with it. And you're right. And then... But a lot of people didn't like the design. So it came back, and you said, okay. Well, here's a different design, but but then we lost the park. And so, yeah, we did like that layout better. I I definitely like that layout better. But for me, losing the park, for me, loses the reason for a development agreement. I don't see enough benefit to the city in this in the concessions that are being made. But I agree the impact fee analysis is a city council decision. I I don't like that there's no commercial, like, with any timeline. It's just like, yep. We'll reserve this spot, but we don't have to promise anything in any time limit. And so I don't like that. I mean, in general, this was meant to be a mixed use. And I know some of the others developers said they couldn't do a commercial either, and we keep making all these exceptions. But I I don't want it to keep going that way. Anyway, I I guess we need to vote on the first motion before any other motions are made. Yeah. Any... Sorry. More... Other discussion on the on, yeah, the motion or whatever.

My biggest concern is the same one that I raised before. It's a it's a contract. And the number one thing we should look at is the city, which I think is city council's purview. They need to review the consideration. It has to have adequate consideration on both sides. Are the benefits equal to to the city equal to the benefits to the developer? And that's an analysis that needs to be made. If not, there's no basis for a development agreement in my opinion.

So if we're talking about land use, I I also have some concerns about just setting aside the commercial area. I understand that we've we've approved some pro... Some projects that had commercial area. They didn't have anything really set up to to fill those spaces, but they built the spaces. Or they... Those were part of the plan. They were underneath the the townhomes on on some of these. At least the ones that were that were facing Wolfpack Way. This is just an empty field or a parking lot. I don't know what it's going... How it's gonna be done, but there's... Like you said, there's no promise for anything. If we're... Then and then there is no... Well, yeah. It was... It's mixed use. So at least it was mixed use.

Ned, that I'm Mike. For me, you know, we have... We... This is kinda mixed mixed use and transition, or it was zone that. And putting it all together, for me, it... It's kinda taken... It's it's kinda jumped over that. It's... It looks like the high density stuff that we were trying to get away with when we redid the mixed use ordinance of... I don't know when it was six months ago or whenever it was. Get away from. Get away. Yeah. That's what I meant to say. Did I not say that? Get away with. Oh, yeah. Bounce. Little different. Okay. Get... Jump over the the... What we had before, which was too packed together to not enough open space in the area. So if this looked more... Like, if we're commenting on my comment on the site is is that if it looked more like what the mixed use was now, then I would feel a little more comfortable with the land use proposal. But seeing how it's gone to the to the other way, to the wrong... What I considered the the wrong way, I don't know that we've got enough benefits to give all that up as far as... Besides the commercial. I do agree with the commercial comment in the... So for me, it's like we've kinda given up what we intended to do in the mixed use zone, and we don't really get very many benefits for that. And so I'm not

in favor of the land use if we're talking about that now. Yeah. I agree with Ned on that. I think the benefit that we're we're looking for commercial on Woodpathway, that corridor, and a big benefit to the city would be to see something implemented that made sure that we would get a commercial. I think just zoning it and leaving it as commercial is not a benefit to the city because it's not pushing the commercial. It's not putting a timeline on it, any kind of requirement except for leaving it designated as commercial. So I think it doesn't forward the city's request to try and push commercial on that with that Florida way, just leaving it like that.

Chair, do you wanna hear any more comments from the applicant before you vote?

I'm just not sure that what you've presented tonight can be adjusted enough for us to, like, vote differently than we feel right now. I think we have to vote on what's been presented here.

I got my my motion. I still have to vote. Right. Right. Can I do a counter motion before?

Or do I No. So we have to finish the first motion. But I... But we were talking about your motion was just as forward because of the contract. And so that's all... I wanna amend your motion, I guess, is what I think. Well, I wanna say, I agree with you. We could forward it with no comment on the contract, but non recommend the site layout.

Before you do that, I want you to understand that when we met with these folks, what we said was we don't want you to overwhelm everybody with site plan information. Gotcha. So we want you to go heavy on the contract, spell out exactly what the contract is you wanna get into, and then don't... I even recommended that they blur out, you know, the the housing and just show where housing would go instead of putting individual units because we get so caught up in trying to design a subdivision for them that we're not considering the contract. Right. What we're here to do tonight is make a recommendation on the contract and not design their subdivision for them. No matter how they wanted to set up their subdivision, they would be playing by these rules that are in this contract. No matter where they wanted to put houses or commercial or or what have you. Correct? The the site plan is an example of what they could do, but the contract itself is setting up the rules for them to design. So we're not voting on the design or the layout. Voting on the design or the layout of the development. We're voting on the rules by which it will be

governed and created. Then I'm back to Mike's. I'm... Yeah. You're talking me into Mike's muffin too. There is. I may. That's legal. Yeah. Go ahead. One other point of clarification. I think part of the confusion is in previous development agreements that the city has entered into, the site plan has been a binding part of the document where we've said this is how it's going to look. But that was because there were specific elements in the site plan that we wanted to stay the same. I'm just gonna put out there that when we're reviewing this with our attorney, if the site plan isn't meant to be binding, we'll just make sure that the language reflects that the site plan in the agreement is more of an example and is open for potential adjustments. Because if the intent is to not have the site plan in their b binding, let's just make sure that's really clear in the agreement.

So does that leave it completely open to...

Well... Also minus a 100 units? I mean... No. Because part of this is also...

The key point of any development agreement is it's a vesting document. Right? We're talking a specific number of units, specific square footages of commercial. I mean, there's... We're setting up the rules to play the game. Yeah. Moving this forward in a more broad sense is a pretty common thing across the state of Utah. It's really common to have these development agreements just be, you know, like, setting up a number of units per acre, setting up basic parameters by which the development will go by, creating a unique set of rules for this project based on the circumstances that it's faced with. It's unique for Hyde Park because the development agreements we've done have been very extra specific because we needed very specific things from them. Right? The first one we did, we needed improvements for Wolfpackway, and so everything was about Wolfpackway improvements, making sure that we had infrastructure that the city was getting out of the deal above and beyond the normal requirements. The second one was all about getting that park space dedicated and commercial units set up that weren't normally seen in that zone, and so we were hyper focused on those things. In this case, I think Visionary is trying to say that they're... The first benefits you see in this document is a cohesive development. Right? One of the biggest selling points of this project is they're trying to create something that instead of having a piece by piece, parcel by parcel development, it would be one cohesive unit. I think that's still the goal, but what they're saying is, let's make some ground rules. And as we go, we'll figure out how it's gonna look. But let's say we're gonna have this many units. They're gonna look like this, and we'll figure it out with the city staff as we apply for things exactly how it's gonna be laid out.

Well, then shouldn't the number of units not... They should be blanks for now and stuff... Those kind of details. Well, there...

Let me pull up the statement of benefits where some of these things are literally spelled out by number. Right? It says allow up to 225 attached units. So there's lots of details in here about the thing they're gonna do. It's the exact layout of it, the site plan itself that we're not

asking you to focus on or commit to at this time. It's just the contract we're getting into. So the unit count is in that. To make some changes to the document. Yeah. Up top up top, it says under section four, it says two two hundred twenty five attached residential units. It just says that number.

Under Well... And they're willing to stick to that. That's what I'm saying is there's things in the contract that they're gonna stick to. We don't want them. We we... I don't think that, you know,

I don't think we want that move that's in there from those Okay. From a land use perspective. But I think it's I hear you. But the intent of the mixed use that we had. K. So that's what I'm saying is, fuzz the URLs out too if we're gonna fuzzy out the site plan. K. Well... And and it does say in here, it says

developer shall develop, construct, improve, maintain the development in a manner similar to and in substantial compliance with the site plan.

So So it will be similar

to, but it may not be exact. So Yes. Right. But what I'm saying is if we don't have a site plan to look at other than, yes, these are the boundaries, and we can put 220

this is the one. Units in there.

Well, I I think the intent generally is say, k. Here... They want up to 20... 225 units, so this is what it could look like. But if we're going through and doing that South end and it turns out as as we're doing the utility plan, they gotta put a manhole somewhere or else the elevations don't work, and we have to move a building over. Our previous development agreements, we would say, k. You have to come amend that because your site plan is tied to everything. They just want the flexibility to be able to shift things and move things, maybe delete a unit, maybe shift the units over here in order to make it work. Because, really, the goal of the development agreement is to be a vesting document. Right?

I I totally get that. I just think that if we move it forward that it should go like the land use plan and be more like a mixed use, which is a long ways from that. So dropping a unit because of a manhole takes out one or two maybe, but it's not gonna change it significantly.

Alright. Is there further discussion on the motion made and seconded as far as not sending a recommendation?

Chair, could I add one thing to that?

Yes, Marcus.

So Kyle and I are furiously searching state code because this seems like new territory for us. As far as we can figure, there's nothing that would prohibit something to move on with no specific action, although the code does repeatedly say approve or deny. What we have found is a section that says if planning commission fails to adopt a a a approve or deny, then it's moved on with an automatic deny. Negative. Right. Or a negative recommendation. Right. Sorry. And so we'll have to double check probably with the city attorney to make sure we're doing this the right way. No. I think that's fair.... Is when this goes to the city council, we'll be saying there was no recommendation, and so by state code default, it's actually a... And I'll put whatever the city attorney wants me to say right there. Negative. Right. No. I agree with that. It's either positive or it's not. Yeah. Yeah. It's something else. I don't think... I'm not sure if this motion can stand or not, but if this is the motion you wanna make and it's gonna move through, then I'll just have check with the city attorney about how we word that when it goes before the city council.

Well, it seems like too if you're... If the intent is to have a flexible development agreement, which is what the plan is, does that even come to us?

Because we're land use. Well, so, normally, the public hearing would be held Right. At planning commission. Right? And then we had that discussion where we talked about the the public hearing for this contract should be at city council. And so we've moved the public hearing to city council. We're just asking you for a recommendation.

I do have one further question and comment, because we are... One of our things that we are aiming for as planning commission is housing that's affordable and first time homeowners. And I noticed number in exhibit d, item two, it says ownership oriented housing at lower intensity. And that... I didn't remember seeing that before. Was that newly added?

So that's the

investor verse. Mhmm. That's what I was That was in

the last submittal, and so it continues

to be in the submittal. Okay. I didn't notice. And it mentions that it's CC and R enforced then. Is that... Could it be also included just as a afterthought to make it run with the land? That helps title companies and insurance companies enforce it and takes the burden off of this HOA. It'll save them some money or what what are what are your findings?

Yeah. Whatever the most efficient way to implement that is great.

That that I see is a benefit for the city. Having owner occupancy ratio requirements, that's a huge benefit to the city. Yeah. Like, we stay up there. I mean, it will be through the record CCNRs, but this development agreement also gets recorded with this property. So it will be on title. It will be there. Okay. It'll be something there. If I recall, I thought that's something we added after we had we had our work session with the... With planning commission. We heard that, and we... We've added it to the development agreement by our call. Correct? Okay. Perfect. So they'll show up when they do a title search. They'll show on the. They'll be able to Yeah. Yeah. Inside the CCNIs are also important. And and I I always wanna make some sense that the park was pulled out after discussion with the city and with the staff and the the plans in the city has for parks in the area. So it wasn't us just pulling it. We're we're we're listening to feedback. We're coming to you guys with with this development agreement saying that we're gonna come back with the the site plan or development plan for you guys as a planning commission to make the motion then that will have the layout, will have, you know, the elevation, all those things that you would normally used to be seeing that we would bring them in, and we would and we would give that presentation point at that point. That that this... You know? Because right. We did pull a lot of that out because of, in fact, we wanna focus just on it. So

Alright. Any further discussion on the motion made and seconded? K. So we still have the motion on the table to not make a recommendation, which... Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Nay. Nay. K. So that motion fails. Correct. Is there a new motion to be made? Does someone want to make...

K. Just just for clarification, my motion was because of my strongly held belief that we are the wrong body to be making decisions on contracts.

K. Yeah. We'll get that noted in the minutes.

Hey. Then I make a motion that we advance this to city council with an unfavorable recommendation because it doesn't really meet the intent of the

the land use in that area. It's

supposed... You know, it's generally mixed use or residential transition or transition, and it doesn't come close to that. So I would say a nonfavorable recommendation based on that.

K. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second that motion. I'm... For me, it's not... There's not enough benefits to the city to go to a development agreement, which is so much more time consuming on our part than just abiding by the code. And I get that our code is moving right now. Like, someone else referred to it as a moving target. I get that, and I apologize. We we have to do it. And I'm sorry that you're caught up in the middle of that. But for me, I would just assume not have any more development agreements than we have to that are giving us clear benefits. And for me, this one's not enough of a benefit to go to a development agreement that's way more labor intensive on the city's part. Okay. So we have a motion and... By commissioner Hansen, a second by commissioner Lee. Further discussion.

I have a I have a question to our developer here. Where does this development not follow current code?

So there is no RT zone

Okay. The res... The residential transition. For the northern parcels.

Okay. And the city is no longer accepting applications for the MXD zone, generally. So the development agreement is the only path we have to a project on...

Okay. But that doesn't... I'm sorry. That doesn't answer question. I get that's the only path you have to get this started. What in your development agreement is different than, let's say, the the MXD? What is the what is the difference? Do we have the same number of setback, the private area in the front?

What's different? So to me the... To me, this is a a benefit to... I don't know if I should say the city in general, but the residents around it when we talk about buffering these existing residents. The MXD zone is essentially a... It's an unlimited density apartment zone. It's 55 foot tall by 300 foot buildings with unlimited density. So this is a much softer impact than what someone could come in and just check the boxes of the MXD zone and create. Because at that point, it all becomes a function of, I don't know, parking, essentially. So then you get into parking structures to fit more units and, like, that could be a a very significant project. Well, I mean, it's...

Parking is one thing, but open space is another. So you... There's really there's really not a way to do unlimited density unless you went, you know, 75 stories up.

Yeah. I mean, the the the point being with the design elements that's allowed in the MXD zone, I mean, you could get 40 units an acre on that pretty easily. The open space requirement might be 20%. We're over 30%. The setbacks in the MXD are... Allows you to go to zero. We're 10 from from city rights of ways, and then we're buffering the, co residents with a 20 foot open space corridor through there. So our setbacks are bigger. Our density is way less. There is less commercial. But I think the trade off for the project that you're gonna see here versus what could be done, this is substantially better and softer to the existing residents around.

Alright. Thanks, Bryce.

Okay. We... Any other discussion?

K.

We have a motion on the table by commissioner Hansen to recommend a negative... Or make a rec... Negative recommendation to city council on the Aspen Grove subdivision development agreement, and I've seconded that. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay.

Hang on. I'm thinking. You're thinking?

I know. I mean Yeah. I guess it doesn't matter. That's why I'm thinking. Yeah. But I... Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead.

I'll say aye.

Okay. But, yeah, I mean, it is tough, and I appreciate what you're proposing.

Yeah. I So close. Yeah. That's unanimous

four zero with a negative recommendation.

Okay. Understand. Verify. Thank you.

Is that correct for you? Right?

Yeah.

Okay. We have two legislative items, and these are public hearings. The first one is caretaker residences in the... P is... Sorry. I is institutional. What's the PI? Public. Just public and institutional zones. Staff report for that.

Yeah. Hi, guys. So the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City wants to construct a cares... Taker facility on their property, but they are zoned as public institutional, so they're not able to do that. So this ordinance would simply permit accessory caretaker units as a conditional, use, in the PI zone. There's also duplicate code for caretaker facilities. It was found in two separate spots. So while we're discussing caretaker units, we figured we'd clean up the code and, repeal, the the extra code. That's all. Thank you.

K. So are you... You're describing both a and b then on the legislative items, or is that all Sorry. That is just a. That's just a. Okay. Oh, right. Sorry. Okay.

I'm gonna hop in really quick and let you know that a caretaker facility is already allowed in commercial and industrial with the conditional use permit. So when it was brought before us that this need needed to be filled, the way we went about that was just following what's already in our code as far as caretaker units go, the conditional use permit being required for it. And so that's why that's why we're presenting it as a conditional use and not just permitted. So it's the same. It's just cutting and pasting from commercial and industrial, including into the public Public institution. Okay.

Yeah. I get that in my time at the city. I haven't seen... I don't remember big problems with these caretaker units. So I would actually... Like, I'm fine to add it to the public and institutional, but I would say not even make it a conditional use. Just make it a permitted use. I... Those conditional uses, remember, we talked about renewing them every year. It's it's more babysitting. It's watching those. It does run with the land.

So I'm fine to have it, but I would almost drop the conditional use and just have it a permitted use. The next time that we update the land use table, we could certainly make that one of the one of the items that we change.

Guess we bypass the hearing. Unless we just make it permitted

in the But I mean, it's kinda obvious. K.

In the PI section. That's what we're... Oh, we're not changing the land use table, though, are we? I mean, I... Yeah. I was just looking at the requirements. Because we're not showing the land use table in this. We need to change land use table. We'll have to say land use table to include this. This does. It's just not featured in the red lines.

Number two of the edits, this is the land use table.

Oh, there you go. In addition of the c under the accessory care ticket unit and replace the unit with the

very K. And before we get too far, I forgot to have the public hearing. Do I need to... I will Open the public hearing. Open the public hearing on this item even though there's no one in the room.

We have one. Sorry.

Sorry. Hey. I'm opening the public hearing to consider this ordinance for care... To allow caretaker residences in the public and institutional zone. K. No one's coming forward. I'm closing that public hearing. Okay. Now you can make a motion or discuss or... Yeah.

I mean, I just have one comment on the requirements. Seems like... And, I mean, I can't imagine somebody doing this, but it seemed like it leaves open the size of this caretaker unit to be ginormous compared to what the main structure is. So there seems like there should be some kind of a limit on percentage of area, you know, acreage or percentage of... It only allows one, but it doesn't say... It could be huge.

Right. We didn't whole. We don't have a size cap on it. We didn't treat it like an ADU where it can only be a thousand square feet. Feet. Part of the reason for that is the rectory building that the Catholic church wants to construct for the name of the person who's gonna use it. I'm sorry. I'm just not familiar enough

with that. User. Right? So the user is good. The

Are you 40 figure, the resident, there there has to be a small place for worship inside Right. The residence as well. Right. And so it can't be limited to a thousand square feet. No. I totally get that. We didn't take in... We didn't ask them, well, how how big do you wanna make it? And and you're right. That standard isn't in code. It could be ginormous.

Right. So I'm just wondering if there ought to be, like, a certain percentage of the main structure or... I don't know. Something. I mean, I I I I agree. We don't wanna make it a thousand, but I... And I don't know whether we put a hard number on it, like 1,500 or 2,000. But maybe we don't want... We want it to be an accessory, not the main Taj Mahal.

Okay. Smaller than the main structure?

Yeah. Something. I mean, that's the only thing. Somebody could somebody could have used the system, I guess. I don't think that the Catholic church would Unless that's in the definition. Yeah. Item c

says the dwelling unit must be... Sorry. Must be accessory to the principal and shall be located within the structure of principal use. So there's... We're almost treating it like an internal ADU where it's gonna be part of the main structure.

Is that gonna work for the Catholic church? I don't know. I mean should double check. Should be able to even have a little separate house if they wanted to. I don't... I mean, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Yeah. I mean, this would fix your concern if having it be something that's, you know, part

of the Right. The building. I don't know if this would work for what the Catholic church is proposing. Have a separate, I think. So Right. So you gotta clean that one up anyway. So does that So perhaps the shall needs to be a may. Yeah. I messed up. Maybe located within the structure principle use. Okay. Okay. My bad. So it shall be... It must be accessory.

So it must be located within.

Or it may be outside. It may be ex Or maybe we just don't talk about

the low... Where it's located. State code uses subordinate.

We can change accessory to subordinate. That's also Yeah. Of an avenue.

I mean Do we just stop the sentence? I'm not saying that they're what... Wording right now, but it just seems like there ought to be some kinda limit. I don't care what it is. We can definitely make that change. I think I think there's the...

I think condition c in the 12 dot 80 dot zero five zero.

Yeah. That's what we're talking about. I...

Yeah. We need to add a must be instead of Shelby. Yeah. That's my bad. I missed that all. I'll just Yeah. Oh, I have it in there. I mean Mine says must. Yeah. No. On the second one. Further down the line.

Oh, I gotcha.

After the I think we're just gonna delete that. Principal use. But I say we just stop at mid sentence. The dwelling unit must be accessory to the principal use, period.

Love it. But but we are gonna change the word accessory to subordinate. Yeah. Subordinate. Because that's where it's used in state code. Yeah. That takes away ginormous. Yeah. Because accessory is, like,

adjacent. You could say adjacent, but subordinate. But you're also... You wanna... You're gonna tweak this anyway to have it be a standalone

unit. Well, we're just not gonna say

Well, it could be with an or without be standalone to be attached. Yeah. We're gonna take off that last part that the that located within the structure. We're just gonna say that it has to be subordinate to the principal use. So it could be attached to. It could be detached from. But what does subordinate mean? But it will be smaller than? State code defines it as smaller than. Smaller? So it could be the same size as the Catholic church. So smaller than Could be one square foot smaller than the Catholic church. Yeah. That seems Well, but accessory also has been interpreted to mean, like, adjacent to. So in theory, an accessory could be something that's Right. Maybe not the primary use, but it's almost equal in magnitude where a subordinate, there's the... I don't know. Sounds like sense. It is less than. So until we come up with development standards and a number for it, that's kind of the Band Aid. Right? Okay. You add that language in there and say it has to be less than. Like I said, I don't think they're gonna do that, but somebody in the future could abuse this is... Abuse it. Always.

Right.

Okay.

Okay. Anyone have a motion they wanna make? Is there is there a motion even needed if we're gonna make changes, or we can You could motion

to send a favorable recommendation to city council with the edit conditions. Mhmm.

Yeah.

With that at item c.

I'll make a motion that we advance this to the city council with a favorable recommendation subject to the edits of number c. Was it c? Yeah. It's a letter. Letter c as discussed. It's always one in the crowd.

They don't have to be.

I'll second that. K. So we have a motion and a second to forward a favorable recommendation of this amendment to the code changing 12 dot 80 dot zero fifty c from accessory to subordinate and stopping it and cutting off the last half of that sentence will stop at principal use. Okay.

Any further discussion? And were we switching accessory to subordinate?

Yeah. I said I said that. Okay. So I missed that. I have Oh.

I have one question. By approving this, which I know needs to be done, how do we fulfill the where... The second whereas where it's now not... It's prohibited in the public institutional zone. We haven't changed anything. There's nothing here other than it says as shown in the land use table. We're not changing the land use table. We haven't done anything to change land use table to make it permitted.

Item two does change the land use table. It's not included in the exhibits, but we've got in there that 12 dot two ninety dot zero one zero, we're adding in a c under accessory caretaker unit But we can't word unit with facility.

We're not making that change on this recommendation.

Yes. It's item number two. It's Where's item number two? Right here. Underneath your whereas. It's part of the ordinance. We don't have a specific exhibit showing that change, but it's part of the ordinance. And so that is

part of Why can't we just leave that p now

and leave it as conditional for The biggest thing is we don't have specific development standards. Right? So having a conditional use permit still gives us a chance to make sure that we're following the other codes and that it's something that's manageable and that we can keep track of before we have development standards to govern that for us. So Mikhail's suggestion was basically put it in as a c right now. So if this is something that wants to move forward, applicants could come in and get it moving. In the meantime, we need to come up with a development standard. So in the future, we can tell people, yes. You can do it. Here's how to do it.

So... Okay. So let's say they... We pass this. We recommend this gets passed as is as a conditional use. They come in. They apply for it. They get that conditional use. In a year, it's no longer conditional use. Does that kinda dissolve that conditional use for them, or is there's conditional use forever because that's how it was approved? The con conditional use

until we make it a permitted use. The conditional use permit stays good, basically, forever. Permitted? But changing it to permitted use means that we, as city staff, don't really have to police it anymore if the conditions are part of the underlying zone anyway.

Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah. So it would sort of dissolve if they... If their Right. I mean their CUP

If we turned around and rezone their property to something else, they could still have that accessory caretaker unit because it's part of the CUP. But if we... If the underlying zoning gets changed to support the conditions, then that just means that we don't have to go out and police it anymore. It's just part of their underlying zone. And that's what I want. Less babysitting, less staff time.

Yeah. K. Okay. Again, the only concern is that... I mean, if we make it p or if we make it c, the problem is we don't have development standards for it. If someone were to come in before we have development standards and after we approve this or recommend approval for it We put still don't have development standards. We put the conditions on. The conditions are... We have no conditions.

The conditions have to follow the other elements of the city code. So conditions

It'd be... There are some things that we could condition. It could be parking. It could be Noise. Dust. Noise. Lighting.

That's odor. That's already in the in the code.

Yes. Any conditions put on a conditional use permit can be made as long as they're derived from other parts of the code. Right? So as long as we can point back to the city code and say, well, in the PI zone, it doesn't specifically talk about these things, but your caretaker unit's kind of a special thing. And so we wanna make sure that you follow these other conditions that are listed elsewhere in the code, and that's why you do a CUP. Hey. We wanna get away from CUPs. Right? But that's their function. As if there's something that doesn't quite fit that the city is in favor of, but we just wanna have a little extra opportunity to make sure that it's gonna be operating correctly, that's when you use the c u. Just wondering how fast do we need to make development codes? Quickly. It's also, yeah, not good practice to just develop by CUP. So, yes, having CUP with no development standards is also not negotiable.

The first accessory you can take on even industrial, commercial, or public

institution. Right? We have some already. Commercial. But you'd never know they were there because they're small and they're not a problem. And Okay. Yeah. They're just there. Right?

They're following their conditional needs. Yeah. They're doing a good job.

We have a motion and a second on the table. Any further discussion? Anyone... You all know the motion? It's a favorable recommendation. Alright. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passed unanimously, four zero. K. Now we have another public hearing. Don't let me forget to open the public hearing on having these public and institutional zones only in new annexations. Staff report.

Perfect. So an ordinance that was passed recently aimed to do this. We put in language. However, concerns had been brought forward that the language didn't do what it was supposed to do and also some legal concerns around the de facto provision of preventing churches and houses of worship. So these red lines aim to fix that by ensuring that they're... The PI can only be rezoned in properties annexed after this ordinance passing. And that way, it doesn't include all of the annexed territory before, which was our language, which includes, like, all of the city. And then the other provision is we are in our land use table ensuring that church, temple, synagogue, or mosque is permitted in all zones. So we don't run into any constitutional concerns there. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. We're gonna open the public hearing on this item. The... And no one's coming forward, so I'm gonna close the public hearing on this item. Alright. Commissioners, you understand what's happening, what they're proposing... What we are proposing? I have one. Like, I talked to Marcus about this earlier. I struggle with the library thing. I get that, these public institutional don't do a whole lot for us, and so we don't wanna give them prime real estate that we don't get something back from, like sales tax or property tax. But, boy, if we got a library and it was up, like, here in the sunny... Center of town, like, that's one I... That's an exception I would actually give. I would give up property sales tax for that if that... And it could be on the outside too. But if some old home nearby was just remodeled or renovated to become a library, I would hate for this to restrict that. You have anything, Shani?

Yep. My worry is that you've got a lot of land, what, to the east that's not being... Not dedicated to anything north to. So I don't know. You're right. City buildings such as a library would no longer be allowed in this, and they'd have to buy buy land outside the city and then request for it to be annexed. Is there not other places that the city may want

to use for those types of purposes? Or even our own. Like, what what if we wanted to get more property for a shop part two, you know, a city workshop part two? You wouldn't be That would also have to be... Like, anything the city wants to do would also have to be outside of the current city boundaries.

No. The uses for a shop, we could do that in commercial or industrial. The uses allow.

You know, like, our our city shop sits out in the industrial zone. Our city shop is not in the public institutional zone. It's an industrial use, and so it's out in industrial zone. Now your point about the library or, like, we wanted to build another civic center or rec center or something.

That's a change to the boost table. Yeah. That's...

Yeah. Our our PI zone was made as a way to try and make rules for things that already existed. I don't know if it has been fully contemplated as how it's gonna be used moving forward. Agreed. Agreed. Yeah. Mikael's right. Adjusting things and where they can go is as simple as changing a land use table. But then we have to think about what is the efficacy of the public institutional zone. Right? If we're just gonna go in and change the land use table every time there's a public institutional use that wants to come to town, but we can't do PI rezones, then is it really doing its job? It's a good point to consider. Part of the initiation for this is the general plan encourages us to find ways to maximize property values in the city and promote tax generation, revenue generation. And this is something that is done in other parts of the nation and other parts of the state, and so it's brought forth as a way to consider. Is this something that we're gonna die on the hill on? Not necessarily. Is this something that we've fully studied out and know the ramifications? No. But it's... It was a way that we could try to move that aspect to the general plan forward and try to push to have our annexed land be focused on maximizing tax generation.

Yeah.

But I I don't see how that... If if it's a acre in the new annex or acre here or a library, it's So It's out of the property tax, commercial generating Change that to hospital.

Not library. Hospital.

K.

K? The infrastructure that we have here in town is residential infrastructure. Gotcha. And if we're gonna be building new infrastructure and having a developer pay for that, the place we need to do that is not in our residential areas.

Gotcha. I agree with that.

So what is the definition of public institutional? What types of facilities are they? Just to... What's the definition in our code? So I... So we've got a clear picture.

Mhmm. All the way down to the bottom.

Nice. Represent.

There's your purpose and intent.

Second paragraph.

Educational facilities, university, college campuses, library, cemeteries, public buildings, places of worship, city parks,

other uses. So So that's where you got it. And what's the definition of essential services?

You know? In other line, uses it provides essential services.

So the next time that a school wants to come into Hyde Park and build Okay. Where we don't want them is in the middle of a residential neighborhood where we have to build all their sidewalks and we have to widen a bunch of streets and we have to do all this work. We want them to go to a newly annexed area, and they will have to build the roads and they will have to pour the sidewalks and they will have to make all those improvements.

We are so small that putting it on the outside of... Outskirts of Hyde Park is not inconvenient to anyone in Hyde Park, even from one side to the other. Not at all. And we still have lots of large parcels.

So lots of large parcels between us and our annexation boundaries in multiple... On multiple sides of our boundary that there is a room for it. That they're not in city limits. Right.

Like, we have large acre... Amounts of acreage that have been annexed into the city yet that could still be. So we found out recently that we don't have a lot of say on schools. Like, when they... You know, the junior high was about to open, and they were coming for our preliminary plat approval. And that was confusing to us, and they said, well, yeah, we don't really have to go through you guys. It's through the state. Is this something that schools could override anyway? Before that, they had to be rezoned.

We approved the rezone for it. Yeah. Yeah. When we did our big rezone, we went to the school district and said, you already own these properties in in the city. We're gonna put this zone on you so that we... Everybody knows what's going on, and the school district said, that sounds great. So in the future, yeah, they would have to come and say, hey, city. We are a new hospital. We wanna rezone this property for hospital, and the city would have to say, hold on. We can't grant that rezone. You need to go find a different piece of property and annex into the city, and that's where you're gonna build your hospital or school or whatever. Churches are different because of, you know, United States Of America, first amendment, religious freedom. Schools can go... Or churches can go pretty much wherever they can fit. So, yes, we were educated on that one, and they have their own carve out in the Land Use table that's part of this.

So, like, the the new rehab center that's being built right now, that was a commercial before.

That was tricky because when they came in, it was done by conditional use permit in the commercial zone. Moving forward, another facility like that would have to go through a rezone and keep going. Now as part of their CUP, they did include two buildings, so they'll be coming in to get their second building approved. But if they wanted to turn that third parcel up on the highway into a third facility, they'd have to go in and rezone that. And that's when we would say, oh, can't do that.

Yeah. My my only held up is a library.

There... There's no library on the table right now.

I know. No. It's cheap. County library system.

I know. That's not our solution. Would

be to make an agreement with North North Logan. It's been done before. To use that library. It's been done before.

Or leave it to the county and do a county system so you can go either end of it. That's the way. We've got to have a library discussion.

Yeah. I know. It's totally different. I know. Okay. Let's not get off on that. I didn't mean to bring it up. But... Alright. Okay. Someone wanna make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve this... That we recommend approval to city council on this.

I'll second that.

Hey. We have a motion by commissioner Williams, a second by commissioner Hansen to recommend approval of this ordinance as proposed. Is that right? As proposed? Okay. We didn't make any changes to that one. K. Any further discussion?

Hey. I feel that we're gonna be changing this. Me too. But that's okay. That's a good place. Alright. Oh, hang on. We've got more information for you, Linda. Finish your bow.

All in all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. That passed unanimously. Four zero.

And it comes before I leave. I'll leave. Thank you.

Future items. K. Future items. Our next meeting is in two weeks, Wednesday, October 21. A workshop, is that 5PM, 6PM? It's at the meeting time, actually. 07:00? Our meeting will be a workshop instead of a planning commission meeting?

That is a plan. Good to you.

I second that. Yeah. I'm fine to have it be at seven then. So workshop in lieu of planning commission. Yeah. Instead of, like, an agenda with items that we're voting on, is that what you're saying?

We probably won't have any items to vote on, so that's why we picked this. Okay. Okay. Ahead and time after that.

So at seven unanimous.

Hey. You wanna

So seven talk to Moose about this? Ready for a wild ride. Just kidding. It's not Buckle up. We'll get through it. Alright. We're gonna talk about everyone's favorite topic, low density residential, the zone that caused quite the ruckus last month. So we've been thinking about it since the city council went through. I wanna take a chance. We had a discussion at the city council meeting to talk about kind of how this came about and a lot of stuff. And so I wanted to cover for the planning commission, hopefully, quickly again, why were we talking about LDR to begin with? Here's our basically little agenda for the presentation moving forward. So as we all know, the general plan tells us what we should do. There was some information spread out through our community that this is, like, the city staff person fighting for this and trying to move this forward. That's not true. So what does the general plan actually say? Here's a really fun section. If you ever wanna have very roller coaster of emotions, go read appendix b in the general plan. It's all the feedback we got from the community from the initial surveys before we started the general plan. If you wanna feel really good about yourself and really bad about yourself in the span of thirty seconds, go read that section. So I took the top... The the three segments that really focused on future. Like, the question was, what do you want to see in the future? What goals should the city promote? What are your biggest concerns? These are the top five answers that we got. It was really interesting. If you look at the... In each category, in the top five, there were things that people wanted to see, housing options, housing availability, affordability. And then of the rest of them, in every category, there was growth adjacent items. Right? Access to business, infrastructure growth, learning opportunities like a library, water security, all those are directly impacted by growth. And so from the get go, growth was the number one issue with the general plan. Right? So as we wrote the general plan with the consultant, the planning commission was huge part of that. There were specific goals that got put into place. Right? Like, chapter two, you go to land use section. There is these implemented act... Implementation action steps. So short term, one to five years. We talked about we wanted to update all the existing zoning ordinances in the map, which we did once. And then there was begin budgeting for initiative to update land use code for the next five years. I would argue that that's what we're starting right now, and I'll get to more of that. And then long term, this one was really interesting. It says we're fine code to increase density in areas with adequate infrastructure to offer housing alternatives for lower income families with access to amenities. And I feel like that's what people were saying. Right? Let's be smart about the growth and have it happen where it makes sense and where we are preparing for it. Separately, there's been a lot of talk about the state requirements and being compliant with state requirements. We've been ordered a couple times. I feel like I need to go over it one more time just so everybody's really clear on what the state requirements actually are. So from our general plan that we adopted in... This amendment we adopted in 2024, It says in order to comply with the state mandate and to create more diverse housing options in the community, city leadership has been working to implement new zones and options to facilitate the creation of moderate income housing. So if everyone remembers, moderate income housing element of the general plan is the state requirement. What is the state requirement? It's that we facilitate or create the conditions that will allow for a moderate income housing. There's a variety of ways to do that. The corner that we've painted ourselves into, if you'll notice, is all three of the strategies that we selected revolved around rezoning and allowing more diverse housing. And so that's why when we push these zones, we talk about it helping with our state compliance. It's because all of our state compliance is wrapped up in these rezones. If you wanna loosen up our state compliance, let's change our strategies. We can resubmit and update our strategies whenever we want. It's pretty generous. There are windows when we can do that. We just need to communicate that with the division of workforce services and make a plan. Go ahead. Oh, go ahead now. Great. We report to the governor's office of economic development, what our strategies will be moving forward. So that's something we can do. If we wanna loosen up our state requirements, we need to get on that right away. So the message that we wanna make clear to the planning commission and public to everybody is we're doing this because it's what the general plan said. There were a lot of comments from our friends saying, I moved here last year or two years ago, and I never had input on this. Well, they're not wrong. The general plan got adopted in 2022. So a lot of our newer friends didn't have a chance to comment, but that doesn't mean that we're, you know, doing something out of pocket. We're we're following the plan. Alright. So in following the plan, here's where we're at. The code rewrites for that big five year update are largely already done. We can thank Kyle for that. He had a very busy summer working for us forty hours a week, just working on code rewrites. The big reason for that... Our codes are not uniform. We've got different lot coverages, different open space requirement, which at the time we thought was really cool to have a unique zoning. It turns out it's just been a train wreck and really hard to track and really hard to implement. The standards are unclear for the same reason. We developed all these unique and interesting zones. None of the developers wanna use them, and the ones who do use them find ways to get around our uniqueness that we've built into it. And so that's why we've already been working on this, and LDR was step one in that process. So by putting a stop to LDR, it kind of puts a hold on all the rest of the stuff that Kyle has already been working on. So we had that public hearing. It was very energetic, very interesting. These were, like, the top three things that we took from it. Right? Everybody said we wanna keep the rural feel of Hyde Park. People want the large lots. Take out the lot maximum. So we said, great. Planning ahead and public input don't have to disagree. This shouldn't be a fight. We can figure out how to make this work for everybody. And so we sat down with our new mayor and said, how do we make this work? Because we, as staff, don't wanna kill the LDR because that undermines an entire summer's worth of work that Kyle's put in and puts us back to square one. So here's what we're gonna do. LDR is going to be called LLR, which stands for large lot residential, which funny enough is the name that it has in the general plan. So we said, let's go back to the general plan. Large lot residential. We're taking out the lot maximum. Felt like it was in line with the historic character of Hyde Park to allow for the large lots. We have them now. Like we said at the city council meeting, we're doing alright. I mean, we're not making money hand over fist, but we've been generally able to keep up with the maintenance and the repairs and at least preventing catastrophic failures. Right? So having it as an option moving forward isn't the end of the world. And then the other thing we're gonna do is reframe the rest of the updates. It's a lot easier for Kyle to go back through all the other updates that he's written and change titles and adjust numbers rather than start from scratch. And so that's the plan. We feel like we can accommodate this... The public input and incorporate these things into large lot residential zone and still have a way that we can move this thing forward. Now here comes the interesting part. And this part, we didn't talk about the city council, but I will be talking about city council... At city council when they vote on LLR. We have a multistep process we've come up with, and we're gonna educate the public on what that process is gonna look like because people were really freaked out about thinking that the city was trying to steamroll something through the process. We just wanna make it really clear that's not the case. We didn't make it as public maybe as we could have. Nobody's trying to be sneaky about it. So here's the steps. Here's what we're doing. We're calling this a home for everyone. So step one of this process is we're trying to create options. We're building the menu. Right? We're stacking up tools in the shed. Step one is we're gonna finish the LLR and get that on the books so Kyle can go through and finish the rest of his things. We have to do... Finish the process of removing these nonfunctional zones like r t. That one's already out. But MX has to be completely removed, not just closed for applications. We have to, like, be done with it. We have to rewrite these mixed density zones like the R five to be easier to implement and design.

And the other thing we wanna do is include affordability

and owner occupancy requirements as much as we are able to, kinda like your... We talked about with the development agreement today. We want that to be the new normal moving forward. The general plan says we need to increase homeownership opportunities. So we say, let's build that in wherever we can. If we're gonna densify and allow more units, let's make sure they're for the people before the homeowners and for the people within the general plan that we said who we want living here. After that... So we make the toolkit. After the toolkit's done, that's when we decide where it's gonna go. And I get that it freaks people out that we're making the toolkit first because they say, where is it gonna go? That was a lot of the comments we heard is, you know, where is this happening? What's happening? I don't really want this by my house. You know, we hear that all the time. So we have to make the tools, and then we decide where they're gonna go. This also has multiple steps. Step one, right now, we have Sunrise Engineering who did all of our master plans for our infrastructure, making a map that shows where our roads are going, where they are now, where they're going. It shows our water infrastructure, where it's at in the status. It shows the sewer capabilities. But it also shows based on those master plans, where did we plan for the growth? And all those master plans are this whole section about where do we think the growth is coming, and they're putting that into a map that projects that out and shows where we've said we think these things are happening. We're gonna take that map. We're gonna have recommendations from that map and say this is where we think it should go. Then the mayor wants to create a task force of community members selected from all the neighborhoods all over the city and wants to have very wide input from the community to give input on that map and say, now that we know what the data says, what does the community say? And the decision for how the land use map is going to be will be a balance between that data and that public input. And then once we've all decided and all communicated with what's gonna happen, we'll adopt the new zones and the new map at the same

time. Here's where you applaud.

You don't need to. It's okay. It's inappropriate. Courtesy five. No. No. No. No. No. Okay. Now along the way, people said that they felt like we're trying to be sneaky. We don't wanna be that way. So we're gonna have at least one open house where we're gonna show these results. We're gonna have this map. We're probably gonna post it back here in this backroom or just have them in the lobby. We're gonna put a shoebox out there with three by five cards, say drop your comments. And we're gonna give people plenty of time to come in and tell us what they think. The other part of that is amending the future land use map is an amendment to the general plan. So by law, we have to do a thirty day notice with a public hearing. So we're gonna get all this rolling, and then we're gonna tell people, in thirty days, you can show up here and tell your planning commission exactly what you think of all these changes when they have a public hearing to amend the general plan or send a letter. And along the way, if we got other suggestions for how we can loop people in, tell them what's going on, let us know. Our mayor wants to be as transparent and as open as possible. It's a little bit of a new thing for us because we've been all about compliance and meeting the state requirements, and that's not the way it's gonna be now. We wanna be very transparent and maybe give people too much information and let them tell us that's that's enough. I don't need to know anymore, rather than them show up here and feel like they haven't been informed. That's what I got. Questions?

You want questions or comments? Either way. Okay. Is there any reason we can't start with high density and work our way to low density? Why does it have to start with low?

What do you mean?

I mean, because we... Once you define the top, it confines all the lower. Why not start at the at the higher density and work your way to the... Because most of our city

is that large lot residential.

Okay. And my second question, one of my concerns with a few meeting... Well, quite a while back when we talked about switching out the codes, we were talking about taking code A and we're going to now call it code B. For example, senior housing is gonna become high density without any concern as to location. And the... I would emphasize the three things we need to look at are location, location, location, traffic,

safety. That's our data driven den... That's gonna be our plan is data driven density is is

what we're gonna consider first, and then we're gonna bring in that input and put those two things together. And because it may be that we can't just say, okay. Everything yellow is gonna now be this. We might just say, this section of yellow is gonna be this. This section of it. Now it looks like there's gonna be much less yellow and and more colors

based on what

the engineer's data tells us about what our infrastructure can support. Yep. Because what you're describing is how it happened the first time. The first time Thoughts and feelings. We had a future land use map that got thrown in because the consultant... Like, our grant ran out. We had to have something. And so the consultant said, here's something, and it was terrible. And so the planning commission came in and said, well, we need to at least have one that shows all of our new zones that we're working on. But then nobody could agree on where things were supposed to go. We didn't do a data driven thing. It was just, hey. Let's throw this out to the community and get input. And so we got a lot of community discussions and conversations, and the planning commission and the city council just kinda said, oh, this looks this looks okay. We feel pretty good about this. So, yeah, our... Moving forward, it's gonna be much more organized and specific and a lot less

painting colors on a map. Good enough is no longer good enough. We can do better. I love the public input part. I think that is absolutely essential and critical. I appreciate Kyle's time and love how much work he's put in. I think we need to be careful making... If anyone listens to this and says, well, we're worried about your time investment as much as it's appreciated, the intern versus the residential people who are living here permanently input. We need to sway towards that more than the inconvenience of time that's already been spent. Because if it's not what people want or if it's gonna cause problems for people who live here long term, we need... I think that needs to be the balance.

Understandable. I guess I gotta clarify. The bulk of Kyle's time was doing code research. Right? We didn't have him out there just like like a senior project, a thesis. Like, I think this is cool. We But it's getting any listening

or read this to get that impression. And we chose all of our master plans and gave them to Kyle and said compile this. And then

Well, and then we sent them out to other communities and said, go see what other communities are doing. And he'd come back and say, this is what they're doing. What do we think? And we would say, we like this. We don't like this. I mean, it was a collaborative process amongst the city staff. And then on top of that, he was doing state code revisions, not state code revisions. State code review. Wow. We got promoted. So making sure that our... The new zones that he's worked on were compliant with state code requirements. So, yeah, this wasn't like a like a senior project or capstone project, but him making it up. It was... The position was policy analyst intern. So he was really just checking for

code compliance and doing legal research for us. Thank you. That helps just clarify for the record for people. Anyone that comes back and watches us later, I thought it would be good to None of the close updates we present are just wild hairs. Right? I It's always implementing the general plan, implementing master plans, trying to bring all of these different aspects together. We're not just Or updating. Around going, how can we make this meeting interesting? That's Yeah. That's not our goal. Our Our code could be much more fun if that's what we're doing. Our direction from city council is take the general plan and start implementing everything that we should have been implementing, And that's our motivation.

I think including the public and not just informing them and working to educate them to convince them to our side, actually listening to what they have to say and incorporating it is gonna be the key factor. I see a flaw in a little bit of our our process and maybe the public input and incorporating it will help with that because what they can say at a public hearing is not the same as what they would want to say to city council. However, once it's in a public hearing... Because there's there's parameters for public hearing. Correct? It's fact... Finding a fact and things specific to it. Whereas things they would want to say to city council would not qualify under public hearing. But once it goes to city council, it's on the agenda and they can't talk about it. So where did they get to talk about it if we're following the rules technically? So our process kind of leaves the public out of the where this pub... What you're proposing, that's gonna bring them in. Yeah. And I'm brought in. I'm gonna disagree with that because...

Sorry. This is where we heard the public. Right? They've already spoke. Back in 2021 and 2022, the public came out and said, this is what we want. So, sure, our friends who maybe weren't involved with this or who are new to our city, I definitely understand how they feel like they weren't included, but that's why we do the general plan. Right? Every five to seven years, we get all the community together, as many as who want to be involved. We say, what do you want us to work on for the next five to seven years? And that's people's chance to come out and say, I want a library and burn the rest of the ground. And we say, great. Let's burn the rest of the ground and build a library. That's what the city staff's here for. Right? If we're out here with our own agendas, we're not doing our jobs right. We're supposed to be implementing division, the general plan, the city council, and sometimes the planning commission as well. Right? So I... Yeah. I do see For our new residents, I agree. I do see that there's a certain amount there. We have heard from them, and that's what the general plan is. And the concerns that were raised previously at

meetings are on their control growth, rural community field. Mhmm. Those are listed on it. And I almost think that our general plan kind of falls into, like, trust. You know, thirty years ago, it was recommended to review your family trust every ten years, and then went to every five years. And because of how fast things are changing with not just AI, but technology and laws, everything's changing so fast that now it's like, oh, you better refigure your trust every two, two and a half years. I think general plan every five would have been okay fifteen years ago, maybe even ten. But 2022 to right now, I'll bet you if you look at the proportion of growth every five years over the last thirty years, I'll bet you the last five exceeds the prior fifteen. I would I would put a little bit of money on that. I wouldn't put all my money on it, which isn't much anyway. But that being said, because of the pace of growth that we're looking at, I do think more than every five years. If it was 2022, in three months, we're 2027. I think we're probably hitting that boiling point in the community that we do need to look at that again. And this would generate that. Correct? Potentially?

Yeah. I mean, technically, by state code. By trickle down or up? One of the planning commission's primary responsibilities is the general plan. So if you guys don't like it, you're the ones to kick off an effort to review and start working on it. I'll just leave that. We don't have to get into it. But, yeah, I mean, a full redo, there's money available. There's different grant opportunities to hire a consultant. We could do a homegrown effort where we all kinda work on it over a few years. Part of the things that we have been working on, like, yeah, we'll do a piece by piece updates. Like, we updated the section for moderate income housing as required. We need to do an update to, like, our water conservation section. We need to add a section about transportation by state code. So a few updates we'll need to work on piece by piece. Now if you wanted to do a full rewrite of the thing, we could have something like we did last time, go after some grant money, hire a consultant, do a full public push. But that really needs to start with the planning commission saying, you know what? It's time. We should do this and making some kind of recommendation to city council that we need to we need to work on this. I think it's time because we're coming up on five years. I would caution against changing

and doing a total redo of the general plan too often because one thing we do as we move along, we do make adjustments to the general plan, but we don't change the overall the vision that we have for the plan. That... And unless the vision changes substantially, the only thing you're gonna do if you change it too often is you're never gonna get anything done. You know, there's not gonna be a a a goal. You're with your target. Yeah. Mhmm. It's like, here, we'll do a... We'll do an agricultural example. Why are your rows all over the place? Well, you told me to look at something and drive towards it, but the cow kept moving. So, yeah, we want straight furrows. We don't want to follow the cow. So

are we... Where is... The recommendation is what? Every... How often?

Five to seven. Eight to ten years, I think, is... Eight to twelve years is the recommended.

Last time we did this, they said you should be at least looking at it and probably making adjustments every five to seven. That's a state code. That's a state recommendation. It's not a state code, but the state was telling people you need to be looking at this and considering rewrites every five to seven and probably full redo at least every eight to 10, if not more frequently. Yeah. So, yeah, we are nearing the time where we should be probably opening... Like, I think council member Fowles and mayor Cox, they kicked off a thing this year. Every month, we were doing work sessions where they opened it up, and we went through sections of the general plan. I think a lot of you made it to those. So I think they were trying to push everybody to look at this and say, do we need to change it? Do we need to leave it alone? Are we okay with this? But this is the time to do that. We're approaching five years, so this is a great time to start really opening that up and looking at it and saying, is this still a valid... Like commissioner Moe said, if we're happy with the direction it's going, we shouldn't be... Just be full rewriting it for funsies. If we're hiring a consultant, it's very expensive. You know, we may wanna tweak some things. Yeah. Because

you realize that this this isn't getting this on the course that we wanna go, so let's correct course and go this way instead so that we do have those straight furrows Yep. Towards our destination. And, yeah, I realize that in, you know, seven to eight years or ten years after we did the the last rewrite, people are gonna be gone. Is this still the direction we wanna go? And those are hard questions. And... But you... If you don't look at it, you'll end up in a place you don't want either. So we do need to look at it. I'm never saying not to look at it. Yeah. There is an example.

So the previous general plan before this one, Mayor Cox had helped write in some of his previous terms, and him and I had a good laugh. We brought it up. When we were talking with our consultant and kicking off a general plan rewrite, we pulled out the old one, which was, like, a whopping nine pages long. And there was a whole section about agricultural feel, so I guess that's still something we're really concerned with. But it was funny because it said stuff like, we need to encourage our neighbors to have cows in their pastures and to be... If they have a farm, to be actively farming it. And everyone in the room just looked at each other and said, nobody's forcing anybody to farm anymore. This needs to go out. This is ridiculous. So that's a great example. We still want the rural feel, but we don't have people running full scale farming operations in our residential zones anymore. Those people are out in the ag zones kind of, you know, on the fringes. So... Yeah. But I do want chickens.

Chickens don't count. Especially roosters.

I thought we like the agricultural field. Don't you like being woken up? My neighbor has two ribs. I love it. Mhmm. Even the Roosters. Anyway, so sorry. That was kind of derailing your discussion item, but I just wanted to ring forward that this presentation will be given at the city council, and the city council is gonna be voting that we'll... We're gonna be presenting LDR become LLR, no lot maximum, and, yeah, put... Making it so that we can keep it moving. So, yeah, I don't... I guess, the plan... The city council talked about maybe sending this back to the planning commission. But after discussing with the mayor, he said, no. I think this needs to just keep moving. So don't be offended that it's not coming back to you, but I think that this is the appropriate path forward.

So what are you saying that what we... Where we recommended had a negative recommendation

to city council Yep. They're gonna vote on whatever you have now. So what we're gonna do is present this new and improved version that has no lot maximum because that was the big thing that we heard everybody hated. And the new title, large lot residential, which goes directly with what the general plan wants us to do, and then shift to the rest of the things that we had planned to match the same pattern. So leaving, you know, more openness in the code to have people be... Have... Exercising their property rights a little more freely and sticking more tightly with what the general plan recommends as far as the new zones.

So is this being held off until after the public input, or are they moving forward with a vote on it? No. Where they're moving forward with a vote on

LLR, and the rest of it will come after that. So the the rewriting of the rest of the zoning and everything else will be done in tandem with that future land use map update, and then the future land use map will be adopted at the same time as the other zoning codes.

So are they doing a public hearing on the new rewritten?

No. Not right now. No. The the city council tabled it with no clear direction on how to move forward, and so the mayor said, no. We we need to move this forward, and she's putting it back on the agenda for a vote. So the public hearing that came before you stands

Yep. Went to city council. They tabled it Right. For us to make some changes. We've made the changes. We're gonna ask them to untable it in VOTA. So what's the current code definition that's being proposed to city council next week? The definition? I mean, what's what's the verbiage? That's the that's the highlight. Right? We're calling it large lot residential.

And we're striking the entire the entire section about a lot of maximums. We're striking out no lot maximum. There's still the square footage, the potential for a minimum lot size, but we don't wanna go smaller than that. Okay.

So what... The minimum in LLR that's being proposed next week? It's the same as what it was. So 7,500.

Yes.

But there's no maximum. So if somebody wants to build one acre lots, you could build a one acre lot and... Or one acre lot subdivision in that LLLR. You wanna do half acre lots?

Great. Do you wanna go teeny, teeny tiny? No. You need to find a different zone. And it's I think 7,500 is teeny tiny. It's way tiny. I think that belongs more in the medium density, but not

low density at all. Except under land use of the stuff that we saw tonight, it says a mix of housing types in the same neighborhood.

I think we're gonna hit problems at the 7,500. Because that was never... I... Technically, this was never discussed in planning commission. It was 11,000 something, so this has never been discussed at any meetings. No. The 7,500.

75 was presented at... Before the public hearing.

It was it was published the day before the meeting because I zoomed in from Disneyland at that meeting. And I had a screenshot from that day before, and it was uploaded changing it from the 11,000 down to 7,500. The prior meeting that we had, we were talking about the 11,000. We never had a discussion about 7,500 until the public hearing day. It was uploaded the day before.

No. We did discuss 7,500 because that was... That's what it was all along.

Well, if you go back to the prior meeting, the prior planning, it was 11,000, and we expressed concern about that. And then when I zoomed in from Disneyland in September, that's when I looked at that and went, wait a minute. We never talked about 7,500. It was 11,000. And it got switched last minute. And that's why we tabled it because we never discussed that. When we only had it as a discussion item,

that's when we talked about the 7,500. When it came to public hearing time, I put the wrong red lines in, and that's why it said 1,100. But it was 7,500. That's what it's been

from inception. Okay. My memory is serving me wrong because I remember the prior plan commission back to the YouTube and watch the discussion. All of those discussions are are still online. I have to double check that because I was pretty certain that we were talking about eleven thousand. Then when it came up time for the public hearing, the day before it got switched to seventy five hundred, even if it was seventy five hundred somewhere else, we never talked seventy five hundred in the prior meeting.

And I maintain that we did during the discussion. Not during a vote, but only during a discussion. If you guys feel like it needs to come back to you for public hearing, we can absolutely delay it by another month and bring it back to you for for a public hearing. I do only because I'm really

pretty certain that we were not talking 7,500. Does anyone else remember 7,500

prior to the time when I zoomed in? Because I... What do you... Like, what's what's your purpose in bringing back here? Because it sounds like the complaints that they had have now been addressed. And so whatever you would vote is what they're presenting.

We take... At the time, we recommended no, but it was because... And I remember Heather made the comment, no, because this wasn't the number we were talking about prior. It was no because of the lot maximum. And the lot maximum as well. Yeah. But I think 7,500, we never had a full discussion on. I think that's way too small for for that to be the minimum on the large lots. That's not a large lot. That's a Sixth of an acre. It's a what? Sixth of an acre. I mean, that's a ridiculous square footage for a minimum. It... For our highest For the large lot. That's not a large lot. That's a medium density or high den... I mean, that's that's putting six houses on one acre. It's pretty... Which I think we're gonna have massive blowback if we try to push that.

You can say a third is probably the smallest you wanna go for a large lot. A what? A third of an acre is probably the smallest I would agree. Because you can't call that a large lot. That's a that's a medium density. So, again,

we're doing what the general plan is asking us to do, and the general plan asks us to make quarter acre lots the standard. So instead of just saying large lot is quarter acre, we're putting in that flexibility for people who wanna go a little more dense with their property. We're not saying you have to. It's a choice. Landowners don't have to do anything. Everything can stay just as it is for years and years to come. But if somebody wanted to exercise their property rights and provide homes for their children, then they could do that. And we're following what the general plan suggested. Quarter acre is the standard, and then we're giving some flexibility. We're taking away the max, so you could still stay at five if you wanted to.

So people could buy four...

They'd have to buy six cars. Taking away the option to combine lots. We're not taking away any of that stuff. Even a developer could come in and actually build a subdivision with different sizes and scope of lots. Right? Subdivision. Sure. You could have a one acre lot next to a couple of half acre lots. That's the reason for keep... Trying to keep it flexible. I understand that having the minimum be that small makes people nervous. But

I think I think it raises a lot of concerns because where are we gonna put that? Those aren't... Number one, those aren't large lots. Those are small lots. Number two, you can't put those in a location that's not in an artery road. Right. So, again, there's two steps to this process. Right now, we're creating the toolkit.

We're making options. Step two, we're deciding where they go. Right? So right now, we're creating the toolkit. Right. Step two is look at the maps,

get the public input, and say, where is this gonna go? But if... But based on the definition of LLR with 7,500, that's... I mean, that is a small lot. That's not a large lot. So you're talking that that's what's gonna end up happening in places that we don't have artery roads to get the traffic through safely.

Well, if you're you're saying we have to have artery roads, there's only two places in town we can start putting more houses at at... Yeah. I don't

know. Okay. But the further east you go and where you have That's where you need less cars on the road because no one travels east to go to work. Everybody travels west to go to schools and work. True. And I think we're gonna have a... I'm just saying, we're gonna have a massive blowback with 7,500 because that's not a large lot. We cannot call that a large lot residential if that's the minimum lot size. It's the smallest one. Right? I would agree with Mike that...... Go. Because we just want...... With Mike that LLR should be a third of an acre and up. And then our medium density could be the 7,500 up to under a third of an acre.

Yeah. I guess I disagree with commissioner Williams on this one. I'm going back to, like, I don't know what page it was. Number one was that hometown fill in. Number nine was being fiscally responsible. And we've... I just... I stand by that anyone who's... We've decided that... I mean, we've learned that a quarter acre is about what pays for itself, and anything bigger is being subsidized by anything smaller than it. And so anybody who's on a smaller lot than you is subsidizing us on bigger lots. I know that five years ago, all that we allowed was full acre and half acre, and so it's a slow process, and we're getting there. But I don't think it's fiscally responsible to have large lots. I get not restricting it, but I really like the mix. I think it's unhealthy to be heterogeneous, like, to have only large lots in a neighborhood. I know people want what they want, and they wanna live by other people who want what... How they live and what they want. But it's... I believe it's more healthy to have a mix of small and big and old and young. So I don't have a problem with the seventy five seventy five hundred. I don't... For me, it doesn't need to come to planning commission.

I appreciated the input from the public via email. I wish there was a way to make that public because our numbers got blasted. We have no basis for saying that large lots are subsidized by small, And I don't remember the name. Was it Dylan Nielsen? Somebody did some really good stats. I'm not a numbers person, but his numbers made sense. Councilman Fowles made a Venn diagram, which was countered in an email very thoughtfully. So I don't think we have a financial basis for making that statement. We have no study. I mean, you've got large lots that have very low

Well, council member Fowles also did a mini study. He took property tax data from across the city and showed that the larger a property was, the less per acre tax we were getting from it as a city. And I don't have that at my fingertips, but you can go to the box folder from that night. He put that in there, and he shared that with everybody. Additionally, Mikael and Kyle did pull data from the American Planning Association and shared that inbox for everybody.

In addition, you can publish a study, and I put it inbox today. So it's in this meetings box folder. I I did see that. I appreciate the public input. There's some really smart people in our community that have looked at the stats and data. Right. There's also

state and nationwide organizations that have looked at it and say that there's a tipping point. Right? It's not a linear thing, whereas we get more units, the city makes more money. There's a tipping point where once you reach a certain level of density, yeah, at that point, you're going beyond being fiscally responsible and you're having more public safety concerns. Your infrastructure reaches a size where it starts getting way more expensive to maintain and take care of. But generally speaking, going from a one acre lot to four units per acre or eight units per acre is a more fiscally...

It generates more money than having a one acre, two acre, five acre lot. But we've been... Just finished telling the public that it wasn't about money. It's not. Because we have very little part of the property taxes.

Right. But I'm hearing from the commission, do you think there's no basis for the data? I'm just telling you there's plenty of basis. Right. Of course. It's been studies many times. What we're doing is implementing the general plan, which says we want a mix of units, we want housing diversity. We want homes for our kids to live in. This is how we think we can do that. If we wanna stick to the one acre lots thing, and that's gonna be Hyde Park's thing forever, great. But we have to start talking about what are we gonna give up. Right? If people want to have Hyde Park be a mini county, fantastic. Let's have... Let's lower our road maintenance schedule and let the roads get a little bumpier before people start complaining. That's great. And we'll, you know, encourage people to drill their own wells. Fantastic. The the thing is, we as city staff are here to implement general plan and what the city wants. You tell us what you want, and we'll get you there. This is what we think the general plan says. This is what we were guided by when Mayor Cox was here. This is the direction that we think we're going. If this isn't it, you should tell us because we've

wasted a lot of time if this isn't where we're going. I just think that if we move that forward to actually to a vote as city council, it's gonna be a boiling point with the public because they assume it's tabled and we're gonna be getting public input before we vote on any of this, before any of it gets codified. And that 7500 was like

new year. Think anybody promised there'd be additional public input. Council member Fowles tabled it until there could be more discussion. With who? Between whom? I don't know. Just until there was more discussion. There's been more discussion. We have a solution for it. We're going to the city council next week saying this is what we think is good. The council can say, we agree. Sounds great. The council could say, no. Send it back. We don't like it. I don't know what the council's gonna say about it.

I do I have a comment. Yeah. Back to the the... No. The the cost thing. I've heard these things thrown around. I've looked at those charts. I think there's different pieces that have been done. I don't a 100% agree with what the councilman files did, but that's just one chunk of the big picture. And the whole picture together, I don't think I've seen anything that I think is comprehensive related to. K. Okay. So that's... So when people drop cost, I just don't wanna always put the caveat in there. You look at one one bite of the elephant, you get just that one little piece. So until the... Till we have the whole elephant put together, then we're we're only... We don't know what we're saying yet. But... And and I think what my only concern with the sixth of an acre is it just doesn't sound like a large lot. I don't think we need one acre lots. I I don't at all. And I wouldn't say we put that as a minimum or anything like that. It just seems like the title large lot doesn't fit a specific to change it to medium lot? Well, that that... That's what I'm saying. I don't know. I... That... It just doesn't... It it doesn't Average. It it doesn't Change it to average lot. Fine. You know what I'm saying? That's... A sixth of an acre is tiny. It's townhouse townhouse size. Right? It's not very cheap. I've had... I had a two tenths of an acre lot, and I thought it was tiny when I lived in Albuquerque. So six is smaller than that. So I'm just saying that doesn't fit the title as... Is the is the main thing. Because you're gonna have medium and high density eventually too. So, you know, you you haven't left much. But, I mean, if if it's it's not the hill to die on, I thought the upper end was the hill to die on. Yeah. So it's not my hill to die on, but it just doesn't fit the description. Yeah. That's all.

Well, I don't know. It's not you p It's a number. Argument about a title for another hour. Bottom line is this is what we're bringing to the city council next week. If you don't agree with it, I recommend you reach out to your city council members and let them know.

But it's gonna be an agenda item. So how do people let people know?

I mean, you guys reach out to your city council members and tell them that the planning... You know, I'm a member of the planning commission. I don't agree with this. That's appropriate to do.

Just one one more thing. This is just something that struck me as I was sitting here. Yep. A lot of times, we have hard definitions. One sixth of an acre and up is a LLR. Okay? Mhmm. I'm not disputing the definition. And then from that point to this point is a small lot residential. Can't we put, like, some fuzzy area in between the two so make the small lot a little bit bigger than the smallest larger lot? So you can have various sizes within a a single zone. Instead of everything being one sixth of an acre, maybe one's one fifth of an acre. And then the others are a quarter of... Or one eighth of an acre. I'm just saying that it it... One of the things that people don't like are cookie cutters. Right. And maybe that just providing that fuzzy area provides enough difference, so it's not a cookie cutter. It might. Does that make sense? Yeah. So So just an idea that the the city council can look at when they've... When they look at the definition of what's the difference between this lot and this lot Mhmm. As far as definitions.

Well, one of the things that Mikhail was probably gonna talk about is with this idea of having a work session at the next meeting instead of the next meeting is to kinda go over the plan for the rest of them and talk about what are we doing.

So I guess that could be a point of discussion at the work session. Is K. Is there an overlap? Is there other things we can do to fix this? Exactly what we want to do is shake out the standards for any other zones, give some examples of how they might look on the ground, how they might look in subdivision form so you guys could really see what we're getting into with these other zones. Yeah. But if we don't start somewhere, we can't build off of that. So we really do need to start somewhere, or we just need city council to tell us to ignore that part of the general plan, and let's work on something. Since we've got a workshops...

Workshop scheduled this month, why not have that workshop be talking about this? Remember Robert's rules of order and have the chair Sorry.

Recognize all of us before we talk over each other again as I've been doing.

I'd like to make a motion. Well, there's... That's the motion. It's just I'd like to make a motion that we move on to the next item on the the agenda. Which is adjourn?

That's the next item, then we

Yeah. I I think it's time to go. Yeah. I think we're gonna have time to talk about this next at our at our workshop. And that workshop is just for planning commission. It's not combined with city council. Is that correct? Or that's a... For us to decide if we want to invite city council?

Do you want me to talk, chair?

Marcus, will you respond to me, please? Thank you.

Yeah. I guess it's up to you. Really, it's it's a planning commission meeting, so, of course, you're all probably gonna be here anyway. But if you wanted to open it up for the city council, we could extend that invitation to them. Let them know they're welcome to come. We have to notice it, but noticing for a work session, we can do that within twenty four hours. So as soon as you know if you wanna invite them or not, let me know.

They're always invited.

True. Whether or not we allow them to participate is a whole another subject. Yeah. Do you tell... Will you... Maybe you can tell them that... Let's... We'll plan on this workshop, and can you just announce that at your city council meeting that we're having it?

And, yeah, they're welcome to come. There's a big difference. Right? In a work session, it is open to the public. It's an open public meeting, but the public isn't necessarily invited to participate. Right. So if you wanna invite the city council as residents, yeah, they can come anytime. Right. But if you wanna invite them as participating members Around the table. To notice it, that it is a work session for both parks For city council. As we noticed that way. Makes sense. K. Commissioners,

thumbs up if you want us to officially invite city council as workshop people, not just the public.

How many don't care?

K. It's just us. Call. Sounds good.

K. That's when you get paid the big bucks. Alright. Yeah. Love it. K.

Without objection, I move that we adjourn the meeting.

Yeah. You don't have to move. You you just Hey. We're done. We're done. Quit.