Hyde Park City Planning Commission 9.17.2025

We're waiting?

We ready? Hold on. Oh, see. Here I was ready to go.

Put that in there. Okay.

Doesn't happen often.

Happen often at all that we're all

What's that? It it's been a while since we've all Since we've well, since we've had five people here. Yeah. Yeah. It has. It's nice. Yeah. Now I can go more often.

Yes. Welcome, Charlene.

Thank you. We'll do that.

Mike wants you officially do it in a minute. Sure. It's On the side. Welcome. Alrighty. You were. Alright.

Welcome, everyone, and our guest to today's planning commission meeting for Hyde Park City. Today is 09/17/2025, and we are grateful for your being here. Recognize that currently all of the planning commissioners are here, which hasn't happened in a while, and we'd also like to recognize that we have a new planning commissioner, commissioner Williams. How does that feel? Commissioner Williams. Charlene Williams is our new commissioner, first time here, and she's done all the training to vote. So we're good to go with that. So we will continue on, And we're very grateful that you accepted this responsibility. And we we know that it may be just for a short time, and we'll see how that works out.

Thank you.

So we wish you the best in that too. Alright. We normally I it's not here. I'm guessing this is the call to order part or the opening remarks. But, Ned, would you be kind enough to lead us in either a thought or a prayer and then a pledge of allegiance? I would be kind enough to do that. Thank you very much. I should have done that prior. I apologize. No problem.

Our dear father in heaven, we're grateful unto thee for our many blessings. We're grateful for the the freedoms we enjoy and the comforts we enjoy. We're thankful to live in this community and for all the great people that live around us and are such great neighbors. We ask that his spirit will be with us now in this

planning and zoning meeting that we can discuss those things that are important to the city. Help us to, as members of the commission, be able to understand and and

know what the city would like us city population in general would like for their future city. Bless us also to be civil and respectful, and bless those in our community that might be suffering or need a special blessing. And me. As for these things humbly in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alright.

Let's move to the first What? I'm seeing things out of the corner right now. I was telling Marcus, nice setup out there. Move to the approval of the minutes from 09/03/2025. And were there any corrections or discussion that was needed on those? I didn't see anything. No. I I didn't remember. I submitted mine. Here, but you're welcome to vote on this also.

So I was here just out there.

K. Alright.

I'll make a motion to approve those minutes from September 3. We have a motion. I'll second that.

And the second to approve the minutes from this, September 3 meeting as they stand. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes from September 3 as they are, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Alright. And I've seen the agenda, and I haven't heard anything from anyone that would would have us remove anything or add anything. So we'll continue on. Do I have to request that from him, or do I do I approve it? Okay. See, I'm still learning. I've been here for a while, and I'm still learning how to do this. Okay. Miss Layton, would you please provide us a planning staff report?

So this is close to none. I'll use all of them. The update that I have for you is that I have two folks that have submitted to me their open and public meetings act certificate. So thank you for doing that. If the rest of you could do that, that'd be great to be in compliance with state code. So let me know if you need that training link again, and I can definitely send that out to you. And then when you get that little certificate at the end, just email it on over. It was not very long. That's short. Yeah. It's pretty easy. You just It used to be longer than that. So I'm glad it was short and sweet. And that's all I have.

Okay. We don't have any action items. We do have some discussion items. And excuse me. Those are just to discuss amongst ourselves. I think we've talked about a lot of these already, so they shouldn't be a surprise. I would imagine that once we're done discuss discussing them tonight, we'll have a public hearing on them.

We will make sure that we've covered all our bases and take into consideration your comments here tonight, then we will write up an official red line version and clean copy to send to the city attorney to make sure we're legal. Okay. And then it will come back to you for a public hearing and then to city council for a public hearing. Okay.

Now that's good to know the process. Thank you. Alright. The first do we wanna do all of chapter 12 at the same time, or do we wanna do them separately? Which is easiest?

We can do yeah. If we can go in order, I've kind of reviewed them that way. Okay. And it may not make a lot of sense on paper, but it they're not in order of importance or alphabetical or anything else. It's just kinda how they ended up. But the first one is revisions to title 12 chapter 40.

K.

And these edits are about the DRC. And right now, the changes that we have there are there was one small change in 1240.forty. We just added that any money that they spend should be accounted for in the annual budget, which is always good. And then at the end of this section, we that page. We are striking 12/4060 record of proceedings where it says the DRC shall keep public record of its proceedings that are filed with the city recorder. We're going to keep our DRC records in the application with which they belong so that when we go back into the files to find out exactly how we, you know, required them to do this, that, or the other, those records will be with the application they pertain to instead of in random city records of just the meeting. This is gonna bleed over into the code revision we have that we talked about already for changing the authority for DRC that they don't have to have that notice public and open meeting and be a land use authority so that we can process people's applications in a more timely manner rather than waiting for once a month to do that. Specifically, lately with business licenses that require site plan approval, Being able to just contact the DRT members that those site plans need recommendations or corrections from enables us to get those business licenses checked and approved and into the hands of business owners sooner rather than later. So this is one of several changes that will happen in the ordinance that affects DRC particularly. K. Do you guys have any questions about that? Hopefully, these are all very straightforward and make sense from the conversations that we've had, previous to this.

K. So and also, I think we had an email from Mikkel. I'm sorry? I I think we had an email from you discussing the procedure we should take. So I'm gonna make a motion. Except these are discussion items. What's that? Except tonight, they're just discussion items. So, normally, I would make a motion now.

Even before oh, yeah. Like, that would be after her. And then we would Get a second. Get a second

or discuss it. Yeah.

And and debate the motion. And debate the motion

rather than just

the q and a as random whatever. Talk in circles?

So Yes, ma'am. Yeah. I don't I don't have any problem with this. Does anyone else have any issues? I mean, this sounds like this is just like what we talked about, I think, a couple weeks ago. So

so This one's great. Easy. I mean, I have a problem with this, but I just have one question more than anything on the first membership section. I mean, is that membership limited to those people, or could you have other people on it? And did you want it to say, is it limited to these people? You said the other fluid. So that's that's my only question. Oh, no. That's interesting.

So it's not something we've really considered. The purpose of the DRC is to provide professional and technical advice Right. For the applicants. It's not really to look at, like, explore what ifs or, you know Right. Do thing. Like, the planning commission, you look at plans from, like, a code perspective, but you also look at it as a benefit to the city, the city council the same way. And so this board and this committee is made up of just the professionals who are looking for exact code compliance. Does it meet does it checks the boxes yes or no? If the city wanted to expand it, I mean, there's nothing that I know of in state code that limits who could be on a development review committee. Right. We're just trying to

make life a little easier for I'm all I'm asking is would you put a phrase in there that says shall include, but and is limited to or

So include at least these. At least these, and maybe you would have, like, a specials coming on traffic or something like that. Or, you know, so Oh, I see what you mean. At a yeah. Is this a minimum or a maximum or neither? You you don't I think that's what he's asking. Okay. Okay. Special Alright. If need be.

And, also, within the codes for the applications for the different types of subdivisions and projects, there are options for the zoning administrator. If we feel like we need a traffic study, we can ask for a professional opinion Right. For that. Right. That doesn't necessarily have to come from, like, a DRC member. We can go find a a third party outside of our regular process to do those types of reviews. Or we can require the applicant to do the traffic. Right. Usually, we make the developer do it, but, you know Yeah. But you might want your own to double check them, for example. Right. And that happens too. But we could easily

I mean, just say include, but it's not limited to Yeah. We could easily I mean, I'm I'm not saying you need to do that. I'm just asking questions that worth it if we do this while you're already changing this one this time?

That was the only thing I thought of when I read this through this. And I'm just leaving it up to you guys because you're gonna have to deal with it more than I am. I'll think about it a little more. We'll We'll throw it back to the attorney. Yeah. We'll make a little note that we might include that. I'll discuss it with the attorney. My only concern would be and I don't have a concern with the current city leadership, but the concern would be you may have a political motivation for somebody like a city council level to try to insert a certain person into the process. Right. And that would be my only reservation for leaving the membership open. I didn't like I said, I don't think that would happen with the current administration. Just cut it off and say, and is limited to. Okay. And, you know And a little. But we'll we'll talk about go either way is what I'm saying. We'll talk about it with the city attorney, see if there's a best practice or something we can take from the state code. Okay. K. That's all. Alright.

Any other questions, comments? Next.

Okay. But item b is consider revisions to the land use code title 13, chapter 10, section 65. That's actually in the subdivision chapter. And at the very end of this document, we are adding the provisions

that You went too far?

It's, like, on the third page.

I saw red lines right there.

Sorry. We should have practiced this. There you go. Right there. This adds the provision that we can get a survey, a title report, and an owner agent agreement along with any other application documents that we need. We wanna specifically add the requirement of the survey, the title report, and the owner agent agreement to make sure that we have a complete application that we can check for change of ownership, leans, easements, and that we have the correct property on the record that it Description. The legal description comes from a survey and not just some words on paper. So that's what this does.

I have a question on the title report. Is it referring to do you want to see their existing title insurance report, or do you just want them to go get a current preliminary title report showing Just the current preliminary title report that verifies

anything that could encumber the property or if ownership sometimes changes hands pretty fast, and we wanna make sure that we're dealing with the actual property owner and not have something questionable happen. Very smart requirement.

Any questions on this one before we move on to the next one, which is on another page? Well, we're just gonna scroll down in this same document. There's a few more changes on that page. The next page. Yeah.

Mhmm. That

I don't section is great. I have no problems with this. Does anyone else? No. I think it's fantastic. Speak up before we scroll. Otherwise, we're going. Yeah. We're gonna scroll, and there's no going back ever.

Yeah. So this the changes to this section, one of them is just formatting, adding the letter b in there, and then item c changes the process. Right now, the process in our code requires us to take payment at the time of application, which means that the applicant is then vested, and that starts a running clock for some of our subdivision applications, single family home and multifamily developments that starts that state code of the running clock, and you have ten days for this and fourteen days for that. And so we wanna make sure that our applications are complete and that we're not scrambling to get other documents, with a clock running. So what this change does is it makes sure that the zoning administrator, their designee, makes sure the application is complete and then requests payment from the applicant. This also prevents people from applying for something and paying for it up front and then finding out it's not a minor subdivision they need. It's actually a major subdivision, or maybe it's just a boundary line adjustment, and they got a little bit ahead of the game and now we have to refund someone's money, or they find out that they're not eligible to do the thing and now we have to refund their money. And so this I think this cleans up our process a little bit, and we're not just taking people's funds without making sure that it's actually for the purpose it's intended. And then let's see. The rest of that is technicalities like in f, where we kind of change that language to say an approved land use application remains valid only if the applicant moves forward with it in a reasonably timely manner. We kinda left that a little vague because there's always extenuating circumstances, and we don't wanna shut anybody out of getting, extra time if they need it. But we also don't wanna put a hard deadline on something that ties our hands as well. So I understand that reasonably is

Very open to interpretation.

Right. And that's the joy of having authorities on hand to make those interpretations for us.

Go ahead.

So additional clarification for this, we're not changing the content of f. The problem with point f is it doesn't we feel like it doesn't follow the state requirement of making sure the ordinances are easy to understand. We read through it, like, three times, and even those of us who read the code on a daily basis were like, I don't think this means what we it's supposed to mean. So the reword is, number one, to have that clarity to really understand it. But number two, this pretty closely matches. It's not word for word, but it closely matches the state's requirements. The state has equally vague language in their process and their requirements. And it's interesting. I was in a meeting with a group on Monday, and it sounds like the state legislature is gonna try to tackle that definition this session. So come May, we may be changing this again to match whatever they come up with. But for now, we would just wanted this to be a lot clearer for the everyday person.

Less interpretation.

Well Yes. My preference would be you get rid of reasonably, and you def define what timely manner is. And I would even say, do put a hard fast time in there, but allow for an extension if needed.

So there are there are some in our different codes. Like, the mixed g zone has an expiration date. A lot development agreements get an expiration date built in. A lot of the site plans get, you know, after six months or so, they're not valid anymore. It varies application by application, but we just want this general disclaimer was already in the code, so we just wanted to make it real easy for people to understand. And this is Then do we need to refer

them to the proper code as far as the length of the validity?

So most people will find that out as they go through their process. Because, like, if they apply for site plan, we're gonna point them to the site plan code. And at the end of the site plan code, there's gonna if it exists, there's gonna be a specific thing that says your approval is only good for six months if you don't move forward. And I probably shouldn't be throwing those numbers out because I don't know if that's the the site plan code. But for mixed use, I know it's a year. So

you would have to be good for a year. Yeah. I had the same thought just like if, you know, some and I don't know. That make that helps a little bit there. But, yeah, thinking in court, it can be you know, one can argue this is totally reasonable, and the other side can argue, well, this is totally reasonable, and they're not the same thing. But each side thinks their argument is reasonable.

So Depend on the application. I think the whole thing's involved with it. So reasonable is

Right. So you guys deal with it on a daily basis. If you're okay with it being vague like that for you and them to decide what reasonable is, yeah, go ahead. I have the same concern.

Sure. Could we add after that reasonably timely manner and according to application requirements based on the type of application? Just in case someone wants to come in and say, hey. I'm following this, but not the other. That way, we're combining them. Just a thought.

I like that suggestion.

I have another can of worms to throw out. Grenada. Grenada is what I call it. What if you just put on when you approve it, there's a blank on there that says for this kind of thing, we're gonna give you a year or whatever it is when they get it. And then that's that's what their starting thing is, and you can they can be redone, you know. Because it's like you said, it's different for everything. But when you sign it to approve it or whatever, you've given them what that is upfront. One I don't know. One is there one way to maybe get around. Once I agree with Melinda that you're just gonna be pointing each other. I'm reasonable. No. You're reasonable.

Once their application is deemed to be complete by you or your designee, is there a formal process that you send them saying, okay. Now you have to pay, and, oh, by the way, it's only gonna be good for?

That's exactly what we do. We send them a communication that says we have deemed your application as complete. Congratulations. You now pay. May pay your fee, and then we outline next steps. Next steps will include, you know, going to DRC. And then once that's complete, you'll go to planning commission. We give them we don't wanna give you know, please read the entire code to find out what's happening. We we try to give them that information up front. That's not the time that we say once it's approved, you only have, have, you know, x amount of time. But when it comes to final approval, we can definitely add that to their letter that says, you know, code for if it's a subdivision approval, we can add that that you have one year to record your final plat. Or

K. So I guess now we're looking at two different things. We're looking at the process to get to final approval and then the process to start start the project. And There's lots of moving pieces there for these. Process to end the project. Mhmm. Because those are all different for

the time that's required. And the fun part is that the state has different timelines depending on what type of development it is. Like, a residential, single family, or multifamily development has specific time frames that we can't we only have so many days to do a review. Right. And then once the review is done, like, we can't add new things onto it, and there's a very specific time time restraint. And then once that's done, the approval is only good for a certain amount of time, and that's spelled out in state code. But state code is a little less specific on stuff like a large commercial subdivision where we gotta figure out where, you know, the giant box stores are gonna be plugging in their utilities, and we gotta have them all run a specific water model and other things. So there's some of these approvals can take a year or more to do. And so Okay. This is kind of like saying, if we're doing that commercial subdivision and we've sent the applicant back all the water info and we're like, yeah, your plan will work, but now we need you to send us all the sewer info so we can make sure that functions. And then eight months later, they're like, hey. We're back. We're ready with that sewer info. We can reach out to them and say, k. Your time's up. And then they have to justify what took them so long.

K? Yeah. And I think as long as there's no burden on the city, you know, because it for for some of those steps, the city doesn't care how long they take from when they submit that application to when they appear before DRC. There's no burden on us. We're not holding anything for them. So I can see how, for a lot of those, that doesn't matter.

The time being that can change from application to application. And

with the state codes being the way that they are and the shifts that are being done, typically, you don't have people doing an actual application unless they're serious about it and gonna make it through to the end of the process. With the you know, us having a city planner now and somebody for somebody to come in and just bounce ideas off of and have a discussion, that helps a lot to filter these things. So somebody doesn't get into the system and realize, oh, we can't do this, and then they gotta there's a complicated process to get them uninvested from that. Right. And so this is really the exception, not the rule. Since I've been here, we've only had one project reach out and say, hey. I'm my approval is about to expire. I need to renew that. And they they did have a good reason. It was about financing, and they sent us a letter explaining what happened. And we said, yeah. That that's a good reason. And so we extended their approval. But this is a pretty rare case for us. Well,

I also see a lot of townhomes that have been approved, and they're not seeing a lot of work. Or and then I see for sale signs on the property saying, hey. We're selling this as a project, as a development. Mhmm. Right. But a lot of those things that got approved got approved with some conditions to upgrade some engineering.

So right now, most of those applications are finishing those little conditions that we put on them. So they're still making reasonable progress. And they're no longer subject to this, are they? I mean, isn't it No. They have their own timeline? They would be subject to the expiration dates in the mixed

use zone. Yeah. Whatever zone they were attached to. K. Yeah. So they're beyond this step. K. Yeah. We beat this pretty good. You sold me. Okay. And we beat this rolling. We've heard enough? Mhmm. I think so. Are you satisfied?

Yes. Okay.

Alright.

Great. Okay. We are moving on to item c. This one is not a revision. This one is a repeal of title 12, chapter 30, section 30. Are you not are we not doing the table at this point? The table's later?

Yes. It's the la it's h. Yes. It's later. Okay. It's item h on the agenda. Come on. Well, it's on this same document, though.

That designation of land use authority at the bottom of that one.

Didn't already talk about that. I think we did talk about that almost.

Okay. So just to clarify, there's no we don't have a local appeal authority anymore. Like, we had Brent Kelly or we had

So now it's it's still a local person, but it's a professional attorney. So we've contracted with a land use attorney in Logan to be the appeal authority. And the reason for doing that is it's nice to have a local person who knows a lot about our history and everything, but, really, what the appeal comes down to is is the city code robust enough to justify the decision that we have made. And so the the state standard is to have a attorney an actual professional attorney who's not affiliated with either party to do the appeal process.

So is he the hearing officer that's listed in this table under appeal authority, or what's that title for the for a local attorney?

So that would be appeal authority. Hearing officer and we only have a hearing officer.

Sorry. At the at the bottom of this document that we were just in Yeah. Under appeal authority

Oh, yep. The district court.

Yeah. It's not the on SPUDs members. So we need to update that because hearing officer is an old thing that we don't do anymore. So we just need to change that to say district court for those ones. So a lot of cities will have, like, appeal authorities for some of these things, but some of these things are really big, and I they probably just need to go to district court.

Okay. But these and then that county boundary commission, I haven't heard of that, but that's just and that's just on annexations. Well, and knowing our county, I don't know if they have one. So Yeah. Is that a real thing? Okay. But then you've got highlighted, like, the residential single family town fam town family or townhomes projects and no listing on that. But we're not talking about that right now. Is that what you're saying? Correct.

Okay. What we did talk about previously is the section that says final plat and minor subdivision where we were changing the review authority, and we were changing the taking the DRC away as a land use authority. Right. You guys remember that description? Yeah. Yeah. That was kind of a bigger discussion because it was a bigger deal, but we decided that city staff would review the application. DRC would be the recommending body, and then the zoning administrator would be the land use authority for those.

And I think that is the only So we're not talking about the orange highlighted tonight.

No. And I'll specify the orange is actually highlighted in the code in the table just to help easily see Separation. Different sections. Okay. It's not highlighted for revision. It was just That's a like, an exactly. Title. That's a section, and the parts of it are underneath it. Yep. Section here. It was done in I knew that. Separate out and easily find the different sections.

Okay. I'm with you. Yeah. There is something bolded that I didn't know. There's some weird formatting that we do not love, but we're not trying to mess with that. Not gonna ask that formatting. Microsoft Word and stuff like that.

Okay.

Thirty thirty. Alright. So here we are at 123030. This section of the code actually is, in some ways, in conflict with the new state code for subdivisions. Especially that's why I highlighted item d is the one that gives us the most pause that new parcels what this part of the code does is it encourages people to go in and make their subdivisions happen through deed recordation. They just get a meets and bounds description and then deed a piece of property over to someone else to split their lots, and that's

not the process. Like, where they go to the county and they don't contact the city at all Exactly. Which is legal.

It may create legal. They may create a nonconforming law, but it's legal. Correct. And we've had that happen often enough that we have several undevelopable parcels in the city right now. And so we want to discourage this process of just go down and split your lot. And then when you're ready to develop, come back, and we'll do the subdivision process correctly. Because sometimes most often, there's infrastructure and things involved that are put in place during the subdivision process. And once these properties are split, who wants to come back in and be told that they have to pave a road or put in a sidewalk? They're they're most likely not gonna come and do that, and that's what we found to be the case that we get a, a building permit or a business license on a piece of property that we didn't even know had been split. Marcus and I did go to the county, and we signed up to be notified when those kind of things happen now, and we're supposed to get an email when a deed is recorded in that way. And

Right. But the county has told us that they're not gonna stop doing it because they're not gonna go to each city and thing pack everybody's code. At least they're letting us know. And then the state code over boundary line adjustments

now says that you have to get your municipality sign off before K. Your boundary line adjustment or your lot line adjustment can go through. So things are getting better, but this part of our code encourages people to create lots that end up being undevelopable or that they've already split and then find out that they have to put in irrigation and water lines and roads and sidewalks, and and they wish they hadn't done it at all. And so we just wanna prevent these problems in the future. We don't wanna encourage wildcat subdivisions that are created that way, and that's what we call them in Arizona. Is that not what you call them here? Oh, sorry.

Well, I think the lady is it.

The anyway. Maybe you should call it back here. I I understood what you said. We, yeah, we ended up with a lot of subdivisions that didn't have any kind of infrastructure because you just go down and split and split and split and with no oversight. So what we wanna do is just repeal this whole section and leave it as reserved.

This whole section as in all of d?

A, b, c, d, e, and f. It's fairly new. I think Mark Lynn made this, like, five years ago. Okay. So I have an example of this. So just up the street, we have Merla Thomas. She has a few acres. She's got horse property in back. She made it to a 100 and passed away. Her kids now have the house. I think one of her grandkids are gonna buy it. Her neighbor across the street has the horse in back. Right. And so Maureen is the neighbor. The the family is now willing to split that and sell her just that horse pasture behind. And so she was asking me about it. I said, yeah. You can do that. But because you don't you know, you'll even if they give you, like, the road to it, you know, that dirt road on the side of the house to access, you don't really have enough frontage, so you'll be creating a nonconforming lot, which if all you care about is kicking keeping a horseback there, maybe fine for you. There's a shed there, so you can you can update that shed. You can't make it any bigger. Is that correct? Like, she couldn't increase the footprint of the shed. She could redo it with the same she's like, well, no. Because I do wanna put a new shed on there, and I do wanna make a bigger one. I said, I don't think you'll be able to do that. Correct. You can't improve a nonconforming

lot or Yeah.

Does she have property that

that butts up against this lot? No. Her property is not adjoining. Hers is across the street. Hers is across the street. Okay. So that that becomes an issue then. Yeah. So, really, there isn't a way for her to get this horse property

and There's always a way. There's always a way. You just need to do it the right way, whether it comes down to a rezone, whether it comes down to Just to A minor subdivision, whether it comes down to a easement for use or something like that. There's lots of ways to for property owners to do the thing they wanna do. We just wanna do it the right way where they're not creating landlocked parcels or parcels that can't be developed, and we certainly don't wanna have provisions in our code that encourages them to not do them the right way. Yeah. I feel like if she didn't I mean, all it would be is an easement, and then it would be a landlocked

parcel. So she really does need the frontage. Right?

Yeah. Isn't really The ordinance that Mark Lynn worked on, I was pretty new to the city when that got developed. And from what I can recall, it was was made in order to help facilitate, for example, like, there was a lot of agricultural land around Hyde Park, and there were, you know, older historic families who had lots of farmland. And then the head of the family would pass away, and they leave the farmland to the kids. And the kids would wanna split it up and let each person do with the land whatever they wanted. And so the city made a way for those parcels to be split. And then after the fact, they could come in and, you know, apply for whatever they wanted to do with their property. Now the problem that we found is since this has happened a handful of times and we've have these things just occurring around the city, they caused way more problems than you think because sometimes they're splitting off pieces of property that were already included in existing subdivisions. A lot of the times, there's severe lack of infrastructure, and then the parcels get sold. And somebody walks up and says, I want a building permit, and we say, well, you can't because that parcel was illegally subdivided. So now you, mister new property owner, are in charge of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for all this infrastructure when you just paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the property. You thought you could build on right away. Right. And so it helps out the residents more than anything else. A lot of people think it's the government just being nitpicky, but a lot of the sense of helping people who are trying to acquire property to do something with in the city.

Instead of buyer beware. Yeah.

Our intention is also to modify the minor subdivision process so that it covers this kind of situation where you do if you do have a big parcel of land that does maybe doesn't need any improvements at this time and you just wanna split it for inheritance purposes or gift purposes or what have you, we wanna modify our minor subdivisions so that it would work this way and still give people parcels of land that are developable developable That's fun. But that don't require so much infrastructure or so much paperwork. And so we're giving we're creating an alternative for this Okay. That I think will be much better. So we're not just striking it and never talking about it again. We're actually gonna make a way for this to work better.

Yeah. Because the other question I then had looks like, let's say they even gave her enough frontage, then everybody has to put in sidewalk, curb, and gutter because they're splitting it because that's what this says. Right? Yeah. Alright. I'll tell her to come in. I know. I'll tell her to come in again. So She loves you guys even though her face doesn't show it.

Any concerns or reservations with repealing something instead of just revising it, particularly this section of code?

What gets followed in the meantime?

I'm sorry? What would what what governs in the meantime? The regular subdivision process. Mhmm. Okay. Let's see. Now we're at title 12, chapter 30, section one ninety. I believe so. ADUs. Twelve thirty ninety. Okay. That worked out, mate. So what we've done here is just strike the requirement for the conditional use permit for an ADU.

Both kinds. Any kind. Mhmm. Nice.

The right thing to do here in this situation would be to maybe add some things to the development standards for ADUs, maybe beef up the ADU ordinances a little bit, but requiring a conditional use permit for something that is allowed by state code and by our own ordinances seems cumbersome and wasteful for property owners and for the city. So

Yeah. And I agree with beefing up the ordinance because I know yeah. There's someone around the corner who's doing a detached ADU, but they wanted a little more space than that. Is it still limited to the thousand feet of living space? What's a thousand? It's a thousand. And they wanted a little more than that, so now they're building a huge walkway to connect the two houses just so that it seems like an addition instead of a d a d u. There's lots of ways to get around. There's a thing called additional living space,

a detached bedroom. That's one way to get a building code allows stuff like that. So people do things like that. People as long as it's attached by some kind of roof, then it's part of your house. There's a way to get around everything, and we're not really trying to force people to do anything like that. We're just actually trying to make it easier to do Right. The the normal thing the normal way. Right.

Yeah. I just yeah. And I know when we made that thousand square foot limit, it was so that people didn't like, if they have an older small home at the front of the road, we didn't want them to sell that or use that as the ADU and then build their McMansion in the backyard. That was the reasoning behind limiting that ADU to the thousand square feet. But, like you say, people are gonna figure out how to do what they want. And we wanna we wanna make it okay for property owners

to to use their property the way that they think they or the way that they need to. Yeah. And we also want to allow these ADUs to happen in a legal and organized manner so that we can provide some moderate income housing for folks, but so that it's not,

such a cumbersome Yeah. Less red tape. Awesome. I love striking the conditional use permit.

I have a on the ADUs, and sorry if I'm the only one that doesn't know this, are we encouraging that to help the city with having additional moderate income housing? Does it count towards that? So it does not. Oh.

Not yet. And maybe the the quick version is for the moderate income housing plan that we submit to the state, the only thing that counts is whatever we list in the plan as things we want to count towards that. K. ADUs is an option, but Hyde Park City does not have that option in our selected strategies. So one of the things that we want to do as soon as we hear back on the most current report if we're compliant or not, and that's behind us, We have a goal as city staff to work with the state and figure out how we can modify our menu items, as we like to call them, to potentially remove some of the ones that aren't really working for us and add on some of these ones like ADUs.

So in the future, it absolutely could help us with that compliance. That would I would love to see that just because having lived in a different area, that became one of the better solutions instead of doing high density. It counted. It took a lot of it out of there, so you had single family residences. They removed a lot of red tape and said, look. We're looking to encourage these ADUs. So here's what we're gonna do for you guys if you're willing to put it in. We've got deadlines. Tons of people took advantage of it. They're like, you're gonna waive this requirement and this requirement, and it it put it on them. And it helped check the boxes, and it kept the single family feeling without adding too much density in the area.

Yeah. I still, like, relate. When I was in the office and a guy came called in and was complaining about his neighbor that he thought might do one of these ADUs, a detached one, and he was asking about it. And he was pretty upset about it changing the whole feel of the neighborhood and what's it gonna do and what's gonna happen. I tried to explain things and talk him down, and he was like, okay. Okay. I think I get it. And then he about five minutes later, he called me back again, and he said, what if I wanna do one of these?

And it usually keeps a better feel. It's on a property where you've got a principal resident. You know, it's a primary residence for somebody. And so if you've got a primary resident, they're very responsible who they put on their property more so than more transitory types of housing rentals.

And a clarification, ADUs are only considered valid ADUs if the property owner lives in the primary residence Okay. Good. Or at least on the property. So the primary owner could go live back in the ADU and rent out their big house in front, but the primary owner has to live on the property for it to count as a valid ADU. That's a good

requirement. Yeah. Do you know in where you live, did they divide the property?

Mm-mm. Okay. So the owner owned the whole owned both. Yeah. Okay. And they tried starting to add one from the state, was trying to override local for a while, and it just caused chaos saying, yes. You can subdivide. And they're like, well, wait. Well, then what about the parking? And when you go to buy that principal residence, they may not want to have a different owner in their backyard. Right. So that got pulled back really fast. Okay. K?

Alright. We are on to item e.

That is back on that one. You say may be allowed. Is there a reason we have may on that? Accessory dwelling units may be allowed? Do we not just say they are allowed on line two of a?

They may be allowed if they meet all of the conditions Okay. In the development standards. Notes. K. Like, setbacks and

size or crimes and things like that. K. Otherwise, they're they're not like your friends.

Your friends. Alright. I'm done. Oh, sorry. I really will eat. Alright. Now item e.

This is title 12, chapter 10 again. We're down to the very the very bottom of the page where the break is a little higher. Right where the break is. Perfect. 121060 is where we're at. Site plan shall be required for any of the following uses unless expressly exempted from such requirement by another provision of this title. What we're changing here is we're striking the word multifamily from residential use and making sure that all residential use has some kind of site plan. As you well know, building permits come in with a site plan and as they should. This just makes sure that all of our uses are getting a site plan looked at as part of the approval process. Our intent is not to make every residence go through DRC to get their site plan reviewed and approved. However, there are some developments with infill and slopes and drainage and stormwater, etcetera, that may need a better review than just your basic building permit site plan review. And so we want to be able to give them that deeper review if needed. This little small change just allows us to require site plan for single family homes for as you always do, but this is just making sure that land use code is reflecting that.

So are there some uses we don't require a site plan for? Single family homes. But we're saying any residential use. What?

We are we will now. Yeah. What about one the one idea, Adi? Do you need to because I always help review review the site plans when they came in for before you got here. Sometimes they would like, an accessory building, and then they wouldn't and we couldn't check it unless we went back to them and said, hey. You gotta give us some We need a site plan. But I don't see accessory building listed on your thing. Do you wanna include that? That would be the residential use.

Oh, residential Yes. It would be an accessory to the residential use. So when it's time to do your ADU, we're gonna need a site plan so that we can see where on the property you're putting this ADU and does it meet setbacks, and is it, you know, providing the parking, etcetera, etcetera. So nowhere in our land use code did it say that single family homes and ADUs and accessory structures have to provide that site plan even though you're not, you know, you can't approve a building permit without reviewing the site plan. So this just allows land use code to say that all of these uses

require that site plan. So why not just say all uses?

We didn't wanna five. I didn't wanna overstep and add all kinds of verbiage when I could just strike the word multifamily. K. I wanna make some changes, but I don't wanna make sweeping changes. Not yet.

So it's syncing this is syncing the language to match what's actually happening. Yes, ma'am. Exactly.

Do you need to include, like, churches and parks or anything like Institutional?

I guess that's not listed on here.

You're right. It's not. It's kinda bad. What's what's number six? One point so Oh, you're right. It is

is six on there? There's no six listed.

Okay.

I think I looked it up, and that is the last one. Because on this document, it says and, and I think the next one is institutional. I think I did look that up. Like, and what? That's not a complete Oh, did we not go all the way down the page on that? And so I think it is institutional.

Are you looking at the next one's the professional use, industrial, or warehouse use manufacturing?

The next And then it says 5¢. Right. But again, look in our Oh, and in our existing in our existing codes. Like, they copied part of this out of our code. Missing whatever came out. But in the whole code, what does it say, Marcus? They just cut and paste. Faster. Faster.

Number six says any institutional use.

So it's it's Look at you predicting that.

You were like, I have to catch.

Well, and maybe we have to take that to say Gotcha. Public or institutional to match our public institutional zone. I like it. Good. I'm sure you use it. Good call. Kate. Good job, Ned.

Let's now we're at f twelve ten thirty five, which is at the top of that range. So kind of the same thing. We want to change the wording in our ordinances to match what's actually happening. And what's actually happening is site plan review, not development plan review in a lot of these cases. When I first started here, it took me several days to wrap my head around the difference between a development plan review, a development agreement, and there was one other develop development plan, development review, development agreement. There was a whole lot of plan CRC development plan. Going on. I did. But, really, the thing we're talking about here is site plan review. And it says development plan review for commercial and industrial goes to DRC, planning commission, and then zoning administrator. That's the process for site plan review in the ordinance. When you pull up the ordinance twelve ten sixty that talks about site plan review, it says a site plan shall be required for any of the following uses unless expressly exempt from such requirement by any provision of this title, and it lists all those uses. So this is making sure that twelve ten thirty five reflects what we're actually doing, which is site plan review, not development plan review. So we're gonna just change the wording on that to say site plan review and then remove commercial and industrial. And then, the site plan review ordinance will tell you all the uses that it's for. It seems like a very small change, but I'm telling you, it took me I I could I went and went through code, and I couldn't find the words development plan review anywhere, and the only place they exist is in the development agreement section. So It helps to have new eyes. Thank you. We're definitely gonna clarify as we go, but we do wanna make sure that what we're doing matches code and that code matches what we're doing. Okay. That was twelve ten thirty five. Now we're at 1210Secondtion40, which is just the next little section right there. This is just another section of code that speaks to applications requiring a title report, a survey, and an owner agent agreement, and the fact that we're going to wait to pay our fees until after the applications have been determined to be complete. So this is the land use side of that where before we were talking about the subdivision side of that kind of. So this is just the other place in code where that's talked about. Alright. Let's go to the land use table. If you guys will remember, we also talked about short term rentals and if we needed to consider where they belong, if that's something that belongs everywhere, if that's something that belongs in certain places. In your backyard, Ned.

It may be something good parties going on up the street from us. Yeah. That's true.

So there's things to consider, right, when it comes to short term rentals. And they just because you're not a a resort community doesn't mean you're not going to deal with that at some point. And so we can definitely sit down and decide if short term rental is something that needs its own zoning that you have to have an overlay for it, and you come in and get a rezone for short term rental overlay for your property. Or if it's something that we determine is a wide swath overlay that, you know, as a community, we decide this is the part of town where short term rentals go. There's a lot of different ways to do it. But for right now, we want to consider the use side of it. Right now in your code, short term rental uses are allowed in every residential zone. It's actually called VRBO, which is very specific. But what I think this is just referring to is residential style

short term rentals. Is it verbal or brand name? Yes.

There's Airbnb. So, really, it's in the right section. It's short term rentals that would not be commercial. It would be in residential areas. And so the table does show that that is a permitted use in every zone, ag, in all of the residential zones, and in mixed use as well. And we did talk about and also mountain recreation, which we don't have any of you just yet. But we did talk about how in some of those development agreements we've been looking at. One of the provisions was that these townhouses can all be used for short term rental. Is that something we wanna continue to do? Or if if everybody's comfortable with that, that's great. But this this might be a time to consider changing the use table and where these kinds of things are allowed. So right now, townhomes

as it stands, all of them could be used for short term rentals? Any any house in the city could be. Okay. They have to get a business license and

and have a site plan that shows where you're parking and etcetera, etcetera as they have to follow land use code for that. But there's not a lot of rules and regulations in place about what your short term rental has to look like, that it has to be buffered or screened or

things like that. So If we want townhomes to help with with affordable or moderate housing costs, make it affordable for young families, one of the things I've seen in the past is you have corporate landlords come in and buy up a ton. And it really takes it away. It takes them out of the affordable housing because then it's not available for purchase. They're just making a whole bunch of rentals. You have a much more transient population. Is there any consideration, for high density, like townhomes and condos of saying a certain percent only a certain percent can be rentals. You can't say zero because you're gonna have someone fight you I don't know if we can on that. But if that's in the if it's in the development requirement somewhere, then anyone that goes to get a loan, their lender's gonna run and check and see how many are currently rent non owner occupied.

And And you can do development where you say, you know, the a certain percent of these are gonna be deed restricted for low income or deed restricted for ownership only, or you can do those kinds of things. We haven't done any of those in our development agreements, and so we don't have any that exists that way through any kind of restriction. K. The only tool we really have right now is this land use table. And if if we need to consider some changes to that, then we're open for that discussion. So my daughter does live in a resort town, and

they have limited theirs almost like we have alcohol licenses. They just allow so many. And so if you're in, you're in. If you don't use it for a couple years that way, then it expires and someone else can jump in. But there's a limited number that can exist in the city. So that would be another way to limit it. There are definitely

lots of different ways you can write your short term rental ordinance. There's a lot of legal implications. There's state law. There's federal law. There's HOA considerations. Writing a big ordinance will take some doing, and we can definitely do that. At this moment in time, the the easiest and quickest discussion if you want if you do desire to make changes is to the use table itself to be followed by a rewrite of the short term rental ordinance.

We tried to write one of those. We brought in the guy from Bear Lake or started with Their compilations. Theirs was they had so many and they dealt with it so much. That was a big mess. I don't think we ever passed anything. Who else We did pass something. We have a section on short term rentals. We do. And that's

kind of the problem. So all of the in the land use table section, you can see that says short term rental slash v r v o is the p with the asterisk, which means it's permitted both very specific conditions in the ordinance, meaning our short term rental ordinance. Yeah. That's where it has, like you have to have a business license. Right? You have to have business license. You gotta have parking. You there's a whole bunch of factors that we take into consideration when looking at these site plans. Now the problem is we haven't specified geographic location or limit of any kind. Right. So in theory, if every person in the town decided to line up outside the city tomorrow and hand in their application for short term rentals, there's nothing stopping us except site plan requirements from saying yes. Right. So what we're proposing is, let's maybe change that p asterisk p star to say something different until we can modify that ordinance and put some guard risk. Star mean? Permitted under Under certain circumstances.

Right. Okay.

Object to the short term rental ordinance that's in.

Yeah. Right. Basically, conditional use permit without the government oversight.

So maybe just in Ned's backyard for now, and then later, we can update it. Yeah. Put it in his house. They they need bigger speakers is all I can say because

they're only two blocks away, and I can barely hear it.

Well, good. Because we hear all the parties in this basement at my house. I know.

Yeah. Staff staff doesn't have a demand or an opinion or a desire either way. As I spent the last two years in Moab, as you guys are aware, I just saw the effect that short term rentals can have on affordability for Right. Folks like your local workforce, your teachers, your police officers Yeah. Your city workers, your we've got two new schools in our area, and will the teachers who work there be able to afford to live close you know, be have a walkable administrator afford to live here yet?

No. Well, I mean, I think we need I need to think you need to fix it. So I could I I'm I'm for fixing it. I We're we're open to discussion about how that how you guys would like that to look. I'd like limiting whether it's a number or a percentage. You know? I mean, as we grow, then maybe you would allow more, you know, instead of a hard number of 15 or 50 or whatever it is. Sure.

So there's So if you look at this table and you consider what each where each of these zones are and what goes on in each of these residential zones, is there a particular zone where you think that short term rentals are not appropriate for that for anything zoned that? Residential core, you guys know, is around this downtown area. Our two is what is makes up most of the residential parcels in the city. I'm right here, Ned.

As you look at this table, I'm right here. You're right here. You know what what zone I live in. Right? You're RC. Right?

Well, I I mean

I don't I don't mind having it the

I mean, it's it's worst. Yeah. I I mean, it's just a temporary fix. So, I I mean, I would say put x's on all of them till we get it fixed and then bring them back, but that's probably not what you can do. There's No. Because there's some existing ones. Right.

Right?

There are some existing ones, and you can't take away that right from a property owner. They would be folded in.

How often do we get applications? How many do we have approximately in the city? Legal.

So right now in the city, I think And do we the last tally was we have four that are fully legal with the business license. They get their annual inspections done. We know there's probably about four or five others that are in operation that are not legal. Our code enforcement officer is just now kinda diving into those cases. We have one where we issued a cease and desist letter to them today for operating without a business license, and we're shortly gonna be tracking down the rest of them. So we've got nine or 10 around the city that we know of. I'm sure there's more, but it's it's not a huge problem now. We're trying to get ahead of it before it becomes a problem. So this is a perfect time to do it Yeah. Before it's

Well, I can tell you that I I know it's not for the next few years, but there's this big event that's gonna be happening in Utah in the wintertime in a bunch of years. Everyone's gonna want to leave and maybe rent their house out and make lots of money while while they're getting away from me. And we'll have a thousand more houses or more by that time. So and I don't know if if that wants you know, you wanna say, hey. If you wanna go, go Except during the Olympics.

We have these Olympics except during the Olympics.

Yeah. I hope we can get a really good ordinance done in the next nine years. That's all I can say about that. Yeah. And I'm I'm like Charlene. I'm torn

because I you know, these townhomes, we approved so that our kids could afford a place to live. But at the same time, like, most of us don't care if those short term rentals are down there and noisy. They're not in our backyard. And so it feels like for some people, they would say, yeah. I don't live there. I don't know anyone who lives there. So, yeah, put them down there. But that really isn't fair to those people, and it defeats the purpose of us allowing those in the first place.

Well, I think they're if they're violating regular noise ordinances, then we have other ways to Mhmm. To deal with those. Right. I'm just saying, like,

we need this affordable housing and short term rentals

is not the answer. No. It takes away from that. Right. Yeah. A a handful of short term rentals operating right now, we know that they exist because it's a really popular place for local construction crews to come stay for a week while they do a big road project. And, surprisingly, they're some of the most tame people who come to them. They because they're too go to bed at 07:00 and get up at five. 4AM. Go do their road work. They come back at five with, you know, a bag of takeout, and they all just go to bed by Yeah. By, like, 8PM. Those are the ones you need, Ned, not that big party house you live by.

So it's You've got and I've and I interesting. I've used a lot of VRBOs, and I love them. So Right. I mean, I'm not I'm not not using them. I'm just saying there needs to be a a a strong list of requirements for what it takes. So Get through, and then you could put it at any zone if there's this good enough, you know, set of requirements. I I like, I don't know that, for for example, the townhomes are gonna ever have enough parking to if if they do it in a Airbnb, right, where they have people staying in their bedroom of while they're there too. I don't know that they could ever get in, you know, if they'd ever pass.

Is there any distinction in short term rental between partial rental of the dwelling versus entire?

I think there's a couple mentions of it, but I don't think we have any restrictions if you're renting I don't think there's a differentiation

in the regulation of it if you're just renting a bedroom versus your entire house. Okay. Yeah. We struggled with that because we found places where you can just rent a piece of dirt and bring your own tent and set it up. Right. Well, in one of our most popular in town, which is very large house,

is one where the owner still lives there and occupies the master suite and rents out the rest of the 3,000 square foot of the home. You know? And That's the noisy one, by the way.

We want We know. Names for the public records. But Who's playing the music? The renters? Well, they have, like, wedding receptions, and they have stuff up there. A big home. Yeah. The big house has got a huge backyard. So okay. It's it's hard to do that differentiation

unless unless we're gonna put, like, a square footage requirement total square footage requirement. Like, based on your square footage, you have to provide this much parking, and our ordinance isn't that robust. We didn't do that detailed of research when we wrote it. It was just too hard because there were too many

son, when he was doing an internship in Denver, was gonna rent a couch for the summer for $800 a month. That was in Denver.

Yeah. Well, I'd when I was in my previous life trying to go to thinking I was gonna be a doctor, one of the very popular options for medical residents is to do, like, a month long rental of a VRBO, and it's it's much cheaper than trying to find a hotel or something because you gotta go do your rotation and your you know, the cardiology department three states away. But renting that bedroom or that couch or that house is a lot cheaper than trying to get a hotel for mom. Yeah. You know, it's it is detrimental to the overall economy of and the housing market of the city, but they can be used in a positive way.

I mean, they they Some. Right. Right. Right. Right. We have traveling nurses too. Right. And so when you talk about needing a place for teachers, we need nurses, and there's traveling nurses.

And it does it does provide an income for somebody that maybe couldn't couldn't afford their house, and then they can afford the mortgage by doing that. So I get that. I just think so long as all the actions are regulated enough so that it's not disrupted to the neighborhood, then that's probably okay.

So what I'm hearing is that maybe we don't wanna change the table, but maybe we wanna talk about beefing up or making some changes to the short The order.

And maybe limitances. The number

or percentage. There's there's lots of things we can do. Yeah. I mean, I like that. Okay. I'd be curious if anyone

any other areas restrict

not just number, but proximity to any other term rentals. So There are some or there are some towns that do that.

So they wouldn't give a license if there's already a license on that rate or I think that has been challenged in court

because it's I think they challenged it as a takings maybe that somebody else is getting a right or a privilege that they couldn't have Right. For no other reason than location. I would have to rewrite Ombudsman's

stuff again. But Okay. So that would be different than just the specific number. So if all five happen to be on this place or all 20, whatever, then first come, first served, then there's no distinction between Right. Location. Okay. That makes sense.

I'm gonna are we done with this? We can be if you'd like something. Look at the the table just a little bit higher. You've got accessory dwelling unit detached CUP. We need to remove those and change that to permitted, I guess. Right?

There's a lot of these that will have a ripple effect throughout the code, and we just kinda have to follow that thread and find all the places we sent it. Today, I just wanted to bring it to your attention to Thank you. I'd be both. That because that's the most obvious place to find this. The one thing that I would

discuss wanna discuss is the internal ADU in a PUD. Do we wanna keep that as conditional, or do we wanna not allow that in a PUD?

Yeah. I think state code whole houses trumps that.

Yeah. So the internal ADU is a little different. State code has already flat out said it's allowed period in any residential zone. Okay. So that needs to be changed to a p question. So it needs to be changed, but not to Not to not to act Yeah. But, unfortunately, that road needs to be the letter p in every residential zone. Like, the mixed use is technically not a solely residential zone, so we can prohibit them in the zone where we've got, like, high density apartments and townhomes coming, and we wouldn't want them to be trying to cram four people in one of those things anyway. So K. And the mic and the micro that up. Specify Yep. The ones that built for one person.

I I wanted to play Ned for a second. Thanks.

Take it away. We all wanna be Ned. Yeah.

I gotta have a point tonight.

Alright. Back to the is there anything else on the That that's what's we need to discuss?

That's the only thing I I had on the table.

K.

And the agenda, I think that was the last thing. Right? It is. A little something about future. Very hollow thing that we do we talk about, or you're just, like, warning us or something? Yeah. It is. Things on that week?

Future items that will come before you. Yes. We're gonna do a proposal rezone for some of the area within the proposed Berry Hollow Ridge subdivision. Those parcels were created through that process we talked about of the deed recordation. The zoning wasn't verified before the deeds were recorded, and then it left little triangles of agricultural land in the middle of an r two zone. So we we have to correct that. Where is it? Shows exactly Seventh Feast. You knew they were gonna

good job. Right by the Autobahn. Just the new Autobahn.

The Autobahn. Oh, it's reads new subdivision? Yes. Mhmm. Yeah. So

I'm pulling up right now to kind of explain the problem, and you'll see it. It'll be really obvious and really clear as soon as I turn on the zoning layer. So that's your problem. Midway through the subdivision process, mister Elder did a boundary line adjustment with his neighbor. And so now there's these two triangles that are the wrong zone. And the other thing that the city missed is he never rezoned the half of his property that's gonna be converted into a new building lot. So we just we're running him through the rezone process to get those adjusted to r two so that the new lots being created by the subdivision conform to that zoning.

K. Alright.

So we're still just in the phase one stuff that he brought in over here on this side of the road. Right?

Yes. So his phase one got approved. Right. But that's what we're fixing is the phase one stuff. Yeah. When he came in to bring us his final plat, we were like, oh, yeah. You we're actually creating nonperforming lots in this set. So while he's finishing up the engineering red lines, we're cleaning that up. We're gonna do this resound so that it's a nice, pretty package with Moe on it, ready to get some building lots on it, please.

Alright. And then I see Meyer subdivision ordinance.

Yep. We're gonna work on that to replace that something that we're repealing. Parcel division.

It's a simple parcel.

Alright. Is there anything else?

All we get to vote on is a journey. I make a motion to adjourn on this. I second. Now you wanna talk about it?

No. I did want I I talked to you about it today, talked about the transition zone. We know it's not working the way it is now. Mhmm. And I was hoping that we might be able to talk about or get more into depth as far as adding another possibility within that transition zone for a PUD type lots except without the age requirement. So smaller homes on smaller lots for first time homebuyers

so that we can have so so lots of people can have their kids living closer to them maybe, hopefully. And I'll make the comment that we've talked about this a few times. I have all the notes from those discussions. Shortly after that discussion, we hired Mikael. And ever since then, she's been finding all this doing all sorts of other stuff where you So as soon as we get these revisions that are needed to the code to clarify the processes and make sure we're following our rules, that is on our list of things to tackle. K.

Alright. Who's gonna I make a motion. Jujern.

I second.

Before we do that, you came tonight. Did you have anything specific you wanted to ask us or talk about? Okay. Reading. Fantastic. I'm sure that I can retire then.

But I'll grab your address when we're done.

K. Alright. Anything else? You sound like you wanna become a member of the planning commission. Okay?

You can give Marcus your name too.

It's it's not always it's easy. This is easy today. But thank you for coming. Appreciate you being here. And the guy behind you too.

He's

he's been here before. Concern citizen number one. Alright. We had a motion. We had a second to adjourn. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. I think I heard Holly say nay, but we went in.